Thursday, September 28, 2006, 03:04 AM - Economy
Sept 27, 2006 Ron Gray - Leader CHP
Kudos to the Tories…
The news tonight (Sept. 25) reports that the Conservative government is going to save a billion dollars by slashing some programs; and that the current budget will yield a surplus of about $13 billion, all of which will go to reducing the national debt.
Good for them!
Among the programs being trashed is the Court Challenges Program. The original concept was not a bad idea: the government would fund Charter Challenges in order to weed out laws that violated citizens’ Charter rights. But the program was captured, early on, by a cabal of left-leaning radical feminists and homosexuals who have abused it to turn our society on its head: proclaiming that evil is good, and good is evil.
When a good idea gets corrupted like that, it’s time for it to go.
The commitment to reduce the national debt is also to be applauded. This government, unlike the Liberals, is not hiding behind a statistical smokescreen that the debt is “a diminishing proportion” of a growing economy. That was always irrelevant in light of the fact that deficit spending, except in a time of emergency, is THEFT: it is stealing money from our children and grandchildren—money they will have to repay in the future—to buy votes today. Liberals and other Socialists see nothing wrong with this kind of theft. But to the Tories’ credit, they have recognized the moral obligation to pay back what the Liberals (and Progressive-Conservatives) stole.
Cicero wrote that democracy works only until people discover that they can vote themselves a share of other people’s wealth—theft by the ballot box.
Applause to the Tory government for reversing that trend!
| permalink
Sunday, September 17, 2006, 10:54 PM - Child Care
UNITED MOTHERS, FATHERS & FRIENDS
NEWSLETTER
September 16, 2006
On September 14, United Mothers announced at a press conference in Calgary the launch of an important new online poll regarding marriage and children’s rights.
“Should Parliament review the definition of marriage in order to fully consider its impact on children’s rights and best interests?”
We need you to cast your vote and invite others to do the same!
Go to: www.VoteMarriage.ca or www.VoteMariage.ca (French).
Our Goal: 100,000 Canadians speaking out for children! This information will be presented to MPs. Let your voice be heard!
“Has Canada Forgotten That Children Have Human Rights?”
Every person who thinks that the marriage issue “has been dealt with and is over,” or that it is an adult human rights issue that doesn’t harm anyone else should read this article.
It is also available at: http://preservemarriage.ca/docs/Marriag ... gotten.pdf
Thank you for speaking out for children!
Michele Dow
PLEASE PRINT AND FORWARD THIS ARTICLE TO OTHERS!
MARRIAGE:
HAS CANADA FORGOTTEN
THAT CHILDREN HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS?
Louis DeSerres
Why is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms silent about children, except with regards to linguistic education?
Why did the Supreme Court, in answering three of the four questions about marriage submitted to it by the Liberal government, not mention children at all?
Is there a more natural, self-evident birthright for a child than to have a mother and a father?
How is it possible that, in the name of equality for adults, our marriage institution can now create a new government-sanctioned minority of fatherless or motherless children?
Children’s Rights
Canada is a signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention affirms that the child shall have "as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents" (Article 7), meaning of course the father and mother who gave him life. Article 3 states that "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by … courts of law … or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
Did our courts and legislators ever test same-sex marriage legislation in the context of the rights of children? We all know that consideration for children and their rights were summarily dismissed, as this was framed strictly as a Charter-based equality issue for adults.
Maybe we can use another country as an example. France, confronted with the same pressures to redefine marriage, decided to review any changes in light of the U.N. Conv! ention on the Rights of the Child.
After a year of study, a 30 member parliamentary commission concluded not to open marriage to same-sex couples, as well as to deny all same-sex couples in civil unions or common-law relationships access to either adoption or medically assisted reproduction. It added that "to systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these (children’s) rights is not possible any more." (Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, National Assembly, France, January 25, 2006)
What is the harm?
Rights are based on the notion that their absence causes harm. For example, our Charter states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
One way to measure the harm is to examine what is lost when heterosexual marriage is replaced by same-sex marriage. For the child, heterosexual marriage has many benefits.
• Heterosexual marriage provides that a child will know and be raised by his own parents.
• Research demonstrates conclusively that heterosexual marriage serves children's best interests.
• Heterosexual marriage provides the child with a natural network of care and support from his immediate and extended biological family.
• Heterosexual marriage sets the foundation for the child to have the same biological, legal and care-giving parents.
• Heterosexual marriage greatly reduces the risk that children or their constituent parts will become commodities deprived of human dignity.
• Heterosexual marriage provides children with a multi-generational sense of identity.
• Children born from heterosexual parents have access to their own genetic heritage for medic! al purposes.
• Defining marriage as between one man and one woman strengthens the judicial protection accorded to children.
• Allowing court-ordered same-sex marriage to prevail creates precedent for further erosion of children's rights.
• Heterosexual marriage protects the filiative rights of all children (the rights that connect a child to his parents).
• Defining heterosexual marriage is an absolutely essential first step in protecting children's rights and best interests.
• Defining heterosexual marriage is insufficient to ensure adequate protection for children's rights and best interests.
• Heterosexual marriage provides a simple and understandable set of norms.
• Heterosexual marriage naturally protects children from potential discrimination because of the sex of their parents.
Can the harm be undone?
When slavery was abolished, all slaves – who up to that time had been treated as mere pr! operty – became free men and women. When women obtained the ri! ght to v ote, the discrimination ended with the very next election.
For children of same-sex parents, the situation is different. Even if the government redefines marriage as between one man and one woman, not a single child born fatherless or motherless within a same-sex marriage will get his missing parent back.
For children, only prevention will protect their rights.
Conclusion
Is it appropriate for our government to be complicit in causing discrimination and creating a new minority of fatherless or motherless children in Canada? To quote a former Prime Minister: "I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law."
Parliament needs to reopen the definition of marriage, to review its impacts on children’s needs and to reinstate their natural right to have a mother and a father.
* * *
This commentary appeared under the title “Rights of children have been overlooked” in the September 2006 issue of The Interim. Sub-headings have been added in this version.
The 14 points listed are discussed in more detail in the testimony given at the Judiciary Commission of the State of Massachusetts earlier this year. Massachusetts is the only state in the U.S. that authorizes same-sex marriages. The testimony can be found at www.preservemarriage.ca/eng/links.htm under the title "How Heterosexual Marriage Protects Children’s Rights and Best Interests".
Louis DeSerres is co-founder and Director of Preserve Marriage – Protect Children’s Rights.
www.preservemarriage.ca
| permalink
Tuesday, September 12, 2006, 10:21 AM - Morality
Traditional Marriage Supporters: There will be a Rally To Reverse Bill C-38
(Same Sex Marriage Bill) on Parliament Hill, Ottawa on September 28, 2006 at
2:00pm
* The Government will be conducting a Free Vote in Parliament on Bill C-38 in
October.
Groups of Ralliers will arrive in Ottawa on Thursday September 28, 2006 at 2:00
pm
We are encouraging Groups from Ottawa and other cities in Canada to arrange
their own Bus Trip or Groups to arrive on Parliament Hill, Ottawa on September
28, 2006 at 2:00pm
Thank You for your Support of Traditional Marriage and helping to defeat a Bill
that promotes decaying morals and values in this society.
Please announce, post or forward this email and attachment.
With God's Help All Things Are Possible
God Bless,
WARREN BOOTH
K. MURRAY
W: www.manandwomanunion.com
E: manwomanunion@yahoo.ca
| permalink
Monday, September 11, 2006, 07:37 PM - Miscellaneous
Here are some responses to what the Conservative Party has accomplished thus far...
Reduction of GST from 7% to 6%
"The Conservative Party's campaign pledge to trim the hated goods and services tax was widely regarded by political pundits as a master stroke that helped the Tories win office, even though economists panned it as the wrong cut to make.
But many Canadians canvassed for the Department of Finance appeared to agree with economists, telling market researchers in focus groups that they felt there were better ways of offering tax relief."
source
The Christian Heritage Party supports the lowering of income tax because the GST reduction benefits only those who have available cash to spend on non-necessities. If all of your money is used to cover food and rent then, you will not be paying any GST because you have bought nothing that would require GST. If you have cash available to spend $1000 on luxuries you will save $10 because of the reduction. Those with the lowest incomes received little or no benefit from the GST reduction.
Child-care
The CHP's Family Friendly Tax Credit would have been of much greater benefit to those with children. It would have provided enough for the one parent to stay home with the children. It would have also allowed for the economic boost should the parent operate a home based business while at home.
Remain in the workforce or stay home and raise your kids.
That's a real choice the CHP offered.
"OTTAWA — The Conservative government's $1,200 child-care payouts are seen as a nice gesture from Ottawa that will ultimately have little impact, according to the government's own public opinion research.
"The general consensus was that the $1,200 will not have any real impact on child-care choices and instead will be used to help with the 'next bill' or with costs associated with extracurricular activities," it states, noting there was criticism that the government will collect tax on the payouts."
""The allowance is not seen as a national child-care solution. While parents may choose how to spend the allowance, it is not sufficient to have an impact upon parents' choices: No one is going to be in a position to go back to work or stay at home to raise children because of the $1,200."
source
The Accountability Bill
Ron Gray, the CHP Leader appeared before a Senate Hearing committee, Sept 7, on Bill C-2, the Accountability Act. Let's hope the wisdom that he offers them will truly be considered.
| permalink
Monday, September 11, 2006, 02:14 AM - Miscellaneous
As we prepare for another session of Parliament, let’s take a good look to see what the Conservative Party is bringing to the table.
They are addressing whether to address revisiting Bill C38. Not quite what we were promised, but I’ll take what we can get. Peter VanLoan (MP York-Simcoe) has assured me he will vote to revisit Bill C38. Thank you, Peter!
They are in the early stages of Senate reform, I like that.
They have not suggested they will look at judicial activism and, considering the treatment Maurice Vellacott received, I don’t think we’ll be looking at that any time soon. We continue to suffer under a Parliament that abdicates their responsibility to govern and passes it on to unelected representatives. This is unacceptable!
Their budget was a great disappointment to me. If we continue repaying our debt at the $3 million dollars annually they intend to put towards it, it’ll be over 170 years before it’s repaid. My daughter is less than impressed to be mortgaged for her lifetime, as I’m sure her children will be, and their children and their children and..... Compare that to the CHP plan to deal with our debt in the same way as a homeowner deals with their mortgage, make monthly payments and reduce the debt so succeeding generation don’t have to pay for our lavish lifestyle of a few years ago.
What about electoral reform? It doesn’t look like that’s going anywhere anytime soon.
We’ll have to wait and see what does and doesn’t make it into Parliament this session. But, I anticipate seeing some positive action on the issues this country faces.
| permalink
Monday, August 28, 2006, 12:09 PM - Morality
The rally in Queen’s Park was well attended. I didn’t count but I expect there were 200-300 people stating their belief that “One man and one woman equals marriage”.
We had many drivers honking their agreement to our message. I only saw one, one-fingered salute. It was interesting to note that Toronto cabbies were a large number of those in agreement with our message.
We were joined by a ‘bride and groom’ who picked up a couple of children along the way and took a very central position. It was a very clear message.
I was surprised to learn, as I handed out pamphlets, that you are not allowed to pamphlet. I hope the officer read the information which was a Communique from Ron Gray.
It is anticipated that in October Parliament will be discussing whether they are going to discuss Bill C38. If you wish petitions to circulate among your friends, please contact me or groups such as Defend Marriage. Contacting your MP is an excellent way to voice your support for re-opening the discussion.
| permalink
Back Next
