Great Reset
Canadian euthanasia doctor takes delight in having killed hundreds through assisted suicide
Ellen Wiebe
From LifeSiteNews
“I know the exact number,” she told Kirkey, but didn’t want to provide it. “It’s become a weird thing, people talking about their numbers, or criticizing people who talk about their numbers.”
The National Post’s July 6 profile of euthanasia doctor and abortionist Ellen Wiebe begins with a barnburner line: “Dr. Ellen Wiebe has never shied away from speaking publicly about the act of ending someone’s life.” That’s a bit of an understatement — Wiebe has positively reveled in it. In the recent BBC documentary Better Off Dead? Wiebe informed disability rights activist Liz Carr that killing patients “is the very best work I’ve ever done.”
Wiebe’s enthusiasm — and chuckling throughout the interview — made viewers very uncomfortable. Clearly, so is National Post writer Sharon Kirkey. The profile of Wiebe is titled “This doctor has helped more than 400 patients die. How many assisted deaths are too many?” Of course, Wiebe hasn’t “helped people die.” She has actively ended their lives by lethal injection. She now realizes that people recoil from that fact. “I know the exact number,” she told Kirkey, but didn’t want to provide it. “It’s become a weird thing, people talking about their numbers, or criticizing people who talk about their numbers.”
“Hundreds is good,” she added. As Kirkey noted, Wiebe had ended at least 430 lives by May 2022, according to her own testimony before a special parliamentary committee on MAiD.
Wiebe has accrued many nicknames — the “pro-choice doctor providing peaceful deaths,” and a “de facto ambassador” of MAiD, for example. Unsurprisingly, she insists that the killing she does be carefully cloaked in Orwellian language. “In Canada, we don’t use the word euthanasia,” she told a podcaster. “That’s what we use for our pets. Here, we call it assisted dying.” Still, Kirkey notes that not everyone is happy about the work she finds so rewarding. She told Scottish euthanasia advocates that “we know that angry family members are our greatest risk” because they are most likely to bring complaints against euthanasia practitioners.
Indeed, as Kirkey notes, Wiebe is willing to bend the rules:
She’s published numerous papers in the assisted dying space, mentoring other doctors and hosting MAID training webinars, but has also been accused of bullying and sneaking her way into faith-based facilities. She’s faced multiple complaints against her to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. but has always been found in compliance with the rules …
Wiebe has had several complaints lodged against her, including her provision of death in the case of “Ms. S,” a 56-year-old woman with advanced multiple sclerosis who, in 2017, starved herself to meet eligibility criteria that her death was “reasonably foreseeable,” a case with eerie echoes to the 27-year-old autistic Calgary woman who stopped eating and drinking in May over a judge’s order blocking her access to MAiD.
In 2017, Wiebe was accused of “borderline unethical” behaviour for entering Vancouver’s Louis Brier Home & Hospital, an Orthodox Jewish long-term care home, and providing MAID to 83-year-old cancer patient Barry Hyman, despite knowing the facility did not allow assisted deaths on its site. Hyman’s family had invited Wiebe in to honour his wish to die in his room. As Wiebe assembled her prepared syringes, “My heart was racing that someone would open the door,” Hyman’s daughter, Lola, told The Globe and Mail.
The same year, the chief medical officer and coroner with B.C.’s coroner’s service raised questions about Wiebe’s provision of MAID to a woman with dementia.
As she told journalist Peter Stockland in 2018, her practice comes “right up to the edge of the law but never beyond.” Thus far, at least, the authorities have agreed with her.
Although Wiebe is 72 and suffers from a heart condition, she’s determined to continue the work she believes in the most — euthanasia and abortion. Euthanasia, in particular, she says, is “the last thing I’ll give up,” and both euthanasia and abortion are “about honouring people’s wishes, empowering people to have control over their own lives. It’s wonderful that I have the opportunity to do that.” Kirkey notes that, as in the BBC documentary, Wiebe grinned and laughed in her interview with the National Post. “I love life,” she told Kirkey.
Disturbingly, Wiebe isn’t the only euthanasia practitioner who enjoys her work. Kirkey noted that in “one study, MAiD providers with between 12 and 113 assisted deaths each described the delivery of a medical death as ‘heartwarming,’ ‘the most important medicine I do,’ ‘an ultimate act of compassion,’ ‘liberating’ and ‘almost an adrenaline rush. I was surprised at how good I felt.’” As Christopher Lyon, a social scientist at the University of York, observed, this is jarring “because death is usually a deeply painful or difficult moment for the patients and their loved ones.” As Kirkey noted:
Lyon’s 77-year-old father died by MAiD in a Victoria hospital room in 2021, over the family’s objections. (Wiebe was not the provider.) His father had bouts of depression and suicidal thinking but was approved for MAiD nonetheless. Lyon wonders what draws some providers to MAiD “and what happens to a person when killing becomes a daily or weekly event.”
“Some providers have counts in the hundreds — this isn’t normal, for any occupation,” he said. “Even members of the military at war do not typically kill that frequently. I think that’s a question that we’ve not really ever asked.”
Wiebe says she didn’t plan to be a euthanasia practitioner — she grew up in a conservative, Bible-believing Mennonite home in Alberta but abandoned faith by age 17 — but has been long committed to the medicalized killing. In her work as an abortionist, she did “pioneering work on medical abortions and bringing trials of the abortion drug, mifepristone, to Canada.” When the Supreme Court legalized euthanasia, she wanted in. “I called up a friend who was also an abortion provider and said, ‘Palliative care is not going to do the work. We better figure out how to get trained and get in there,’” she told the National Post.
She and her abortionist colleague went to the Netherlands in 2016 to meet with euthanasia practitioners and learn the trade. “Now it’s half my clinical work and very, very important,” she said. Unsurprisingly, she has repeatedly said that she sees much similarity between abortion and euthanasia. Family members, she tells the National Post, are often shocked by how swiftly death comes after she administers the lethal injection. “When everybody is ready, I say, ‘Okay, ready to go to sleep?’” she recounted, apparently unaware of how similar this sounds to putting a pet to sleep. The entire process, she says, usually takes about five minutes.
Wiebe believes that Canada’s euthanasia regime will only expand in the years ahead. Kirkey writes:
She fully anticipates that MAiD will be extended to mature minors. “I’ve always been assuming for eight years that a 17-year-old with terminal cancer is going to say, ‘I have the right,’ and of course any judge in the country will say, ‘Yes, you do.’” She also expects some form of advance requests for MAiD in cases of dementia, which would allow a person to make a written request for euthanasia that could be honoured later, even if they lose their capacity to make medical decisions for themselves. Support for advance requests is strong, according to polls. But if someone is unable to express how they’re feeling, who decides if they are suffering unbearably — and what if they changed their minds? MAID doctors may be asked to “provide” for someone they have not met before, and with whom they will not be able to communicate. That’s going to be hard for us as providers,” she said. “This will be a new challenge. And I’m up for challenges.”
Wiebe’s predictions and enthusiasm are a warning for Canada. We have seen tens of thousands of Canadians die by lethal injection and many others speak out about how they feel pressured or pushed into euthanasia. It is imperative that Wiebe’s vision for Canada be opposed at every step. Lives depend on it.
DEI
AT&T ditches DE&I
AT&T’s retreat from the diversity, equity, and inclusion playbook marks one of the most significant corporate course corrections of the year — and it didn’t happen by accident. After months of pressure from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, the telecom giant has confirmed it will unwind its DEI programs top to bottom, ending everything from race-based training modules to staff positions dedicated to enforcing ideological compliance.
The move follows years of controversy, much of it fueled by revelations that AT&T’s internal training materials pushed the notion that racism was a “uniquely white trait” and urged white employees to accept blame as part of a broader critical-race-theory framework. Those claims first surfaced in 2021 through documents obtained by researcher Christopher Rufo, who reported that the company’s curriculum told white staffers they “are the problem.” The backlash never fully subsided — and with Carr signaling that companies seeking key FCC licenses would need to demonstrate they are not running discriminatory programs, the pressure point became impossible for AT&T to ignore.
In a letter sent Monday to Carr, AT&T Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel David McAtee said the company has overhauled its employment and business practices “to ensure compliance with all applicable laws,” emphasizing that the changes would be substantive, not cosmetic. According to AT&T, that means no hiring quotas, no supplier-contract quotas, no race-based training, and no positions devoted to policing identity-based metrics. DEI courses have been stripped from employee requirements, and the company says it will not resurrect them.
AT&T’s announcement mirrors what has become a growing trend in the corporate world as the regulatory environment shifts. In May, Verizon made a similar pledge, informing the FCC that it, too, would dissolve its DEI department and reassign staff to conventional HR roles. Carr praised that decision at the time as “a good step forward for equal opportunity, nondiscrimination, and the public interest.”
The broader message coming out of Washington is unmistakable: the days of federally regulated industries running ideological experiments under the guise of “equity” are coming to an end. Companies that want federal approval for major licenses are being told to stick to the law, treat employees equally, and drop programs that sort workers by skin color or political theory. AT&T is the latest to fall in line — and almost certainly not the last.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Canadian bishops condemn Liberal ‘hate speech’ proposal that could criminalize quoting Scripture
From LifeSiteNews
Canada’s Catholic bishops have condemned the proposed amendments to Bill C-9 warning that quoting the Bible in good faith could become punishable by up to two years in prison.
The Canadian Catholic bishops have condemned proposed restrictions on quoting religious texts, which would potentially criminalize sharing Bible passages.
In a December 4 letter to Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) advocated against proposed amendments to Bill C-9, the “Combating Hate Act,” to allow Canadians to be punished for quoting Scripture.
“[T]he proposed elimination of the ‘good faith’ religious-text defence raises significant concerns,” the letter, signed by CCCB President Bishop Pierre Goudreault, explained. “This narrowly framed exemption has served for many years as an essential safeguard to ensure that Canadians are not criminally prosecuted for their sincere, truth-seeking expression of beliefs made without animus and grounded in long-standing religious traditions.”
Goudreault pointed out that “the removal of this provision risks creating uncertainty for faith communities, clergy, educators, and others who may fear that the expression of traditional moral or doctrinal teachings could be misinterpreted as hate speech and could subject the speaker to proceedings that threaten imprisonment of up to two years.”
“As legal experts have noted, the public’s understanding of hate-speech and its legal implications are often far broader than what the Criminal Code actually captures,” the letter continued. “Eliminating a clear statutory safeguard will likely therefore have a chilling effect on religious expression, even if prosecutions remain unlikely in practice.”
In conclusion, Goudreault recommended that Liberals either scrap the proposed amendment or issue a statement clarifying that “good-faith religious expression, teaching, and preaching will not be subject to criminal prosecution under the hate-propaganda provisions.”
He further suggested that the Liberals “commit to broad consultation with religious leaders, legal experts, and civil liberties organizations before any amendments are made to Bill C-9 that would affect religious freedom.”
“We believe it is possible to achieve the shared objective of promoting a society free from genuine hatred while also upholding the constitutional rights of millions of Canadians who draw moral and spiritual guidance from their faith traditions,” the letter continued.
As LifeSiteNews reported earlier this week, inside government sources revealed that Liberals agreed to remove religious exemptions from Canada’s hate speech laws, as part of a deal with the Bloc Québécois to keep Liberals in power.
Bill C-9, as reported by LifeSiteNews, has been blasted by constitutional experts as empowering police and the government to go after those it deems to have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.
Now, the Bloc amendment seeks to further restrict free speech. The amendment would remove the “religious exemption” defense, which has historically protected individuals from conviction for willful promotion of hatred if the statements were made “in good faith” and based on a “religious subject” or a “sincerely held” interpretation of religious texts such as passages from the Bible, Quran, or Torah.
As a result, quoting the Bible, Quran, or Torah to condemn abortion, homosexuality, or LGBT propaganda could be considered criminal activity.
Shortly after the proposed amendment was shared on social media, Conservatives launched a petition, calling “on the Liberal government to protect religious freedom, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.”
Already, in October, Liberal MP Marc Miller said that certain passages of the Bible are “hateful” because of what it says about homosexuality and those who recite the passages should be jailed.
“Clearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful,” Miller said. “They should not be used to invoke or be a defense, and there should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.”
His comments were immediately blasted by Conservative politicians throughout Canada, with Alberta provincial Conservative MLA and Minister of Municipal Affairs Dan Williams saying, “I find it abhorrent when MPs sitting in Ottawa – or anyone in positions of power – use their voice to attack faith.”
-
National7 hours agoMedia bound to pay the price for selling their freedom to (selectively) offend
-
Bruce Dowbiggin6 hours agoSometimes An Ingrate Nation Pt. 2: The Great One Makes His Choice
-
International2 days agoFBI may have finally nabbed the Jan. 6 pipe bomber
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoIntegration Or Indignation: Whose Strategy Worked Best Against Trump?
-
COVID-192 days agoUniversity of Colorado will pay $10 million to staff, students for trying to force them to take COVID shots
-
MAiD2 days ago101-year-old woman chooses assisted suicide — press treats her death as a social good
-
Business2 days agoCarney’s Toronto cabinet meetings cost $530,000
-
espionage2 days agoDigital messages reportedly allege Chinese police targeted dissident who died suspiciously near Vancouver



