That doesn't look very extreme. It looks 'Extrude'.

The charter is the one law that binds all other laws. I consider that this it's fatal flaw. The past quarter century has seen the destruction of many, many laws through charter challenges, while no new (better?) law is enacted in their place. This, in my view, has led to the dominance of non-governement policy makers and the weakness of our parliaments. The charter is the sledge-hammer of activism in Canada and our judiciary cannot control the damage. Thus I would not recommend that other countries enact a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in exactly the same way as Canada.

A transcript of the above videos:

I know Africa really well and the definition of safe abortions in a developing country and the definition of safe abortions in Canada is very, very different. If you're for safe abortions those abortions have got to take place in a hospital, they've got to take place with doctors, as they do here. And the problem is, in Africa, with so many cases unfortunately that's not where it happens and how it happens and the mother's life IS at risk. And so regardless of what your position is on abortion, you've got to understand that in a huge number of these cases (some people would say the majority of these cases) the mother's health is at risk so if what you're talking about in this particular instance you have to include abortions. Now the fact is different countries can do very different things. So if Canada decides to do one thing and a bunch of other countries decide they're in fact going to include abortions, that's acceptable, but don't do that on the basis that we think that Africa has got modern hospitals spread throughout those villages and that those abortions could take place in a safe condition cause that is not the case. And that is the reason that I think that abortion should be included.

Well I think the Maternal Health Issue is a tremendous thing. I feel very good about Canada picking that up and I would very, very much hope that they would continue with it. What worries me a little bit is that they've only talked about it in terms of the G8. The G8 has got a limited life. I don't know when it's due date is. It may last year year, it may last 2 years. I don't think there's any doubt that over time, as the G20 continues to mature, that that's where the action's going to be. If it gets through the G8 (and I'm sure it will, by the way, I'm sure it'll be part of the final communique). Under those circumstances they have to raise it at the G20. The other thing that I believe is that we have a huge maternal health problem in the third world at home (among aboriginal Canadians). And I would very,very much hope that the government which has raised this in Africa (and I've spent alot of time in Africa and I see it's need) that the government which would raise it in terms of Africa, would not do as it is currently doing and turning it's back on the maternal health problems and the children's problems of Canadian aboriginals.

I couldn't watch this video on Maclean's. I had to jump to youtube.

I'm sure this feed is not 'news' like Fox is 'news'. Yet I am interested in the opinions as expressed by the various contributors, most of whom are not journalists by profession and not used to writing 'news'.

I have more to say about this paper here.

You misrepresent my character and beliefs. Why?

"My Brilliant, Brief Career" by Kate Lunau, published in May, 2008, offers more insight into 'feminine law'.