Events Future
and Past
Table
of Contents for This Page
Current and Future Events:
The
Patrick Webb Essay Competition 2010-2011
Past Events:
Alternatives
in Education Mini-Conference April 18, 2009 in Surrey, British
Columbia
2008 Canadian Election:
United Mothers, Fathers, and Friends Election Guide
[information still relevant]
The
Patrick Webb 2008-2009 Essay Competition
The Dr. Chris Kempling Appreciation
Dinner--October 20, 2007
-News Release on this event
"Going
on the Offensive Against the Offensive" (Chris Kempling
speech given at a BCPTL Conference)
"Working Together to
Spread the Truth" (Speech Given at a BCPTL Conference)
Speech Given at
a CASJAFVA Rally
by the President of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life
BCPTL
Presentation to the British Columbia Caucus Task Force on Safe
Schools
Current
and Future Events
The
Patrick Webb Essay Competition 2010-2011
Students
Tackle Life Issues
The first topic in the Patrick Webb Essay Competition for
grades 11-12 secondary students follows from the decisive defeat
this year of Bill-384, which would have legalized euthanasia and
assisted suicide in
Canada
. What dangers, the students are asked, might have emerged if the
bill had been passed. The second topic for the senior secondary
students indicates that a number of legislatures in
North America
are considering “window on the womb” laws that would requite
women thinking about abortion to first witness ultrasound pictures
of their unborn babies. What, the students are asked, do you think
might be the benefit of such laws? Studies have already suggested
that such pictures can cause the mother to bond with the child she
is carrying.
Students
entering the B competition for grades 9-10 will discuss the
curious law in B.C. that since 2001 has prevented access to any
significant information about abortion being released to the
public. Thus, those interested in the subject, including those
doing research, are blocked from finding out how many abortions,
there have been, where they occurred, what were the ages of mother
and child, the reason for the abortion, and so on. The law would
seem to be unique to B.C. and difficult if not impossible to
defend in a modern democracy. A second topic quotes columnist
George Jonas, writing in the National Post, to the effect that while many see abortion as a
question of a woman’s right over her own body the issue
obviously involves not only her right but that of her preborn
child.
THE PATRICK WEBB
ESSAY COMPETITION – 2010-11
COMPETITION A
The
competition is open to grade 11 or 12 B.C. secondary school
students, and is designed to encourage students to recognize the
dignity of every human life.
First Prize
$300
Second Prize
$200
ESSAY
TOPICS (600-700 WORDS): CHOOSE
ONE.
Topic 1. Bill 384,
which would have legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in
Canada, was defeated in the House of Commons on April 21, 2010 by
a vote of 228 to 59. Many people in the country breathed a sigh of
relief including many handicapped citizens. What dangers do you
think might have emerged if the bill had been passed?
Topic 2. Writing in Time magazine (June 1, 2009), columnist Nancy Gibbs noted that a
number of
U.S.
states were considering enacting “window to the womb” laws
that would require women thinking of having abortions to first
witness ultrasound pictures of their unborn babies. What do you
think might be the benefits of such laws?
The deadline for
essays to be received is December 15, 2010 at the following
address:
The
Patrick Webb Essay Competition
P.O. Box
37521
North Vancouver
,
B.C. V7M 2H0
Each essayist will be
sent a copy of the names of the winners by the end of March 2011.
The essays will be
judged by experienced educators.
RULES
OF THE PATRICK WEBB ESSAY COMPETITION (2010-11)
COMPETITION
A
1.
The essayist must be a B.C. secondary school level student
in Grade 11 or 12 and must submit a completed ENTRY FORM.
Otherwise the essay
may not be marked. No entrant may submit more than one essay.
2.
The essay must be the result of the essayist's own efforts.
The essayist may be guided in preliminary planning and may
be directed to appropriate sources.
3.
Quotations and copyright material must be identified in the
footnotes.
4.
The essayist's name and school identification must NOT
appear anywhere on the essay pages other than on the ENTRY FORM.
5.
The title (i.e., topic) of the essay must be stated at the
top of the first page and each subsequent page must be numbered.
6.
The essay must be in English, either handwritten in ink or
typed by the essayist on one side of each page, and double-spaced.
7. Correct English,
including spelling and punctuation, is expected as well as legible
handwriting and neatness.
8.
Essays must be received at the address below by the last
postal delivery on
December 15, 2010:
The
Patrick Webb Essay Competition
P.O. Box
37521
North Vancouver
,
B.C. V7M 2H0
9.
The essays then become the property of the sponsors of the
competition with the right to edit and publish. Essays will not be
returned. Essayists must
keep copies of their essays.
10. Judges' decisions
will be final.
(to
be stapled to top left-hand corner of essay.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTRY
FORM - THE PATRICK WEBB ESSAY COMPETITION – 2010-11
COMPETITION
A
NAME:
(Print)________________________________/______________________________
Surname
Given name(s)
DATE OF
BIRTH:_________/_____________/______________/_________
Day
Month
Year
NAME & ADDRESS OF
SCHOOL:______________________________________________
ADDRESS OF ESSAYIST
(INCLUDING POSTAL CODE) AND TELEPHONE:
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
Patrick Webb Essay Competition
P.O. Box
37521
North Vancouver
,
B.C. V7M 2H0
Published
source materials on essay topics available on request.
Phone: (604) 984-9094 or e-mail
nspl@shaw.ca
Also
visit websites www.thesignalhill.com,
www.lifecanada.org,
www.lifesitenews.com
THE PATRICK WEBB
ESSAY COMPETITION – 2010-11
COMPETITION B
The
competition is open to grade 9 or 10 B.C. secondary school
students, and is designed to encourage students to recognize the
dignity of every human life.
First Prize
$300
Second Prize
$200
ESSAY
TOPICS (600-700 WORDS): CHOOSE
ONE.
Topic 1. Writing in
the National Post (June
4, 2009), columnist George Jonas said that many people see
abortion as a question to do with a woman’s right over her own
body. That would be valid, Jonas added, if one were talking about
smoking, diet, or liposuction, but abortion means controlling
someone else’s body. Does biology seem to support Jonas’
argument?
Topic 2. In 2001 the
B.C. Government enacted Bill 21, which specifically excludes
access to abortion information. As a result there is no way of
knowing how many abortions are being carried out in the province,
what ages the women and preborn infants are, what reasons are
given for the abortions and so on. What are the problems with this
sort of secrecy?
The deadline for
essays to be received is December 15, 2010 at the following
address:
The
Patrick Webb Essay Competition
P.O. Box
37521
North Vancouver
,
B.C. V7M 2H0
Each essayist will be
sent a copy of the names of the winners by the end of March 2011.
The essays will be
judged by experienced educators.
(to
be stapled to top left-hand corner of essay.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTRY
FORM - THE PATRICK WEBB ESSAY COMPETITION – 2010-11
COMPETITION
B
NAME:
(Print)________________________________/______________________________
Surname
Given name(s)
DATE OF
BIRTH:_________/_____________/______________/_________
Day
Month
Year
NAME & ADDRESS OF
SCHOOL:______________________________________________
ADDRESS OF ESSAYIST
(INCLUDING POSTAL CODE) AND TELEPHONE:
________________________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
Patrick Webb Essay Competition
P.O. Box
37521
North Vancouver
,
B.C. V7M 2H0
Published
source materials on essay topics available on request.
Phone:
(604) 984-9094 or e-mail nspl@shaw.ca
Also
visit websites www.thesignalhill.com,
www.lifecanada.org, www.lifesitenews.com,
and www.catholiceducation.org
Past
Events
BCPTL
Mini-Conference Held April 18th, 2009 in Surrey, B.C.
Topic: "Alternatives in Education: What
Choices Do You Have for Your Child?"
Are you a parent who is at a loss to decide what sort
of school to choose for your children? Are you a supporter
of the rights of parents who would like to be able to help parents
develop a greater knowledge of the choices they have for their
children's education? British Columbia Parents and Teachers
for Life has consistently supported parents' rights and emphasized
the fact that parents are the ones who must be primarily
responsible for their children's education. That is why we
put on a mini-conference on April 18th (a Saturday) with
the theme "Alternatives in Education: What Choices
Do You Have for Your Child?"
We
were pleased to have two speakers, both very knowledgeable regarding
their topics:
We
were pleased to have two speakers, both very knowledgeable regarding
their topics:
We
were pleased to have two speakers, both very knowledgeable regarding
their topics:
Al Garneau,
a former principal in the public school system who has founded
three separate independent schools, has agreed to speak at this
mini-conference.
Debbie White, a parent of children in Langley Fundamental School, who was also a
student in the school.
Date: April 18, 2009
Location: Compass Point Inn, 9850 King
George Highway, Surrey, B.C. next to the King George
Station, the furthest-east Sky Train Station in Surrey
Schedule:
10:00 a.m. to 12:00: BC Parents and Teachers for Life
Annual General Meeting (preceded by registration).
12:00 to 1:00: Lunch (preceded by registration for
mini-conference for those who did not already register at the
Annual General Meeting)
1:00 to 2:30 p.m.: Conference sessions
Conference fee: only $13 (including lunch!)
[The election this report was made for is over,
but some of the information is still relevant, since some named
below continue as Members of parliament.]
UNITED
MOTHERS, FATHERS & FRIENDS
SPECIAL
ELECTION REPORT
October
13, 2008
How your
Candidate Voted on Marriage & Life
I)
Upholding Marriage: How
Your Incumbent MP voted on the 2006 Marriage Motion
II)
Standing up for the Unborn: How
did your MP vote on the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill?
. . . .
I)
Upholding Marriage: How
Your Incumbent MP voted on the 2006 Marriage Motion
On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons
voted on a motion that read: “That this House call on the
government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional
definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while
respecting existing same-sex marriages.”
The
motion was defeated by a vote of 175 to
123. http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2582666#OOB-1827941
Take Action:
When you cast your vote on Tuesday, hold your incumbent MP
accountable for his or her vote on marriage (Hansard record below
in alphabetical order).
PAIRED
Galipeau
and
Loubier
Total: -- 2
[“A
Paired Vote is an agreement between two members to be recorded
on opposite sides of an issue. Pairing is used when one or both
members will be absent in order to cancel the effect of the
absence. Paired votes are not counted in the vote total. However
paired members' positions do appear in the record.”]
YEAS
[Those MPs who supported legislation to restore marriage.]
Abbott,
Ablonczy, Albrecht, Allen, Allison, Ambrose, Anders, Anderson,
Batters, Benoit,
Bernier,
Bezan,
Blackburn
, Blaney, Bonin, Boucher, Breitkreuz, Brown (Leeds-Grenville),
Brown
(
Barrie
), Bruinooge, Byrne, Calkins, Cannan (
Kelowna
—
Lake
Country
), Carrie,
Casson,
Clement, Cullen (Etobicoke North), Cummins, Davidson, Day, Del
Mastro,
Devolin,
Doyle, Dykstra, Epp, Fast, Finley, Fitzpatrick, Flaherty,
Fletcher, Gallant,
Goldring,
Goodyear, Gourde, Grewal, Guergis, Hanger, Harper, Harris,
Harvey
, Hawn,
Hearn,
Hiebert, Hill, Hinton, Jaffer, Jean, Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple
Ridge—Mission)
Karygiannis,
Kenney (
Calgary
Southeast), Khan, Komarnicki,
Kramp
(Prince Edward—
Hastings
),
Lake
, Lauzon, Lee, Lemieux, Lukiwski, Lunn,
Lunney,
MacKenzie, Malhi, Mark, Mayes, McKay (
Scarborough
—Guildwood),
McTeague,
Menzies, Merrifield, Miller, Mills, Moore (Fundy Royal),
Nicholson, Norlock,
O'Connor,
Obhrai, Oda, Pallister, Petit, Poilievre,
Preston
, Rajotte, Reid, Ritz,
Scarpaleggia,
Scheer, Schellenberger, Shipley, Skelton, Smith, Solberg,
Sorenson, Stanton,
Steckle,
Storseth, Strahl, Sweet, Thompson (
New Brunswick
Southwest),
Thompson
(Wild Rose), Tilson, Toews, Tonks, Trost,
Tweed
, Van Kesteren, Van Loan,
Vellacott,
Wallace, Wappel, Warawa, Warkentin, Watson, Williams, Yelich.
Total:
-- 123
NAYS
[Those MPs who opposed legislation to restore marriage.]
Alghabra,
André, Angus, Asselin, Atamanenko, Bachand, Bagnell, Bains,
Baird, Barbot,
Beaumier,
Bélanger,
Bell
(
Vancouver
Island North),
Bell
(
North Vancouver
), Bellavance,
Bennett,
Bevilacqua, Bevington, Bigras, Black, Blaikie, Blais, Bonsant,
Boshcoff,
Bouchard,
Bourgeois, Brison, Brown (
Oakville
), Brunelle, Cannon (Pontiac), Carrier,
Casey,
Chamberlain, Chan, Charlton, Chong, Chow, Christopherson, Coderre,
Comartin,
Comuzzi,
Cotler, Crête, Crowder, Cullen (Skeena—
Bulkley
Valley
), Cuzner, D'Amours,
Davies,
DeBellefeuille, Demers, Deschamps, Dewar, Dhaliwal, Dhalla, Dion,
Dosanjh,
Dryden,
Duceppe, Easter, Emerson, Eyking, Faille, Freeman, Fry, Gagnon,
Gaudet,
Gauthier,
Godfrey, Godin, Goodale, Graham, Guarnieri, Guay, Guimond,
Holland
,
Hubbard,
Ignatieff,
Jennings
, Julian, Kadis, Karetak-Lindell,
Keddy
(
South
Shore
—St. Margaret's), Keeper, Kotto, Laforest, Laframboise, Lalonde,
Lapierre,
Lavallée,
Layton
, LeBlanc,
Lemay
, Lessard, Lévesque, Lussier, MacAulay,
MacKay
(Central Nova), Malo, Maloney, Manning, Marleau, Marston,
Martin
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca), Martin (Winnipeg Centre), Martin
(LaSalle—Émard),
Martin
(Sault Ste. Marie), Masse, Mathyssen, Matthews, McCallum,
McDonough,
McGuinty,
McGuire, Ménard (Hochelaga), Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin),
Merasty, Minna,
Moore
(Port Moody—Westwood—
Port Coquitlam
), Mourani,
Murphy
(
Moncton
—Riverview—
Dieppe
), Murphy (
Charlottetown
), Nadeau, Nash,
Neville,
Ouellet, Owen, Pacetti, Paquette, Paradis, Patry, Pearson, Perron,
Peterson, Picard,
Plamondon,
Prentice, Priddy, Proulx, Ratansi, Redman, Regan, Richardson,
Robillard,
Rodriguez,
Rota,
Roy
, Russell, Savage, Savoie, Scott, Sgro, Siksay, Silva, Simard,
Simms,
St-Cyr,
St-Hilaire, St. Amand, St. Denis, Stoffer, Stronach, Szabo,
Telegdi, Temelkovski,
Thibault
(West Nova), Turner, Valley, Verner, Vincent, Volpe,
Wasylycia-Leis, Wilfert,
Wilson
, Wrzesnewskyj, Zed.
Total:
-- 175
PAIRED
Galipeau
and
Loubier
Total: -- 2
II)
Standing up for the Unborn:
How did your MP vote on the Unborn Victims of Crime Bill?
Canada
is unique in the democratic world for having virtually no legal
protection for children before they are born.
According to the Criminal
Code, a child becomes a human being only when he or she has
completely emerged alive from the mother’s body. Consequently in
cases where a pregnant woman is assaulted, or murdered, law
enforcement can only lay charges for harming the mother, not her
unborn child.
Had it passed, this
bill would have allowed criminal charges to be laid in the death
or injury of an unborn child when the child’s mother is the
victim of a crime.
The full text of
C-484 can be viewed at: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3127600
The
bill passed 2nd reading on March 5, 2008, by a vote of
147 - 132.
It was then referred to the Standing Committee on Justice
and Human Rights where it stalled for several months. The bill
died when the election was called. http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=15&Type=0&Scope=I&query=5336&List=vote
Take Action:
When you cast your vote on Tuesday, hold your incumbent MP
accountable for his or her vote on the Unborn Victims of Crime
bill (Hansard record below in alphabetical order).
PAIRED
Total 4
Gaudet
Lalonde
Pallister
Smith
[“A
Paired Vote is an agreement between two members to be recorded
on opposite sides of an issue. Pairing is used when one or both
members will be absent in order to cancel the effect of the
absence. Paired votes are not counted in the vote total. However
paired members' positions do appear in the record.”]
YEAS
[Members
who voted in support of the Unborn Victim of Crimes Bill]
Abbott, Ablonczy,
Albrecht, Allen, Allison, Ambrose, Anders, Anderson, Arthur,
Baird,
Batters, Benoit,
Bezan, Blackburn, Blaney, Bonin, Breitkreuz, Brown (
Leeds
—Grenville),
Brown (
Barrie
), Bruinooge, Calkins, Cannan (
Kelowna
—
Lake
Country
), Cannis, Carrie,
Casson, Chan, Chong, Clement, Comuzzi, Cullen (Etobicoke North),
Cummins, Davidson,
Day, Del Mastro, Devolin, Dhaliwal, Doyle, Dykstra, Emerson, Epp,
Fast, Finley,
Fitzpatrick,
Fletcher, Galipeau, Gallant, Goldring, Goodyear, Gourde, Grewal,
Guarnieri,
Guergis, Hanger, Harper, Harris, Harvey, Hawn, Hearn, Hiebert,
Hill, Hinton, Hubbard
Jaffer, Jean, Kamp
(Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission), Karygiannis,
Keddy (
South
Shore
—St. Margaret's), Kenney (
Calgary
Southeast), Khan, Komarnicki,
Kramp (Prince
Edward—
Hastings
),
Lake
, Lauzon, Lebel, Lee, Lemieux, Lukiwski, Lunn
Lunney, MacAulay,
MacKay (Central Nova), MacKenzie, Malhi, Maloney, Manning,
Mark, Mayes,
McGuire, McKay (
Scarborough
—Guildwood), McTeague, Menzies,
Merrifield, Miller,
Mills, Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—
Port Coquitlam
),
Moore (Fundy
Royal), Murphy (
Charlottetown
), Nicholson, Norlock, Obhrai, Oda, Pacetti,
Paradis, Petit, Poilievre, Prentice, Preston, Rajotte, Reid,
Richardson
, Ritz, Scarpaleggia,
Scheer, Schellenberger, Shipley, Simard, Skelton, Solberg,
Sorenson, St. Amand, Stanton,
Steckle, Stoffer, Storseth, Strahl, Sweet, Szabo, Thibault (West
Nova),
Thompson (
New Brunswick
Southwest), Thompson (Wild Rose), Tilson, Toews, Tonks,
Trost,
Tweed
, Valley, Van Kesteren, Van Loan, Vellacott, Wallace, Wappel,
Warawa,
Warkentin, Watson,
Williams, Wrzesnewskyj, Yelich
Total: -- 147
NAYS
Members [who voted against the Unborn Victim of Crimes Bill]
Alghabra, André,
Asselin, Atamanenko, Bachand, Bagnell, Bains, Barbot, Barnes,
Beaumier, Bélanger,
Bell
(
Vancouver
Island North),
Bell
(
North Vancouver
), Bellavance,
Bennett, Bevilacqua, Bevington, Bigras, Black, Blais, Bonsant,
Boshcoff, Bouchard,
Boucher, Bourgeois,
Brison, Brown (
Oakville
), Brunelle, Cannon (Pontiac), Cardin,
Carrier, Charlton,
Chow, Christopherson, Comartin, Cotler, Crête,
Cullen (Skeena—
Bulkley
Valley
), Cuzner, D'Amours, Davies, DeBellefeuille, Demers,
Deschamps, Dewar, Dhalla, Dryden, Duceppe, Easter, Faille, Folco,
Freeman, Fry,
Gagnon, Godfrey, Godin, Goodale, Gravel, Guay, Guimond,
Holland
, Ignatieff,
Jennings
,
Kadis, Keeper, Kotto, Laforest, Laframboise, Lavallée,
Layton
, LeBlanc,
Lemay
, Lessard,
Lévesque, Lussier, Malo, Marleau, Marston, Martin (
Esquimalt
—Juan de Fuca),
Martin (
Winnipeg
Centre), Martin (Sault Ste. Marie), Masse, Mathyssen, Matthews,
McCallum, McDonough, McGuinty, Ménard (Hochelaga), Ménard
(Marc-Aurèle-Fortin),
Minna, Mourani, Mulcair, Murphy (
Moncton
—Riverview—
Dieppe
), Nadeau, Nash,
Neville, O'Connor,
Ouellet, Paquette, Patry, Pearson, Perron, Picard, Plamondon,
Priddy,
Proulx, Ratansi, Redman, Regan, Rodriguez, Rota,
Roy
, Russell, Savage, Savoie, Scott,
Sgro, Siksay, Silva, Simms, St-Cyr, St-Hilaire, St. Denis,
Telegdi, Temelkovski, Thi Lac,
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques), Turner,
Verner, Vincent,
Wasylycia-Leis,
Wilson
Total: -- 132
. . . .
The Dr. Chris Kempling Appreciation
Dinner--October 20, 2007
British Columbia Parents and Teachers
for Life News Release
October, 2007
Release: Immediate
Dinner Speakers Praise
a
Teacher Who Spoke Out for Students
A near-overflow crowd at
a dinner held October 20th heard speakers
representing numerous organizations praise a teacher punished by
the BC College of Teachers for speaking out on education.
Dr. Chris Kempling, a public-school teacher and
counsellor, was honoured at the event held in Days Hotel in
Surrey, where British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life
(BCPTL), who sponsored the event, presented him with a plaque
marking the life membership they had conferred on him.
The praise given
contrasted sharply with the treatment the educational
establishment has meted out to the Quesnel teacher and
counsellor.
For speaking out in his own time on educational matters, his
school board in 2005 gave Kempling a three-month unpaid
suspension from his position, and the BC College of Teachers
imposed a one-month suspension which he served in March, 2006.
The threat of additional punishment by the BC College of
Teachers hangs over his head.
Dr. Kempling has been
candid about his disagreement with the methodology and goals of
his union’s program to foster acceptance of homosexuality, and
wrote to his local paper expressing his views.
He was also interviewed by the CBC.
For these activities he has been penalized by the BC
College of Teachers and is still under pressure from that
organization. As
well, his superior in the Quesenel teaching system has attempted
to prevent his speaking out on the issues he has raised.
Dr. Kempling, after
receiving the plaque marking his life membership in BCPTL, gave
a forthright talk entitled “What I Am Not Allowed to Speak On.”
The
organizations whose representatives gave testimonials at the
dinner were: Focus on the Family Canada, the Canadian Alliance
for Social Justice and Family Values Association, ECP (Equipping
Christians for the Public Square), the Catholic Civil Rights
League, the Christian Coalition of Canada, the Christian Social
Concerns Fellowship, REAL Women of Canada, and the Greater
Vancouver Chinese Ministerial Fellowship.
As well, a message of
commendation was read from the Canadian Family Action Coalition.
In presenting the plaque
on behalf of BCPTL, Ted Hewlett said:
“Chris’s ability to draw on the insights of his faith and
the insights of his knowledge as a psychologist, his bold
honesty in sharing those insights, and his compassion for the
students of British Columbia and even his opponents:
These are what led first the executive and then the
membership of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life to
confer life membership on him.”
The plaque Kempling
received notes his “sacrificial defence of youth” and concludes
with these words:
“You have spoken out
When most were silent.
You have persisted
When most would have
given up.
You have spoken the
truth in love.
For this we honour and
thank you.”
A summary of Chris
Kempling’s story may be read at:
http://www.bcptl.org/rights.htm#summary
--XXX--
BC Parents and Teachers for Life
"Free
to Speak the Truth" Conference Held October 16th, 2004
at Days Surrey Hotel, Surrey, British Columbia
Immediately below we present the written versions of
two speeches
given at the British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life Conference
held on October 16th, 2004. We hope that by posting these speeches
we will enable those not able to be at the conference to benefit. In
some cases the speeches may be somewhat abridged in the form given here.
Going
on the Offensive Against the Offensive
(Without
Being Offensive)
Dr.
Chris Kempling Psy.D. R.C.C.
Registered
Clinical Counsellor
BC
Teachers & Parents For Life Conference
Surrey,
BC
October
16, 2004
I
have titled my talk, Going on the Offensive against the Offensive
without being Offensive.
I will talk about the second “Offensive” first, then follow
with the other two in combination.
Let me make one thing clear.
Homosexual people are not offensive.
In fact, I happen to like every one that I have met.
But many faith traditions condemn same sex behaviour as offensive.
So
what is just so offensive about homosexual behaviour?
Isn’t it just two people loving one another in the same caring
way that heterosexual couples do?
Why is it anybody’s business what two people do in the privacy of
their own bedrooms?
That’s what Pierre Trudeau said in 1968 to justify the removal of
homosexuality from the criminal code.
The big difference now is that gay activists do not want their
sexual conduct to remain a private affair, but wish to teach everybody’s
children that their behaviour is normal, natural, moral, and the same as
the sexual behaviour carried out in the context of a heterosexual
marriage.
They wish to teach your children that homosexuality, bisexuality,
transgenderism, transvestitism, and sado-masochism are merely normal
variants of human sexual expression.
They want to make it everybody’s business.
And that is offensive to me as a Christian, as a parent, and as a
mental health professional, because I believe the evidence clearly shows
that that position is not only false, but also presents great risks to the
physical and mental health of our young people.
Several
years ago, when I was working as a high school counselor, I chose to
attend a conference called Youth at Risk.
It was held in Richmond, and was sponsored by the Ministry of
Education.
One of the workshops was entitled, Gay, Lebsian, Bisexual and
Transgendered Youth at Risk.
I thought it would be a good workshop for me to attend, as my
knowledge in this area was somewhat limited.
The
workshop was filled with educators like myself.
The presenters were members of the Vancouver homosexual community.
In the workshop they stated as fact that 10% of the population is
homosexual.
That is simply incorrect, and based on the inflated and biased
research from 1948 of Dr. Alfred Kinsey.
They gave us a resource booklet to hand out to our students.
In it was the phone number of an organization called Vancouver
Jack. I
asked what that was.
It is a masturbation club.
They
handed us the community newspaper of Vancouver homosexuals, called Xtra
West, and recommended we make it available to our students, by
providing it in libraries and counseling office waiting rooms.
Then the presenter said, “But you may wish to avoid reading the
classified ads.”
Of course we all did.
The personal classified ads, several pages of them, were almost
entirely devoted to people seeking casual sex partners.
They graphically described the size and peculiar characteristics of
their genitalia, as well as their preferred perversions.
I saw ads for those seeking others to urinate or defecate on them.
Now I found this offensive just to read, but even more offensive
was the suggestion that I supply this information to my students.
Last time I checked, teachers who supply pornography to their
students don’t last long in the profession.
Yet when I called Xtra West pretending I was interested in
having it at my school, they confirmed they send copies to several high
schools, and all of the tax supported Gay Youth Centres in the Lower
Mainland.
I thought this was outrageous, and wrote several letters to the
Minster of Education, who expressed no concern that workshop leaders hired
by his ministry were making such recommendations or that pornographic
material was being supplied to adolescents as reading material.
A colleague I spoke with thought this material was suitable to
include in the school library.
That is why I started writing publicly to alert parents as to what
was being recommended for their children, and that is why I have been
convicted of conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession.
I
find it offensive that behaviours which are still classified as mentally
abnormal, such as transgenderism, transvestitism, and sado-masochism are
promoted as normal variants.
I find it offensive that having an average of 100 different sexual
partners in a year, which was the average number reported by a research
study conducted in Boston in 1980, is thought to be acceptable.
I find it offensive that despite years of anti-AIDS education, over
40% of young gay men in Vancouver are still engaging in unprotected
receptive anal intercourse, which is the most efficient way to acquire
HIV. That
statistic is from Health Canada. Another study done in South Florida found
that three-quarters of HIV positive men are engaging
in risky sexual behaviour and are not informing their partners of
their HIV positive status.
I
find it offensive that the risks of acquiring HIV and AIDS are presented
as similar between the orientations, when over 70% of new HIV infections
are among men who have sex with other men.
I find it offensive that bathhouses are freely advertised in
newspapers like Xtra
West supplied to adolescents, when it is common knowledge that they
are venues for orgies, and perverse sexual behaviours such as sex
involving urine and feces.
I find it offensive that children as young as 12 are taught the
techniques of fisting, the insertion of the entire hand inside another
person’s rectum.
This was done at an “awareness” forum in Massachusetts on March
25, 2000 by members of the state’s department of education.
The parent who secretly recorded the presentation and made it
public was sued by the workshop presenters for recording the event without
permission.
I
find it offensive that revered Christian prophets are claimed to be
homosexual based on specious interpretations of scripture.
Materials produced by the Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC state
that King David and Jonathan were gay lovers.
It is an outrageous insult, not only to Christians, but to Jews as
well. Others
have speculated that Ruth and Naomi were lesbians.
It
offends me that sexual confused young people are taught that people are
born gay and that there is no way to change their orientation.
That is simply untrue, and I have personally met former homosexual
people who can attest to that.
In fact, one week ago today a video documentary called “I Do
Exist” detailing the lives of five former homosexuals was released.
One of them is a man by the name of Noe Guiterrez.
This is significant because Mr. Guiterrez is a featured speaker in
a 1996 documentary called “It’s Elementary”, which is used to
indoctrinate elementary school children in this province and throughout
North America.
He used to be a gay activist.
Now he’s an ex-gay activist.
Who said God doesn’t have a sense of humour?
It
offends me that whenever someone dares to state publicly that their
religious beliefs condemn homosexual behaviour, they are branded as
hateful and homophobic, suffering from a mental illness, a phobia, for
having politically incorrect opinions. It offends me that honourable men
of God like Rev. Stephen Boissoin and Rev. Ken Campbell, are hauled before
Human Rights Tribunals and forced to explain why they were speaking
publicly about what God’s Word says about immoral sexual behaviour.
It
is easy, however, to be privately indignant about such offensive
situations.
What do we do about it, and how can we go about it in a way that
produces positive results? How can we go on the offensive without being
offensive?
Frankly,
I think it is now too late to prevent homosexual information from reaching
our children in public schools.
The gay lobby has achieved many of their goals.
Stan Persky, a homosexual activist who is a philosophy professor at
North Vancouver’s Capilano College, said in an article in Xtra West
dated June 29, 2000, that leaders in the gay community have known all
along that heterosexual young people could be recruited into the gay
lifestyle.
Here
is what he said: “The Good Grey Gay establishment stood up, to a man,
and solemnly but hypocritically assured one and all that good homosexuals
would never do anything so sneaky and underhanded as to persuade someone
to be gay or engage in homosexual acts. The official gay leadership
insisted that gays were born gay, and that no one who wasn’t gay could
be turned into a homo, not even for 10 minutes.
Of course, they were lying through their teeth…And worst of all,
they persuade other people—often young people who aren’t necessarily
gay—to give a go.
And guess what?
Some of those who give it a go keep on going…the main
battleground of the homo movement is not the wedding aisle of a nice
church, but the nasty schoolyard.”
And
what is the perfect vehicle for heterosexual teenagers who are
“bi-curious” to flirt with homosexuality?
Gay Straight Alliance Clubs.
. . . . GSA’s were started in 1996 in the US and there are
now over 1200 of them there.
In Massachusetts, every high school in the state has a GSA.
There are Gay Straight Alliance Clubs up and running now in 22 BC
high schools, most in the Vancouver and Victoria area.
A helpful pamphlet on how to start and run them is provided by
GALE-BC, and distributed by the teachers’ union to every high school.
The
BCTF announced
in 1997 that combating homophobia and heterosexism was a top priority of
the union.
What they didn’t tell anyone were the results of a survey of 500
rank and file teachers done that year.
The survey, published in March 1997, asked teachers what their top
priority was in terms of social justice issues.
Guess which one placed last—homophobia.
Not ten days later, at the 1997 BCTF Annual General Meeting,
measures to combat homophobia were declared to be a “top priority”.
Teachers who wanted to speak against the motion were denied the
opportunity to speak. In fact, gay activists met with delegates against
the motion the night before the vote, and told them what the outcome was
going to be, and that opposition was futile.
Sure enough, the next day, five speakers in a row got up to speak
in favour of the motion.
Supporters of the gay agenda were working the line-ups of the five
microphone to see which way people were intending to speak.
Finally, one person opposed to the motion spoke.
The chairman of the meeting immediately declared that both sides of
the issue had been heard and called for a vote.
It passed overwhelmingly, and newspaper reports the next day
commented that “there was surprisingly little opposition at the
microphones” to the controversial motion.
That’s because only one person was permitted to speak against the
motion and it was all arranged in advance.
The BC Teachers Federation has the patina of democracy, but in
reality they don’t pay attention to what the members really want.
I think the term “secular humanist mafia” fits well.
The
new BC Career and Personal Planning 10 curriculum directs teachers to
instruct students with ways to eliminate homophobia and heterosexism.
Every student in the province must take this course to graduate
now. The
web site for the Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC is an approved resource
link in the government’s curriculum guide.
When
I looked at GALE-BC’s website, here’s what I found about their goals
for the school system:
Encourage cross dressing and gender bending, eliminate the myth
that there are only two sexes, remove gender boxes from all school forms,
mandatory instruction in gay friendly sex education, include transgendered
examples in all curriculum areas, and insert examples of gay and lesbian
persons in all curriculum areas and all grades from kindergarten to grade
12.
Now
let me make one thing clear. I believe that Canadian school children
should be taught about orientation issues at the appropriate age level.
They should be taught that it is totally unacceptable to harass or
bully those of alternate orientations.
The information they are provided with should be balanced,
factually accurate, and respectful of the sensitivity that members of many
religions have on this matter.
The problem is, that those who have been entrusted with actually
producing instructional materials are activists in homosexual
organizations, who have a vested interest in presenting the information in
a way that portrays them in the best possible light, and portraying those
who oppose homosexuality as bigoted, ignorant, or, as Svend Robinson put
it, Neanderthals.
One
resource I reviewed produced by GALE BC called Counselling Lesbian and Gay
Youth, stated that teachers must “dishonour” the attitude that
heterosexuality is the only correct form of sexual behaviour.
I wrote to the authors suggesting that it was inappropriate to
attempt to dishonour the sincerely held religious views of their students,
but I was dismissed as homophobic, and they refused to remove that
offensive statement.
The same resource stated that even those who only tolerate
homosexuality are homophobic—only outright acceptance and affirmation is
an acceptable attitude.
Schools have become the primary focus of the homosexual lobby, and
recently members of that group made a presentation in my son’s school.
In
British Columbia, the College of Teachers regulates the teaching
profession.
They have the authority to demand that universities include certain
courses in their teacher education curriculum.
A colleague of mine who was on the College of Teachers, told me
that the accomplishment she was most proud of, was implementing a
requirement that every teacher education program in the province have a
mandatory course in “anti-oppression pedagogy”.
In other words, all prospective teachers must pass a course which
teaches them how to combat homophobia and heterosexism, the “erroneous
and dangerous” belief that heterosexuality is the only approved form of
sexual behaviour.
A young woman from my church was in one of these courses at UBC,
taught by a professor who was a lesbian.
The professor denounced me by name to the whole class.
To her credit, this young woman stood up and said, “I personally
know this man.
He attends my church and he is nothing like you are portraying
him.” Now
that took a lot of courage.
So
how can you go on the offensive against the offensive without being
offensive?
I have some very specific suggestions for you.
1)
Get informed.
Read everything you can.
Check out websites which provide an alternate point of view.
Examples include www.narth.com,
www.peoplecanchange.com, www.fotf.ca,
www.pathinfo.org, www.gaytostraight.com,
www.familyresearchinst.org,
www.pfox.org, and www.exodusnorthamerica.com.
Read books such as Dr. Jeffery Satinover’s Homosexuality and the
Politics of Truth, and a book by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the president of
the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality,
entitled A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
An informed parent is the best antidote to dealing with biased
information.
For example, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association, still
lists Gender Identity Disorder, Transvestitism, Fetishism, and Sado-masochism
as treatable mental disorders.
There is also a treatment category called “persistent and marked
distress about one’s sexual orientation” which validates therapy for
orientation change.
Furthermore, orientation change therapy research has been recently
published in established, peer reviewed psychological journals, such as
Dr. Robert Spitzer’s research published in the October, 2003 issue of
the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
2)
Speak to your child’s teacher about what they will be teaching
your son or daughter about sexual orientation.
Let them know you wish to have copies of their handouts, and be
informed in advance of any guest speakers. Ask for credentials of guest
speakers and ask if they have evidence of a clean criminal record check.
3)
Get a copy of your school district’s resource challenge policy,
and make sure you follow the protocol to the letter.
Generally it means speaking first to the teacher, then to the
principal, then following up with a clear and specific letter of complaint
to the school superintendent, if neither the teacher or the principal is
willing to stop using the resource.
In my district, the superintendent is obliged to strike a committee
to investigate the matter, made up of staff not directly connected with
the subject area.
Get a copy of whatever you are concerned about, and get some expert
assistance to confirm if it is flawed, biased, or offensive to religious
beliefs.
Every school district should have this policy in their policy
manual. One
of the GALE BC resources is called Challenging Homophobia in Schools.
It is deeply flawed.
I wrote a detailed assessment of that resource which is posted at www.bcptl.org.
It has just been revised, but I haven’t reviewed the new version.
The first edition was poorly researched and biased in more ways
that I can count.
4)
Use the teachers’ code of ethics to your advantage.
In British Columbia, the very first point of the BCTF Code of
Ethics says, “The teacher speaks and acts towards students with respect
and dignity and deals judiciously with them, always mindful of their
individual rights and sensibilities.”
This means that if you let your child’s teacher know about your
“sensibilities” on orientation issues, they are ethically bound to
respect that by exempting your child from a particular lesson or by
ensuring all sides of a controversial issue are treated in a balanced way.
It also means that Christian or Sikh or Muslim students should not
be indoctrinated with false teachings about sexuality which directly
contradict the values of their faith.
It means that dignity and rights of heterosexuals, which is an
orientation, must be also respected.
You know what they call us behind our backs?
Breeders.
It means that teachers should not use biased, inaccurate and
propaganda-like teaching resources.
It means that no teacher should be trying to dishonour the
teachings of the word of God.
And believe me, there are very, very few teachers willing to stand
up to assertive parents who know what they are talking about.
5)
There is another point in the BCTF’s Code of Ethics which says
this: “The teacher recognizes that a privileged relationship with
students exists and refrains from exploiting that relationship for
material, ideological, or other advantage.”
That means that using biased resources to instruct children with
information that is hostile to Christian beliefs is unethical, because it
exploits children for ideological advantage.
To combat heterosexism, which is the belief that only
heterosexuality is appropriate moral sexual behaviour, means that
Christian children must be taught the opposite of what we teach them in
our homes and in our churches.
6)
Point 4 of the BCTF Code of Ethics says, “The teacher is willing
to review with colleagues, students, and their parents/ guardians the
quality of service rendered by the teacher and the practices employed in
discharging professional duties.” Teachers are ethically required to
speak with you about how they teach what they teach, and provide a
justification for everything they do professionally.
7)
Schools have a legitimate right to promote safety and implement
anti-bullying strategies, including bullying that targets sexual
minorities.
Publicly support these goals, but reserve the right to question how
the goals will be implemented and what materials or guest speakers will be
used.
8)
Talk to your children about this topic.
Ask them to keep you informed of when this topic comes up, and tell
them why you are concerned.
Tell them you expect them to intervene when other children bully
those who are homosexual or appear to be.
Frankly, taunting those who are effeminate has led to suicide.
It may also drive sexually confused young people into relationships
with those who “support and understand” them. Our children should not
be part of the problem.
9)
Get to know your child’s teachers and the school principal, and
show up for parent teacher conferences.
Don’t become a one-issue parent or you will have no credibility
when it really counts.
10)
Form a committee of concerned parents, and show up at school board
meetings.
Keep your focus on safety, fairness, non-discrimination, factual
accuracy, anti-harassment, appropriate resources, and respect for all
religious traditions.
Do not quote Scripture, especially “hot” verses.
You will be dismissed as a “Bible-thumper” and will not be able
to achieve your goals.
11)
Students in some US schools have responded to Gay Straight Alliance
Clubs by forming a Conservative Club, which supports traditional family
values and moral beliefs.
If a student group wishes to do this they will need adult support,
because it has been viewed with hostility in some locations.
12)
Be sensitive that many homosexual people have come out of
distressing home situations, and may sincerely believe that they were born
the way they are.
Some children are growing up in households where both parents are
of the same sex and may be legally married.
Be temperate in your public comments.
If I had to do things over again, I would still have said what I
said, but in a much gentler way.
13)
Address curriculum concerns to the Minister of Education, but
always copy your local MLA.
Get to know him or her.
If you have an established group, make an appointment to discuss
your concerns with the MLA.
Most MLA’s wish to be responsive to their constituents’
concerns even if they don’t philosophically agree with you.
14)
Use the curriculum to your advantage.
In BC, it is a requirement that students be taught about behaviours
which put them at risk of acquiring sexual transmitted diseases, and how
to avoid them.
Engaging in unprotected receptive anal intercourse with multiple
anonymous partners is common among homosexual men, so it is a fulfillment
of the curriculum to teach children that they should avoid
this behaviour.
In addition, the curriculum requires that students be taught how to
maintain good mental health.
It is well established in recent research studies that homosexual
people have much higher incidences of depression, anxiety, and especially
obsessive-compulsive disorders.
Contrary to what gay activists say, there is no evidence that it is
the result of societal homophobia.
The study in question was conducted in Holland, arguably the most
gay friendly nation on the planet, by Sandfort et al in 2001, and they
found mental illness rates among homosexuals 3-9 times that of the general
heterosexual population.
15)
Finally, protect your child.
Despite your best efforts, you may not be able to keep your child
from improper instruction, or they simply won’t tell you about
controversial lessons.
You may have to consider transferring them to a different school,
private schooling, home schooling, or even legal action against your
school district to protect your child.
The
gay lobby wants everyone to join with them in being proud of
homosexuality.
But no God fearing person can be proud of sinful behaviour.
It will take courage and determination to speak out and you will
not be applauded by the world for doing this.
Some time ago, I found my face on a crudely made Wanted poster in a
local Laundromat, saying Un-wanted: for Homophobia.
This is not a job for thin-skinned people.
When
we take direct action, however, we must do it in a way that protects not
only our own children, but children who are indeed confused about their
orientation.
They need to be protected from harassment and name-calling, and I
call upon Christian boys and girls to stand up in defense of those who
are, or appear to be gay. Let it never be said of our children that they
participated in the harassment of their classmates because of their
orientation. These children deserve our compassion and support, because I
am convinced that most of them cannot help how they feel.
Christian
parents, talk your children as I have done with my own, and tell them that
you expect them to intervene to protect those who are subjected to
name-calling and harassment.
Scripture calls for us to pray for those who persecute us, and do
good to those who consider themselves our enemies.
Besides, who among us is without sin?
There
is a middle ground, where children who need support and protection from
harassment can receive it, while Christian children are also protected
from false teaching about orientation issues.
But some children and their parents need to hear a message of hope
that orientation is indeed changeable, and that there is help for them if
they wish to change. As a clinical member of the National Association for
Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, I hope I can assist my colleagues
who wish to help those who want to change.
I
seem to have accumulated quite a few enemies along the way, and I’ll
admit sometimes it has been difficult for me and especially for my wife.
I’ll close with the words of Psalm 55:
But
I call to God and He saves me
He
ransoms me unharmed from the battle waged against me,
Even
though many oppose me…
Cast
your cares upon the Lord and He will sustain you.
He
will never let the righteous fall.
Thank
you for inviting me to speak, and may God bless you all.
Dr.
Chris Kempling Psy.D. R.C.C.
Registered
Clinical Counsellor
250-983-3949
Quesnel,
BC V2J
5R5
Kempling@telus.net
Working
Together to Spread the Truth
(speech by Ted Hewlett
at the October 16th, 2004,
BC Parents and Teachers Conference)
In considering the topic of working together to spread the truth, I want
to first of all depict the situation in which we find ourselves, then
discuss what common basis of belief we have for our action, and then go on
to propose some concrete measures for action.
Considering the situation we are in, unfortunately, is not likely to be
comforting. But it is essential to face that situation realistically
if we are to be motivated to act together and if we are to have a clear
direction for our common action.
In
Canada
today we live in a comfortable society. Most of us are supplied with
the necessities of life and much more. But we are making a bad
mistake if we do not recognize the warning signs that tell us that in many
ways our society is headed in the wrong direction.
Consider the fact that in
Canada
a baby can be killed up to the moment of birth simply at the choice or
whim of its parents and the doctor. Our politicians—with a few
notable exceptions—are content to leave this situation as it stands.
This is called “social peace.” Well, it is time we
disturbed the social peace. Abolitionists like Wilberforce, and
Harriet Beecher Stowe disturbed the social peace to call for an end to
slavery. Reformers like Lord Shaftsbury disturbed the social
peace to call for an end to horrendous conditions of child labour in the
period of the early Industrial Revolution. The Hebrew prophets
disturbed social peace to rail on the oppressors of the poor and
downtrodden.
When we see that in Canada the infant can be destroyed up to the moment of
his or her birth, and that in British Columbia the young girl can be
counselled against her parents’ wishes, and against her parents
knowledge, to destroy her unborn child, when we see that schools can
be compelled to propagandize not only teenagers but primary children on
behalf of behaviour which their parents regard as immoral and dangerous,
then we know that we must not be silent. When we see that those who
speak out against such things can be silenced by the heavy hand of judges
who are unelected and without responsibility to anyone except possibly to
the politicians who appointed them, then we know that we must bear witness
together before it is too late .
In the midst of all the bad news regarding Canadian society
something good is happening. People from widely varying groups are
coming together. [Men and women from churches separated by
centuries of history and from ethnic groups widely divergent in their
geographical origins are finding that in basic moral matters they
have much in common. Their love of family, their devotion to their
children, and their commitment to the basics of conduct that have formed
the foundations of their lives: all these have impelled them to
unite in defence of those things which are threatened by the agenda
of the new social engineers.]
Over the years we have witnessed and been
part of this coming together. Catholics and Protestants and people
of non-Christian beliefs, Canadians whose forebears came from Europe and
Asia and
Africa
and all over the world have recognized that we have a common
responsibility to defend what is precious to all of us: the
family and the virtues which are essential to our nation.
As well as individuals, different organizations which have formed to
defend the family and stand up for foundational virtues have also found
ways to work together. We in BC Parents and Teachers for Life have
worked with other organizations and sought to help bring them together.
In seeking to promote the pro-life message we have given publicity to the
work of other pro-life groups. We have found a common interest in
defending the family with other groups working in BC. We have worked
together with traditional pro-life organizations, and with CASJAFVA and
REAL Women, participating in rallies and meetings in support of marriage
and in support of the right of teachers such as Chris Kempling to speak
out on behalf of youth. We have communicated with the Office
of Life and Family and Focus on the Family. We have come together
with a wide variety of groups to defend marriage, basic morality, and the
rights of freedom of speech and religion.
How can we increase our effectiveness in working together as people who
wish to support the family and defend the basis of our society? That
is the main thrust of what I want to talk about today. [We surely
can not doubt the need to increase that effectiveness. In most of
the mainstream press an unlimited right to abortion is considered a
settled matter in
Canada
. The right to so-called gay marriage is considered a matter of
civil rights. The right of the state to determine the values our
children are taught is not protested. The entertainment industry is a
cheering section for a brave new world where the things we hold dear are
subjected to ridicule and abuse.]
I would like to suggest three main areas in which we can increase our
effectiveness. The first of these is thinking
together. By this I mean sharing our knowledge with one
another and taking advantage of the knowledge shared. One of the
great things that has happened is the advent of a wonderful network of
groups which regularly distribute information. Some of this
information is in print form. If you are dependent on the print
media, may I urge you not to depend only on mainstream sources.
Groups like BC Parents and Teachers for Life, and REAL Women, and the
Canada Family Action Committee, Focus on the Family, and your local
pro-life groups put out information on issues which the regular papers
normally do not deal with or deal with showing a bias against pro-family,
pro-life positions. Far too many of those who should be our allies
do not know the facts they should know. For example, many pro-life
people are still unaware that in
Canada
a baby can be aborted right up to the moment of its birth, and that there
is no law in
Canada
against partial-birth abortion.
I realize that some of you probably have grave doubts about the Internet.
It is true that, as in a vast public library, there is much misinformation
on the Internet, and its use requires judgement. But let me share my
enthusiasm for what the Internet and E-mail has done for the pro-life and
pro-family movements and what it can do in the future. Every
year we publish one issue of our publication Parents’
Alert. It reaches approximately six hundred individuals,
pro-life and pro-family groups, and churches. Normally the cost of
this mail-out, with accompanying letters and the Newsletter
for members is some $673 for printing and postage.
It does provide a publication which can be immediately displayed or
distributed in print form by those who receive it. But in contrast,
in one year we distribute by e-mail twelve issues of our BCPTL
E-Mail Bulletin which currently reaches some 850 addresses.
The cost in terms of money: nothing! [The distribution is
facilitated by our server, who has set up a special distribution service
at no cost to ourselves.]
I think this illustrates the power of the Internet and e-mail.
To use a popular in-word, it empowers organizations like ours to reach an
audience that we could never reach otherwise. (Incidentally,
we have some notion of the world-wide nature of the Internet in the
monthly reports we get of the locations of some of the people who access
our website. In addition to people in Canada, the United States, and
the United Kingdom, we were recently accessed by people with e-mail
addresses from such far-flung locations as Mexico, Malaysia, India, South
Africa, Slovenia, Botswana, Hong Kong, Estonia, the Seychelles—which are
islands in the Indian Ocean—Indonesia, and Thailand. All of this
is interesting, but mostly we are encouraged by the fact that we are
reaching people in many parts of BC and across
Canada
. We are encouraged by every person who signs on to receive our E-Mail
Bulletin, enabling us to reach them with information that they
might not receive in any other way. Incidentally that Bulletin
is sent out once a month: hopefully—as we
say—frequently enough to be useful but not so often as to be a nuisance.
I would encourage you to avail yourself of this information put out by
pro-life, pro-family organizations.. I know that the sheer volume of
e-mail traffic tends to discourage people from subscribing to list-serves
such as ours. But it is essential that men and women who support
pro-family and pro-life positions get information from pro-life,
pro-family sources.
The second area of common action follows from the first: It is
sharing the knowledge we have acquired. We can share
person-to-person by simply talking to our friends and neighbours. In
particular, we need to communicate to those who share our faith and
philosophical positions but who may not be aware of the situation faced by
our nation. Those of you who have e-mail can share by distributing
information to those who may not have seen it using your own e-mails.
Two cautions: Be discreet about your use of e-mail. It is best
not to send many e-mail messages at a time unless you are fairly sure that
they will be welcomed. Second, be careful to ensure that to the best
of your knowledge what is passed on is factually true and respectful in
tone. We have tried to be very careful in what we distribute, and
have learned to trust certain sources while being wary of sources we are
unfamiliar with. There is a phenomenon called the “urban
legend,” which is a story spread by modern means of communication that
is false or partially false but spreads with remarkable persistence and
rapidity. One such legend was the story that Madeline O’Hare, the
infamous American atheist, was trying to shut down Christian
broadcasting—this long after she was dead! There are websites on
the Internet which are quite reliable in critiquing such legends.
One is “Urban Legends Reference Pages” (at
http://www.snopes.com/ ). The information here seems reliable,
though the comments may sometimes be subjective. The point is that
it is very important to make sure that what we pass on is accurate, not
only because that is the moral thing to do but because our credibility
depends on our accuracy.
We can share our knowledge within groups we belong to. It
seems a natural thing to share with those of like faith news about the
moral health or sickness of our nation. Those with faith in God can
legitimately be expected to be interested in the principles of
righteousness that go with that faith. Certain difficulties,
however, often present themselves to those who attempt to communicate
regarding moral issues with those in their congregations. There are
many who would rather not hear too much about such issues at a public—or
even a private—level. Partly it is because it means facing
unpleasant facts.
The individual is in a better position in some respects in attempting to
communicate to churches regarding public moral issues than is an
organization such as, for example, BC Parents and Teachers for Life, or a
local pro-life organization, or REAL Women. We in BCPTL, like
other pro-life organizations, have a unity based on common moral
principles, not on a particular theological creed. We feel
that we are justified in reaching out to churches because we are standing
for the traditional moral values that many of them hold to. We are
not attempting to misuse churches, but to stand with them in defence of
those values. Nevertheless, in spite of our attempts to exercise
sensitivity, our attempts at communication with churches sometimes seem to
be resented. I believe that a change is evident since Bill
C-250 and the attempt to provide homosexual unions with the stamp of
government-approved marriage. We are seeing, I believe, an awakening
on the part of faith congregations to the fact that freedom of religion is
imperiled and that at the same time youth are imperiled by propaganda that
undercuts the basics of traditional morality. In order to
ensure that this new awareness bears fruit, we need individuals who will
act within their churches with sensitivity but with diligence to alert
fellow-members of their congregations to issues which the churches should
be addressing. We do not seek to have churches become political
organizations, but we do hope that increasingly they will alert their
members and adherents to their responsibilities to witness for truth and
righteousness in the world in which they find themselves.
Because we share moral beliefs which are applicable in our world,
pro-life, pro-family men and women should be able to act together to
influence our world. How can we do this? It seems to me
that we are faced with a hard yet necessary double task. While
attempting to influence government and public institutions, we must at the
same time create and nurture alternative institutions. The churches,
of course, should be institutions which are lighthouses of moral guidance
for believers. We should certainly be concerned about the influence
of public schools on students in general. At the same time, parents
must decide whether that influence is benign as regards their own children
or, on the other hand, whether they should send their offspring to
independent schools or home-school them to ensure that their standards are
met. Pro-lifers long sought to influence public
hospitals to prevent their providing abortions. That battle in most
of
Canada
may have been lost for the time being, and church-sponsored hospitals
which refused to perform abortions have been forced to be abandoned or
driven from the field of maternity and natal care.
Unless we are successful in opposing euthanasia, a similar result may
ensue with regard to those who are apparently nearing the end of life..
We need to ensure the continuance of private nursing homes
where the elderly and helpless are protected from so-called mercy-killing.
We need to call our politicians to account. Questionnaires such as those
which Campaign Life Coalition BC and BC Parents and Teachers for Life have
distributed are useful because they force a candidate to either state his
opinion clearly or be seen as hiding his true beliefs Too often
politicians—when they have not been out-and-out pro-abortion—have
gotten away with paying lip service to the pro-life cause and after
collecting pro-lifers’ votes, have done nothing. For
example, when BCPTL communicated with British Columbia MLA’s asking that
they support a measure which would have prevented pro-abortion counseling
without parental approval, we received not one positive response.
By working together from a base of common shared knowledge, using the
tools of modern communication, we can succeed in influencing our
generation and generations to come. We must persevere and encourage
those coming into our movement to persevere. We should not expect a
sudden over-all victory, but, if we work together with knowledge,
persistence, and all the intelligence we possess,
we should expect success in spreading the culture of life bit-by-bit,
till, like a tide that covers a shore, righteousness will spread in our
nation to the glory of God and the benefit of the young for whose welfare
we are responsible, and for the benefit of those who come after us.
—XXX—
Speech Given at
a
CASJAFVA Rally by the President of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life
At a time like this it is good to gather with
those who share a deep concern for our society, and who realize that the
time to show that concern is now. We are here because we realize that
something is amiss when unelected courts order the immediate legal
redefinition of a fundamental institution of our society (marriage), and
when elected representatives of the people promote legislation which
threatens the basic liberties of those people. We are here to defend the
traditional definition of marriage and to protest—before it is too late
to protest—the planned imposition of legislation which would be a
bludgeon for use on those who dare to criticize a behaviour which they may
regard as immoral or dangerous.
Both the legal redefinition of marriage and Bill C-250 seem to proceed
from those who have either little understanding of, or little respect for,
the traditional freedoms which have made this nation a haven for those who
have sought personal liberty. If a provincial court can order an immediate
change in the law without reference to specific provisions of any existing
law and disregarding the role of parliament, then we are witnessing a
dramatic and ominous shift to rule by those who have power but lack
responsibility. And when those who fail to recognize the difference
between legitimate criticism and debate seek to extend the definition of
punishable hate speech, we need to be aware of the likely consequences of
the legislation they propose.
What I hope we are seeing, and what we need to encourage, is the spread
of a sense of righteous indignation. Let me make clear what I mean in
using such a term. Righteous indignation is founded on a sense of justice—the
same sense of justice that inspired the movement for the abolition of
slavery and the early civil rights movement. Righteous indignation is
passionate, because it cares about justice. We need to see the
peaceful exercise of this passion, guided by reason and respectful of the
rights of others—respectful even of the rights of those who would seek
to trample on our own.
Already in this country we have seen too many moves to curb our
traditional liberties. When Scott Brockie in Ontario was fined for
refusing to print for a homosexual organization when it was against his
conscience, we saw a fundamental freedom being trampled on. When the
public-school teacher and counsellor Chris Kempling was found by the BC
College of Teachers to be guilty of “conduct unbecoming” a member,
merely for exercising his right of free speech in criticizing a program of
the teachers’ union, we saw a basic liberty again being disregarded.
When the highest court of the land ordered the use of pro-homosexuality
materials in teaching young children, in the face of opposition by their
parents, we saw a dangerous encroachment on the rights of parents to
protect their children from what they regard as harmful indoctrination. I
am with a group that has a particular concern for education, and one of
the concerns we have with the redefinition of marriage is the fact that it
is bound to lead to yet more pressure to force schools to propagandize on
behalf of same-sex unions.)
We need to protest in righteous indignation against politicians who
break their promise to respect the traditional definition of marriage and
happily allow the courts to act to destroy that definition instead of
invoking the “Notwithstanding Clause” and asserting parliament’s
authority. We need to raise the alarm when the rights of legitimate free
speech are being threatened. We need to cry aloud on behalf of our
children and our children’s children and our neighbour’s children,
lest the law—which is a teacher—be used to teach them falsehoods. and
lest those who would raise their voices against this false teaching be
clubbed into silence.
When we go from here, let us not say that we have done our duty, but
rather that we are resolved to do our duty as citizens of this
province and this country. Let us speak to our friends, our
families, and our neighbours--face-to-face, by phone, and by e-mail--about
the issues which have been addressed here. Let us communicate to the
governments of this province our desire that they stand up for the
traditional definition of marriage and that they preserved our right to
legitimate freedom of speech. Then, when we have done what is
required of us and what we are given the strength to do, let us have hope
and faith that this country can be restored to health and to true strength
and freedom.
Note: The above printed version of the speech
is almost word-for-word as given. The text reflects as accurately as
possible some "ex tempore" changes from the speech as
originally written..
BCPTL
Presentation to the British Columbia
Caucus Task Force on Safe Schools
The following is the BCPTL
presentation to the BC Caucus Task Force on Safe Schools. It
was presented orally on December 3rd in Surrey. Due to
time constraints, the "Talking Points" previously
published here were adopted as the BCPTL brief.,
Other organizations and individuals were welcome to borrow
points and use them in their own presentations.
Written presentations, we were told, could be made and would be
accepted up to December 15th.
1. All students should be able to attend school without fear of
harassment and bullying.
Schools should not be places where harassment and bullying are
allowed to happen, because students as human beings have a right
not to be mistreated. This right does not depend on their
membership in a particular group, but on their status as human
beings. Students of all races, ethnic groups, and
self-identification as to sexual orientation—all students, as
individuals—should be protected from harassment, bullying, and
harm at school. To suggest that the right to freedom from
harassment and bullying is a special one to be enjoyed by virtue
of membership in particular groups, other than the human race, is
to suggest that those not in such groups are second-class and
deserving of lesser protection.
2. Schools can establish a fear-free atmosphere using the means
at their disposal right now.
Administrators and teachers within a school should be
consistent and united in insisting that no student be subjected to
vicious name-calling or bullying by other students. An atmosphere
of firm and fair discipline can be a good means of protecting
students from mistreatment by other students.
3. Students need to be taught that courteous, even
forcefully expressed, disagreement is part of our tradition of
freedom.
It is of the essence of our traditions of freedom that
disagreements can be expressed. Students should begin learning how
to do this in a civil manner while at school. Students should be
able to distinguish expressed disagreement from harassment and
bullying. Disagreement expressed in terms which are
respectful and civil is not hateful speech. Of course,
teachers themselves need to understand this in order to teach the
concept to their students.
4. Public schools should be places where students are
protected from those who would prey on them by presenting harmful
behaviours as acceptable.
Such harmful behaviours include the use of harmful drugs, and
the abuse of substances such as alcohol, and the addiction to
pornography. They also include the promotion of sexual practices
which are physically or psychologically harmful.
Promotion
of such things as the above can lead to a climate where students
are bullied into acceptance of such practices. For example, the
promotion of the use of drugs by outside persons can result in
peer pressure to take drugs, which can be a very serious form of
harassment and bullying.
5. At the same time as we consider methods of preventing
harassment and bullying, we should reject some measures which have
been proposed which, though advocated as ways of preventing these
evils, can actually be harmful to students.
History is full of unintended consequences, and it would be
foolish refuse to consider the possibility of serious negative
consequences from some programs which may be proposed as means of
preventing bullying and harassment.
6. Groups
should not be allowed to propagandize students in ways that will
encourage them to engage in dangerous behaviours.
This should be obvious. However, there is evidence that groups
have been established which operate within the school, making use
of school communications facilities such as the public address
system and student bulletins, and seem likely to encourage
students in dangerous behaviour. What behaviour are we talking
about, and what is the evidence that it is dangerous?
7. Evidence is convincing that those engaging in homosexual
behaviour are at risk.
For example, the Centres for Disease control (United States)
in its semiannual HIV/Aids Surveillance Report gave the
following information (“numbers based on AIDS cases reported to
CDC through December 2002 [Correction: 2001]”: Under “Cases by Exposure
Category,” by far the largest number of any single category was
for "men who have sex with men.” The number was 368,971.
The next largest came under “Injecting Drug Use” (145,750).
After that came “Men who have sex with men and inject drugs”
(51,293). (Reference for the foregoing: Centres for Disease
Control Website at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm)
8. One of the dangers to students is the presence in schools
of “Gay-Straight Alliances” being promoted by the BC
Teachers’ Federation. In March of 2000, the BC Teachers
Federation Annual General Meeting passed Recommendation 39. It was
a recommendation::
(a) That the BCTF actively support the establishment of
Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA) support groups in middle and high
schools throughout BC;
(b) That the BCTF actively encourage local leaders to facilitate
the establishment of Gay/Straight Alliance (GSA) student
support groups in middle and high schools in their locals.
Nowhere in the recommendation were there any criteria for what
these “Gay-Straight Alliances would promote
or what would be the limits of their mandate. We have heard of no
such criteria or limits that have been publically established
since
by those who are promoting Gay-Straight Alliances.
Among the questions that need to be asked regarding GSAs are
the following:
1. Will GSAs operate on the assumption that homosexual behaviour
is normal and safe? Or will they be told of the dangers
associated with that behaviour?
2. Will speakers from the homosexual community address GSAs?
If so, by what criteria will they be selected? 3..Will students be
told that "adult porn. . . is a significant part of gay male
culture"*? (as the editor of the homosexual publication, Xtra
West, said in "A Message to Ujal" in Xtra West,
October 16, 1997, p.5)
3. Will students be exposed to materials such as those from
“Little Sister’s Bookstore” and Xtra West?
Challenging Homophobia in Schools is a resource
distributed to BC Schools, produced for BC educators, financed by
BCTF, the BC Human Rights Commission, and Gay and Lesbian
Educators of British Columbia. It is quite extensive, but nowhere
that we have noticed in the handbook Challenging Homophobia in
Schools is there the slightest mention of the dangers of
homosexual behaviour.
It is indefensible to recommend for students’ perusal a
publication such as Xtra West, which carries advertisements
promoting sexual promiscuity and has carried ads with such
connotations of pedophilia as these phrases, culled from ads in
the Xtra West of June 25, 1998, P. 39: “A top man looking for a
West End bottom boy” and “Looking for a boy to play with.”
10.
Students must be protected from damaging counselling practices.
An example of a potentially harmful brochure is the one
produced by GALE BC entitled I Think I Might be Gay or Lesbian. Students are referred to a set of organizations, most of whom
promote a favourable view of homosexuality.
In a totally different area of counselling, public school
students need to be protected from pro-abortion counselling and
referrals which ignore the rights of parents to be informed, to be
involved in giving loving advice to their offspring. As the law
now stands in British Columbia, a young girl can come home having
been referred by a counsellor or school nurse to an
abortion-providing agency and having had an abortion—all without
the advice or counsel or approval of her parents. Many parents are
deeply concerned about the psychological and physical damage that
may result. . An attitude on the part of teachers and
counsellors that abortion is an acceptable solution to a problem,
and the facilitation of abortion procurement could establish
an attitude where in effect students are pressured into obtaining
abortions
The Infants Act needs to be changed to remedy this situation.
(Reference: BC Parents and Teachers for Life, “BCPTL
Petition Seeks Requirement of Parental Consent for
Youth Health-Care Referrals,” BCPTL Website (at http://www.bcptl.org/abortion.htm#petition).
|
|
|