| by Ron Gray|
Let me say at the outset that I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet; but sometimes I can read some of the handwriting on the wall: There may well be a federal election this Spring.
The Liberals’ strategy of hiding in the bushes cannot continue forever. And the most likely strategy of the Ignatieff cabal is to precipitate a defeat under Stephan Dion’s leadership as the first stage in a palace revolt.
Will a Spring election give the Conservatives their majority? Probably not. As the Harper government gains support from disaffected Liberals by avoiding the moral issues, it is at the same time alienating its social conservative base. Many Christians—those who are pro-life and pro-family—will stay home if they think they don’t have an alternative place to park their vote.
For us in the CHP, that means we must build new Electoral District Associations and raise new candidates. Right now, we offer a moral alternative in about one-fifth of Canada’s federal ridings. That must increase—dramatically.
It’s interesting to re-read the words of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing a majority decision about the role of smaller political parties in our democracy: "The ability of a party to make a valuable contribution is not dependent upon its capacity to offer the electorate a genuine “government option”. Political parties have a much greater capacity than any one citizen to participate in debate and they act as a vehicle for the participation of individual citizens in the political life of the country. All political parties are capable of introducing unique interests and concerns into the political discourse and marginal or regional parties tend to raise issues not adopted by national parties."
Even without any elected MPs (yet), the CHP has had an impact on federal politics. And now that the Green Party calls itself “the smallest of the big parties”, the CHP is the biggest of the small parties. And growing!
More important, the CHP is the only federal party that brings these important policy issues into the national dialogue about what kind of nation we’ll leave for our children:
• The sanctity of life: only the CHP proposes adoption instead of abortion, and opposes euthanasia.
• The sanctity of marriage: only the CHP continues to oppose the Liberals’ illegitimate imposition of same-sex “marriage” on an unwilling nation.
• Only the CHP advocates Canada leading a global drive for abolition of slavery by limiting trade with nations that allow the use of slave and exploitative child labour.
• Only the CHP has a plan for defending democracy and the Constitution against judicial activism.
• Only the CHP has a child-care plan focused on strengthening families.
• Only the CHP has a plan for increased productivity through labour peace.
• Only the CHP has proposals for making home ownership accessible to more Canadian families.
• And among federal political parties, only the CHP has spoken against the STD vaccination program that makes guinea pigs of young girls. These are only the highlights of the many policy distinctives that set the CHP apart from the other 15 or so federal political parties. Behind them all is one dramatic difference:
• Only the CHP has shown it believes in the Constitutional statement that
“Canada was founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of
God and the rule of law.” That’s what will carry us forward into this coming year.
And I hope to see you at the CHP convention in Regina in November!
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
| by John Williamson, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation |
Who Pays and who gets to keep the money
It is conceivable a sound argument could be made that bands such as this one need cash to develop economic infrastructure and help its members. And perhaps there is even value in the federal government diverting tax collected on reserves to band governments to establish the important principal that natives ought to pay taxes. But the tax requirements under this agreement are not limited to natives. Instead, federal taxes paid by non-natives living on the Tsawwassen reserve will also go the band government.
Incredibly, these same taxpayers will not be permitted to vote in band elections, which mean they will lose the mechanism to remove lawmakers that waste money. Non-native citizens will suddenly become disenfranchised legal aliens, permitted to stay but without a direct say in the management of their tax dollars. This is hardly an exaggeration – the term our government bureaucrats use in native agreements to describe these non-natives is “non-citizens.” It is a disgrace public servants engage in these linguistic gymnastics to placate the cant of native sovereignty.
Ottawa’s department of Indian affairs and B.C. treaty negotiators also suppose the ability to tax “serves as a means of government accountability.” They skip over the caveat that this statement is only true if citizens have an ability to remove government officials. Without that there is no real accountability – any despot can tax. A government is responsible only when it is answerable to the public.
The Tsawwassen agreement will instill little accountability on the band council. According to The Delta Optimist, the 2006 Census showed of the 674 people living on this reserve 506 were non-natives. The band is already salivating over the fact it will collect $3 from non-voting, non-citizens for every $1 it taxes from people it considers bona fide citizens (i.e. natives). This is not about self-sufficiency but skewering a new cash cow.
Conservative MP John Cummins (Delta-Richmond East) has reviewed the Tsawwassen tax agreements in advance of the treaty vote in Parliament. His findings have generated little interest. This treaty should be unacceptable to anyone committed to democracy, yet the Parliament of Canada is fixated on the Mulroney-Schreiber saga.
Winston Churchill once said democracy is the worse form of government, except for all the others. Does the federal government think he was wrong?
If you are supportive of this commentary, please consider becoming a supporter of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and add your voice to the campaign for lower taxes, less waste and more accountable government. Click here to become a supporter.
For further information contact:
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Listen to the interview here---Audio only--plays instantly
Watch the complete broadcast on video---Takes about 5 minutes to download on High Speed
Ron Gray Legal Defence Fund
Money will be needed for court costs and legal expenses. We’re asking every Canadian who believes in freedom and Biblical morality to help. As in all cases of this nature, taxpayers are forced to fund the case for the complainant but those who wish to defend freedom in Canada must pay their own costs. All donations to Ron’s legal defence fund, of any size, are important.
Ron Gray Legal Defence Fund Please send cheques to:
Please send cheques to:
c/o Ronald McDonald Law Office
406 Stafford Dr
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Does a registered federal political party have a right to promote the policies it has held for 20 years?
Background: the BC Ministry of Education, in cooperation with Attorney General Wally Oppal, made a deal with two homosexual teachers (Corren and Corren), which gave the two men unprecedented influence over the development of new curricula for use in BC schools. The following commentary points out several obvious problem passages for family-values advocates.
The following comments on the proposed Social Justice 12 “Integrated Resource Package” (Curriculum) are merely specific points in regard to this blatant attempt by the BC government to introduce significant philosophical changes to current public school curricula.
These changes lack the warrant of proper public dialogue, and do not conform to the specific wording of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and fail the dictates of common sense.
These changes, initiated by the Corren Settlement Agreement, whereby two citizens have been given disproportionate influence over the curricula of the BC Education system, seem designed primarily to foster change in the sexual attitudes and lifestyle choices of young people.
P. 37 contains an attack on “religion” as a negative influence on public policies and practice; then encourages thinking based on this premise and lays a groundwork for the dismissal of policies “originating” from these beliefs.
P. 38 throws “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into a list of other personal identification characteristics, and suggests that these newly-contrived aspects of personhood might lead to marginalization or oppression, thus eliciting from sincere students a desire to become “agents of change”.
P. 39 injects further “moral impetus” for students to work to create new protected categories, insinuated by the authors, such as “addictions, secular worldviews (merely another form of religion that denies a personal God) and the environment (clearly a call for students to jump on Al Gore’s bandwagon).”
P. 41 clearly places all gender-orientation issues (personal lifestyle choices) in the same category as race and gender in terms of potential discrimination. This is contrary to logic.
The endless appeal to victimhood is not justified by history.
P.42 is full of heavily propagandized language designed to move students towards a worldview different than that of their parents and the historical and cultural roots of our nation. Prostitution (“sex-trade”) and animals are loosely thrown into a discussion purported to be about human rights as protected under Canada’s Charter. The assumption that all lifestyle choices—such as prostitution—are of equal value, and that animals should be protected by the Charter, are imaginative positions inconsistent with logic and history.
The authors go far beyond any legitimate effort to encourage students’ thinking, and here show that their true intent is to tell students HOW and WHAT they should think.
Finally, the invitation for students to write a positive commentary on how the Civil Marriage Act (the 2005 endorsement of same-sex marriage forced upon Canadians by a partially ‘whipped’ vote [Cabinet ministers were not allowed to vote their conscience]) “promotes social justice.” This is clearly not meant to lead to an open-ended discussion of the Act, its pros and cons, but an endorsement of same-sex “marriage”. Note that the invivation is only for positive comments; the possibility that students might be aware of negative social consequences flowing from this Act is excluded. That exclusion typifies the one-sidedness of this IRP.
All the above, which barely scrapes the surface of this terrible piece of work, should be sufficient to send this draft curriculum AND the companion curriculum “Making Space, Giving Voice” the overbroad and under-thought K-12 equivalent, back to the drawing board.
Family-values advocates, who actually represent a large segment of BC’s population, should be involved in the draft FROM the BEGINNING (real input) not merely be given a token opportunity to respond after the damage is done.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
by Colin Mason Population Research Institute
Colin Mason is the Director for Media Production at PRI.
Sign up for the Weekly Briefing Here
The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human
PRI, PO Box 1559, Front Royal, VA 22630 USA Phone: 540-622-5240
Monday, December 03, 2007
A really inconvenient truth: Divorce is not green. Dec. 3, 2007
EAST LANSING, Mich. — The data are in. Divorce is bad for the environment.
A novel study that links divorce with the environment shows a global trend of soaring divorce rates has created more households with fewer people, has taken up more space and has gobbled up more energy and water. The findings of Jianguo “Jack” Liu and Eunice Yu at Michigan State University are published in this week’s online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...Posted on Solarion by RavenII Read the whole article
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Christian Heritage Party investigated for writings about homosexuality
Canada's Christian Heritage Party and its leader, Ron Gray, are being taken to the Canadian Human Rights Commission over commentary and opinion related to how the government and society should treat homosexuality. And Gray says he's been told directly by an employee of the Human Rights Commission that the Canadian Human Rights Act is "about censorship".
Complaint centres in part on re-posting of 5-year old WorldNetDaily.com news article
An Edmonton man, Rob Wells, has filed three complaints against Gray and his party. Two of them relate to the reposting of an item first published on WorldNetDaily.com back in April of 2002; an article written by Jon Dougherty entitled "Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays' - Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture". The third complaint is against Ron Gray personally for several commentaries he wrote and distributed to party members. One of those commentaries, entitled "Sitcom prophet", likened the current climate of debate about homosexuality in Canada to the "Cone of Silence" in the 1960's-era television situation comedy "Get Smart", where the two leading characters would isolate themselves in a room where no-one could hear them, but they couldn't hear one another either. Gray wrote in the commentary that: "The problem with Canada's 'Cone of Silence' over the issue of homosexuality is that, like the security device in 'Get Smart', the inevitable result is that no one can communicate anything - and even the truth gets silenced."
In an exclusive interview with noapologies.ca, Ron Gray says the complaints filed against him and his party allege they are "motivated by hate, and defaming homosexual persons."
Ron Gray: "Commission employee told me: 'Canadian Human Rights Act is about censorship.'"
And, he says, when he had a conversation with a Commission employee, mediator Bob Fagan, about the specifics of the allegation, he was astonished at what he heard. "I told him that it seemed to be an abuse of the Human Rights Act for someone to try and use it as an instrument of censorship. And when I said that, on the phone, there was a pause and then he said, in a somewhat astonished tone: 'But the Human Rights Act is about censorship'. Then it was my turn to be silent on my end, because I found that breath-taking. For the Human Rights Commission's own mediator to acknowledge that censorship was the purpose of their Act."
Gray: "Charge me under the Criminal Code; I'm perfectly willing to risk going to jail."
And Gray says as fas as the "hate motivation" is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth. "I would contend", he says, "that Christians are the best friends homosexuals have because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives." Gray also says he'd be much happier fighting this battle in a regular court rather than before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, where the usual rules of evidence don't apply. "If (Mr. Wells) truly believes I am motivated by hate, his complaint should not be before the Human Rights Commission. He should charge me under Section 319 of the Criminal Code (of Canada). That carries with is the possiblity of two years in jail, but in defence of the (free speech) rights of Canadians I am perfectly willing to risk going to jail."
We'll have the full interview with Ron Gray on our "week in review" program this weekend.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Prince Rupert, BC
When I was in the Yukon doing some evangelistic work in the year 2000, I was suddenly awakened about 4:30 or 5:00 in the morning by a voice that was speaking into my spirit; and it proceeded as such:
He said son, “What does the Yukon mean to you”? And as if I knew the answer I replied, “Gold. The Yukon is known for its gold.” And He said “Yes, and what does gold mean to you?” I replied, “Purity.” And He said,” That’s right!”
And then He said, “Go on. What is the next province?” I said, “BC.“ And he said, “What does BC mean to you?” I said, “BC, as far as I know, is known for its huge timber.” And He said, “Yes. Go to the mountain and get timber to build my temple.”
And then he went on to say, “What’s next?” I said, “Alberta.” And I heard Him say. “Yes, go on, what is Alberta known for?” I said, ”Alberta is known for its oil!” And his response was, “That is correct. And what does oil mean to you?” I said, “It means the anointing of God.”
By now I was getting a picture in my mind’s eye of what He was feeding into my spirit.
He was saying, “Through the purity of God is built the temple of God and through the purity of the temple of God flows the anointing of God.”
Then he continued on by asking, “What is the next province?” And I said “Saskatchewan.” Then He asked me. “What does Saskatchewan, bring to your mind?” And I said, “The image that comes to mind is wheat.” And his response was, “That’s right, and what does wheat refer to?” And I replied, “Wheat refers to the bread basket of Canada and also the anointed word of God.”
So we went on to the next province, Manitoba, and he said, “What comes to your mind about Manitoba?” And I responded to his question, “I see in my mind an image of a buffalo on a flag.” “And what does the buffalo mean to you?” He asked. And I replied, “ It signifies the power of God and growth through the word of God.”
Then we proceeded on to the province where Canada is governed from, Ontario. And He said “What does Ontario mean to you?” And my spirit spoke and said, “It stands for the government of Canada, governed by the pure word of God. “That is correct”, He said.
Then we moved from the governing province on to Quebec and He questioned me again. “What does this province mean to you?” And the words rang out of my spirit that the French people are known for “love” and love speaks of God’s love for the lost through the word of God.
Then he asked, “What are the last three provinces?” And in return I said. “They are the Maritime provinces.” “And what do they mean to you?” He asked. I said what comes into my spirit is this: “They represent the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit at the Eastern gate.” (The gospel first came from the East to the West).
There was then a brief moment of silence and He said. “There is more.” Then it came into my spirit, and I replied, “Yes there is the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. He said. “Yes, and what does the Northwest Territories mean to you, and what significance does it have in relationship to God?” And again it came into my spirit first of all: “Didn’t they just find diamonds in the Northwest Territories?” And I said. “Yes, and it is now well known for its diamonds and the diamonds in the spirit refers to the sovereignty of God and all His glory.”
Last of all was Nunavat, the newest territory of Canada and all that could come to my mind was ice as in a desert place. And then I heard in my spirit, “What is ice made from?” And I said “Water?” He said, “That’s right! And what is happening up there now?” I said, “As far as I know the ice is melting.” And again He said, “That’s right, and what does water refer to in the word of God?” And my spirit said, “The flowing of the Holy Ghost through the word of God for Canada.”
Therefore He summed it up as such:
The Word of God over Canada.
- Through the purity of God comes the temple of God.
- Through the temple of God flows the anointing of God.
- Through the anointing of God comes the Word of God.
- Through the word of God comes the power of God.
- Through the power of God comes the love of God through the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit through the Eastern gate.
- And finally, the sovereignty of God hovering over Canada through the Holy Ghost.
Canada! “Be ye holy as I am holy.”
All this transpired in a very short time in the dim light of the morning. He spoke to me in a language that I could understand and I write it in the same manner---very simple!
I received this message in the year 2000 and the message rings clear as the day that it was birthed into my spirit on that cold dim morning in the Yukon Territory in the land of the midnight sun.
Pastor Charlie Carlick
530 6th Ave West
Prince Rupert, BC
October 17, 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
A group of concerned citizens calling itself Friends of the Family Farm met at the Old Church in Smithers, BC on Saturday, October 27 to discuss the future of the family farm in the wake of provincial legislation aimed at eliminating "Farm Gate" sales and uninspected abbatoir (slaughtering) operations.
The group, composed of market gardeners, livestock producers, human rights advocates, abbatoir operators, consumers and advocates of personal freedom are concerned that such a restrictive approach to commerce between neighbours will limit their ability to purchase food for their families from trusted local sources. Additional concerns focused on exorbitant costs and liabilities with farmers being forced to invest unrealistic amounts of money into equipment, transportation and staffing. These costs are seen as prohibitive to new producers and discouraging to those currently in the business. The group sees a reduction in local production as inevitable unless the current legislation is modified.
A cheerful and cooperative atmosphere accompanied the meeting and as it was noted, the participants came from a diversity of philosophical backgrounds and experience. The shared concerns highlighted the broad-based ideals of personal freedom, enterpreneurial indepedence and the health and well-being of the family .
After covering the issue from a variety of angles, the group agreed to pursue a cohesive thrust by helping to form a network with other organizations with similar objectives and concerns which have sprung up around the province. The group plans to encourage the provincial government to include limits of scale in the legislation, ensuring public safety in the large-scale operations which provide food for most BC urban dwellers while incorporating the freedom of consumers to purchase locally-grown meat and produce from trusted sources. The farm-gate sale of produce has not been legislated but attendees agreed that if meat regulations were allowed to stand, the regulation and mandatory inspection of green leafy vegetables would not be far behind.
Members of the public who wish to support this initiative to preserve consumer choice and protect the small-scale family farm are encouraged to contact Rod Taylor (847-3990) in Smithers. Letters to your MLA are also in order. A website will soon be established and educational materials will be made available. It is expected that once the public understands the implications of this legislation, widespread opposition will be evident in both urban and rural areas because of the loss of consumer choice.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
As reported by the CBC, Unicef spokesmen are raising the alarm over the dangers faced by Afghan children by bombing, suicide attacks and starvation. Strangely, for all their apparent concern for the safety of children, Unicef supports and promotes around the world the deliberate killing of children by abortion.
This schizophrenic approach to the issues of life and death has well-meaning schoolchildren in the US and Canada trick-or-treating for Unicef to help starving children, while the organization embraces brutal population control measures and promotes the taking of innocent human life.
Readers are encouraged to seek out other humanitarian organizations to support---ones which don't condone the killing of innocent children.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Ron Gray, leader of the Christian Heritage Party, told Broadcast Arbitrator Peter S. Grant that allocating broadcast time according to past election results violates principles in a Supreme Court decision.
That decision, in a successful suit by the Communist Party of Canada against the 50-candidate rule in the Elections Act four years ago, rested on an interpretation of Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which protects political rights of citizens.
"It has become apparent," Gray said, "that the parties now in Parliament intend to continue to abuse the law-making authority given to them by the people of Canada, in order to retain power and privilege for
The CHP and five other smaller parties noted that changes to election financing rules have made it much more difficult for parties outside Parliament to raise funds—and at the same time give the four parties now
in Parliament $30 million a year of taxpayers’ money to fund their re-election campaigns.
Recently an Ontario court rejected the 2% and 5% threshold rules for access to public funding injected into the Elections Act by the former Liberal government’s Bill C-24; but the Conservative government has
appealed that decision. Gray said that appeal reveals "a continuation of the ‘fortress mentality’ of the four parties already in the House."
The CHP has, for a decade, proposed an alternative mode of public funding that would place the disposition of public funds in the hands of the electorate. This plan was presented to Parliament by the former
Chief Elections Officer, but was rejected by the Standing Committee on Elections and Procedures.
"Similar distortions of fairness have also plagued access to broadcast advertising," said Gray. "However, the Elections Act gives a degree of flexibility to the Broadcast Arbitrator, and that flexibility has, in
the recent past, been exercised with a view to leveling, to the limited extent the Act allows, the playing field.
"But much more is required."
The CHP, supported by all but one of the other extra-parliamentary parties at the meeting, asked the Broadcast Arbitrator "to appeal past partisan interests to the better natures of Canada’s MPs, asking them to
place the public good above partisan advantage."
The broadcast provisions of the Elections Act and its election financing provisions must be amended, they said, giving priority to the voters’ right to information priority, rather than advantage for the parties in
"The primary objective of all the regulations that bear upon financing and media access must be this," Gray said:"Voters have an absolute right to have full access to adequate information about all the electoral options available to them."
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Pressure is mounting to have Al Gore's Oscar taken back after a British High Court ruling found 11 serious inaccuracies in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth. "
British High Court judge Michael Burton ruled Wednesday Gore's documentary should be shown in British schools only with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination. The decision followed a lawsuit by a father, Stewart Dimmock, who claimed the film contained "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush."
Muriel Newman, director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, had this to say about Gore's Oscar: "The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism. Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not."
The British judge ruled that when public school teachers show this highly political and highly controversial film to schoolchildren they must make it clear that the film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. They also must point out these eleven inaccuracies contained in the film.
The inaccuracies, according to the court, are:
- The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found that the film was misleading: Over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
- The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
- The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: In fact four polar bears drowned, and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
- The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into an ice age: The Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
- The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
- The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt, causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
- The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
- The film suggests that sea levels could rise by seven meters, causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact, the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimeters over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
- The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
In a blatant snub of candidates running for the Family Coalition Party in the Ontario election, graphics designed to show the percentage of votes garnered by each party showed no colour whatsoever for the FCP candidates, even when they were leading over other candidates. Family-values politicians are used to being misquoted, ignored and maligned but the biased views of the CTV in this case were so blatant as to cause jaws to drop.
Check it out:
Early in the evening, FCP candidate David MacDonald had more than twice as many votes as Jean-Sarge Brisson but got no colour bar.
Before results began to come in, all candidates in Ottawa West-Nepean had a thin line of colour except for FCP candidate John Pacheco, shown in last place.
After he moved out of last place, he still had no colour. Why not? Bias.
FCP Party Leader, Giuseppe Gori had 1.5% of the vote early in the evening but got no colour recognition from CTV.
Big Blue Wave blogger and FTP candidate, Suzanne Fortin, got a number but no colour.
Before the numbers began rolling in, Bill Murphy was denied a colour bar and placed at the bottom of the list. He climbed to 1.9% but got no colour recognition.
The media snubs may not have affected the practical outcome but certainly contribute to a less-than-fair picture of poll results. When will the media begin playing fair? They rank second only to the courts when it comes to spinning reality according to their biases.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
“The wheels of Justice turn slowly,” says the adage. But are they turning at all? Or are they turning in the right direction?
Most Canadians recognize that there are holes in our court system, that victims are falling through the cracks and criminals are getting away with murder (literally). But what is at the root of this decay? What factors have led to our being handcuffed to a system that consistently disappoints?
All human beings long for justice, true justice. From schoolyard squabbles to ubiquitous divorce proceedings to high-profile murder cases, the desire to see the good-hearted citizen rewarded and the mean-spirited criminal punished is universal. Of course, there is a great deal of disagreement about who is the virtuous one and who is the guilty party. The ability to sort that out, based on evidence, is the essence of “judging” in any dispute. The ability to adequately judge depends on fair and unbiased assessment of:
- Historical facts---what happened?
- Motives---what was intended?
- Existing law---is the situation under consideration specifically described in the Constitution or legislation?
- Historical precedent----how does this case compare to similar cases and judgments?
Certain other rules have come to surround the process for the protection of personal rights, especially the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. These would include the following:
- The right to trial by peers
- The right to counsel
- The right to security of the person---things like the requirement for a search warrant to prevent frivolous or malicious incrimination by police officers
Other encumbrances or encrustations have built up over time which have done little for the cause of justice but to have hindered its application. These could be characterized by:
- Inordinate and inappropriate delays in the hearing of evidence and the rendering of judgment
- The micro-selection of jurors by the defence so as to guarantee a biased jury
- The inadmissability of critical evidence, even when it is obvious to all parties that the evidence is pertinent to the case
- The routine reduction of time served compared to sentence
These factors have combined to create the impression and the reality that in many cases justice has not been the result , even after years have been eaten up and countless dollars expended in its pursuit.
Of all the impediments to true justice, the main culprit (in my opinion) is the glacial pace of proceedings. I was recently reminded of this by my friend’s painful experience at the murder trial of the man accused of killing his brother. The murder took place two years before the trial. All the evidence surrounding the killing was available within the first 24 hours. The only eye-witness of the shooting has since died of natural causes. Her taped call to 911 was disallowed as evidence because she was not able to support it with personal testimony. My question: Why did it take two years to convene a group of citizens to examine the evidence?
The man who pulled the trigger walked from the courtroom with no conviction, no sentence, no restriction. The grief-stricken family of the deceased were dumbfounded, shocked. They experienced waves of an overwhelming feeling of violation by the court system. It is one thing to be assaulted by mindless criminals, to experience the painful awakening to the depths of human cruelty, selfishness and malice. It is an altogether different sort of despair to suddenly realize that the very system meant to hold society accountable and to prevent these types of tragedies is itself complicit in their tragic repetition.
The ancient words of King Solomon ring true. “Because sentences against evil crimes are not carried out promptly, the hearts of the next generation of men become emboldened to commit more such crimes.” Eccles. 8:11
Let’s do something about the costly and unnecessary delays in administering justice in our land! Let’s demand that judges and judicial system bureaucrats stop making excuses for injustice and start to apply the law, equally, fairly and appropriately to reward good behaviour and punish wickedness. The future of our nation and the stability and security of future generations depend on it!
Sunday, September 30, 2007
True to form, the NDP has again put political mischief above Canadian interests on the world stage. NDP defence critic Dawn Black has outraged Afghan officials by suggesting they had to rely on Canadians to author Afghan President Hamid Karzai's speech to the Canadian Parliament.
NDP Leader Jack Layton used the spin that his meeting with Karzai last year had included discussions on the need for negotiations but since Karzai did not mention that in his speech there must be pressure from the PMO not to allude to that in his comments.
Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, says an apology is in order and that the NDP "does not understand how diplomatic relations, bilateral relations and arrangements for a visit work".
For cheap political points, the NDP has insulted our allies and tried to smear Canadian Defence staff. I guess that's why they call them "the Opposition". If only they would work as hard at undermining terrorists as they do undermining the efforts of our troops! Instead they encourage terrorists by bringing their petty political attacks onto the world stage. Anyone who entrusts them with confidential information about Canada's strategies and intentions is throwing gasoline on the fire of international terrorism, suicide bombings and brutal tyranny.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
PRESS RELEASE Friday, September 28, 2007 issued by:
MUN for LIFE
Memorial University of Newfoundland Students for Life
Telephone: 709-579-1500 Toll Free: 877-997-LIFE Fax: 709-579-3818 Email: MUNforLIFE@gmail.com
On Wednesday, September 26, the Memorial University of Newfoundland Students’ Union Board of
Directors (MUNSU) met for its regularly scheduled meeting. One of the highlights of the agenda was
the proposal to ratify, or give official club status to, Memorial University of Newfoundland Students for
Life (MUN for LIFE). When it came to this point the meeting, everyone was hesitant to speak. The
chair asked for a motion to approve and one was not tabled. A motion to deny was put forth and the
flood gates holding back the conversation opened wide. Every speaker, except for one, identified
themselves as pro-choice and echoed the comments of the previous speakers. The motion to deny
ratification passed nearly unanimous. MUSNU signaled the death of free speech on a university
The dominate arguments brought by MUNSU personalities to deny MUN for LIFE their rights were 1)
MUNSU is a local of the pro-choice Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) 2) MUNSU could not
ratify a group in opposition to its beliefs.
If MUNSU only ratifies groups that it agrees with, why is it that an assortment groups with competing
ideologies are listed on their website. For example, there are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Pagan
groups. There are Progressive Conservative, Liberal, and New Democratic groups. Surely, MUNSU can
not agree with every one of these groups. If MUNSU can grant ratification to these groups, it should be
able to allow MUN for LIFE its democratic and university rights to free speech.
If CFS is an obstacle, why it is that a number of other CFS locals have pro-life groups? A small
example of these would be the Universities of British Columbia, Toronto, Dalhousie, Carleton, and
Saskatchewan. Once again, MUNSU is grasping at straws for excuses to silence the voice of the pro-life
movement. MUN for LIFE members have paid CFS and MUNSU union dues and must now be granted
their rights to free speech and association.
In November 2006 the Carleton University Students’ Association passed a motion to silence pro-life
student groups on their campus. As a result, Carleton Lifeline’s ratification was placed in jeopardy. A
heated debate, which attracted national media coverage, ended in Carleton Lifeline’s membership
increasing and work continuing.
Patrick Hanlon, the President of MUN for LIFE, is encouraging his fellow union members and all
concerned individuals, regardless of their position on life issues, to demand MUNSU to immediately
reverse the decision made at the September 26 meeting. If this decision is not reversed, a dangerous
precedent is set in place for MUNSU, and other Student Unions in Canada, which would allow the
silencing of any other group that a union wishes not to have democratic and university rights.
MUN for LIFE President
P.O. Box 5427, St. John’s, NL A1C 5W2
Affirming the Dignity of the Human Person
To respectfully contact the MUNSU executive and voice your opposition to the decision:
James Farrell, External Director, firstname.lastname@example.org
Bradley Russell, Student Life Director, email@example.com
Stella Magalios, Campaigns Director, firstname.lastname@example.org
Stephanie Power, Advocacy Director, email@example.com
Nick Eisnor, Finance Director, firstname.lastname@example.org
Mail: MUNSU, Suite 2000 - University Centre, MUN, St. John's, NL A1C 5S7
To respectfully express your concerns to the university administration:
Dr. Axel Meisen, President and Vice Chancellor of MUN, email@example.com
Dr. Lilly Walker, Dean of Student Affairs and Services, firstname.lastname@example.org
You may carbon copy or send best wises to:
Patrick Hanlon, MUN for LIFE President, MUNforLIFE@gmail.com
Please forward this message to others who appreciate life, democracy, or free speech
Friday, September 28, 2007
by John Williamson Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Interest savings of $725-million go to future tax relief, but broad-based income tax reductions not on Conservative agenda.
OTTAWA: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) reacted today to the announcement the federal government posted a $14.2-billion surplus in the 2006 fiscal year, considerably higher than its two earlier projections. The 2006 Budget (tabled in May, 2006) originally low-balled the surplus at $3.6-billion and the 2007 Budget (tabled March, 2007) increased that estimate to $9.2-billion. Ottawa missed its original target by almost 400% and its second estimate by more than 50%.
The surplus of $14.2-billion will be used to reduce Canada's debt, bringing it down to $467.3-billion. Today's debt reduction payment will save approximately $725-million in annual interest savings. Under the federal government's new tax-back guarantee law the savings will be used to reduce personal income taxes. To date, the Conservative government has not lowered personal income tax rates, instead it has targeted income tax relief with a number of "boutique" tax reductions that favour some, but not all taxpayers.
"Canadians prefer that governments pass surplus budgets rather than deficit budgets, but this level of surplus is ridiculous. A $14.2-billion surplus means Ottawa is over-taxing Canadians by $14.2-billion. There is no excuse left, except political rhetoric, for Ottawa not to provide personal and business tax relief," said CTF federal director John Williamson. "Annual surpluses represent over-taxation by government and the money should go back to taxpayers by way of income tax relief."
For the Record - Surprise, Surprise:
Last year, when the Conservative government reported the 2005/06 surplus was $13.2-billion, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said, "We're going to budget much closer to the line...No more so-called surprise surpluses at the end of the fiscal year."
"The government has shot its credibility on the surplus and is budgeting like the former Liberal government," concluded Williamson. "The Conservatives downplay their ability to cut taxes, like the Liberals did. They sell massive surpluses as good news, just like the Liberals did. Canadians aren't buying it any more and they recognize they are being gouged by Ottawa."
The CTF anticipates the surplus for the current fiscal year (2007/08) will again exceed $12-billion. The 2007 budget estimated it will be $3.3-billion.
For further information contact:
John Williamson, Federal Director, CTF - Ottawa
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
“We’ve got to accept the fact that the abortion laws aren’t going to change.”
He was wrong. Dead wrong.
But you see, Chuck speaks for a party that is too cowardly and short-sighted to recognize the nation’s urgent need to grasp this difficult issue and deal with it.
A recent report from Statistics Canada warns that Canada’s population is aging much too rapidly. Unless we deal with this issue—soon—Canada faces a bleak future.
But every party now sitting in Parliament is morally crippled by the same lack of courage and vision as the Harper Tories.
It’s ironic that in almost every city in North America, you can rent a car equipped with a GPS locator that will talk to you, and tell you how to find your way to your destination; and we’re on the verge of making cars that will run on hydrogen, so that nothing comes out the exhaust pipe but water vapour. Yet our technologically-advanced society can’t seem to find a more humane way of dealing with unanticipated pregnancies than to butcher babies in the womb!
We’re technological giants—and moral midgets. And our so-called “leaders” are too timid to even discuss the issue. So we kill 110,000 babies a year for the “crime” of being conceived at an inconvenient time—and you and I pay the hired killers with our taxes.
We’re smarter than that. We’re better than that. We must be—or we’ll perish. When our economy comes crashing down around our ears because there are no longer enough young people to sustain it, we’ll richly deserve our fate. That day is coming soon, unless we start electing MPs who have the courage and the common sense to see that those babies represent Canada’s future... to see that we’re killing our future.
So please—think about the things your MPs are afraid to think about. If you believe in God, pray that He’ll give you the courage to do what your MPs are terrified to even think of doing.
Then do what’s right: Join the CHP; support the CHP; vote for the CHP.
The future of Canada depends on people with the courage to face difficult decisions, and not cave in to Political Correctness.
Monday, September 24, 2007
In 1993, Hillary Rodham Clinton, then First Lady of the United States, had a plan to revolutionize health care in this country. To that end, husband Bill named her chairwoman of the "Task Force on National Health Care Reform," a heretofore unprecedented level of official power to be given to any First Lady.
Mrs. Clinton's plan was drastic medicine: the United States government would mandate health insurance for everyone. Those who couldn't pay would have their premiums paid for by the government, that is to say, by the rest of us.
The goal of this heavy-handed manuever was to eliminate America's millions of uninsured. To be fair, it would have probably accomplished this goal, albeit at an astronomical cost to taxpayers and their rights. It also would have eliminated free clinics, the medical services provided at no cost to indigents by the thousands of county hospitals across the United States, and countless charitable activities carried on by private individuals.
Karl Mark and Freidrich Engels:Intellectual revolutionaries, masterminds of socialism, and the spiritual fathers of HillaryCare.
Conservatives dubbed the measure "HillaryCare" and declared that it would socialize medicine. Liberals didn't call it that, but a good number of them believed that it would seriously curtail the freedom to choose one's provider. Pro-lifers saw it as a Trojan Horse for the introduction of taxpayer funded abortions, and the means by which all physicians would be required to either perform, or refer for, abortions.
These grouped joined together to attack the plan. So strong was their collective resistance that not only did HillaryCare 1.0 die an ignominious political death but, through this struggle, the Republicans gained the impetus they needed to take back Congress and eventually the White House.
Over a decade has passed, and now Hillary is running an aggressive campaign to become America's first female president. Once again, government health care is at the top of her agenda. How does HillaryCare 2.0, as it has come to be called, differ from the previous version?
The National Health Service is costly and inefficient, characterized by long waiting periods and outdated treatments.
Mrs. Clinton says she wears the "scars" from her 1993 health care debacle like badges of honor. She claims to have learned a lot from her mistakes. She has adopted a rhetoric of "choice," and speaks of putting the "consumer in the driver's seat." The reality, however, is that HillaryCare 2.0 is the same old plan.
If adopted, the plan will still make health insurance mandatory for all American citizens. It will still destroy the legitimate competition that keeps insurance prices relatively low. And it will still, if Hillary has her way, open the door to government-funded abortions for all.
Moreover, it will cost even more money this time around. Hillary says $110 billion, but this is surely a gross underestimate. Where will the money for this new Clintonian enterprise come from? The pockets of America's middle class, of course.
One has only to look at Great Britain, which has had centralized health care since 1947, to understand where HillaryCare 2.0 will lead us. The National Health Service is costly and inefficient, characterized by long waiting periods and outdated treatments.
Most importantly, from our point of view at PRI, is the danger that this new plan would entail for Life. Hillary is a hard-line pro-abort. A government-run health care system in her hands would surely spell disaster for babies, and put tremendous pressure on conscientious doctors and pharmacists to cooperate with abortions.
Greg Clovis, who heads Family Life International-U.K., PRI's sister organization in London, has this to say: "The British government-run insurance plan finances around 80% of the country's abortions, in addition to paying for such services as sex-change operations. British Medical Service abortionists perform most of the country's abortions."
If "HillaryCare" becomes law, we have no reason not to expect the same to occur here. Certainly Hillary makes no secret of her adamant support for "reproductive rights," and her intention to include such "rights" in any legislation she introduces, including health care. She reportedly told the head of Planned Parenthood here in Washington, D.C. that Americans need to "includ[e] ... issues related to reproductive health in any debate about health care reform ... changing our laws and changing the attitudes here in Washington, so that you can do the job you try to do and do so well."
This is agenda-based health care, not choice-based health care. Those who are concerned about the Life issues should oppose it.
Colin Mason is the Director for Media Production at PRI.
Sign up for the Weekly Briefing Here
Media Contact: Colin Mason
Email: email@example.com(540) 622-5240, ext. 209_________
(c) 2007 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.Redistribute widely. Credit required._________PRI is a 501(c)(3) educational organization. If you would like to make a tax-deductible donation to PRI,please go to our Donations Page. All donations (of any size) are welcomed and appreciated.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Suzanne has distinguished herself as a person of rare commitment and energy by her tireless advocacy for the not-yet-born. Through her frequent posts on her blog, Big Blue Wave , Suzanne has raised awareness in the blogosphere of many of the issues surrounding abortion that have been ignored by MSM (MainStream Media). A central theme of her posts is the personhood of the unborn child and the human rights inherent with personhood.
Suzanne is a 33-year old wife and mother of three young children. She is also a poet, historian and a regional director for the FCP in the Ottawa area. Her strong voice in defense of the vulnerable is powered by her faith and her posts often refer to issues of faith and family values.
Consistent with FCP policy, Suzanne has taken a strong position in support of MMPR (Mixed Member Proportional Representation), a proposed change in Ontario electoral policy. MMPR, if chosen by the required 60% of Ontario voters in the Oct 10 referedum, would replace the FPTP (First Past the Post) system now used by all Canadian provinces and in Canadian federal elections. Many people feel MMPR would give better representation of Canadian values, such as strong prolife values which often get short shrift when ballots are tallied. It is generally acknowledged that with our current system, governments often have deceivingly high majorities due to the electorate's fear of "splitting the vote". Another advocate of MMPR is the federal CHP (Christian Heritage Party). CHP leader Ron Gray has repeatedly pointed out that "splitting the vote" is the essence of democracy. The vote, however, should be split along lines that reflect the values and opinions of all Canadians, not the narrow partisan objectives of the power-hungry party elites who now rule by fiat, often against the wishes of the public.
Suzanne Fortin has earned a place at the table when it comes to discussions that will affect our children and grandchildren. We wish her well in her pursuit of Justice for the unborn.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
During the Canadian federal election just past, political speakers made vigorous attacks on social conservatives. The intention seemed to be to denigrate those who have socially conservative views about the future of our country. The implications were made that a social conservative was a very dangerous sort of beast. Conservatism was one thing, but social conservatiism was beyond the pale--unworthy of consideration. That seemed to be the message inherent in the attacks. And that message was inherent also in statements about specific issues that were brought up. Abortion, they told us, should not even be discussed. "We thought it was a settled question." Belief in the traditional definiton of marriage defended by most Members of Parliament just a few years ago, and defended by many in the last session of parliament, now was pointed to as a mark of bias, even of hatred.
What is a social conservative? Surely in the Canadian context it means one who regards as still valuable the ideals that have traditionally been regarded as central to the welfare of our society. Those who are socially conservative in Canada might be regarded as radical were they to promote their ideas in another society, such as Saudi Arabia. It makes no sense to commit to social conservatism out of a belief that whatever is past is best. It makes a great deal of sense to commit to it out of conviction that we have had in our heritage traditional ideals which are still valuable and which can be implemented in our present-day society.
Social conservatism needs to be distinguished from mere fiscal conservatism. Social converatism will deplore the waste of public financial resources, but it will not make the achievement of national wealth an aim to be divorced from the goal of enabling that wealth to benefit the people as a whole.
The term "social conservative" might be used for one who holds to particular ideals but has no concept of promoting them in society at large. But on this website we are concerned primarily with those who see social conservatism as something which needs to be supported for the benefit of society as a whole. Thus we are concerned with the role of government, which is capable of either supporting or undermining the foundations on which society has been built.
Unfortunately, as we have noted in the election campaign for the last federal election, those who wished to eliminate certain foundational concepts which are part of our heritage have sought to change them, often, not so much by argument as by manipulative propaganda. This propaganda has persuaded many people that those traditional ideals are no longer of value to our nation. The success of these propagandists has had a lot to do with the fact that Canada has become a place where many politicians see as suicidal the public defence of the most basic principles of morality.
Politics, it has been said, is the art of the possible. Politicians are basically concerned with how much it is possible for them to accomplish. Some politicians, once elected, do little more than test the current winds of public opinion and cast their votes in parliament accordingly. Others act as leaders, and help to form public opinion. But in any case, the success of the elected member of parliament is limited by the state of the public mind. The state of public opinion is determined by a host of factors, such as the messages received from the news media and from a variety of influencers. In fact, we all function to a greater or lesser degree as formers of public opinion.
Those of us who are social conservatives have been inclined, often with some justification, to blame the politicians for the erosion of our societal foundations. But of course we cannot blame only the politicians, who, in a democracy, are limited in what they can achieve by the climate of public opinion that we all contribute to.
If Canada is to be saved from its current plight where one after another its moral foundations are eroded and swept away, those who are capable of inflencing public opinion must make the most of the means at hand to do so on behalf of the ideals of our social heritage. This brings us to the purpose of this website. We hope that this site may be part of the beginning of a campaign to promote social conservatism in Canada. If the public can be brought to see that the welfare of our country depends on the restoration of basic moral principles, then our political leaders will have the ability to restore the health of our nation.
We do not seek to establish some sort of theocracy, where an elite group of people dictate the details of personal lives. Rather we would like to see established a country which will honor principles that have been recognized over the centuries by people of many faiths. A nation whose people have that respect for those basic principles can be expected to choose leaders who will exercise the power of government in a way that supports those principles. May that be so in our nation of Canada! --Ted Hewlett, editor of SocialConservatives.ca
Saturday, April 28, 2007
In his candidate’s speech, Mr. Taylor spoke on the topic of "Using Both Hands" a reference to the importance of complete commitment to the building of families, communities and nations. Mr. Taylor emphasized the importance of defending moral principles while we work to restore truth and justice in our society. He thanked the members for their sacrificial support for the restoration of family values and social justice and encouraged them to press on.
The new members elected to the board are: Nancy Duursma, Ben Mann, Glen Vandevelde, Alice Tuininga and Sjoerd Andringa.