A lead campaigner for Canada’s euthanasia programme may have chosen to live if adequate care had been available, according to reports.

Jean Truchon, who had cerebral palsy, was one of the key figures in campaigning to expand the scope of euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation in Canada in 2019 so that the law did not only apply to people whose death was ‘reasonably foreseeable’. Following his successful legal challenge in Quebec, in 2021, the Canadian Parliament ultimately repealed the requirement that the natural death of those applying for euthanasia or assisted suicide be “reasonably foreseeable”.  

After Truchon’s life was ended by euthanasia in 2020 aged 51, he was praised for his contribution to the assisted suicide debate by François Legault, the Premier of Quebec, and then-Health Minister Danielle McCann.

However, in a 2016 email seen by The Telegraph, Truchon suggested he may not have wished to die at all if he had been able to access better care.

“In response to your question regarding home care, I think that indeed if there were services for 70 hours or more, I would have preferred to stay at home and possibly I would not have had the same desire to die”, he said in a letter transcribed by his psychologist.

For all the terrible damage done to families nd individuals by gambling, Great Britain is “falling behind” other European countries in tackling betting ads, GambleAware has warned.

‘Drivers of Gambling Marketing Restrictions – An International Comparison’, a report commissioned by the charity, compared Great Britain’s self-regulated gambling industry with several European countries such as Spain and Italy.

The report concluded that although Britain has the “most evidence of the negative effects of gambling marketing”, it remains a “significant outlier” in introducing wider restrictions.

The research found that a common occurrence in European countries was the “liberalisation of gambling markets, followed by an increase in participation and marketing, and, therefore, the number of people harmed by gambling”.

In response, several Governments introduced legislation to restrict marketing on the basis that gambling was causing harm and becoming “normalised for children and young people”.

But in contrast, the previous Government’s White Paper on reforming the Gambling Act 2005 claimed there was “a lack of conclusive evidence” and did not directly address the issue.

Dr Raffaello Rossi, who was one of the report’s authors, said the situation in Britain “suggests that the lack of tight restrictions isn’t due to insufficient evidence but rather a lack of political will.

“Across Europe, bans on gambling marketing are increasingly the norm, seen as necessary to protect the public. Great Britain, however, is becoming an outlier with almost no meaningful restrictions.

“The evidence is clear – policymakers must act urgently to protect millions from preventable harm.”

Have you ever wondered why there is so much hatred, violence and poison thrown at babies and children? Are are the innocents targeted for destruction or perversion by so many blatantly evil forces?

It's really VERY simple: Every human baby is made in the image of God. So, of course, Satan hates every newborn baby and every growing child.

Even accounting for original sin, this Divine image shines brightly in an innocent little baby. It’s the clarity of this divine image which causes Satan to hate children with particular ferocity.

This is why Satan ferociously attacks children with a hellish three-point plan:

• Abortion, which kills children in the womb
• Transgender ideology, which mutilates children after birth
• Corruption through depraved “education,” murdering AND mutilating the souls of children and adolescents.

When they started their first step campaign for 'gay rights', the LGBTQ movement merely demanded a little “tolerance.” But, in reality, that was never their real aim.

The truth is that the LGBT movement sought – and seeks – recruitment. Having sexual preferences which are innately non-reproductive, they can only reproduce, and create younger generation potential sexual partners, through recruiting new individuals to their toxic lifestyles.

Towards that end, they seek not tolerance, but total political and cultural dominance. They seek to have every level of government positively affirm their agenda, to have their flags fly in front of government buildings, to enforce speech codes that constitute compelled speech (“preferred pronouns”), and to use whatever mechanisms available to punish those who oppose or stand in the way of these goals. 

The LGBT movement never had any intention of promoting a “live and let live” culture. They seek to make affirmation of their ideology mandatory, although they rarely been honest about this and usually cloak their intentions with pleasant-sounding language, an iron fist in a rainbow-coloured velvet glove. In recent years, we have increasingly seen the mask come off as they have achieved the cultural dominance they sought. They no longer need to talk about “tolerance.” Now, they can come out of the closet as the bullies they always aspired to be. 

The still-unfolding story of Emo, Ontario is a good example. The LGBT group Borderland Pride sued the tiny township for voting against issuing a “pride” proclamation and declining to fly the LGBT flag (as Australia’s Sky News pointed out in a segment that garnered over 300,000 views on YouTube, city hall does not even have a flagpole). The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal fined the town council $10,000 for their heretical vote, and personally fined Mayor Harold McQuaker $5,000. When he stated that he would not pay because he was not hateful, Borderland Pride got a court order and had the money taken right out of his bank account. 

Borderland Pride’s own social media shows a group bigoted against Christians and deeply intolerant. Borderland Pride, responding to accusations of intolerance, engaged in a moment of refreshing honesty, posting this statement to their Facebook Page: 

We are noticing a lot of the right-wing blogosphere talking about Borderland Pride as not being very tolerant. Aside from the fact that most of these accusations have been published by uninformed mansplainers on YouTube, let’s just get something clear: 

We are not seeking tolerance. Nope.  

“Toleration” is for when we put up with things that are inherently unpleasant or obnoxious, out of social courtesy, such as screaming infants on airplanes, telemarketers, or people who do loser laps around town on loud motorcycles. 

We are not asking for your tolerance. We are not a nuisance to be tolerated, and tolerance is not our goal. Inclusion and non-discrimination are our goals. 

So there you have it. Borderland Pride is not seeking “tolerance” – that is, people of different ideologies, political beliefs, and religions living together and tolerating the views of those they disagree with, even if they find those views genuinely false or even reprehensible. Their goal is to force submission; to hoist their flag over the town; to compel public servants who do not share their ideology to publish a statement endorsing their movement and its goals.

That political and cultural agenda is what the revolutionary, anti-Christian left find so attractive about their LGBTQ allies. This is what makes them useful for the aim of 'demoralising society'. That doesn't mean demoralising in the sense of making people miserable and defeatists (though it often has that side effect). When cultural Marxists use it, 'demoralisation' has its literal meaning - taking traditional, Christian morals out of society, so that their anti-morals can be inserted into the resulting hole.

But, for the LGBTQ fanatics themselves, even that is a means to a much more basic end: The perversion and seduction of vulnerable youngsters for sex. It's not about tolerance at all, it's about sexual grooming.

 In peaceful actions now banned in the UK and Ireland, pro-lifers in less repressive nations are saving little lives this Christmas. A pro-life advocacy group is organising a campaign to sing Christmas carols outside abortion clinics as we celebrate the Nativity of Our Lord.   

This December, the Pro-Life Action League has invited pro-lifers to participate in their “Peace in the Womb” Christmas caroling campaign to bring the joy of life to abortion clinics across the world.   

“One of the Pro-Life Action League’s favourite events of the year is our ‘Peace in the Womb’ Christmas caroling day,” the group wrote on their website. 

“The idea is simple: we bring the hope and joy of Christmas to one of the world’s darkest places—the abortion clinic—in hopes that the familiar sounds of Christmas carols will save a life,” it continued.  

“And, in fact, lives have been saved by our peaceful, prayerful witness when women heard our songs from inside the abortion facility and chose life for their children,” the website revealed, referencing a 2020 caroling which resulted in a mother decided to keep her baby.   

At the time, Pro-Life Action League executive director Eric Scheidler told the Christian Post, “In Jacksonville, Florida, a woman showed up with her daughter for an abortion and the daughter heard the singing, got real upset, went back to her car and said to her mom, ‘Find out what the heck’s going on.’” 

“And when they heard that we were there singing Christmas carols trying to appeal to the moms to choose life, the mom and daughter left the abortion clinic and then the pro-lifers followed up and found out that the girl had absolutely chosen to keep her baby,” he recalled.  

During the event, pro-lifers braved the winter cold to gather outside abortion clinics, often holding pro-life signs while they sing traditional Christmas carols.   

Many caroling events have already taken place across America, such as in Oregon last week when the local Knights of Columbus hosted a caroling event outside the Planned Parenthood in Eugene.  

“Some mothers have even walked out on abortion appointments because they heard pro-lifers caroling outside,” Eric Walter, State Life Program Director for Oregon Knights of Columbus, revealed. 

Walter said that the caroling is not only for the mothers, but also “for the precious children who will never see their first Christmas. The beautiful Christmas carols are always centered on Baby Jesus Who is our Hope and Life.” 

Killing the elderly and sick will help balance the books! The truth has emerged as Liam McArthur MSP has confirmed his view that the cost of assisted suicide in Scotland, including the requisite lethal drugs, will be met by the corresponding reduction in demand for end-of-life care.

The architect of Scotland’s assisted suicide Bill told Holyrood’s Finance and Public Administration Committee that potential savings in the provision of palliative care would render his Bill “cost-neutral”.

McArthur prefaced his opening statement to MSPs by declaring that he received financial backing from Dignity in Dying, Humanist Society Scotland and Friends at the End in pursuit of his campaign.

Members of the Committee questioned McArthur about the costings in his Financial Memorandum, published to accompany his Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.

Referring to the cost of lethal drugs for assisted suicide, the memorandum states: “Community Pharmacy Scotland estimated that, as an example, one substance that may be used in such circumstances would cost an estimated £80 for each dose provided to a terminally ill adult to end their own life.

“On the basis of the estimate of 25 people having an assisted death in year one following the Bill’s enactment, rising to 400 by year 20 it can be estimated that the cost of the required substances would be around £2000 in year one, rising to £32,000 per year by year 20.”

The document concluded that the cost of enacting the Bill would be negated by any savings made “where palliative care is not, or is no longer, required” because those needing it have been helped to kill themselves.

McArthur informed MSPs the memorandum acknowledged that “the legislation is likely to result in savings as well as costs and that broadly speaking it is anticipated to be cost neutral.

The terrible murder of Sara Sharif by her father and step-mother is being exploited shamelessly by Keir Starmer and his totalitarian government. Labour have long planned to use Lenin's "salami tactics" to steadily destroy the right of parents to home-school their children, and they have seized on the vile murder as an excuse to cast suspicion on home-schooling and to begin the process of first regulating and then abolishing it.

Under Labour's plan, being promoted by exploiting Sar'a case, parents who home-school their children in England will have to register with their local council.

The Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which includes mandatory ‘Children Not in School’ registers, was introduced into Parliament yesterday.

Under the legislation, parents will no longer have an automatic right to educate their children at home if they are undergoing a child protection investigation. In addition, local authorities will be allowed to require school attendance if a home environment is deemed to be unsuitable.

The Bill also allows for the specification of unique identifiers for children for use by organisations working in child safeguarding, in an attempt to improve data sharing to protect child safety.

According to statistics based on this year’s census, the number of home-educated children in England has risen more than 20 per cent since last year.

Of an estimated 111,700 children in Autumn 2024, the most common reasons provided for educating them at home were for “mental health” (14 per cent) and “philosophical or preferential reasons” (14 per cent).

The Christian Institute’s Head of Education John Denning stated: “Lots of families home educate for all sorts of reasons: they may find local schools are not providing properly for their child’s special needs, or not effectively protecting them from bullying, or they may be unhappy with what the school is teaching on controversial social issues.

“It may simply be that during lockdown, they taught their child at home, it was a positive experience for them and their children, and they’ve decided to continue with it.

Mr Denning continued: “This is a decision parents must remain free to make. We should be very careful about the state interfering in that decision – unless of course the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm in which case the state rightly already has the power to intervene under the 1989 Children Act.

“A compulsory register of home educators implies parents need permission from the state to educate their own children.”

He concluded: “It’s not hard to imagine it turning into a scheme to impose conditions for registration, where a parent effectively has to educate in a state-approved way.”