lifesitenews--2020-04-24--Public Masses resume in Austria with extremely strict attendance rules

Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world : Feed your flock Sign the petition here .
VIENNA , Austria , April 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Public Masses and other church services in Austria will be possible again starting May 15 .
During a press conference on Thursday , federal minister Susanne Raab and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn said only one faithful would be allowed to participate per 20 square meters of church space .
Schönborn , the archbishop of Vienna , later explained that would amount to roughly 120 people in St. Stephen ’ s Cathedral , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , countless small churches all across Catholic Austria would be limited to very small congregations , he said .
Raab thanked religious communities for their continuing “ sacrifices for the protection of society and the welfare of others.
” She then proceeded to talking of “ a new chapter ” in the battle against the coronavirus pandemic , calling for “ caution ” and “ mindfulness.
” Apart from limiting attendance at church services to one person per 20 square meters , Raab said social distancing requirements need to be maintained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be supervised by the local communities , not by police or any other government entity .
Even within churches , she said , people would have to wear masks .
Churches and similar facilities used for religious gatherings provide a higher risk for spreading the virus , Raab claimed , referring to the confined space , the duration , and the fact that people generally speak and sing .
Raab emphasized that the measures were not imposed by the government as a “ law , ” or “ regulation , ” or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the various churches and religious communities in Austria imposed the measures on themselves , in agreement with the government .
Cardinal Schönborn said Pope Francis had “ consistently exemplified ” how to live with the restrictions imposed as a consequence of COVID-19 and still participate intensely in the life of the Church .
While the measures presented by Raab are one thing , all 16 officially recognized religious communities are set to prepare their own guidelines , specific to their own situations .
Schönborn said the Austrian bishops are currently in the process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the reception of Holy Communion is still undecided .
During the press conference , Schönborn stressed the “ very good cooperation ” between the government and the Church , calling the relationship “ exemplary.
” On Tuesday , Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz announced that church services would be possible again beginning May 15 .
Freedom of religion , he said , is a “ very , very precious good that is also constitutionally protected.
” Kurz thanked religious communities in Austria for supporting “ the decisions of the federal government.
” Prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholics in Austria had pleaded with their bishops to “ please , give us back Holy Mass.
” In a short video released Sunday , the young people were directly addressing the bishops , humbly asking to be able to go to Holy Mass again , which had been banned because of the coronavirus pandemic .
They even suggested how they would help with practical issues of reopening churches while keeping people safe .
“ We want to support our shepherds and offer our help , ” one man said .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure nobody is less than six feet apart , ” another man added in the video , which has been released not only in the original German , but with English , Spanish , and French subtitles , as well .
The pews would be disinfected after each church service .
“ If there is a lack of resources , we will organize the masks , hand sanitizer , and gloves , ” a young woman offered .
Finally , the young people said they would provide lists on Doodle , making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for each Mass .
On March 11 , dioceses across Austria first dispensed Catholics from their Sunday Mass obligation “ should participation in Sunday services not be possible or advisable.
” Mass attendance , especially on Sundays , was made almost impossible by a government decree , which prohibited events indoors if more than 100 people be present .
Five hundred people were allowed to congregate for events outdoors .
Cardinal Schönborn announced , “ Within the Archdiocese of Vienna we accept the guidelines of the federal government regarding the coronavirus preventative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forms of worship and church events.
” Parish priests , he added at the time , have to ensure that the measures are implemented locally .
The Archdiocese of Vienna said Holy Communion should be received not on the tongue , but in the hand .
Catholics in Austria were also told not to drink the Blood of Christ from the chalice .
The use of holy water and the practice of the sign of peace should also be avoided .
A few days later , beginning March 16 , the Austrian bishops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Funerals were ordered to take place with only very few people .
Requiem Masses had to be pushed back to a later date .
“ I am aware that these are serious measures that we do not take lightly , ” the vicar general of the Archdiocese of Vienna said .
“ All this is about protecting , above all , the group of old and sick people who are most at risk .
The measures are an expression of a properly understood Christian love of self and of neighbor.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being there for the worries and needs of people in a responsible way , praying for them and celebrating the Eucharist , especially in this difficult situation , ” he explained .
Meanwhile , in France , the government did not agree to begin celebrating public Masses on May 11 , as the bishops had proposed during a conference call with President Emmanuel Macron .
Instead , all religious gatherings are prohibited at least until mid-June .

Starting May 15, only one person is allowed per every 20 square meters (215 square feet) of church space.
Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world: Feed your flock Sign the petition here.
VIENNA, Austria, April 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Public Masses and other church services in Austria will be possible again starting May 15. During a press conference on Thursday, federal minister Susanne Raab and Cardinal Christoph Schönborn said only one faithful would be allowed to participate per 20 square meters of church space.
Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna, later explained that would amount to roughly 120 people in St. Stephen’s Cathedral, the famous landmark in the Austrian capital. However, countless small churches all across Catholic Austria would be limited to very small congregations, he said.
Raab thanked religious communities for their continuing “sacrifices for the protection of society and the welfare of others.” She then proceeded to talking of “a new chapter” in the battle against the coronavirus pandemic, calling for “caution” and “mindfulness.”
Apart from limiting attendance at church services to one person per 20 square meters, Raab said social distancing requirements need to be maintained. She explained that access to churches would be supervised by the local communities, not by police or any other government entity. Even within churches, she said, people would have to wear masks.
Churches and similar facilities used for religious gatherings provide a higher risk for spreading the virus, Raab claimed, referring to the confined space, the duration, and the fact that people generally speak and sing.
Raab emphasized that the measures were not imposed by the government as a “law,” or “regulation,” or “decree.” In other words, the various churches and religious communities in Austria imposed the measures on themselves, in agreement with the government.
Cardinal Schönborn said Pope Francis had “consistently exemplified” how to live with the restrictions imposed as a consequence of COVID-19 and still participate intensely in the life of the Church.
While the measures presented by Raab are one thing, all 16 officially recognized religious communities are set to prepare their own guidelines, specific to their own situations. Schönborn said the Austrian bishops are currently in the process of drafting a document. The question of the reception of Holy Communion is still undecided.
During the press conference, Schönborn stressed the “very good cooperation” between the government and the Church, calling the relationship “exemplary.”
On Tuesday, Austrian chancellor Sebastian Kurz announced that church services would be possible again beginning May 15. Freedom of religion, he said, is a “very, very precious good that is also constitutionally protected.” Kurz thanked religious communities in Austria for supporting “the decisions of the federal government.”
Prior to that, a number of young Catholics in Austria had pleaded with their bishops to “please, give us back Holy Mass.” In a short video released Sunday, the young people were directly addressing the bishops, humbly asking to be able to go to Holy Mass again, which had been banned because of the coronavirus pandemic.
They even suggested how they would help with practical issues of reopening churches while keeping people safe. “We want to support our shepherds and offer our help,” one man said.
“We will be there during the Mass to make sure nobody is less than six feet apart,” another man added in the video, which has been released not only in the original German, but with English, Spanish, and French subtitles, as well.
The pews would be disinfected after each church service. “If there is a lack of resources, we will organize the masks, hand sanitizer, and gloves,” a young woman offered.
Finally, the young people said they would provide lists on Doodle, making sure of the number of people signing up for each Mass.
On March 11, dioceses across Austria first dispensed Catholics from their Sunday Mass obligation “should participation in Sunday services not be possible or advisable.”
Mass attendance, especially on Sundays, was made almost impossible by a government decree, which prohibited events indoors if more than 100 people be present. Five hundred people were allowed to congregate for events outdoors.
Cardinal Schönborn announced, “Within the Archdiocese of Vienna we accept the guidelines of the federal government regarding the coronavirus preventative measures. They therefore apply to all forms of worship and church events.”
Parish priests, he added at the time, have to ensure that the measures are implemented locally.
The Archdiocese of Vienna said Holy Communion should be received not on the tongue, but in the hand. Catholics in Austria were also told not to drink the Blood of Christ from the chalice. The use of holy water and the practice of the sign of peace should also be avoided.
A few days later, beginning March 16, the Austrian bishops banned all Masses and other church services. Funerals were ordered to take place with only very few people. Requiem Masses had to be pushed back to a later date.
“I am aware that these are serious measures that we do not take lightly,” the vicar general of the Archdiocese of Vienna said. “All this is about protecting, above all, the group of old and sick people who are most at risk. The measures are an expression of a properly understood Christian love of self and of neighbor.”
“We as a Church do not stop being there for the worries and needs of people in a responsible way, praying for them and celebrating the Eucharist, especially in this difficult situation,” he explained.
Meanwhile, in France, the government did not agree to begin celebrating public Masses on May 11, as the bishops had proposed during a conference call with President Emmanuel Macron. Instead, all religious gatherings are prohibited at least until mid-June.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-24--Legal org will sue Canadian province to shut down ‘widespread abuse’ health laws

PETITION : Thank President Trump for halting U.S. funding to pro-abortion World Health Organization Sign the petition here .
CALGARY , Alberta , April 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — One of Canada ’ s largest provinces is facing a constitutional legal challenge from a freedom rights organization that says a new public health bill is a “ betrayal of the electorate and of the rule of law , ” because it gives ministries extraordinary powers .
The Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ( JCCF ) announced on April 20 that it will be legally challenging the Alberta @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Alberta Public Health ( Emergency Powers ) Amendment Act , 2020 .
The JCCF says it will file the legal challenge in the Alberta Court of Queen ’ s Bench sometime next week .
Bill 10 gives Alberta government ministers complete authority to enforce public health orders put in place to combat the coronavirus , without the legislature ’ s approval .
The United Conservative government under premier of Alberta Jason Kenney rammed through Bill 10 on April 2 in less than 48 hours .
John Carpay , president of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the electorate ’ s constitutional right to have elected representatives be involved in the law-making process .
“ Bill 10 is a betrayal of the electorate and of the rule of law , ” said Carpay in the JCCF news release regarding the forthcoming legal action .
“ Albertans have a constitutional right to have their elected representatives involved in the making of new laws , especially laws which may dramatically infringe on their civil liberties .
With Bill 10 now in force , a single politician can behave as though he or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority to make laws for millions .
This is an affront to democracy and constitutionalism.
” Jay Cameron , a lawyer for the JCCF , told LifeSiteNews two weeks ago about his concerns regarding Bill 10 .
“ Because there is no limit on this power apart from prohibiting the unilateral creation of new taxes , it opens the door to the near limitless use of power and therefore widespread abuse of civilians , ” said Cameron .
A JCCF analysis of Bill 10 says it gives the Alberta government and its ministers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minister can now decide unilaterally , without consultation , to impose additional laws on the citizens of Alberta , if she or he is personally of the view that doing so is in the public interest , ” says the JCCF analysis of Bill 10 .
The JCCF says there was no need for new legislation to be introduced to help the province combat the coronavirus .
The organization noted that Alberta ’ s Public Health Act already gives the government the ability to “ empower politicians , ” including the ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccination.
” A form letter circulating from the Kenney government as a means to clarify “ concerns ” about Bill 10 downplays what the JCCF claims .
“ The core purpose of Bill 10 is to update the Public Health Act so that we can better respond to public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic .
The bill clarifies the ability of government ministers to act rapidly during a public health emergency ; creates strong consequences for defying public health orders ; and extends the authority to enforce public health orders to community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Carpay said the wording used in the government form letter is not accurate .
“ The word ‘ clarifies ’ is obviously the wrong word , because Bill 10 adds new power under section 52.1 ( 2 ) ( b ) of the Public Health Act : a minister ’ s power to ‘ specify or set out provisions that apply in addition to , or instead of , any provision of an enactment , ’ ” said Carpay in the JCCF news release regarding the legal action .
“ Since when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canada been able to unilaterally write new laws all by themselves without oversight ?
And how could that be ‘ confirmed , ’ since it is entirely without precedent ?
” In another area related to the coronavirus , Alberta Health Services set up a website that the public can use as a complaint mechanism over those who in “ non-compliance ” with coronavirus regulations .
In early April , it was reported that Alberta was planning to track citizens via cell phones , to “ deal with ” those who break quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LifeSiteNews at the time that observing people via a smartphone app constitutes a search of an individual .
“ Monitoring someone ’ s whereabouts using their cell phones is , of course , a search , ” he said .
Canadian Privy Council president Dominic LeBlanc from Canada ’ s ruling Liberal party recently announced that the government is planning a law to punish citizens who “ spread misinformation ” about the coronavirus .
This news was met with backlash from Canadian opposition politicians and political pundits alike .
The Liberal Party , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also recently tried to use the coronavirus as a ” totalitarian power grab .
”

Bill 10 is a 'betrayal of the electorate and of the rule of law,' says the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
PETITION: Thank President Trump for halting U.S. funding to pro-abortion World Health Organization Sign the petition here.
CALGARY, Alberta, April 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — One of Canada’s largest provinces is facing a constitutional legal challenge from a freedom rights organization that says a new public health bill is a “betrayal of the electorate and of the rule of law,” because it gives ministries extraordinary powers.
The Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) announced on April 20 that it will be legally challenging the Alberta government over the constitutionality of Bill 10, the Alberta Public Health (Emergency Powers) Amendment Act, 2020.
The JCCF says it will file the legal challenge in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench sometime next week.
Bill 10 gives Alberta government ministers complete authority to enforce public health orders put in place to combat the coronavirus, without the legislature’s approval. The United Conservative government under premier of Alberta Jason Kenney rammed through Bill 10 on April 2 in less than 48 hours.
John Carpay, president of the JCCF, said Bill 10 takes away the electorate’s constitutional right to have elected representatives be involved in the law-making process.
“Bill 10 is a betrayal of the electorate and of the rule of law,” said Carpay in the JCCF news release regarding the forthcoming legal action.
“Albertans have a constitutional right to have their elected representatives involved in the making of new laws, especially laws which may dramatically infringe on their civil liberties. With Bill 10 now in force, a single politician can behave as though he or she has the power of a legislative majority to make laws for millions. This is an affront to democracy and constitutionalism.”
Jay Cameron, a lawyer for the JCCF, told LifeSiteNews two weeks ago about his concerns regarding Bill 10.
“Because there is no limit on this power apart from prohibiting the unilateral creation of new taxes, it opens the door to the near limitless use of power and therefore widespread abuse of civilians,” said Cameron.
A JCCF analysis of Bill 10 says it gives the Alberta government and its ministers too much power.
“A cabinet minister can now decide unilaterally, without consultation, to impose additional laws on the citizens of Alberta, if she or he is personally of the view that doing so is in the public interest,” says the JCCF analysis of Bill 10.
The JCCF says there was no need for new legislation to be introduced to help the province combat the coronavirus. The organization noted that Alberta’s Public Health Act already gives the government the ability to “empower politicians,” including the ability to “order mass disease testing and mass vaccination.”
A form letter circulating from the Kenney government as a means to clarify “concerns” about Bill 10 downplays what the JCCF claims.
“The core purpose of Bill 10 is to update the Public Health Act so that we can better respond to public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill clarifies the ability of government ministers to act rapidly during a public health emergency; creates strong consequences for defying public health orders; and extends the authority to enforce public health orders to community peace officers,” says the letter.
Carpay said the wording used in the government form letter is not accurate.
“The word ‘clarifies’ is obviously the wrong word, because Bill 10 adds new power under section 52.1(2)(b) of the Public Health Act: a minister’s power to ‘specify or set out provisions that apply in addition to, or instead of, any provision of an enactment,’” said Carpay in the JCCF news release regarding the legal action.
“Since when has any minister in the history of Canada been able to unilaterally write new laws all by themselves without oversight? And how could that be ‘confirmed,’ since it is entirely without precedent?”
In another area related to the coronavirus, Alberta Health Services set up a website that the public can use as a complaint mechanism over those who in “non-compliance” with coronavirus regulations.
In early April, it was reported that Alberta was planning to track citizens via cell phones, to “deal with” those who break quarantine.
Jay Cameron of the JCCF told LifeSiteNews at the time that observing people via a smartphone app constitutes a search of an individual. “Monitoring someone’s whereabouts using their cell phones is, of course, a search,” he said.
Canadian Privy Council president Dominic LeBlanc from Canada’s ruling Liberal party recently announced that the government is planning a law to punish citizens who “spread misinformation” about the coronavirus.
This news was met with backlash from Canadian opposition politicians and political pundits alike.
The Liberal Party, under pro-abortion prime minister Justin Trudeau, also recently tried to use the coronavirus as a ”totalitarian power grab.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-24--Christian group sues California for criminalizing religious gatherings

PETITION : Thank President Trump for halting U.S. funding to pro-abortion World Health Organization Sign the petition here .
SACRAMENTO , California , April 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Cross Culture Christian Center in Lodi , California , just south of the state ’ s capital , is suing California governor Gavin Newsom , as well as other state and local government officials , for criminalizing religious gatherings until further notice .
Pastor Jon Duncan emphasized that “ [ w ] e can ’ t allow urgency to suspend liberty — otherwise freedom is a false promise .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ know .
This is authoritarian overreach.
” “ Civil rights are not suspended by a virus , ” began the complaint filed April 22 with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California .
“ Fundamental and unalienable rights are , by their very nature , ‘ essential , ’ ” the legal document continued .
“ Yet the State of California has , in a sweeping abuse of its power , criminalized all religious assembly and communal religious worship while allowing citizens to gather at a liquor store , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CVS , Costco , Home Depot , and many other locations which are deemed ‘ essential.
’ ” In strong terms , the complaint described California ’ s “ flagrant abuse of authority ” violating “ fundamental and unalienable civil rights , including the free exercise of religion , right to assemble , freedom of speech , and equal protection of the law , in violation of the U.S. and California constitutions.
” The lawsuit called out California for essentially determining how churches have to worship , thus significantly interfering with the First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority , California has limited all religious institutions to one mode of worship only : live streaming services on the internet.
” Cross Culture Christian Center in Lodi had invited its members to a Palm Sunday service outside the group ’ s facility , as the landlord had previously changed the locks .
“ We were greeted by the Lodi police department this morning .
They advised us that the locks at the building had been changed , ” Pastor Jon Duncan told a local television station , “ [ a ] nd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the line of the driveway was going to be a citation.
” “ I am a complete and 100 percent supporter of social distancing , ” Duncan said , showing how his organization would support some measures to stop COVID-19 from spreading .
“ But we don ’ t believe that a virus suspends the First Amendment.
” A press release by The National Center for Law & Policy , which had filed the April 22 complaint on behalf of Cross Culture Christian Center , pointed out that “ CDC recommended health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the congregation and community .
“ These measures include social distancing of more than six feet , mandated hand sanitizing , and advising all elderly , ill , and immune compromised individuals to stay at home and watch church on Facebook Live.
” Pastor Duncan explained he had “ informed the Lodi Police Department officers who disrupted one of our services last month that we were carefully following CDC social distancing guidelines , but they didn ’ t care.
” “ We love people and don ’ t want anyone to become infected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the health and safety standards we have put in place , we are a much lower risk of coronavirus spread than Walmart with its narrow aisles and everyone touching everything.
” “ Our church believes that especially during these fearful and confusing times that church community is an essential service .
People need God ’ s love and the church needs authentic Christian fellowship now , more than ever.
” On April 13 , NBC Los Angeles reported on three other religious groups , located in Southern California , suing Governor Newsom over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The suit names three churches in San Bernardino and Riverside counties , east of Los Angeles.
” On April 21 , LifeSiteNews reported on the possibility of drive-in church services in California , which were permitted after a lawsuit was filed by the Center for American Liberty in California .

Urgent appeal to the bishops of the world: Feed your flock Sign the petition here.
SACRAMENTO, California, April 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Cross Culture Christian Center in Lodi, California, just south of the state’s capital, is suing California governor Gavin Newsom, as well as other state and local government officials, for criminalizing religious gatherings until further notice.
Pastor Jon Duncan emphasized that “[w]e can’t allow urgency to suspend liberty — otherwise freedom is a false promise. This is not the America that I know. This is authoritarian overreach.”
“Civil rights are not suspended by a virus,” began the complaint filed April 22 with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
“Fundamental and unalienable rights are, by their very nature, ‘essential,’” the legal document continued. “Yet the State of California has, in a sweeping abuse of its power, criminalized all religious assembly and communal religious worship while allowing citizens to gather at a liquor store, pot-dispensary, Planned Parenthood, Walmart, CVS, Costco, Home Depot, and many other locations which are deemed ‘essential.’”
In strong terms, the complaint described California’s “flagrant abuse of authority” violating “fundamental and unalienable civil rights, including the free exercise of religion, right to assemble, freedom of speech, and equal protection of the law, in violation of the U.S. and California constitutions.”
The lawsuit called out California for essentially determining how churches have to worship, thus significantly interfering with the First Amendment. “Despite the absence of authority, California has limited all religious institutions to one mode of worship only: live streaming services on the internet.”
Cross Culture Christian Center in Lodi had invited its members to a Palm Sunday service outside the group’s facility, as the landlord had previously changed the locks.
“We were greeted by the Lodi police department this morning. They advised us that the locks at the building had been changed,” Pastor Jon Duncan told a local television station, “[a]nd that entrance into the grounds even over the line of the driveway was going to be a citation.”
“I am a complete and 100 percent supporter of social distancing,” Duncan said, showing how his organization would support some measures to stop COVID-19 from spreading. “But we don’t believe that a virus suspends the First Amendment.”
A press release by The National Center for Law & Policy, which had filed the April 22 complaint on behalf of Cross Culture Christian Center, pointed out that “CDC recommended health and safety measures” were followed to protect the congregation and community.
“These measures include social distancing of more than six feet, mandated hand sanitizing, and advising all elderly, ill, and immune compromised individuals to stay at home and watch church on Facebook Live.”
Pastor Duncan explained he had “informed the Lodi Police Department officers who disrupted one of our services last month that we were carefully following CDC social distancing guidelines, but they didn’t care.”
“We love people and don’t want anyone to become infected,” added Duncan. “With the health and safety standards we have put in place, we are a much lower risk of coronavirus spread than Walmart with its narrow aisles and everyone touching everything.”
“Our church believes that especially during these fearful and confusing times that church community is an essential service. People need God’s love and the church needs authentic Christian fellowship now, more than ever.”
On April 13, NBC Los Angeles reported on three other religious groups, located in Southern California, suing Governor Newsom over banning religious gatherings in the Golden State. “The suit names three churches in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, east of Los Angeles.”
On April 21, LifeSiteNews reported on the possibility of drive-in church services in California, which were permitted after a lawsuit was filed by the Center for American Liberty in California.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-24--Trudeau forces businesses, charities to ‘confirm’ they don’t ‘discriminate’ to receive emergency aid

OTTAWA , April 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Justin Trudeau ’ s Liberal government is forcing businesses , not-for-profits and registered charities applying for an emergency interest-free loan to help them through the coronavirus lockdown to “ confirm ” that they do not “ discriminate ” on the basis of “ gender , ” “ sexual orientation , ” and “ religion , ” among other things , in order to receive the financial help .
Borrowers who do not wish to confirm the “ non-discrimination ” clause are excluded from the government-run program based on this stipulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Canada Emergency Business Account ( CEBA ) .
Part of the Liberals ’ relief package for Canadians suffering hardship because of coronavirus pandemic shutdowns that Parliament passed last month , the CEBA is an interest-free loan of up to $ 40,000 for businesses , non-profit groups and registered charities that generate a portion of their income from the sale of goods and services .
The CEBA program explicitly states an applicant will be excluded unless it confirms that it “ does not promote violence , incite hatred or discriminate on the basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , race , ethnicity , religion , culture , region , education , age or mental or physical disability.
” The Liberal move is troubling , according to Marty Moore , a lawyer with the Calgary-based Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms ( JCCF ) .
“ There is legitimate concern that the federal government , with a track record of discriminating against beliefs it disagrees with , will use the CEBA to also discriminate against religious entities , ” he told LifeSiteNews in an email .
Notably , the Trudeau Liberals denied Canada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 to employers who refused to sign an attestation that they supported “ reproductive ” rights , that is , abortion , and transgender “ rights.
” While the Liberals scrapped the reviled attestation a year later in the face of massive backlash , they continue to deny CSJ grants to faith-based groups because of their beliefs , Moore told LifeSiteNews .
The JCCF is currently suing the Liberals on behalf of BCM International , a Christian organization that runs the Mill Stream Bible Camp & Retreat Centre in Peterborough , which was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .
“ Given the federal government ’ s use of a non-discrimination rule in the Canada Summer Jobs program to target groups with traditional religious beliefs , there is concern this new rule in could similarly be abused , ” he said .
In the case of the CEBA , the government ’ s website states an applicant will be excluded unless it confirms that : 1 ) It is not a government organization or body , or an entity owned by a government organization or body ; 2 ) It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or fraternal organization or entity owned by such an organization or if it is , it is a registered T2 [ i.e.
, a non-profit ] or T3010 [ i.e.
, a registered charity ] corporation that generates a portion of its revenue from the sales of goods or services ; 3 ) It is not an entity owned by individual ( s ) holding political office ; and 4 ) It does not promote violence , incite hatred or discriminate on the basis of sex , gender , sexual orientation , race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religion , education , age or mental or physical disability .
Pro-life , pro-family , and various religious-based groups have long been concerned about “ discrimination ” and “ hatred ” labels being attached to them for their work of defending life , marriage between a man and a woman , and the natural family that might exclude them from the right to participate in the public sphere and from accessing government-run programs .
One problem with the fourth criterion is both that faith-based organizations must confirm they don ’ t discriminate on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attestation crucially “ lacks reference to ‘ contrary to applicable laws ’ , ” Moore said .
“ A religious organization has a legal right to hire those who align with its beliefs to carry out its religious purposes , ” he pointed out .
“ The law permits that.
” But as the CEBA is structured now , “ a religious organization that hires in accordance with its religious beliefs may be precluded from agreeing to this attestation , unless it is implied that it only refers to discrimination ‘ contrary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ Some religious organizations are very scrupulous as to what they sign , we all learnt that from the summer jobs program ; it ’ s possible they ’ ll self-select out.
” If the Liberals added “ the appropriate caveat ‘ contrary to applicable laws ’ … in the fourth attestation , that would provide the correct legal standard , and theoretically allow non-discriminatory access to the CEBA , ” Moore observed .
But even if the Liberals did so , there would be no guarantee that they would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CEBA , based on the way the government has administered the CJS grants , he said .
The Canada Summer Jobs program does , in fact , state that an employer will be denied CSJ grants only if it discriminates “ contrary to applicable laws , ” Moore explained .
“ But that has not stopped the federal government from discriminating against religious organizations , even though their activities do not discriminate contrary to law , they simply have their own belief system , ” he said .
“ So with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have is that the federal government has written a rule that might be legitimate on its face , but in practice they ignore the rights of religious organizations to hire in harmony with their beliefs , and use that rule in an illegitimate way.
” He also noted that the CEBA “ appears designed to provide support to businesses and non-profits that derive their income from the sale of goods and services.
” “ Consequently , many religious and charitable organizations are likely not eligible to participate in the CEBA program on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sale of goods and services , ” he said .
LifeSiteNews contacted the office of Finance Minister Bill Morneau to ask if the Liberals will add “ contrary to applicable laws ” to the fourth exclusion criterion for the CEBA , and if the minister could assure Canadians the Liberals would not deny CEBA to faith-based businesses because of their religious beliefs .
The ministry replied April 17 that it was working on a response .
However , to date , no statement has been forthcoming .

Tell Trudeau Liberals: Don't discriminate against Christians on COVID-19 relief funding Sign the petition here.
OTTAWA, April 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government is forcing businesses, not-for-profits and registered charities applying for an emergency interest-free loan to help them through the coronavirus lockdown to “confirm” that they do not “discriminate” on the basis of “gender,” “sexual orientation,” and “religion,” among other things, in order to receive the financial help.
Borrowers who do not wish to confirm the “non-discrimination” clause are excluded from the government-run program based on this stipulation, which appears to be unique to the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA).
Part of the Liberals’ relief package for Canadians suffering hardship because of coronavirus pandemic shutdowns that Parliament passed last month, the CEBA is an interest-free loan of up to $40,000 for businesses, non-profit groups and registered charities that generate a portion of their income from the sale of goods and services.
The CEBA program explicitly states an applicant will be excluded unless it confirms that it “does not promote violence, incite hatred or discriminate on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, region, education, age or mental or physical disability.”
The Liberal move is troubling, according to Marty Moore, a lawyer with the Calgary-based Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF).
“There is legitimate concern that the federal government, with a track record of discriminating against beliefs it disagrees with, will use the CEBA to also discriminate against religious entities,” he told LifeSiteNews in an email.
Notably, the Trudeau Liberals denied Canada Summer Job (CSJ) grants in 2018 to employers who refused to sign an attestation that they supported “reproductive” rights, that is, abortion, and transgender “rights.”
While the Liberals scrapped the reviled attestation a year later in the face of massive backlash, they continue to deny CSJ grants to faith-based groups because of their beliefs, Moore told LifeSiteNews.
The JCCF is currently suing the Liberals on behalf of BCM International, a Christian organization that runs the Mill Stream Bible Camp & Retreat Centre in Peterborough, which was denied CSJ funding for the summer of 2019.
“Given the federal government’s use of a non-discrimination rule in the Canada Summer Jobs program to target groups with traditional religious beliefs, there is concern this new rule in could similarly be abused,” he said.
In the case of the CEBA, the government’s website states an applicant will be excluded unless it confirms that:
1) It is not a government organization or body, or an entity owned by a government organization or body; 2) It is not a union, charitable, religious or fraternal organization or entity owned by such an organization or if it is, it is a registered T2 [i.e., a non-profit] or T3010 [i.e., a registered charity] corporation that generates a portion of its revenue from the sales of goods or services; 3) It is not an entity owned by individual(s) holding political office; and 4) It does not promote violence, incite hatred or discriminate on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, culture, religion, education, age or mental or physical disability.
Pro-life, pro-family, and various religious-based groups have long been concerned about “discrimination” and “hatred” labels being attached to them for their work of defending life, marriage between a man and a woman, and the natural family that might exclude them from the right to participate in the public sphere and from accessing government-run programs.
One problem with the fourth criterion is both that faith-based organizations must confirm they don’t discriminate on the basis of religion, and that the attestation crucially “lacks reference to ‘contrary to applicable laws’,” Moore said.
“A religious organization has a legal right to hire those who align with its beliefs to carry out its religious purposes,” he pointed out. “The law permits that.”
But as the CEBA is structured now, “a religious organization that hires in accordance with its religious beliefs may be precluded from agreeing to this attestation, unless it is implied that it only refers to discrimination ‘contrary to applicable laws’,” Moore said.
“Some religious organizations are very scrupulous as to what they sign, we all learnt that from the summer jobs program; it’s possible they’ll self-select out.”
If the Liberals added “the appropriate caveat ‘contrary to applicable laws’… in the fourth attestation, that would provide the correct legal standard, and theoretically allow non-discriminatory access to the CEBA,” Moore observed.
But even if the Liberals did so, there would be no guarantee that they would not exclude a religious organization that applies for the CEBA, based on the way the government has administered the CJS grants, he said.
The Canada Summer Jobs program does, in fact, state that an employer will be denied CSJ grants only if it discriminates “contrary to applicable laws,” Moore explained.
“But that has not stopped the federal government from discriminating against religious organizations, even though their activities do not discriminate contrary to law, they simply have their own belief system,” he said.
“So with the Canada Summer Jobs program, essentially what you have is that the federal government has written a rule that might be legitimate on its face, but in practice they ignore the rights of religious organizations to hire in harmony with their beliefs, and use that rule in an illegitimate way.”
He also noted that the CEBA “appears designed to provide support to businesses and non-profits that derive their income from the sale of goods and services.”
“Consequently, many religious and charitable organizations are likely not eligible to participate in the CEBA program on account of not deriving income from the sale of goods and services,” he said.
LifeSiteNews contacted the office of Finance Minister Bill Morneau to ask if the Liberals will add “contrary to applicable laws” to the fourth exclusion criterion for the CEBA, and if the minister could assure Canadians the Liberals would not deny CEBA to faith-based businesses because of their religious beliefs.
The ministry replied April 17 that it was working on a response. However, to date, no statement has been forthcoming.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-24--Canadian police fine preacher feeding homeless for ‘coronavirus health orders’

CALGARY , Alberta , April 21 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A Canadian street preacher known for feeding the homeless is vowing to fight a “ social distancing ” health fine he received for conducting an outdoor ministry .
Artur Pawlowski runs the Calgary , Alberta–based Street Church Ministries .
He was fined $ 1,200 on April 3 by the Calgary Police Service for violating Alberta Health Services public health orders , put in place due to the coronavirus .
Police said that his outdoor service had more than 15 people in attendance .
“ When the police officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything , ” said Pawlowski to LifeSiteNews , noting that he worked as fast as possible to avoid line-ups while feeding the homeless .
Pawlowski said he has had to suspend all his outdoor services at this time or face even steeper fines .
Pawlowski said a video he provided to LifeSiteNews , shows that there were not more than 15 people in attendance .
Recorded by Pawlowski ’ s friend , the video shows at least one police officer pushing a homeless person , which Pawlowski says contradicts the very laws he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also shows the moment when Pawlowski receives his ticket and is then warned that if he violates the health order again , he will be fined .
In response , he can be heard saying to the police officer , “ So you ’ re proud of yourself , ” to which the officer responds , “ I ’ m doing my job.
” Pawlowski then says , “ Like a Nazi , a good Nazi that is doing his job .
Tell that to those homeless people , see them , see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have any intention of paying the fine , and he feels he was unfairly targeted .
He is scheduled to appear in court on June 12 .
“ I believe it ’ s outrageous , I believe it ’ s illegal , they bullied me and again they targeted specifically me , ” he said to LifeSiteNews .
Pawlowski has been running Street Church Ministries in Calgary for over 20 years .
Four times a week outside Calgary City Hall , he “ preaches the Gospel ” to the homeless and others in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preaching , hot soup along with sandwiches are provided to those in need .
Pawlowski told LifeSiteNews he has all the relevant permits in place to be able to provide his street ministries legally .
This includes having worked with the chief by-law officer and passing a health inspection so he could safely provide food .
Before the fine , officials told him he could keep operating so long as he followed social distancing rules , something Pawlowski said he was happy to follow .
“ I had all the permits and passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential services to the mentally ill and the people that are sleeping outside , ” Pawlowski told LifeSiteNews .
“ Everything I do is for the glory of God .
I am not doing this myself.
” In late March , the Alberta government announced stricter measures for large gatherings , banning all indoor and outdoor funerals , weddings , and worship services with 15 or more people in attendance .
Fines for those who break the public health orders range from $ 1,000 for a first offense to $ 500,000 for more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CBC report of the incident , Calgary police said Pawlowski was warned not to proceed with the Friday service in light of new government public health orders .
Pawlowski confirmed this fact with LifeSiteNews , saying he was notified one hour before his planned Friday street church service that his permit had been revoked .
The reason given , according to Pawlowski , was that “ the Alberta government said no gatherings in a public place are allowed anymore.
” “ Electronics stores are essential services , abortion clinics are essential services , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services but feeding the poor , feeding the mentally ill , the homeless is not ?
” Pawlowski asked .
Despite the police warning call , Pawlowski proceeded with his service .
He told LifeSiteNews that it was not until his service had ended that 12 police officers showed up to issue the fine .
Pawlowski told LifeSiteNews that many of those who attend his street ministries can not go to the regular homeless shelters available in the city .
This is due to the fact a lot of the people he serves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a lot of the homeless are afraid of the police due to past criminal behavior .
Rebel News has retained a lawyer for Pawlowski and is vowing to help him fight his ticket .
The media outlet launched a petition titled “ FightTheFines.com ” on behalf of his case as well as others .
The Rebel News petition reads , “ Ordinary Canadians are being fined extortionate amounts for going outside while the prime minister visits cottage country .
Can you help us fight this unreasonable infringement on our civil liberties ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was fined for using a bullhorn so he could preach in a public park .
Pawlowski fought the fines and got them overturned , but the City of Calgary later won a court appeal and had the earlier acquittal voided .
In 2019 , he drew the ire of LGBT groups in Calgary for a video he posted titled “ If it is not God ’ s Kingdom , it will be the devil ’ s. ” This video shows him calling out rainbow-painted planters installed at a local market .
He called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hell.
” Recently , a lawyer for the Alberta , Canada–based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ( JCCF ) told LifeSiteNews the firm has concerns about people ’ s freedoms coming under attack due to lockdown laws .
On April 2 , the Alberta government rammed through Bill 10 , the Alberta Public Health ( Emergency Powers ) Amendment Act of 2020 .
According to the JCCF , this new legislation gives the Alberta government sweeping new powers to essentially create new laws without any Legislative Assembly approval .
Last week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadian province of Alberta ’ s plan to track citizens via cell phones to “ deal with ” those who break quarantine is government overreach .
Canada has been in a nationwide lockdown since early March , with all public schools , churches , sporting events , and sit-down restaurants , and most stores deemed non-essential , shut .
As of today , Canada has registered just under 37,000 coronavirus cases with 1,690 deaths .
Alberta , which has a population of just over 4 million people , has recorded 2,908 confirmed cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dedicated a portion of its website as a place to hold the government to account during the coronavirus pandemic , ensuring that “ in unprecedented times like these , the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms matters more than ever.
” Recently , whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that authorities around the world are exploiting the pandemic to increase surveillance and track individuals .

A Canadian street preacher known for feeding the homeless is vowing to fight a 'social distancing' health fine he received for conducting an outdoor ministry.
CALGARY, Alberta, April 21, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A Canadian street preacher known for feeding the homeless is vowing to fight a “social distancing” health fine he received for conducting an outdoor ministry.
Artur Pawlowski runs the Calgary, Alberta–based Street Church Ministries. He was fined $1,200 on April 3 by the Calgary Police Service for violating Alberta Health Services public health orders, put in place due to the coronavirus. Police said that his outdoor service had more than 15 people in attendance.
“When the police officers showed up, I was actually packing everything,” said Pawlowski to LifeSiteNews, noting that he worked as fast as possible to avoid line-ups while feeding the homeless.
Pawlowski said he has had to suspend all his outdoor services at this time or face even steeper fines.
Pawlowski said a video he provided to LifeSiteNews, shows that there were not more than 15 people in attendance.
Recorded by Pawlowski’s friend, the video shows at least one police officer pushing a homeless person, which Pawlowski says contradicts the very laws he was fined for breaking.
The video also shows the moment when Pawlowski receives his ticket and is then warned that if he violates the health order again, he will be fined. In response, he can be heard saying to the police officer, “So you’re proud of yourself,” to which the officer responds, “I’m doing my job.” Pawlowski then says, “Like a Nazi, a good Nazi that is doing his job. Tell that to those homeless people, see them, see them.”
Pawlowski says he does not have any intention of paying the fine, and he feels he was unfairly targeted. He is scheduled to appear in court on June 12.
“I believe it’s outrageous, I believe it’s illegal, they bullied me and again they targeted specifically me,” he said to LifeSiteNews.
Pawlowski has been running Street Church Ministries in Calgary for over 20 years. Four times a week outside Calgary City Hall, he “preaches the Gospel” to the homeless and others in the area. As part of his preaching, hot soup along with sandwiches are provided to those in need.
Pawlowski told LifeSiteNews he has all the relevant permits in place to be able to provide his street ministries legally. This includes having worked with the chief by-law officer and passing a health inspection so he could safely provide food.
Before the fine, officials told him he could keep operating so long as he followed social distancing rules, something Pawlowski said he was happy to follow.
“I had all the permits and passed all the health inspections…we provide essential services to the mentally ill and the people that are sleeping outside,” Pawlowski told LifeSiteNews.
“Everything I do is for the glory of God. I am not doing this myself.”
In late March, the Alberta government announced stricter measures for large gatherings, banning all indoor and outdoor funerals, weddings, and worship services with 15 or more people in attendance.
Fines for those who break the public health orders range from $1,000 for a first offense to $500,000 for more serious and repeat offenses.
In a CBC report of the incident, Calgary police said Pawlowski was warned not to proceed with the Friday service in light of new government public health orders.
Pawlowski confirmed this fact with LifeSiteNews, saying he was notified one hour before his planned Friday street church service that his permit had been revoked. The reason given, according to Pawlowski, was that “the Alberta government said no gatherings in a public place are allowed anymore.”
“Electronics stores are essential services, abortion clinics are essential services, liquor stores, marijuana stores are essential services but feeding the poor, feeding the mentally ill, the homeless is not?” Pawlowski asked.
Despite the police warning call, Pawlowski proceeded with his service. He told LifeSiteNews that it was not until his service had ended that 12 police officers showed up to issue the fine.
Pawlowski told LifeSiteNews that many of those who attend his street ministries cannot go to the regular homeless shelters available in the city. This is due to the fact a lot of the people he serves have severe mental illness. Pawlowski added that a lot of the homeless are afraid of the police due to past criminal behavior.
Rebel News has retained a lawyer for Pawlowski and is vowing to help him fight his ticket. The media outlet launched a petition titled “FightTheFines.com” on behalf of his case as well as others.
The Rebel News petition reads, “Ordinary Canadians are being fined extortionate amounts for going outside while the prime minister visits cottage country. Can you help us fight this unreasonable infringement on our civil liberties?”
In April of 2007, Pawlowski was fined for using a bullhorn so he could preach in a public park. Pawlowski fought the fines and got them overturned, but the City of Calgary later won a court appeal and had the earlier acquittal voided.
In 2019, he drew the ire of LGBT groups in Calgary for a video he posted titled “If it is not God’s Kingdom, it will be the devil’s.” This video shows him calling out rainbow-painted planters installed at a local market. He called them “a lie from the pit of hell.”
Recently, a lawyer for the Alberta, Canada–based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) told LifeSiteNews the firm has concerns about people’s freedoms coming under attack due to lockdown laws.
On April 2, the Alberta government rammed through Bill 10, the Alberta Public Health (Emergency Powers) Amendment Act of 2020. According to the JCCF, this new legislation gives the Alberta government sweeping new powers to essentially create new laws without any Legislative Assembly approval.
Last week, the JCCF voiced its concern that the Canadian province of Alberta’s plan to track citizens via cell phones to “deal with” those who break quarantine is government overreach.
Canada has been in a nationwide lockdown since early March, with all public schools, churches, sporting events, and sit-down restaurants, and most stores deemed non-essential, shut.
As of today, Canada has registered just under 37,000 coronavirus cases with 1,690 deaths. Alberta, which has a population of just over 4 million people, has recorded 2,908 confirmed cases with 59 deaths.
The JCCF has dedicated a portion of its website as a place to hold the government to account during the coronavirus pandemic, ensuring that “in unprecedented times like these, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms matters more than ever.”
Recently, whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that authorities around the world are exploiting the pandemic to increase surveillance and track individuals.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-24--Biden says coronavirus panic “a wake-up call to action to climate change”

PETITION : Thank President Trump for halting U.S. funding to pro-abortion World Health Organization Sign the petition here .
April 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden once again talked about the coronavirus pandemic in relation to political action on climate change , this time during a fundraising event on April 23 .
Edward-Isaac Dovere , who writes for The Atlantic , quoted Biden as saying , “ COVID is shining a bright light on the structural racism that plagues our laws , our institutions and our culture .
And it ’ s a wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to action to climate change overall and to climate justice.
” Previously , Biden had identified the recovery needed following the COVID-19 pandemic as an “ opportunity ” to “ fundamentally change the science relating to global warming.
” Notably , the former vice president under President Barack Obama used the term “ global warming , ” not the broader and more common “ climate change.
” He did not explain how science , which is concerned with truth , can “ change ” all of a sudden .
During a CNN coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden proposed to invest “ billions of dollars ” in projects related to climate change — for instance , wind and solar energy — as well as new battery technologies .
“ The way you deal with recovery is you think much bigger than we have before , ” Biden claimed .
He then suggested that a Biden presidency would lead to far-reaching changes to the American way of life .
“ I think we have an opportunity now to significantly change the mindset of the American people , ” Biden said — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do even two , three years ago.
” During the town hall event , he specifically mentioned not only policies relating to “ climate change , ” but also education , a rise in minimum wages , and “ significant health care ” for every American .
Former vice president Al Gore , who served during the Clinton administration , endorsed Joe Biden for president on Earth Day , April 22 .
Gore has become one of the most prominent and prolific climate change activists .
“ We need policy changes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the policymakers , particularly the one in the White House right now .
And that ’ s why I am so proud to endorse your candidacy , Joe , ” Gore said to Biden during a climate change virtual town hall .
“ If you want to start solving the climate crisis , this is not rocket science , ” Gore continued .
“ This is the most consequential choice in a presidential election that we ’ ve ever had in American history .
This is a no-brainer .
This is real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a doubt about that , come talk to me.
” Al Gore is an advocate of population control , trying to “ stabilize the population ” in order to curb climate change .
“ One of the principle ways of [ stabilizing the population ] is to empower and educate girls and women , ” Gore said in 2011 .
“ You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have , the spacing of the children.
” “ You have to lift child survival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women , ” he continued .
“ And that ’ s the most powerful leveraging factor , and when that happens , then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.
” In 2014 , Gore claimed that “ depressing the rate of child mortality , educating girls , empowering women , and making fertility management ubiquitously available so women can choose how many children and the spacing of children , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilization.
” Al Gore praised Pope Francis for his “ spiritual leadership ” and for being a “ moral force ” in combatting the “ climate crisis.
” “ In particular , his papal encyclical , Laudato si ’ , marked a crucial step for the Catholic church in leading the world to commit to addressing the climate crisis ahead of the Paris Agreement , ” said Gore in 2018 .
“ Virtually all of my Catholic colleagues and friends are thrilled to the marrow of their bones that he is providing this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I .
”

'I think we have an opportunity now to significantly change the mindset of the American people,' Biden said — 'things they weren’t ready to do even two, three years ago.'
PETITION: Thank President Trump for halting U.S. funding to pro-abortion World Health Organization Sign the petition here.
April 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden once again talked about the coronavirus pandemic in relation to political action on climate change, this time during a fundraising event on April 23.
Edward-Isaac Dovere, who writes for The Atlantic, quoted Biden as saying, “COVID is shining a bright light on the structural racism that plagues our laws, our institutions and our culture. And it’s a wake up call, a wake up call to action to climate change overall and to climate justice.”
Previously, Biden had identified the recovery needed following the COVID-19 pandemic as an “opportunity” to “fundamentally change the science relating to global warming.”
Notably, the former vice president under President Barack Obama used the term “global warming,” not the broader and more common “climate change.” He did not explain how science, which is concerned with truth, can “change” all of a sudden.
During a CNN coronavirus town hall event on April 16, Biden proposed to invest “billions of dollars” in projects related to climate change — for instance, wind and solar energy — as well as new battery technologies.
“The way you deal with recovery is you think much bigger than we have before,” Biden claimed.
He then suggested that a Biden presidency would lead to far-reaching changes to the American way of life. “I think we have an opportunity now to significantly change the mindset of the American people,” Biden said — “things they weren’t ready to do even two, three years ago.”
During the town hall event, he specifically mentioned not only policies relating to “climate change,” but also education, a rise in minimum wages, and “significant health care” for every American.
Former vice president Al Gore, who served during the Clinton administration, endorsed Joe Biden for president on Earth Day, April 22. Gore has become one of the most prominent and prolific climate change activists.
“We need policy changes and that means we need to change some of the policymakers, particularly the one in the White House right now. And that’s why I am so proud to endorse your candidacy, Joe,” Gore said to Biden during a climate change virtual town hall.
“If you want to start solving the climate crisis, this is not rocket science,” Gore continued. “This is the most consequential choice in a presidential election that we’ve ever had in American history. This is a no-brainer. This is real simple choice, and if anybody has a doubt about that, come talk to me.”
Al Gore is an advocate of population control, trying to “stabilize the population” in order to curb climate change.
“One of the principle ways of [stabilizing the population] is to empower and educate girls and women,” Gore said in 2011. “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, the spacing of the children.”
“You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women,” he continued. “And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”
In 2014, Gore claimed that “depressing the rate of child mortality, educating girls, empowering women, and making fertility management ubiquitously available so women can choose how many children and the spacing of children, is crucial to the future shape of human civilization.”
Al Gore praised Pope Francis for his “spiritual leadership” and for being a “moral force” in combatting the “climate crisis.”
“In particular, his papal encyclical, Laudato si’, marked a crucial step for the Catholic church in leading the world to commit to addressing the climate crisis ahead of the Paris Agreement,” said Gore in 2018. “Virtually all of my Catholic colleagues and friends are thrilled to the marrow of their bones that he is providing this kind of spiritual leadership. As am I.”
Share


lifesitenews--2020-04-25--French govt authorizes dangerous drug for COVID-19, spurring euthanasia suspicions

April 24 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Controversy broke out in France at the end of March when a government decree made an anti-epileptic drug — clonazepam , Rivotril in France , known as Klonopin in the U.S. — available outside its specific marketing authorization , in order for it to be used on patients with respiratory distress in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic .
Critics say the drug can now be used to kill off the fragile and the elderly .
One of the reasons for their fears is that there is a formal contraindication for use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distress , on which it acts as an aggravating factor .
A number of health professionals , at least one member of the National Assembly , and countless Twitter accounts have accused and are still accusing the French government of promoting euthanasia through the widespread use of this drug , especially among the dependent elderly living in specialized care homes , the “ EHPAD ” network .
Deaths in these institutions attributed to the coronavirus ( but not always tested ; testing in France remains at a very low level compared to neighboring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared with 13,852 deaths in hospital since the beginning of the crisis .
In comparison , with more declared cases of COVID-19 , Germany has attributed 5,321 deaths to the virus to date .
The statistic should be compared , however , with the 26,000 elderly people who died during a heat wave in France in 2003 .
Since the beginning of confinement in France on March 19 , residents in EHPADs can return to their families only after a complex administrative and medical process , and in practice , the move is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions have turned into death traps , with the coronavirus spreading among carers and inmates despite the fact that the residents are confined to their rooms and have received no visits by government regulations since March 11 — a measure that has caused widespread distress and depression , especially among those who are not able to understand the reason why .
Given that people above 75 rarely get treatment other than oxygen and palliative care if they are admitted into hospital with the coronavirus , and that EHPAD residents are not even sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having been infected , the general impression is mounting that the elderly are being refused proper care .
Things are not all that clear-cut : doctors point out that at age 90 and often with a number of serious physical complaints , going through the harrowing experience of two to three weeks of artificial respiration , associated muscle loss , and the difficulty of being rehabilitated is not a reasonable choice .
A note to EHPAD directors on March 16 published this week by Le canard enchaîné ( a weekly that has revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared to make a rule of not sending COVID-19 patients to hospital for resuscitation , adding to the general sentiment that the elderly are expendable .
Whatever the philosophy behind present general practice in France , possibly a very ugly one , there is a difference between hastening the death of a patient with a heavily loaded shot of anxiolytics and sedatives and accompanying him with proportionate treatment that may as an unintended consequence somewhat shorten a life that is certainly reaching its end .
Official government sources and experts were quick to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rivotril would be a means of lessening the burden on health carers by expediting patients to the other side .
They insisted that the expanded authorization of the use of the anxiolytic and sedative drug in the coronavirus crisis had no intention of facilitating euthanasia .
There were many calls of “ misinformation.
” The unofficial daily of the French episcopate , La Croix , published a soothing statement in this regard intended to reassure the public ; it is completely “ out of place , ” it wrote , to suggest that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the authorities to pave the way for the disguised euthanasia of elderly people residing in retirement homes or EHPADs.
” What is certain is that the COVID-19 epidemic has already triggered a shift in the relationship connecting old age , suffering , and death .
According to Odile Guinnepain , an experienced palliative care nurse who founded an anti-euthanasia group under the name “ Our hands shall not kill , ” easy access to clonazepam can only compound the problem .
In a telephone conversation with LifeSite , she explained that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bacterial super-infections are in a state of respiratory distress that leads to suffocation and panic : suffocation leads to panic , and panic makes the suffocation worse .
Presently , the drug most commonly used today to relieve these states — but also in resuscitation procedures — midazolam ( Hypnovel in France , Dormicum in the U.S. ) , is lacking .
Carers faced with elderly people certainly needed an alternative medicine to help them overcome their panic attacks and suffering associated with COVID-19-related infections , she said — even in cases where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 28 , the government therefore provisionally authorized the off-label use ( marketing authorization for a drug for specific conditions ) of the anti-epileptic Rivotril to compensate for the shortage of other molecules .
At the same time , the inscription of this drug on the list of molecules that can be prescribed only in a hospital setting was overridden to allow its distribution by private practitioners , particularly in EHPADs .
In the absence of other drugs , the move was a good thing in itself , Guinnepain explained , as long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But what she said made clear that whether they want to or not , many carers will actually be pushing patients into death .
Clonazepam is a molecule that is not well known to most carers , doctors , or nurses , especially when used by injection — only the older generation of doctors and nurses ever had experience of its use as an anxiolytic and sedative , since it was replaced by Dormicum , which is easier to dose and creates no addiction .
Clonazepam is effective but easily subject to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elimination time by the body is slow — much slower than that of Hypnovel , which general practitioners are used to handling .
An overdose means increased respiratory distress , increased risk of death , or even certain death .
In older , frail people , the risk of overdose is even greater .
It was made worse in the present situation by an astonishing recommendation from the SFAP ( the highly respected French Society for Accompaniment and Palliative Care ) concerning Rivotril : the protocol proposed in particular to doctors in EHPADs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lethal doses of the drug .
The suggested dosage is up to three times too high , according to Guinnepain , who underscored that doctors and nurses unfamiliar with the drug would not realize this .
Blindly following the recommendation would in a number of cases quickly plunge patients into coma and multiply the number of deaths .
In short , it does look as if the government authorities , assisted by incongruous recommendations , were seeking to facilitate the increase of the number of victims , and not just any victims , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who no longer produce .
Odile Guinnepain added that for many carers , especially in the present crisis , the absence of suffering has today become synonymous with unconsciousness — or at least the incapability of expressing suffering .
In a context where dying people often do not even get to see a priest , and where panic can become worse because of pangs of conscience at the hour of death , giving them massive doses of sedatives that will be difficult to reverse makes sure that they will not be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pardon that they need .
It is also a way out that will make carers accustomed to giving a dying person a shot to make them unconscious ; how many will notice , asked Odile Guinnepain , that death follows very soon and sometimes too soon ?
Guinnepain offered LifeSite a statement that makes clear the grave questions at issue .
Here below is its full translation .
Contrary to what has been widely read and heard , both Rivotril* and Hypnovel* are not drugs that euthanize patients , nor are they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is simplistic and dishonest to reduce their use to this ; such a reductionist opinion can not be allowed to spread .
As part of the specific symptom of acute respiratory distress associated with COVID-19 ( suffocating , to be clear ) , it is administered ( supplemented with small doses of morphine ) to relieve the perception of the sensation of thirst for air and the associated anxiety , which are unbearable for the patient to experience .
This in itself is a very good thing .
It is therefore not the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the use that is made of it through the dosage and proportionality of its administration as well as the lack of ethical or moral enlightenment with which it is used ; it is therefore on these issues that clarification is needed .
Health professionals working in EHPADs and in home care have little knowledge and experience of the use of these treatments , which were initially intended to relieve anxiety or reduce alertness , but are presently used as sedatives , for two major reasons : – Professionals are poorly trained in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their proportionate use ( both doctors and nurses ) .
Training in the practice of these treatments takes time , and there is often no one to do it with the necessary precision .
Moreover , their monitoring is time-consuming , and neither nurses nor Hospice or city doctors have that time .
– The second reason is cultural .
Indeed , we are today in a culture of “ zero suffering and/or pain ; ” and this is what the carers are aiming at .
Of course , our duty is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffering patients to the best of our ability ; except that , objectively , zero suffering ( in global care offered to the patient ) does not exist .
Every patient , at the heart of illness , be it in palliative care or in agony , always experiences a form of suffering ( whether physical , psychic , intellectual , spiritual , social , etc . )
that is visible , perceptible or not .
Our role as caregivers is therefore not to eliminate the suffering ( which would inevitably lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffering zero equals the death of the patient ) but to make it bearable or acceptable ; and , once we have managed to relieve the patient by a proportionate dosage of treatments , the time has come to continue the accompaniment other than chemically .
Here , in discussion with the patient , one can seek to understand the other sources of suffering that the patient is experiencing and that contribute to increasing the physical symptoms of pain or discomfort .
The response to this suffering is therefore not only chemical ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with one 's family , with God , etc .
; which is not possible when the patient is put in a state of unconsciousness by sedation .
However , in our culture today , it is believed that only the state of unconsciousness responds to the relief of suffering ( unconsciousness = zero suffering ) ; the person is visibly relieved and , for the caregivers , this is the main thing .
However , the patient often dies quite quickly from the consequences of the treatment due to a disordered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not proportionate to the relief of the symptom alone , once the person has lost consciousness together with “ normal ” breathing , everyone benefits .
However , in neuropsychological sciences , nothing shows that even unconscious , the patient is free from suffering : it is only that he is no longer able to express or manifest it .
Finally , to be precise , the manifestations of a suffering face or agitation are not only a sign of physical pain ; they can also be a sign of a struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or some other struggle ; it is up to us professionals to seek and always to continue to seek to understand what is behind it , with confidence and intuition .
On the other hand , and this is the moral dimension of the problem , since the caregivers do not , in all sincerity , have an “ euthanasic intention ” in administering the treatments , then this does not pose any problem ; in fact , they are sure that the treatment was correctly adjusted when the patient is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the double effect which , according to Church doctrine , is morally permissible .
However , beware of confusion regarding the principle of double effect : as Pius XII recalled in 1957 , “ an act with a double effect is morally good , – if the very act which gave rise to the bad effect is good or at least indifferent ; – if the agent directly aims at the good effect of the act , tolerating only the bad effect ; – if the good effect is not obtained by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the implementation of an analgesic or sedative treatment studied , calculated and monitored to be proportionate to the symptom , may nevertheless lead to the death of the patient due to a consequence that could not be anticipated or is still unknown .
In this case , death is an accidental consequence .
There is no underlying euthanasic drift in this act .
On the other hand , an overdose of narcotics or a disproportionate dose of narcotics , administered for the purpose of ending the patient 's life or for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) with the same effect of killing the patient is , in both cases , morally wrong .
Whatever the intention , it is the act of alleviating the suffering person with respect for his or her life that is good .
It is not the intention that makes the act good .
Hence the importance of not trying to sedate but to relieve in a proportionate way ; if there is deep sedation necessary for a symptom that is truly refractory to any other treatment , then it is of last resort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proportionate to the symptom ; it must be punctual and not terminal or definitive .
This error of appreciation seriously misleads the carers today ; it is this that leads them into euthanasia drifts that will be uncontrollable with COVID-19 , particularly in EHPAD ’ s .
Caregivers with little experience in the field are victims of this situation and suffer enormously .
In EHPADs , they are currently denied hospitalization for their elderly patients with COVID-19 and in respiratory distress , because of their age or lack of space .
They watch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from appalling choking attacks , which they are powerless to deal with due to lack of appropriate treatment and training .
The decree on Rivotril is therefore a good thing if its practical implementation meets the criteria explained above .
For the government , however , it is simpler to respond to their request for authorization to use treatments “ to relieve ” than to adapt the health system to the care of contaminated elderly people .
Article 3 of the Claeys/Leonetti law in 2016 legalized deep and terminal sedation under certain conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to be framed by this law is disintegrating in practice , as we see here !
Here it is not the carers who are responsible , but those who impose on them a situation where they have no other choice !

Critics say the drug can now be used to kill off the fragile and the elderly.
April 24, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Controversy broke out in France at the end of March when a government decree made an anti-epileptic drug — clonazepam, Rivotril in France, known as Klonopin in the U.S. — available outside its specific marketing authorization, in order for it to be used on patients with respiratory distress in the context of the COVID-19 epidemic. Critics say the drug can now be used to kill off the fragile and the elderly.
One of the reasons for their fears is that there is a formal contraindication for use of the molecule in case of respiratory distress, on which it acts as an aggravating factor.
A number of health professionals, at least one member of the National Assembly, and countless Twitter accounts have accused and are still accusing the French government of promoting euthanasia through the widespread use of this drug, especially among the dependent elderly living in specialized care homes, the “EHPAD” network.
Deaths in these institutions attributed to the coronavirus (but not always tested; testing in France remains at a very low level compared to neighboring Germany) reached 8,393 this Friday as compared with 13,852 deaths in hospital since the beginning of the crisis. In comparison, with more declared cases of COVID-19, Germany has attributed 5,321 deaths to the virus to date. The statistic should be compared, however, with the 26,000 elderly people who died during a heat wave in France in 2003.
Since the beginning of confinement in France on March 19, residents in EHPADs can return to their families only after a complex administrative and medical process, and in practice, the move is next to impossible. Some of the institutions have turned into death traps, with the coronavirus spreading among carers and inmates despite the fact that the residents are confined to their rooms and have received no visits by government regulations since March 11 — a measure that has caused widespread distress and depression, especially among those who are not able to understand the reason why.
Given that people above 75 rarely get treatment other than oxygen and palliative care if they are admitted into hospital with the coronavirus, and that EHPAD residents are not even sent to hospital when they fall ill after having been infected, the general impression is mounting that the elderly are being refused proper care.
Things are not all that clear-cut: doctors point out that at age 90 and often with a number of serious physical complaints, going through the harrowing experience of two to three weeks of artificial respiration, associated muscle loss, and the difficulty of being rehabilitated is not a reasonable choice.
A note to EHPAD directors on March 16 published this week by Le canard enchaîné (a weekly that has revealed many scandals in the past) even appeared to make a rule of not sending COVID-19 patients to hospital for resuscitation, adding to the general sentiment that the elderly are expendable.
Whatever the philosophy behind present general practice in France, possibly a very ugly one, there is a difference between hastening the death of a patient with a heavily loaded shot of anxiolytics and sedatives and accompanying him with proportionate treatment that may as an unintended consequence somewhat shorten a life that is certainly reaching its end.
Official government sources and experts were quick to reject the accusation that the use of Rivotril would be a means of lessening the burden on health carers by expediting patients to the other side. They insisted that the expanded authorization of the use of the anxiolytic and sedative drug in the coronavirus crisis had no intention of facilitating euthanasia. There were many calls of “misinformation.”
The unofficial daily of the French episcopate, La Croix, published a soothing statement in this regard intended to reassure the public; it is completely “out of place,” it wrote, to suggest that there is an “intention on the part of the authorities to pave the way for the disguised euthanasia of elderly people residing in retirement homes or EHPADs.”
What is certain is that the COVID-19 epidemic has already triggered a shift in the relationship connecting old age, suffering, and death. According to Odile Guinnepain, an experienced palliative care nurse who founded an anti-euthanasia group under the name “Our hands shall not kill,” easy access to clonazepam can only compound the problem.
In a telephone conversation with LifeSite, she explained that the people most severely affected by coronavirus-related bacterial super-infections are in a state of respiratory distress that leads to suffocation and panic: suffocation leads to panic, and panic makes the suffocation worse. Presently, the drug most commonly used today to relieve these states — but also in resuscitation procedures — midazolam (Hypnovel in France, Dormicum in the U.S.), is lacking. Carers faced with elderly people certainly needed an alternative medicine to help them overcome their panic attacks and suffering associated with COVID-19-related infections, she said — even in cases where patients will best the infection.
On March 28, the government therefore provisionally authorized the off-label use (marketing authorization for a drug for specific conditions) of the anti-epileptic Rivotril to compensate for the shortage of other molecules. At the same time, the inscription of this drug on the list of molecules that can be prescribed only in a hospital setting was overridden to allow its distribution by private practitioners, particularly in EHPADs.
In the absence of other drugs, the move was a good thing in itself, Guinnepain explained, as long as death is not sought for itself. But what she said made clear that whether they want to or not, many carers will actually be pushing patients into death.
Clonazepam is a molecule that is not well known to most carers, doctors, or nurses, especially when used by injection — only the older generation of doctors and nurses ever had experience of its use as an anxiolytic and sedative, since it was replaced by Dormicum, which is easier to dose and creates no addiction. Clonazepam is effective but easily subject to overdosage, the more so because its elimination time by the body is slow — much slower than that of Hypnovel, which general practitioners are used to handling. An overdose means increased respiratory distress, increased risk of death, or even certain death.
In older, frail people, the risk of overdose is even greater. It was made worse in the present situation by an astonishing recommendation from the SFAP (the highly respected French Society for Accompaniment and Palliative Care) concerning Rivotril: the protocol proposed in particular to doctors in EHPADs in the present crisis provides for almost lethal doses of the drug.
The suggested dosage is up to three times too high, according to Guinnepain, who underscored that doctors and nurses unfamiliar with the drug would not realize this. Blindly following the recommendation would in a number of cases quickly plunge patients into coma and multiply the number of deaths.
In short, it does look as if the government authorities, assisted by incongruous recommendations, were seeking to facilitate the increase of the number of victims, and not just any victims, but those who cost society dearly, those who no longer produce.
Odile Guinnepain added that for many carers, especially in the present crisis, the absence of suffering has today become synonymous with unconsciousness — or at least the incapability of expressing suffering.
In a context where dying people often do not even get to see a priest, and where panic can become worse because of pangs of conscience at the hour of death, giving them massive doses of sedatives that will be difficult to reverse makes sure that they will not be able to obtain the spiritual assistance, and the pardon that they need. It is also a way out that will make carers accustomed to giving a dying person a shot to make them unconscious; how many will notice, asked Odile Guinnepain, that death follows very soon and sometimes too soon?
Guinnepain offered LifeSite a statement that makes clear the grave questions at issue. Here below is its full translation.
* * *
Contrary to what has been widely read and heard, both Rivotril* and Hypnovel* are not drugs that euthanize patients, nor are they used intentionally for this purpose. It is simplistic and dishonest to reduce their use to this; such a reductionist opinion cannot be allowed to spread.
As part of the specific symptom of acute respiratory distress associated with COVID-19 (suffocating, to be clear), it is administered (supplemented with small doses of morphine) to relieve the perception of the sensation of thirst for air and the associated anxiety, which are unbearable for the patient to experience. This in itself is a very good thing.
It is therefore not the drug that is euthanasic, it is the use that is made of it through the dosage and proportionality of its administration as well as the lack of ethical or moral enlightenment with which it is used; it is therefore on these issues that clarification is needed.
Health professionals working in EHPADs and in home care have little knowledge and experience of the use of these treatments, which were initially intended to relieve anxiety or reduce alertness, but are presently used as sedatives, for two major reasons:
– Professionals are poorly trained in their use and monitoring, and even less in their proportionate use (both doctors and nurses). Training in the practice of these treatments takes time, and there is often no one to do it with the necessary precision. Moreover, their monitoring is time-consuming, and neither nurses nor Hospice or city doctors have that time.
– The second reason is cultural. Indeed, we are today in a culture of “zero suffering and/or pain;” and this is what the carers are aiming at. Of course, our duty is to do everything we can to relieve suffering patients to the best of our ability; except that, objectively, zero suffering (in global care offered to the patient) does not exist. Every patient, at the heart of illness, be it in palliative care or in agony, always experiences a form of suffering (whether physical, psychic, intellectual, spiritual, social, etc.) that is visible, perceptible or not. Our role as caregivers is therefore not to eliminate the suffering (which would inevitably lead to the elimination of the patient: zero suffering zero equals the death of the patient) but to make it bearable or acceptable; and, once we have managed to relieve the patient by a proportionate dosage of treatments, the time has come to continue the accompaniment other than chemically. Here, in discussion with the patient, one can seek to understand the other sources of suffering that the patient is experiencing and that contribute to increasing the physical symptoms of pain or discomfort. The response to this suffering is therefore not only chemical; it is through a relationship with others, with one's family, with God, etc.; which is not possible when the patient is put in a state of unconsciousness by sedation.
However, in our culture today, it is believed that only the state of unconsciousness responds to the relief of suffering (unconsciousness = zero suffering); the person is visibly relieved and, for the caregivers, this is the main thing. However, the patient often dies quite quickly from the consequences of the treatment due to a disordered and/or unsuitable dose. Since the treatment is not proportionate to the relief of the symptom alone, once the person has lost consciousness together with “normal” breathing, everyone benefits.
However, in neuropsychological sciences, nothing shows that even unconscious, the patient is free from suffering: it is only that he is no longer able to express or manifest it.
Finally, to be precise, the manifestations of a suffering face or agitation are not only a sign of physical pain; they can also be a sign of a struggle against the sedative effect of a treatment, or some other struggle; it is up to us professionals to seek and always to continue to seek to understand what is behind it, with confidence and intuition.
On the other hand, and this is the moral dimension of the problem, since the caregivers do not, in all sincerity, have an “euthanasic intention” in administering the treatments, then this does not pose any problem; in fact, they are sure that the treatment was correctly adjusted when the patient is no longer conscious. This is the question of the double effect which, according to Church doctrine, is morally permissible. However, beware of confusion regarding the principle of double effect: as Pius XII recalled in 1957, “an act with a double effect is morally good, – if the very act which gave rise to the bad effect is good or at least indifferent; – if the agent directly aims at the good effect of the act, tolerating only the bad effect; – if the good effect is not obtained by the bad effect.”
In concrete terms, the implementation of an analgesic or sedative treatment studied, calculated and monitored to be proportionate to the symptom, may nevertheless lead to the death of the patient due to a consequence that could not be anticipated or is still unknown. In this case, death is an accidental consequence. There is no underlying euthanasic drift in this act.
On the other hand, an overdose of narcotics or a disproportionate dose of narcotics, administered for the purpose of ending the patient's life or for the purpose of relieving pain (or suffering) with the same effect of killing the patient is, in both cases, morally wrong. Whatever the intention, it is the act of alleviating the suffering person with respect for his or her life that is good. It is not the intention that makes the act good.
Hence the importance of not trying to sedate but to relieve in a proportionate way; if there is deep sedation necessary for a symptom that is truly refractory to any other treatment, then it is of last resort and, in spite of everything, proportionate to the symptom; it must be punctual and not terminal or definitive.
This error of appreciation seriously misleads the carers today; it is this that leads them into euthanasia drifts that will be uncontrollable with COVID-19, particularly in EHPAD’s. Caregivers with little experience in the field are victims of this situation and suffer enormously. In EHPADs, they are currently denied hospitalization for their elderly patients with COVID-19 and in respiratory distress, because of their age or lack of space. They watch them die in front of their eyes from appalling choking attacks, which they are powerless to deal with due to lack of appropriate treatment and training. The decree on Rivotril is therefore a good thing if its practical implementation meets the criteria explained above.
For the government, however, it is simpler to respond to their request for authorization to use treatments “to relieve” than to adapt the health system to the care of contaminated elderly people.
Article 3 of the Claeys/Leonetti law in 2016 legalized deep and terminal sedation under certain conditions of suffering. The theory that this was to be framed by this law is disintegrating in practice, as we see here!
Here it is not the carers who are responsible, but those who impose on them a situation where they have no other choice!
Follow Jeanne Jeanne Smits has worked as a journalist in France since 1987 after obtaining a Master of Arts in Law. She formerly directed the French daily Présent and was editor-in-chief of an all-internet French-speaking news site called reinformation.tv. She writes regularly for a number of Catholic journals (Monde & vie, L’Homme nouveau, Reconquête…) and runs a personal pro-life blog. In addition, she is often invited to radio and TV shows on alternative media. She is vice-president of the Christian and French defense association “AGRIF.” She is the French translator of The Dictator Pope by Henry Sire and Christus Vincit by Bishop Schneider, and recently contributed to the Bref examen critique de la communion dans la main about Communion in the hand. She is married and has three children, and lives near Paris.
Share