Links to Pages in this 

New Home Page

Old Home Page




Contact Us

Essays. Speeches, and Other Compositions

& Related


Help for



News and Views 

ling in the

Opposing the Pro-

Sex Education--
Issues Regarding

Standing Up for the Threatened Rights of a Free Society

Take Backo
the Schools


"Life Views"
British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life Website


Events Future and Past

Table of Contents for This Page

Past Events:

Third International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - Vancouver BC,  June 3 - 4, 2011

Unite for Life Webcast May 1

March for Life, Ottawa, 2011

March for Life, Victoria, 2011

Rally to protect ALL children in Burnaby Public Schools against discrimination

The Patrick Webb Essay Competition 2010-2011

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

Future Events

Third International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - Vancouver BC,  - June 3 - 4, 2011.

[We are happy to post this information from an e-mail from Alex Schadenburg of the Euthanasian Prevention Coalition.] 

Celebrating our successes; preparing for new challenges.

You need to attend the Third International Symposium. 

We have had tremendous success defeating the world-wide efforts of the euthanasia lobby.

You will learn from the leaders who are making a difference in Canada, Quebec, USA, Australia, England, Netherlands and Scotland.  

 Where:  Vancouver Airport Marriott Hotel in beautiful Vancouver British Columbia Canada.  Call 1-877-323-8888 for room rates: $139 for a room; $159 for a suite (let them know that you are attending the Euthanasia Symposium).  Information about the hotel:

When: Friday, June 3, 2011 at 9 am. - Saturday, June 4, 2011 at 4:30 pm.

Registration fee: $199 regular or $149 for a student or a person with a disability (registration does not include banquet fee). The Friday night banquet is $50.00 and features Senator Helen Polley from Tasmania in Austalia.

 To Register 

If booking your flight with Air Canada at: use promotion code: FNKB4F91.

Looking forward to meeting you!

Co-Sponsored by
: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC),  Care Not Killing Alliance - UK, HOPE - Australia, Vivre dans la Dignite - Quebec, EPC - BC, No Less Human - UK, Compassionate Healthcare Network, True Dignity Vermont, Montanans Against Assisted Suicide and for Living with Dignity, Physicians for Compassionate Care, Signal Hill - BC, HLI, World Congress of Families.

 Donations Appreciated! Consider donating $199 to enable a student or a person with a disability to attend the Symposium.

How to donate:

 * If you wonder if the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide really threaten the societal protection for vulnerable people, read my commentary on the BC Civil Liberties Association's attempt to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada through the Court:

 Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Chair, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International

Phone (toll free) 1-877-439-3348




Unite for Life Webcast May 17th

Life is full of decisions, and every decision we make has an echo that affects our future.

On May 17th at 8:00 PM local time*, come be a part of the UNITEforLIFE webcast with Abby Johnson, a former abortion clinic director for Planned Parenthood. Join us for heartfelt discussions as Abby shares her long-held desire to help women in crisis, and the moment of pure awakening that led her to re-evaluate her life’s work.

During this webcast, hosted by Kelly Rosati, Vice President of Community Outreach for Focus on the Family, you’ll discover why Abby is now an advocate for the pro-life pregnancy centers and clinics around the nation that truly serve women and save lives. Special guests, representing over 2500 pregnancy care centers and clinics, include:

Dr. Peggy Hartshorn, President of Heartbeat International,

Tom Glessner, Founder and President of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) and

Melinda Delahoyde, President of Care Net,, and
Lola French, CEO of the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services,

Meet women who discovered that abortion was not their only choice and learn how they received the caring, confidential support they needed to choose life for their babies.

Plus, we’ll hear from Shawn Carney, co-founder of 40 Days for Life and former Executive Director of Coalition for Life, who befriended Abby when she worked at Planned Parenthood, tell how prayer and kindness are having a huge impact on those working at abortion clinics and speaking to the hearts of abortion-minded women.

If you’ve ever felt God’s calling to stand up for children who cannot speak for themselves; to raise your voice in defense of the preborn; if you want to help women who are face-to-face with the most difficult and important decision of their lives — and possibly change the future of abortion in our culture — join us at on May 17 at 8pm, local time*.

The proceeds from the webcast will benefit the featured pro-life pregnancy care organizations (as well as Signal Hill in Canada), so we invite people from across the U.S. and Canada to join hands to help serve women and save lives.

Sign up today get a free download of an interview with Abby Johnson and Focus on the Family USA President, Jim Daly.

*9 pm in the Maritimes


Events Held

March for Life, 2011, Ottawa, Ontario


For an album of pictures of this event, go to Brett's gallery.

Canada’s March for Life makes a splash in national media

Patrick B. Craine

Fri May 13, 2011

OTTAWA, Ontario, May 13, 2011 ( - Canada’s record-breaking National March for Life made a splash in the national media this year, reversing a long-standing trend in the mainstream media of diligently ignoring the largest annual rally on Parliament Hill.

Over 15,000 pro-lifers gathered on the Hill Thursday for Canada’s 14th annual National March for Life, which marked the 42nd anniversary of Trudeau’s infamous Omnibus Bill that paved the way for abortion-on-demand.

For the second straight year, the march won coverage in all the major media outlets, including the CBC, CTV, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, National Post, Metro, and Global. 

In particular, the overwhelmingly positive coverage from the Sun News Network revealed how the new station will likely be a game-changer for national media coverage of pro-life issues.

The reporting was admittedly not all positive, however, with many media outlets giving equal attention to the small pro-abortion counter-protest, and the CBC reporting an estimate of 5,000 despite the official count of over 15,000. As well, while the Globe and Mail published a Canadian Press article about the march on its website, it was nowhere to be found in the paper’s print edition.

On the other hand, Postmedia, which runs the National Post and a chain of local papers across the country, ran a largely-positive piece headlined ‘Party atmosphere on Parliament Hill for anti-abortion rally’.  “Had it not been for the signs expressing sentiments such as ‘Abortion: A Crime Against Humanity,’ Thursday’s anti-abortion rally would have looked like Canada Day on Parliament Hill, as thousands gathered under sunny skies for the 14th annual March for Life,” it read.

Sun News offered by far the most complete and positive coverage from the mainstream media, however.  Their top story Thursday morning was a poll they had commissioned in advance of the March showing that 59% of Canadians want legal restrictions on abortion and more than quarter want protections for the unborn from conception.  They also ran an internet poll on abortion throughout the day.

Brian Lilley, the host of Sun News’ Byline, dedicated his show Thursday evening to abortion, with an opening call for Canadians to build a culture of life.  “We need to speak openly about what an abortion is.  It’s the killing of an unborn child,” said Lilley.  “[The unborn child] is a human life flourishing inside a woman.”

“Not only do these abortions end a human life, they hurt the women involved.  We need to help these women,” he added.

Lilley also engaged in a dialogue with Abacus pollster David Caletto, debunking the myth that it would be political suicide for Canadian politicians to enshrine in law some legal protections for the unborn.

(See video here.)

Lilley, and Sun News coverage in general were refreshingly clear, in a way perhaps unprecedented for a national media outlet, about the vastly misunderstood status quo of abortion law in Canada – namely that there has been no abortion law since 1988, and thus abortion is legal and state-funded up until birth.

Though there has been a spattering of media coverage over the march’s history, it made its first major breakthrough into the media spotlight last year, fueled by the controversy over the Conservative government’s exclusion of abortion funding from its G8 maternal health initiative.

This year’s march won a huge amount of free publicity in the days before the event, after LifeSiteNews broke the story that Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson had proclaimed May 12th ‘Respect for Life Day’ in honor of the March for Life.

The perhaps unprecedented level of coverage was foreshadowed by the fact that the Globe and Mail, one of Canada’s most pro-abortion papers, announced the pro-life event in advance, on Thursday morning.  The Ottawa Citizen also announced the event beforehand, promising coverage and photos, as well linking to Parliament’s webcam so readers could see the massive crowd.



March for Life, Victoria, British Columbia, 2011

British Columbia Parents & Teachers for Life Photos:

































Victoria March for Life draws record crowd

By Brent Mattson
The. B.C. Catholic

VICTORIA--Under a bright, shining sun, around 2,000 marched through the streets of Victoria from Centennial Square to the Provincial Legislature for the 2011 March for Life May 12. , , , ,

The theme of the event was “Protect human life” and throngs of people held up signs affirming that message as they wound down the 1 km route to the Legislature.

Among the throngs of people were the B.C. Campaign for Life Coalition, the Knights of Columbus, the Canadian Nurses for Life, the B.C. Parents and Teachers for Life, and more than 500 students from the Archdiocese of Vancouver's schools.

Pavel Reid, director of Catholic Family Services for the archdiocese, acted as master of ceremonies for the rally on the front lawn of the Legislature. The crowd cheered as he announced Victoria and Ottawa’s marches had their largest turnouts this year.

The rally’s keynote speaker was Rebecca Kiesling. She was adopted at birth and eventually found out she was conceived when a serial rapist assaulted her mother.
After this, she said she often felt the need to justify her own existence to people who are pro-choice or pro-life, with the exception of rape.

She said that research shows that people who give birth after rape do well, whether they decide to parent or put the child up for adoption. . . . .

 Archbishop Miller told the crowd he was excited to see the large amount of young people numbered among the demonstrators.

“It’s certainly to inspiring to see the enthusiasm of young people and to have the sense that things indeed can change,” Archbishop Miller said. “This can become a culture of life.”  . . . .

“There is a serious gap in the law in Canada, which allows the practice of abortion to proceed right up almost until the time of birth,” the archbishop said. “We cannot hide the truth under a bushel basket, we must simply tell the truth and be honest.”

The rally was followed by a banquet at St. Patrick’s School Hall where Kiesling and Alex Schadenberg from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition both spoke.

Schadenberg spoke about the importance of end-of-life issues within the pro-life movement.

“I’m hoping that many people will recognize at this time in history it’s important for people to get involved in this issue of euthanasia and assisted suicide.”

He said the Farewell Foundation and B.C. Civil Liberties Association have separate court cases trying to strike down euthanasia laws and groups like his need to be there to represent the pro-life side.

[Click here to read the whole article in The B.C. Catholic online.]



"Rally to protect ALL children in Burnaby Public Schools against discrimination"
The information below was distributed by e-mail prior to the rally, at which,
it is reported, some 200 parents and others gathered to express their opposition to proposed
school board policy.

Tuesday May 10, 2011 at 6:00pm
District Administration Office
5325 Kincaid Street, Burnaby
(Royal Oak & One block south of Canada Way)
On February 22nd, the Burnaby School District approved draft policy 5.45 on “Homophobia/
Heterosexism”. The draft policy is scheduled to be adopted before the end of the school year.

• The draft policy has not been widely distributed to families reducing opportunity for public
• The Burnaby School District’s aim to eradicate discrimination against one group of people is
simply displacing it to others. The draft policy labels the belief that marriage is exclusively
between one man and one woman as “perpetuating negative stereotypes and is dangerous to
individuals and communities.”
• By counseling children that they and their parents hold "dangerous beliefs" is divisive to
families and family values. This a reverse form of bullying and name calling directed against
children and parents. Schools must be safe environments for all children of all beliefs.
• Educational authorities have the obligation to respect parents as the first and foremost
educators of their children and may not impose a system of education unless it is granted the
expressed permission from the parent to do so. Within the scope of parental rights lies the right
to teach their children values that are in conformity with their beliefs regarding the family,
marriage, and sex.
• Draft policy 5.45 imposes mandatory re-education of a specific sexual doctrine by embedding
these teachings into the day-to-day curriculum. This effectively removes any avenue available
to parents to exempt their child from the curriculum. Parents, not educational authorities,
decide whether, how and when a child will be taught about certain sexual education doctrines.

We ask the Burnaby Board of Education to hear the concerns of all families who
will be affected by draft policy 5.45
For more information, contact The Parents’ Voice. Email:



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 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







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.







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.)








NAME: (Print)________________________________/______________________________

                                                     Surname                                         Given name(s)


DATE OF BIRTH:_________/_____________/______________/_________

                                        Day                          Month                      Year


NAME & ADDRESS OF SCHOOL:______________________________________________













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

Also visit websites,,








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







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.)








NAME: (Print)________________________________/______________________________

                                                     Surname                                         Given name(s)


DATE OF BIRTH:_________/_____________/______________/_________

                                        Day                          Month                      Year


NAME & ADDRESS OF SCHOOL:______________________________________________













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

Also visit websites,,, and






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:  
  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

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.]




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.


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:


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.


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



 [“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.”]


[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



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:       





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,,,,,,, and 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  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                   



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 ).  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.




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

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































This page was last updated on: October 07, 2011




Useful Links to Other Websites

We are, of course, not responsible for the content of external sites.  Listing of a site does not imply anything about our agreement or disagreement with particular  statements that may be made on such external sites.

Are you pregnant and need help?  
Help is available from these centres:   
Canada, US, UK, Ireland Pregnancy Centres: Click to find a centre in your area 
--or, in Canada or the US call 1-800-395-HELP

Abortion procedures and risks

Abortion: Stop the Cover-up

Association for Reformed PoliticalAction--Education

Campaign Life Coalition

Campaign Life Coalition BC

Canada Family Action Coalition

Canadian Constitution Foundation

CASJAFVA (Canadian  & Family Values Association)

Catholic Civil Rights Leag

Compasionate Healthcare Network

Courage Apostolate

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada--Home Page

       EFC Social Issues

Exodus Youth

Family & Lifea 

Family Policy Institute
of Washington

Focus on the Family:

Focus on the Family Canada

Human Life Alliance


Institute for Canadian Values

Kelowna Pro-Life




Mission America

NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homo sexuality)

Parents for Democracy in Education

Priests for Life

Priests for Life Canada

Pro-Life Blogs

Pro-Life Canada Index

Pro-Life Corner

Pro-Life Kelowna


REAL Women of Canada

REAL Women of BC

Roadkill Radio

Silent No More

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children  (UK-based)

Students for Life of America

Take Back Canada

Teachers Saving Children

The Parents'

True Tolerance

United Families International

Vivre dans la Dignité
  opposes euthanasia
  & assisted suicide)

World  Youth Alliance