Wednesday, October 25, 2006, 06:14 PM - Morality
Oct 25, 2006 Ron Gray - Leader CHP
Rory Leishman’s call to arms
Rory Leishman, who appears weekly in the London Free Press, is one of Canada’s most astute observers of the social scene. Erudite and thoughtful, his comments are always worth reading.
Recently, however, Mr. Leishman’s column was suppressed by the ‘Free’ Press. “Free”, I guess, as long as it’s politically correct. He had written critically about a play in which the lead actress appeared on stage stark naked. His “offense”, according to the editor, was that he had no seen the play—although the editor acknowledged that the nudity occurred as reported. The nudity was, of course, one of the big attractions.
In the closing sentence of his column, (reproduced below), Leishman wrote:
"Decent citizens can make a more concerted effort to support principled politicians who combine a sincere and enlightened compassion for all their constituents with a clear understanding of the difference between right and wrong, and a firm determination to combat the usurpation of legislative power by the amoral and transgressive elitists who predominate on the Supreme Court of Canada." [emphasis added]
But which politicians have shown such determination?
Only the CHP!
Only the CHP has persistently advanced a plan to restrain judicial activism while preserving judicial independence: this Party has repeatedly proposed that Parliament should create a Standing Committee on the Judiciary with authority to review court decisions on the sole grounds of constitutionality; and with the authority to approve or reject proposed appointments to the bench, and to impeach judges for moral turpitude, bias, corruption or neglect. And we said the legislation creating the SCJ should be sheltered under Section 33, the “notwithstanding” clause.
The Supreme Court has declared war on Parliament, but the politicians we have been sending to Parliament up until now simply don’t have the moral vision or the courage to fight back and defend their constitutionally exclusive authority to write Canada’s laws.
At the recent Calgary Congress, the CHP’s plan was praised by constitutional counsel Burton Kellock as “perhaps the most important question this conference will address.”
The CHP has been putting forward this idea for more than four years. We first offered it to the Official Opposition at Ottawa (at that time, the Canadian Alliance Party, which has since been co-opted by the old P-Cs). They did nothing—not even the courtesy of a reply.
We also put it before the then-Justice Minister and the then-Prime Minister. They sent form letters.
But no MP has been willing to consider it. Why not? Because they’re afraid the media might call them names.
That’s the reason the Canadian Alliance turfed MP Larry Spencer for telling the truth about homosexuality (you can read the whole story in his book, Truth or Politics?, available at www.truthorpolitics.com). That’s also why the “new” Conservatives killed Bill C-291, the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act”—a private member’s bill proposed by their own Alberta MP, Leon Benoit!
The CHP’s plan would achieve two important goals: it would make the courts obey the Canadian Constitution; and it would restore a right which Canadians had from Confederation to 1947: the right to appeal Supreme Court decisions.
Supreme Court judges can make bad decisions. In spite of Beverley McLachlin’s fulsome self-praise in New Zealand a year ago, they are only fallible human beings.
One such wrong decision was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Taney’s 1851 ruling, that people of African origin were “not persons”. A similar absurdity was the Canadian Supreme Court’s 1927 ruling that women were “not persons”. Both rulings were overturned: the SCOC’s ruling against women was reversed by an appeal to the Privy Council; lacking such an appeal mechanism in the U.S., Taney’s diktat had to be overturned by a civil war.
We must have such an appeal mechanism—the capacity for the electorate to tell the judges they’re wrong—because, as the late President John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent change inevitable.”
There remains a backlog of Supreme Court absurdities to be appealed. The most important of theses is the idea that a pre-born baby is “not a person” until it has fully emerged from the birth canal. That legal lunacy allows atrocities like partial-birth abortion. Another moral transgression is the Canadian Supreme Court’s Labaye decision, referred to below.
It’s time for pro-moral Canadians to stop pinning faint hope on politicians who take their votes for granted. Political strategists in the “big” parties apparently think pro-moral Canadians, who regard innocent human life and the traditional family as sacred, have nowhere else to go. Until they understand that decent citizens do have another party to represent them, and until pro-moral Canadians are willing to switch their votes, the comfortable “Conservatives” will not defend these core causes.
Here is PART OF Rory Leishman’s excellent column that was censored by the “Free” Press:
Following the tawdry example of theatres in England and the United States, London’s Grand Theatre is luring customers with a play featuring a lead actress who appears stark naked on the stage.
Count this as another sign of the escalating degradation of our Judeo-Christian civilization.
Just a few years ago, such a shameless performance would not have occurred, even in one of the city’s seedier strip clubs, because the offending actress and the club’s managers would have been liable to be charged under section 167 of the Criminal Code with presenting “an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation in a theatre”—an indictable offence punishable by up to two years in prison.
What has happened in the meantime? Has Parliament repealed section 167 of the Criminal Code? Not at all. The law is still on the books. The problem in this, as in so many other instances, is that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided not to uphold the law as enacted and originally understood…
Ever-more-flagrant exhibitions of sexual promiscuity have coarsened our entire culture to the point that many husbands and wives—who would not have dreamed of entering a relatively tame strip club 30 years ago—now sit complacently through a far more graphic presentation of lewd conduct in the Grand Theatre.
And that’s not the worst of it. Only the naïve can suppose that there is no connection between a rising tolerance for obscenity and the epidemic of fornication, adultery and divorce that has undermined the stability of that most fundamental of social institutions, the natural family.
What can be done? There is one obvious remedy: Decent citizens can make a more concerted effort to support principled politicians who combine a sincere and enlightened compassion for all their constituents with a clear understanding of the difference between right and wrong, and a firm determination to combat the usurpation of legislative power by the amoral and transgressive elitists who predominate on the Supreme Court of Canada.
WELL SAID!
| permalink
Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 08:14 PM - Morality
Some of the comments that go with this story bring out a very valid point. A point which the CHP works to bring home to Canadians.
In our very material society, raising children has taken a back seat to financial matters. The state encourages us through incentives and penalties, such as the refusal to allow income sharing for married couples, to leave our children in government run daycare and government run schools.
These daycares/schools do not, and may not, teach the values that are part of our heritage.
Parents are increasingly helpless against state interference in training their children in traditional ways.
The end result is helpless parents, valueless children, and violent acts perpetrated by out of control youth whose parents are encouraged by the state to leave raising the kids to others while they contribute to the gross domestic product.
You cannot remove value training from children and expect them to grow up with values.
You cannot put monetary gain above training children and expect the children to feel loved and secure.
You cannot blame poverty for all social ills. There are many people in greater poverty .... starving in fact.... who would not behave in this way.
It's time to get the state out of our homes and back where government belongs. In cases of demonstrable abuse then yes the state should get involved but the witch hunt that has continued for many years seeking to usurp parental authority is not good for our social order.
This is not a result of financial poverty, it's the result of moral poverty. Let's enrich this country again by instilling tried and true Christian values into our children.
Please note that I did not say government should make everyone a Christian, if that were possible. I spoke of values and our heritage.
Let's not get confused about the role of government in the home and church.
| permalink
Friday, October 6, 2006, 01:36 AM - Justice
Amid the furor over whether or not there is a “Defence of Religions Act”, we seem to have forgotten one question. ‘Is there a need to protect religions?’
As we look to such examples as Chris Kempling charged three times with human rights violations. 1) Once for offering his professional opinion as both a psychologist and teacher in a letter to the editor. 2) As a candidate for the CHP providing a newspaper with the Party policy on same sex ‘marriage’. 3) As a private citizen giving a workshop on same sex matters, far from his hometown at a mountain retreat.
Hugh Owens, who paid for an ad in a newspaper depicting two stick men holding hands in a red circle with a line through it. This was accompanied by a text from Scripture. He has finally been justified by the courts but at a large financial cost to him.
Scott Brockie, who declined to print material for a homosexual lobby group, remains convicted for declining their patronage.
Bishop Fred Henry although the charges were later withdrawn was charged under human rights violations for writing a letter to his congregants.
Dagmar and Arnost Cepica lost their human rights case for refusing to allow a homosexual couple to stay at their bed & breakfast.
This is just a few of the people who have been denied their right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Do Canadians need their rights protected by special legislation?
The evidence would say that they do!
| permalink
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
Back Next
