When Amazon Erased My Book

First Things

Ryan T. Anderson

When Amazon Erased My Book

My book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment was released exactly three years ago. It was attacked twice on the New York Times op-ed page. The Washington Post ran a hit piece on it that was riddled with errors. It was obvious the critics hadn’t read the book. But they were threatened by it and wanted to discredit it lest anyone pick it up and learn from it.

Now, three years after publication, in the same week that the House of Representatives plans to ram through the Equality Act—a radical transgender bill amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964—Amazon has erased my book opposing gender ideology from its cyber shelves.

The people who did read the book discovered that it is an accurate and accessible presentation of the scientific, medical, philosophical, and legal debates surrounding the trans phenomenon. Yes, it advances an argument against transgender ideology from a viewpoint. But it doesn’t get any facts wrong, and it doesn’t engage in heated rhetoric. 

Moreover, it was praised by experts: the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, a longtime psychology professor at NYU, a professor of medical ethics at Columbia Medical School, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Boston University, a professor of neurobiology at the University of Utah, a distinguished professor at Harvard Law School, an eminent legal philosopher at Oxford, and a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton. . . [Full text]

Indigenous Peoples Should Not Be Compelled to Provide or Facilitate Medical Assistance in Dying

Letter to Canadian Senators, Elected Federal & Provincial Leaders, and Regulators

Tyler White, Graydon Nicholas, Nick Sibbeston, Alika Lafontaine, Lana R. Potts, Rosella Kinoshameg, Bob Sutherland, Troy Hunter, Howard Jolly, Rennie Nahanee, Kenny Blacksmith, Travis Gladue-Beauregard, Karen Sibbeston, Vincent Solomon, Barry C. Maracle

As Indigenous people in Canada, we have grave concerns over the implications of Bill C-7 on our communities.

The expansion of “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD) beyond those whose death is foreseeable will have a lasting impact on our vulnerable populations. Not only has the consultation of Bill C-7 with our leaders been inadequate, it has not taken into account the existing health disparities and social inequalities we face compared to non-Indigenous people.

As sovereign nations in Canada, we have a right in determining how health services will be delivered in our communities, and the Government of Canada has a responsibility to respect this relationship.

Bill C-7 goes against many of our cultural values, belief systems, and sacred teachings. The view that MAiD is a dignified end for the terminally ill or those living with disabilities should not be forced on our peoples.

Given our history with the negative consequences of colonialism and the involuntary imposition of cultural values and ideas, we believe that people should not be compelled to provide or facilitate in the provision of MAiD. Furthermore, our population is vulnerable to discrimination and coercion in the healthcare system, and should be protected against unsolicited counsel regarding MAiD.

These civil measures should extend to all Canadians.

Regardless of one’s opinion of MAiD, the right to self-determination and to act on one’s conscience is recognized as a fundamental freedom in all peoples. We call on the Government of Canada to recognize the value of Aboriginal healing practices by respecting Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination in spiritual matters, including the right to practise our own traditions and customs when supporting those who are dying, without discrimination in the health care system.

Tyler White.
Chief Executive Officer,
Siksika Health Services, Siksika Nation;
Member of Blackfoot Confederacy and Treaty 7 of Alberta.

Honourable Graydon Nicholas.
Order of New Brunswick,
First Indigenous Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick,
Member of Wolastoqey Nation.

Honourable Nick Sibbeston.
Retired Senator,
Former Premier,
Northwest Territories.

Dr. Alika Lafontaine MD, FRCPC,
Past President, Indigenous Physicians Association of Canada.

Dr. Lana R. Potts BScN MD CCFP.
Indigenous Health Advisor,
Blackfoot Family Physician with Specialty in Indigenous Health;
Blackfoot Ceremonialist;
Member of Racism and Discrimnation Working Group of the
Federal Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada;
Member of Indigenous Advisory at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta.

Rosella Kinoshameg. Elder, DSL hc., RN., B.Sc.N.,
Indigenous Palliative Care Consultant,
Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory, Ontario.

Bob Sutherland.
Elder and Traditional Health Worker
Member of Moose Cree First Nation

Troy Hunter.
Indigenous Lawyer, New Columbia Law Corporation,
Member of Ktunaxa Nation, British Columbia.
February 2021

Howard Jolly.
Executive Director, First Nations Alliance Churches of Canada;
Member of the Eeyou Cree Nation, Quebec.

Deacon Rennie Nahanee.
Elder, Squamish Nation;
Volunteer at Lionsgate Hospital for Squamish People;
Advisor for Suicide Prevention for Squamish Nation, British Columbia.

Chief Kenny Blacksmith.
Former Deputy Grand Chief of Eeyou Cree Nation;
KLB Resources Inc/Chief Essential Oils;
Member of the Cree Nation of Mistissini, Quebec.

Travis Gladue-Beauregard,
Operations Director of The Buffalo Tribune;
Columnist and Writer. Former Service Member.
Member of Bigstone Cree Nation, Alberta. Treaty 8 Territory.

Karen Sibbeston. Elder,
Dene Nation, Northwest Territories.

Vincent Solomon.
Urban Indigenous Ministry Developer,
Diocese of Rupert’s Land, Winnipeg, Manitoba.<br.
Barry C. Maracle.
Founder of TakeCharge Ministries.
Mohawk from Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, Ontario

Ontario Medical Association asks for protection of conscience amendment to euthanasia/assisted suicide bill

Sean Murphy*

The Ontario Medical Association (OMA), representing over 31,000 Ontario physicians, has asked that protection of conscience provisions be included in a euthanasia/assisted suicide bill now before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in Canada. The request is contained in a letter to the Chair of the committee.

Bill C-7 is the government’s proposed amendment to the current Criminal Code provisions concerning “medical assistance in dying” (euthanasia and assisted suicide provided by physicians and nurse practitioners. The current law was enacted as a result of a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that an absolute ban on euthanasia and assisted suicide was unconstitutional. Bill C-7 is the government’s response to a ruling by the Quebec Court of Appeal that it is unconstitutional to restrict euthanasia and assisted suicide to those at the end of life or whose death is “reasonably foreseeable.”

Bill C-7 formally repeals the requirement that natural death be “reasonably foreseeable,” vastly increasing the pool of potential euthanasia/assisted suicide candidates, particularly among disabled persons. It abolishes a ten day reflection period for those whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable and reduces the number of independent witnesses to a patient request from two to one. It will also permit the lethal injection of an approved candidate who has lost capacity if the candidate provides advance written authorization before losing capacity. While the bill explicitly excludes mental illness as grounds for the service and establishes different criteria for patients whose natural deaths are not reasonably foreseeable, the proposed amendments have reinforced concerns among practitioners who have objected to euthanasia and assisted suicide from the beginning. It seems reasonable to think that the proposals may also be causing uneasiness among practitioners who are not opposed to the services in principle.

Ontario Medical Association asks for protection of conscience amendment to euthanasia/assisted suicide bill
Download copy.

Why Covid dissidents need to be understood, not demonised

Unthinkable: Lack of access to democratic processes can fuel distrust, says Dr Katherine Furman

The Irish Times

Joe Humphreys

Coronavirus conspiracy theories may have started out as a joke, but they now threaten to derail the global fight against the pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy is identified by the World Health Organisation as one of the top 10 threats to public health, and resistance to the new Covid-19 jabs risks undermining the efficacy of Europe’s vaccination rollout plan.

UK scientific advisers last month voiced concern at data showing 72 per cent of black people saying they were unlikely to have the jab. Historical issues of unethical healthcare research and institutional racism were cited as key reasons for lower levels of trust, an expert report found. Other research shows conspiracy theories tend to flourish in communities that have traditionally felt the brunt of economic hardship and political neglect.

For this reason, argues Dr Katherine Furman, we need to understand Covid policy dissidents and vaccine refuseniks rather than demonise them. Furman, a philosopher and public policy researcher based at the University of Liverpool, is one of the speakers at a conference in Dublin next week on how a democracy should deal with conscientious objectors. In advance, she sets out her stall for the Irish Times Unthinkable philosophy column.

[Questions addressed in the column]

  • How does one distinguish between a conscientious objector and a mere law-breaker?
  • To what extent can a liberal democracy allow for conscientious objectors to public health measures?
  • What is an appropriate punishment for people who – in the form of political protest – break Covid rules on mask-wearing or breach lockdown restrictions?
  • The conscientious objectors we tend to respect from history are those devoid of self-pity – those, like the pacifist philosopher Bertrand Russell, who preferred to go to prison rather than cross a moral red line. Is punishment something conscientious objectors should stoically accept as the price for living in a state that decides its laws democratically?

[Full Text]

Atticus Finch Teaches a Lesson in Conscience Rights

“The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule,” he says in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, “is a person’s conscience.”

National Catholic Register

Andrea Piciotti-Bayer

Atticus Finch Teaches a Lesson in Conscience Rights

When my dearest friend asked me to join her virtual book club, I said “Sure!” She’s the kind of friend for whom I’d walk over broken glass — but, moments after I said yes, I thought to myself: “What was I thinking? I’ve got seven school-aged kids still at home, mountains of laundry to do every day, and a full-time job.”

But, because our friendship means so much to me and I am not one to walk away from a “Sure!”, I’ve stayed in the book club. And I’m glad I did.

Thank goodness for audiobooks. I’ve been able to keep up with the “reading” as I walk the family black Labrador puppy. (Again, what was I thinking?) The third book in our list is To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. I know everybody’s supposed to have read this in high school, but I can’t honestly remember whether I did. For me, Atticus Finch had always been the irresistible Gregory Peck. . . [Full text]