Trudeau Foundation Promotes Euthanasia of Infants

Years after Justin Trudeau entered Canadian politics, the Trudeau Foundation unveils its assisted dying plan.

By Eric Foley and Stephen Pate  – Justin Trudeau and the Trudeau Foundation support euthanasia or murder of Canadians from the cradle to seniors.

The campaign to make euthanasia legal in Canada by Justin Trudeau started years before.

Despite surveys that show 69% of Canadians don’t think Bill C-7 will make a life better for seniors. the mentally ill or disabled, Canadian Prime Minister Justin is determined to legalize euthanasia. (Note 1 Angus Reid)

Ghost of Pierre Trudeau Consumes Justin Trudeau On Assisted Suicide

How Trudeau Gamed The Charity System to Promote Euthanasia

A dozen years after Justin Trudeau formed the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation, the Foundation revealed its assisted dying agenda for babies and adults, quietly at first in France. Then they floated a few trial balloons at UBC.

When you hear highly placed people defend euthanasia for various reasons, know they have brainwashed systematically to adopt what is emotionally a repugnant idea. The Trudeau Foundation is at the root of this indoctrination. No one else had the money,  prestige, and determination to execute the plan.

The Foundation had spent $40 million building a paid network of influencers in Canadian academia and intellectual circles.  Foundation scholars, fellows and mentors suddenly became euthanasia evangelists.

The Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation is a prestigious liberal organization. Scholars and Fellows were given generous funding to rub elbows with the elite of the Canadian academic, legal and business world. The effect would be mesmerizing except for the very strong-willed.

For 4 years before the announcement of support for assisted suicide, Justin Trudeau said nothing about his support. That was dishonest.

The Foundation made dishonest arguments to support euthanasia or assisted suicide. They referred the students to Belgium and Holland, two countries with very different cultures and legal systems from Canada.

Justin Trudeau enters politics in stealth mode on euthanasia.

Trudeau moved back to Montreal in 2002  to do “advocacy work related to youth and environmental issues.” Wikipedia.”  Wikipedia missed that Justin was the most influential member of the  $15 million Pierre Trudeau Foundation.

In 2008, Justin Trudeau got elected as the handsome, lightweight son of former PM Pierre Trudeau before the Foundation announced its plan. He won the election in Papineau riding for the Liberals. He did not discuss his views on assisted dying, euthanasia or anything related to those hot topics. Justin Trudeau was the political version of Ringo Star – peace and love.

He and his brother Alexander were Foundation members until 2015 when Justin withdrew from the Foundation but still a Member. ” Mr. Trudeau has withdrawn from the affairs of the Foundation for the duration of his involvement in federal politics.” Annual Report 2015

Euthanasia and assisted suicide- Bahauddin Zakariya University Lahore

Trudeau Foundation Promotes Euthanasia in 2012 Conference Out of Sight in France

The first time the Foundation utters the  term “assisted dying” is 2012.” Annual Report, page 44. Before that, the code words were “Human rights and dignity.”

Getting euthanasia onto the Canadian agenda started with a conference conveniently offshore in France. In November  2012, the Trudeau Foundation discretely cohosted an assisted dying conference in France called DEATH AND DYING IN THE 21ST CENTURY.

“The conference will be principally oriented around three issues: the moral, ethical and social dimensions of the quest to die with dignity; the space occupied by death in modern society; and the disparities-including the cultural disparities-in the social care given to elderly people experiencing a loss of autonomy.” WebArchive

Foundation President Pierre-Gerlier Forest, Scholar Isabelle Chouinard and Fellow Daniel Weinstock made presentations at the conference. These were serious, well-researched and thought out positions that didn’t develop overnight. One can assume that the Foundation was working on its assisted death plan for years without disclosing the research in annual reports.

In the 2013 Annual Report, the assisted death conference and topic is given a brief introduction and rationale. Advances in science make “assisted death” an important issue. The Foundation struggles with the contradictions in their support for assisted dying or dying with dignity.  The Foundation presents the seminar as a public service, not the dying wish of Pierre Trudeau.

“Likewise, the international seminar “Death and dying in the 21st Century” gathered together several Trudeau community members from a variety of fields to discuss a matter that affects us all… The event was a resounding success, provoking deep reflection in participants from different fields, as explained by one of the panellists, 2010 Trudeau Mentor Guy Berthiaume: ‘The advancement of medical science is forcing us to ask hard questions about death and dying.”

Neo-natal euthanasia the top of the agenda for the Trudeau Foundation

Despite the preamble about “elderly people,” an early conference presenter Isabelle Chouinard jumps right into a cringe-worthy topic – when and how to euthanize newborns. It’s hard to believe the Foundation led with how to kill children.

Chouinard expounds on the end-game of the Trudeau Foundation, which is euthanasia for all in her presentation titled,  “Exploring End-of-Life Issues in Early Life: Challenges for Neonatal Medicine in the 21st Century.”

We don’t have a translation but would refrain from publishing anything that ghoulish. An observer can easily see the Foundation is supporting cradle to grave euthanasia.

Next – How to Advance  Euthanasia Legislation

The Foundation has had an easy time getting academics to accept money to study and discuss ethical issues such as assisted death.  In the ten years before 2012, the Foundation spent $40 million on propaganda for the Scholars, Mentors, Fellows and the general public.

The big hurdle was how do they get elected officials to change the law? The Foundation needed a ground plan for influencing politicians. Trudeau Foundation Fellow Daniel Weinstock presented a how-to strategy on inserting an Assisted Dying regime in a country using the thin edge of a wedge. He explained how a sliding normalization of assisted death policy could later expand to a full-blown euthanasia program. He explicitly targets how the legislation should be developed.

The Foundation has not provided translations of the presentations, but the evidence was available seven months later at a UBC conference where Weinstock repeated his France presentation. France was a dry run.

2013 Trudeau Foundation raises euthanasia trial balloon in Canada

Less than a year later, Weinstock was back in Canada, bringing the same message to a home crowd at the UBC campus during a Trudeau Foundation-sponsored forum.  June 2013 Daniel Weinstock was the euthanasia “assisted dying” speaker on behalf of the Trudeau Foundation.

After paying Scholars, Mentors and Fellows for 13 years, the Foundation was welcome to pitch the message in academic circles. University professors like Weinstock (U Montreal) rely on fellowships and lecture fees to augment their salaries and prestige. Universities like free seminars with name speakers. Under graduate post graduate students can easily be drawn in the web of money, power and influence from The Trudeau Foundation.

Weinstock gave the UBC students a shortened version of his French lecture on reshaping assisted death legislation to push it through the legislature – “How to Reframe and Win Assisted Dying Legislation.” At this lecture, Weinstock is proposing political action in contravention of the rules for a Registered Charity in the CRA policy statement  on disallowed activities for a registered charity.  See How Trudeau Gamed The Charity System to Promote Euthanasia

1. “explicitly indicates in its materials (whether internal or external) that the intention of the activity is to incite, or organize to put pressure on, an elected representative or public official to retain, oppose or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country.”

Weinstock admits euthanasia is illegal. He attacks the process and opponents of euthanasia to “minimize the harms … that the opponents of the practice claim to be basing their opposition upon.”

“The deepest fear was about something that tends to get referred to in public parlance, and academic debate is a slippery slope.”

Weinstock positions euthanasia as a solution for people who can’t afford to go to court to win the right to doctor-assisted suicide. He proposes that official euthanasia will remove “a kind of reign of arbitrariness which we have heard described in some circumstances where the practice in this hospital.”

Weinstock is using old logic arguments to sell a change in moral attitude. Murder is illegal and immoral, but rendering a public service shouldn’t be if the service is more helpful than the alternative.

He suggests Belgium and Holland, two of the most liberal euthanasia countries, as models to follow since they control the euthanasia of people who haven’t consented.  “We had better decriminalize and regulate rather than criminalize and then fail to enforce because of our inability to enforce.”

Jurisdiction shopping is a dishonest logic argument to make to students. Does Canada have the same culture and political environment as Belgium or Holland? Not to my knowledge. Using foreign laws is disingenuous at best. Really its a cheap dishonest trick to win an argument.

We don’t know how the UBC students reacted to Weinstock. The video record is missing 13 minutes of the same presentation given in France.

Next Episode – Trudeau drops euthanasia bomb on Liberal Party

The author  – Roger Foley, is one of 6 million Canadians living with disabilities. Roger Foley has been featured in The Washington Post Canada is plunging toward a human rights disaster for disabled people and  Macleans Magazine -Taking MAiD way too far. “Roger Foley released audio recordings of hospital staff offering him MAiD and outlining the costs of keeping him in the hospital in response to his expressed wishes to live at home with support.”

Notes

Note 1 – Angus Reid Poll November 10, 2020, Survey of all Canadians

• “69 percent of all Canadians say policy-makers should give considerable weight to the concern that expanding MAiD may lead to people with mental health issues like depression choosing death rather than dealing with the underlying causes of their condition.
• 68 percent of those polled say leaders should pay attention to important concerns raised by a UN report critical of the lack of safeguards² in Canada to protect people with disabilities and to ensure access to alternatives to MAiD.
• 65 percent want policy-makers, the courts, and politicians to give significant weight to the concern that MAiD could increase pressure on people with disabilities or the elderly to choose death to avoid being a burden on others.
• 62 percent of Canadians want policy-makers, the courts, and their leaders to give significant weight to concern that the health-care system will  begin to ignore long-term care and chronic disease in the elderly as MAiD becomes more available and routine.”

Note 2 – How to Reframe and Win Assisted Dying Legislation, Daniel Weinstock, Trudeau Foundation, June 2013, UBC, Opening remarks,

 “Given the fact that it is very difficult or impossible to enforce or even to detect, in the case of euthanasia and assisted suicide,” Weinstock admits, “those actions which fall afoul of the structures in our Criminal Code that prohibit any assistance to suicide. Perhaps the thing that we can try to do together is to find ways to minimize the practice’s harms. And minimize the harms with respect to the very values that the opponents of the practice claim to be basing their opposition upon.”

When I took part in the debate on assisted suicide and euthanasia, the conviction when you sort of unpacked it when you talked to people and tried to get them to spell out their deepest fears about the decriminalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia. The deepest fear was about something that tends to get referred to in public parlance, and academic debate is a slippery slope.

Take the cases that have been talked about the most, and that has been the basis of the legal actions that might in the next few months or years lead to the decriminalization of assisted suicide euthanasia in this country. All these cases, the case of Sue Rodriguez the case of Gloria Taylor, are cases of women, strangely both afflicted with the very same disease which is known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, completely when you hear these women incredibly articulate, incredibly rational people who have given a lot of thought to what they were asking for. When they were asked to be able to control the conditions under which they would die. You did not feel either with Sue Rodriguez or with Gloria Taylor of people who were acting rashly or people who are acting because they were clinically depressed.

Gloria Taylor, which was quoted, quite movingly in the judgement in British Columbia, hear, were in British Columbia, here by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Gloria Taylor said I did not want my death to be in contradiction with how I lived my life. A very rational thought that I think a lot of us can understand, so the fear is not the Gloria Taylor, and Sue Rodriguez will be able to avail themselves of a physician’s help to end their lives. The fear is that vulnerable people, people who cannot speak for themselves as articulately as Gloria Taylor and Sue Rodriguez did. People who may not have the family resources to have their interests defended as effectively as they did. The fear is that euthanasia and assisted suicide will come to be administered to them.

So, what we’re worried about is vulnerability. What we’re concerned about is the vulnerability of the lives of those people who are already the most vulnerable. And so. The question is, what kind of regime regulating the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide is best able to cope with that fear? Is it one in which we have official prohibition, lack of enforcement, and therefore a kind of reign of arbitrariness which we have heard described in some circumstances where the practice in this hospital, the practice of the hospital are purely a function of doctors trying to do their best at figuring out what the right thing is to do?

Or is it one in which we will attempt, as has been done in the Netherlands, as has been done in Belgium, to create bulwarks, to create institutional mechanisms whereby we attempt to ensure the only cases like Sue Rodriguez and Gloria Taylor’s will be one which we will admit to assisted suicide and euthanasia? To avoid that practice being visited upon people who have not consented to it in conditions of full rationality and full information. It seems from the evidence that we’ve been able to glean from places like Holland in Belgium, but the answer is that we had better for reasons that have to do with the very values that opponents of the practice put forward. We had better do the latter than the former regulate decriminalize and regulate rather than criminalize and then fail to enforce because of our inability to enforce.”