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

News and Views

 Table of Contents for This Page:

Boston Globe celebrates sex-changes for children by major hospital on front page of Sunday edition

Surgical Sex

Parents’ rights organization asks: ‘Why won’t Education Ministry answer mail?’  [British Columbia]

Redford open to revisit rights issue in schools

Teacher watchdog resigns following Star investigation

Infanticide conviction nets Alberta woman suspended sentence

The Bayne Children are being Returned to Their Parents

School board to spend $21,500 on homophobia policy

Liberal Hedy Fry vows to sponsor trans bill in next Parliament

Nuclear Families Healthiest for Children

An Apple a day keeps ex-gays away

The March 2, 2011, ruling on the Bayne case:  The children are not coming home--at least not for six months.

National Post editorial board: Stop the anti-Christian witchhunt on campus  

MTV's Obsession with Child Abuse

. . . School cancels cross-dressing day

Canadian Supreme Court embryo ruling will lead to more deaths say pro-life groups

Transgender Bill C-389 Proceeds to Third Reading and Debate

Heather Stilwell, Remembered as a Strong Pro-Life Defender of Children

An Update on the Bayne Family  October 24, 2010 and additional comment of November 22, 2010

Leaders Pledge to Stop Bill C-389 From Exposing Our Children to Perverts

New Easy Mail Letter: Bill C-389 - the "Bathroom Bill"

Bill C-389: The EFC Opposes Proposed "Gender Identity" Amendment to Human Rights Act

Canadian researchers transform skin into blood

RED ALERT: 'Scary' Canadian Transgender Anti-Discrimination Bill Sails Thru Committee  

Long-Time Canadian Pro-Life Hero Honoured in Ottawa

Teen Suicide is a Complex Issue

Sex Education Subject of Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Open Letter to Ontario Minister of Education

Media Release from REAL Women of Canada

BC Government Changes Plans on Part-Time Kindergarten

University of Calgary Students' Union Withdraws Complaint Against Campus Pro-Life  [news release]

"Obama Inserts Gay Dads into Father’s Day Proclamation"

LaBarbera:  Obama 'Gays Down' Father's Day by Extolling 'Two Fathers' as a Nurturing Family

Fact finder to examine BC College of Teachers

A Letter of Concern Regarding the Proposal to Redesign the Teacher Education Program  (from a University of British Columbia Professor Emeritus)

Quebec Parents to Take Mandatory Relativistic Ethics Course to Supreme Court

B.C. teacher claims Catholic school sent her home for being a lesbian

    B.C. school disputes lesbian teacher's allegations

B.C. trustees ask province to "redirect" private school funding to public education

Hillary Clinton stirs the pot on Afghanistan, Abortion and the Arctic

Obama's Historic Health Care Bill Also A Political Gamble

Baby Isaiah Dies with Family on Parents' Terms

Private and Public Schools Subject to [Proposed] Transgendered Guidelines [in Maine]

Hold the fort on 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell'

Trinity Western University protests "blacklisting" by university teachers

Rally Planned--"Let the Ad Run!"  [Kelowna Right to Life press release]

More on the Colbourne Testimony  [a follow-up to the article "A Family in Need of Reunification]n

Calgary church loses charitable status for its "non-partisan political activities"

Ontario Bishops Reject High School “Gender Studies” Course

A Family in Need of Reunification

Half of Urban Teen Girls Acquire STIs within 2 Years of First Sexual Activity

Resolution introduced in Congress to remove "safe schools" czar Kevin Jennings. 

Copenhagen: China pushing Population Control as the Final Solution

Prominent Canadian Journalist Calls for Imposed Planetary One-Child Policy

Reporter Fired Over Gay Marriage E-Mail

Abortion an obstacle to health-care bill

November 7, 2009 News Items Regarding the Passing of the U.S. Health Care Reform Bill Preceded by 
the Passing of an Amendment Prohibiting Coverage of Elective Abortion by a Government Program

Election Results Good for Conservatives  [in the United States]

Saskatchewan MP Trost launches petition against funding of planned parenthood group

Did Feminism Benefit Men more than Women? Prominent US Feminist Asks

Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Funds Pornographic Display at Harvard

School club controversy raises more questions  [Can "Gay-Straight Alliance and Christian clubs can co-exist in public schools"?]

Baynes Family in British Columbia Still Without Their Three Children after Government Takes Them in Controversial Seizure

    Paul and Zabeth Bayne's "Summary of the Damage Incurred Through Medical Misdiagnosis and Ministry of Children and Family Development"

European Parliament Raps Lithuania for “Protection of Minors” Law Curbing Homosexual Advocacy

Science Awards Go to Adult-Cell Researchers

Sex Ed Gone Wild: Canadian Mag Covers Trend toward "Pleasure-Based" Sex Ed in Schools

John Holdren: Not Even Born Babies Are Human Yet

Catholics Launch Anti-Euthanasia Campaign

Kelowna's Mayor's Office Proclaims "Protect Human Life Week"

At meeting, NEA declines to remain neutral on abortion

. . . Francis Collins Named to Head NIH

Gay-Activist Movement to be Honored at White House

Scarce Federal Dollars Fund Sex Parade  [in Canada]

"What Would We Do with $400,000?"

UK, American, Canadian Pro-Life Groups Condemn Tiller MurderCanadian Evangelical Leadership Looking to Increase March For Life Attendance

Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court Nominee

Links to Christianity Today "Politics Blog" Comments on the Sotomayor Choice

CBC "Engaged in Blatant Media Censorship" Says CLC about Lack of National Coverage for March for Life; CLC lodges formal complaint to the CRTC

12,000: Canadian 2009 March for Life Smashes Previous Attendance Records

Alberta's culture minister not backing down on parents' rights bill

Good News - Human Trafficking Bill Easily Passes First Vote in Parliament 

A Look Back at Obama's First 100 Days

German Parents Convicted after Withdrawing Daughter from Explicit Sex-Ed Program: Appeal Filed

Miss California USA Loses Crown after Defending Marriage

"Mr. Bean" Star Urges House of Lords to Protect Free Speech Clause in "Anti-Homophobia" Law

Staring into the Abyss

Obama to lift stem-cell restrictions

Local study sheds light on HIV

California's Temper Tantrum: How the gay rights movement lost more than Proposition 8.

One small victory for freedom of speech

Abbotsford Approves Social Justice 12

Obama and evangelicals: Form over substance

Sexually transmitted disease rates soar: CDC

Pepsi Gives $1,000,000 to Advance Homosexualist Agenda

Richard Neuhaus, Editor of First Things, Mourned by Pro-Life Leaders

The Press Take On Teenage Sex

Christian ministry suffers web attack

"Queers uniting around Liberal-NDP coalition"   [in Canada]

Massachusets Department of Public Health "groundbreaking" report says homosexuality linked with health problems, destructive behavior.

. . . Homosexuals Disrupt Church Service

Church Lady Meets Same-Sex "Marriage" Protesters"

Angry homosexual mob surrounds Christians in San Francisco; police escort to safety

Protests Over Gay Marriag Escalate in California

Conservative Convention Delegates Adopt Policy Protecting Pregnant Women from Violent Crime
    Also voted to curtail the power of the Human Rights Commissions to prosecute "hate speech"

[In the United States] Scalia Warns Judges against Relying on Foreign Law

Parents, Teachers, and Leaders Meet to Respond to the Corren Agreement

Florida Judge Rejects State Law, Allows Gay Man to Adopt

No One to Vote For

Christian doctor puts faith into practice 

Deja Vu: Advertising Group Says Ads are Deceptive

Articles in Prominent Medical Journal Doubt Worth and Benefit of HPV Vaccine

"Conservative Party of Canada Kills Unborn Victims of Crime Act with Gutless Alternative"

EPP Statement in Response to Government's 'Alternative'

MPs take sides on unborn victims bill

Pro-Life Hero Wins Olympic Medal in Beijing

Canada Finally Moves Age of Consent for Sex from 14 to 16

Rainbow Sash Movement Plots Papal Protest

New 'Bully' video game raises teachers' concern

[U.S.] CDC: 1 in 4 Teen Girls Has Sexually Transmitted Infection

Abortionist Morgentaler Not on Order of Canada List for 2008

Jean Chretien to Receive Order of Canada for His "Legacy" - "Same-Sex Unions"

Private member's bill would protect unborn crime victims

Fire the censors

Drug-resistant staph passed in gay sex -US study

Senior at centre of life-support battle improving but Grace [Hospital] Still Seeking the Rught to Pull Plug

A News Release Regarding a New Website:

Catholic Insight under 'human rights' attack

Biased Abstinence Ed Report Draws Criticism

Bella (an excerpt from a "Plugged In"  Online review)

"Social conservatives move on to next marriage debate"

"[U.S.] Senate Passes Dangerous Hate-Crimes Amendment"

Not SoMiraculous

GSAs: not as innocent as they may seem

"Thousands cheer gay pride parade"

Playing fast, loose

U.S. Senate passes stem-cell funding bill

Telus Drops Porn Service After Complaints Onslaught

Appeals Court Rebuffs ACLU; Boy Scout Jamboree Will Go On

Renfrew County Family Action Council 2006 Ontario Report

Stem Cells Discovered in Amniotic Fluid, Scientists Announce

Landmark ruling allows children to have three parents

Decision of Ontario Court of Appeal to Allow 3 Parent Families

Court ruling allowing 3 parents for boy raises concerns for custody battles 

Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Massachusetts

Madrid Restaurant fined for refusing to host gay wedding reception

"Healing the Culture was a Great Conference"

Speaker Fr. Robert Spitzer Addresses Morality of Bill C-338

Deal threatens education rights, archbishop says

Who Will Write the Social Justice 12 Course?
  [in British Columbia]

Anti-homosexuality brochure held up at Canada Post

L.A. billboards say AIDS a 'gay' disease

California Court Upholds 'Gay Marriage' Ban 

"Schwarzenegger Vetoes Two Anti-Family School Bills"

Chanting the Mantra of Harm Reduction

Pope assails Canada's laws allowing same-sex marriage and abortion 

"How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime"

Germany Uses Nazi Era Law to Imprison Mom for Homeschooling; Family Flees to Austria

Christian Psychologist Suspended by Police over Former Affiliation with Pro-Family Group

Knight: Despite Claims, Pension [in the U.S.A.] Reform Not Endorsement of 'Alternative Family Lifestyles'

Chanting the Mantra of Harm Reduction

"Brains" Behind Ugandan AIDS Success Condemns Toronto AIDS Conference “Abstinophobia" and “Matriphobia”

Germany Drops Opposition to EU Embryo Research Funding

Canada Unborn Victims of Violence Bill Loses Appeal to be Declared Votable

Pedophilia Party Launched in the Netherlands

Pedophile's sentence too harsh, court rules

WWU Student Arrested for Destroying Anti-Abortion  Display

Canadian Victory for Christian Freedom: Bible = Hate Literature Ruling Reversed

Canadian Supreme Court Nominee Says Judges Should Not Decide Policy

Judge sets July 10 date for trial in homosexual activist lawsuit 

Nine Pro-Life Members of Parliament in New Canadian Government Cabinet

Activist Supreme Court Chief Justice Lectures Canadian Prime Minister on Court Appointments

MPs vote against raising age of sexual consent  [in Canada]
   (September, 2005)

Swedish Pastor Acquitted of Inciting Hatred Against Homosexuals

Canada Legalizes "Sex Clubs"  -- "14 Year Olds Will be Exploited"

MP Questions Cable Porn

One in nine has 'silent sex disease'

Mother No Longer Knows Best, High Court Told  (in the U.K.)

Canadian Government Caught Funding Anti-Christian Bigotry - Minister Won't Apologize

"British Columbia School District Cancels Explicit Gay Propaganda Play"

Ethicists Seek Halt to Harvesting Stem Cells from "Fresh" Embryos

"Allstate on list of top 10 pro-'gay' firms"

"Evangelist Proposes to Combat Homosexual Agenda in Public Education"

Thoughts of a Social Conservative after the Montreal CPC Convention of March, 2005

[U.S.] Government Web site touts sexual abstinence

"Conservative Caucus Backs Down on Controversial Measure to Stifle Debate at Convention"

Group Expresses Concern in New Brunswick Over Nature of "Comprehensive Sex Education" Program.

Canada Dumping Tens of Millions into Controversial United Nations Population Control Agency

US Supreme Court Rejects Massachusetts Gay "Marriage" Challenge

School Ordered to Pay $100,000 for Censoring Christian Student over Homosexuality

President Bush Chides Kerry on Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage

"Supreme Court of Canada of Canada is a Political Toy"  [REAL Women         of Canada press release]

"Judges Party with Homosexual Activists"

New York Times:  Many Homosexuals Don't Believe in Marriage

Focus on the Family--Canada, CFAC, and REAL Women of Canada Asked the Supreme Court of Canada to 
    Hear an Appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal Decision on Same-Sex "Marriage"

Warning over sex health crisis  [in the United Kingdom]

Canadian Federal Government Uses Voucher System for Native Education

Interim Article Charges "Incredible Media Bias During Election"

Liberals Poll Ontarians on Opinion about Possibility of "Scary" Evangelical Christians in Government  [May 4, 2004 article]

Bill C-6 [Canadian Parliament]

Supreme Court of Canada Hands Down Ruling on Spanking

"Evidence Found for Effectiveness of  Reorientation Therapy"

In British Columbia: Surrey School Board Again Rejects the Three Pro-Homosexuality Books as Teaching Resources

"Pro-Gay Education Gets Rights Hearing"

Citizens' Rights Institute Denied Intervener Status
in Homosexual Education British Columbia

Supreme Court of Canada Rules Against Surrey in "Surrey Books Case."

"The Persecution of Chris Kempling"

"Homosexual Murderer Should be Charged with Hate Crime, Group Says"

"Unions Stage Wall-Mart Protest"

Human Rights Complaint Against Alberta Pastor Who Wrote Protest Letter

Evidence Unnecessary, Guilt Obvious [article on Chris Kempling]   

Canadian Judge Fines Man $10,000 for Possession of Child Porn

Another Family [in Ontario] Investigated for the Way Children are Disciplined

BC Unity Leader Calls on Premier Campbell to Protect Marriage

"Raise age of sexual consent, Alberta says"  [November, 2002 Report]

Author Advocates Lowering Age of Sexual Consent; Denigrates Parental Role

"A Massachusetts Miracle"

Rock for Life Tells MTV "Stop Deceiving Our Generation."

"Catholic Demonstrators Target Abortion Clinic" [Globe & Mail]

Ontario Court Gives Mixed Message . . . [and] Christian Printer Decides 
Against Appeal

BC Parents and Teachers for Life Lose Their "Founding Mother"

Instructions for Shutting Down Pro-Life Display Given on a British Columbia "Pro-Choice" Website

"Canadian Delegation Leandin[

"Gay teen takes Catholic school to court over prom date"

Bishop and Federal Minister Take Opposite Sides on Homosexual Prom Dateio

"Gay" Student Wants to Bring Boyfriend to Catholic School Prom

Outgoing BCTF President Warns of Liberals' Reported Plans

Hope for Use of Adult Stem Cells

Religious Freedom on Trialapologizes

Pro-Homosexuality Activists Use Tragic Death to Attack Opponents

Canadian Government and United Way Sponsor S & M Youth Workshop

Depression and Suicide: Teens suffering with depression need to be assessed for their risk of suicide. Pay particular attention to these risk factors.

Response to a Teen Struggling with Suicidal Thoughts

Response to Teen who Has a Friend Struggling with Suicidal Thoughts

Teens in Crisis: Why Parents Matter

Life in Spite of Me

When Your Teen is Struggling



Boston Globe celebrates sex-changes for children by major hospital on front page of Sunday edition.  (Article too disturbing to read!)

Is this America's future?

[From an e-mail of December 12, 2011 from MassResistance]

The ultra-radical nature of the cultural revolution is coming into full view. With the Massachusetts "transgender rights" bill passed, the next frontier is public acceptance of sex-changes for children. Is this America's future?

Front page of this Sunday's Boston Globe.

Caption under headline:

"The twin boys were identical in every way but one. Wyatt was a girl to the core and now lives as one, with the help of a brave, loving family and a path-breaking doctor's care."


This past Sunday the Boston Globe published a celebratory front-page article about a 14-year-old boy (one of identical twins) who has "become" a girl. For the past three years his parents have had him undergo powerful puberty-blocking drug treatments. As a result, the boy is now five inches shorter than his brother and has some female-like features. This will be followed by series of female hormone injections and ultimately operations to remove male body parts and "create" female-imitating body parts. The effects of the opposite-sex hormone treatments are irreversible and will leave the boy sterile as an adult male (should he choose not to go the whole way).

This article is so incredibly disturbing that even we had trouble reading through it. For most of their lives the twins looked exactly alike. The one twin, Jonas, who is normal, is 5'6" tall and weighs 115 pounds. But Wyatt (who is now called "Nicole") is only 5'1" and weighs 100 pounds. For several years he has been dressing as a girl, using a girl's name, and going to school as a girl. But he is and always will be biologically and genetically a male.

And the Boston Globe portrays all this as not only normal, but a as ground-breaking, progressive, positive event which only ignorant, hateful, and backwards people would dare to criticize.

Sex-change treatments for kids . . . in Boston Children's Hospital!

Shockingly, the parents didn't have to go to some far-away European country do this. These ghastly "procedures" are being done to children by the elite medical establishment right in Boston.

As MassResistance has reported over the last few years, the world-renowned Children's Hospital in Boston is at the forefront of this bizarre medical practice. The hospital has set up a "Gender Management Services Clinic" for pre-adolescent children to be given hormones and drugs to delay puberty (with side effects that include infertility) in order to facilitate eventual body-mutilating "gender re-assignment surgery" to change their sex. It is run by Dr. Norman Spack, who is personally working with young Wyatt and his family.

As the article describes the upcoming stage for Wyatt:

"It is the next big step — taking sex hormones of the opposite gender — that creates permanent changes such as breasts and broadened hips that cannot be hormonally reversed."
Wyatt apparently had developed gender identity confusion in his early hears. The parents have made the decision that their son's problems are not psychological but medical: he's in the "wrong" body. As the article describes, Dr. Spack's diagnosis was to "change" his sex through treatments and eventually operations.

Safety of treatments not established -- still experimental

Boston Children's Hospital is nearly alone in America in this regard. These kinds procedures with children are considered to be on the fringe throughout the medical community.

. . . .


Surgical Sex

. . . .

I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. Their parents usually lived with guilt over their decisions—second-guessing themselves and somewhat ashamed of the fabrication, both surgical and social, they had imposed on their sons. As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their “true” sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.

Paul McHugh is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University.

[Read the whole of the above article in First Things online.]


Parents’ rights organization asks: ‘Why won’t Education Ministry answer mail?’

VANCOUVER, Nov. 4, 2011 (TBOS) — A consortium of groups concerned about parents’ and students’ rights wants to know why the Minister of Education won’t communicate with them. With the recent revelation that the teachers’ guide Out in Schools includes links to gay pornography as a “resource” to be recommended to students, the Ministry’s refusal to listen to parents has become critical, says Take Back Our Schools (TBOS).
“More than a year has passed since first wrote to Education Minister Margaret McDiarmid by means of a registered letter,” says TBOS spokesman Ron Gray. “Since then we have sent e-mails to ask if our letter has been read or considered. We haven’t yet received a response or even an acknowledgement from the Minister’s office.”

Executive members of the following six organizations, comprising hundreds of members, signed the letter: ARPA Canada (Association for Reformed Political Action); BCPTL (BC Parents and teachers for Life); Canada Family Action; CASJAFA (The Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association); Parents for Democracy in Education; and REAL Women of BC.

“TBOS is concerned about the way the Corren Settlement Agreement was arrived at,” Gray said today. “It was a secret agreement, entered into by the Minister of Education and Attorney-General of the day, but never ratified by the BC Legislature. It gives rights over education policy and curriculum to two homosexual activists—one now dead—authority such as no other unelected citizens have ever had.

“Today, with the connivance of the BC Teachers’ Federation, that agreement is being used to indoctrinate students into accepting homosexuality as ‘praiseworthy’; this was recently revealed by a Culture Guard news release and video showing how a program called Out in Schools recommended links to gay pornography sites as a ‘classroom resource’. Such indoctrination is in the open violation of both government and BCTF policies, which say clearly that classrooms must not be abused in that way.

“But the Ministry of Education has rejected all appeals from parents to be given similar oversight into what their children are taught, and now refuses even to answer its mail. If this stonewalling persists, it will surely become an issue at the next provincial election,” he said.


Contact: Ron Gray

Phone: (604) 534-3319


Redford open to revisit rights issue in schools

[--Open to denying parents the right to know what is being taught?  The reaction of some indicates that is what radical homosexual activists want.  On the positive side, the premier-designate is going to look at the Alberta Human Rights Act, which has been criticized for curbing feedom of speech.  --BCPTL Ed.]

Bill 44 lets kids 'opt-out' of classrooms


Alberta's next premier delved into the thorny issue of human rights law on Wednesday, with Alison Redford saying she will review a provision that requires parents to be notified when sex or religion is discussed in school classrooms, and a section that has been criticized for censoring free speech.

The issue came up during a Herald live online chat with Redford, when a reader asked about Bill 44, saying a parental notification requirement has put a chill on addressing issues of "sexual orientation" in the classroom.

Bill 44 changed Alberta's Human Rights Act to require schools to notify parents when topics such as sexual orientation, religion or human sexuality are taught in class. Parents can then make the decision for their child to opt-out.

"Given the high rates of gay teen suicide and our recognition for the need to tell them 'It Gets Better' through a social media campaign, would you support scrapping that section of the Human Rights Act?" reader Nancy asked the premier designate. . . . .

The other provision, Section 3 of Alberta Human Rights Act, speaks against the publication of any material that is "likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt." While campaigning for the Tory party leadership, Redford said "freedom of expression must be shielded and Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act should be repealed."

Redford said she would be taking another look at that provision, along with Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act. . . . .

[Read more of this article in the Calgary Herald online site.]


Teacher watchdog resigns following Star investigation

Kevin Donovan

Oct 5 2011

The teacher in charge of disciplining wayward educators in Ontario has quit his post.

Ontario College of Teachers discipline chair Jacques Tremblay submitted his resignation Wednesday afternoon following a Toronto Star story detailing how he wrote a soft-porn book for teens that featured inappropriate sexual conduct between teachers, students and a senior administrator.

Tremblay has resigned both from the College's Discipline Committee and the elected Council that oversees the College.

“He made this choice out of concern that the public perception of matters raised today in the media could lead to an erosion of the public’s confidence in the College and its work,” said College Council Chair Liz Papadopoulos, who said she accepted the resignation.

“The College makes every effort to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession’s self-regulatory processes,” Papadopoulos said in a statement.

Tremblay, the longtime chair of discipline at the Ontario College of Teachers, is the co-author of a soft porn book for teens that chronicles the sexy adventures of Grade 9 girls and boys at a mythical Toronto high school. . 

. . .

[Read the whole story on The Star online site.]


  Infanticide conviction nets Alberta woman suspended sentence

CBC News

Posted: Sep 9, 2011

The Wetaskiwin, Alta., woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench judge.

Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents' home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour's yard.

She silently wept as Justice Joanne Veit outlined the reasons for the suspended sentence. Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won't spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.

In her judgment, the judge rejected arguments from the Crown that the single father and the grandparent also face "the same stresses of the mind" as a mother who kills her own baby.

The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that "while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support," she writes.

The judge noted that infanticide laws and sentencing guidelines were not altered when the government made many changes to the Criminal Code in 2005, which she says shows that Canadians view the law as a "fair compromise of all the interests involved."

"Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant's death, especially at the hands of the infant's mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother. . . .

[Read the whole article on CBC online]

Alberta ProLife comments on this case:

Many pro-lifers have predicted this day would come.  We knew that if it was made legal to abort your child on your due date, then it wouldn't be long until you could strangle your child once delivered. Tragically, the lack of abortion laws in Canada gives room to justify the killing of a human being at any stage of life. When will this end?




The Bayne Children are being Returned to Their Parents

The Bayne children are being returned to their parents, Paul and Zabeth.  The following is taken from the August 2, 2011, posting on Facebook by "The Bayne Campaign for Justice."

"[The Baynes'] . . . counsel was able to disclose to them the content of Dr. Conrad Bowden's thorough Parental Capacity Assessment. In brief he found that neither Paul nor Zabeth fit a profile for a child abusive parent. He found them capable of caring for their children and having the stamina, energy, knowledge, skills and commitment to effectively care for their children. Dr. Bowden's report then advised on the appropriate process whereby the reintegration of the children to the Bayne household could be affected [sic] . . . . 

There was a clear sense conveyed in an apologetic manner by the Ministry lawyer on this occasion that MCFD understood how difficult this ordeal has been for the Baynes. They were also informed that there were no further requirements of the Baynes upon which the return of all four children was contingent. They took the time to discuss the plan and process by which the return would happen. From that meeting there was no further supervision required for visits with the children and Paul and Zabeth could take the children anywhere and visit anyone whom they chose. They have been able to choose the school for the autumn term which the children will attend. The boys have been measured for school uniforms and believe it or not, they were quite excited about this.  Josiah has stayed overnight as have the three older children. All of these are stems to acclimatize the family to what will be taking place.

  • According to the two month schedule, today, Josiah will be returned permanently to the Baynes.
  • On August 3rd on Bethany's birthday, the three older children will join the party for three hours.
  • August 4th is the date upon which Josiah's custody will be legally transferred to the Baynes.
  • From August 6-9 the three older children will be staying with Paul and Zabeth.
  • Then again from August 11-15th, these three older children stay overnight.
  • Another phase of reintegration occurs August 18-22 as the three oldest stay overnight once more.
  • Finally on August 25th, 2011 all four children will be effectively and permanently returned to Paul and Zabeth and it will be filed in court that day."



School board to spend $21,500 on homophobia policy

Comox Valley Echo

Published: Friday, April 29, 2011

A policy tackling homophobia and bullying received a big cash injection from the school district, last week.

The Comox Valley School District is investing $21,500 to roll out its new anti-homophobia policy, which encourages schools to create gay-straight alliance clubs and provides extra training for school counselors.

. . . . They'll create a library of resources for students to tap into around sexual orientation and they'll recommend training for staff in the district. Other cash will go towards creating a committee, organizing training programs and supporting Options for Sexual Health programs for high school students.

. . . . 

The school district is one of 12 in B.C. with a sexual orientation policy.

[Click here to read the whole article.]


[From Xtra, "Canada's Gay and Lesbian News":]

Liberal Hedy Fry vows to sponsor trans bill in next Parliament

. . .
Dale Smith / National / Friday, April 15, 2011
Long-time Liberal incumbent Hedy Fry announced her intention to bring a trans rights bill back under her name in the next Parliament.
“It’ll have to get back on the table, and someone has to do it, so I had told them that I would,” Fry says.
The NDP platform has an explicit commitment to moving forward with the aims of C-389, which would have added gender identity and gender expression to both the Human Rights Act and the hate crimes provisions of the Criminal Code. Retiring NDP MP Bill Siksay introduced the bill three times before announcing his retirement earlier this year.
For Fry, this remains the unfinished portion of her commitment to queer issues that she first ran on in 1993. . . . 


April 5, 2011 

 Nuclear Families Healthiest for Children

by Chad Hills

Traditional  or nuclear families – consisting of two married adults, who are the biological or adoptive parents of all children in the family – are the healthiest family structures for children, according to a recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report: Family structure and children’s health in the United States: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2001–2007 .

As noted in the CDC report, this information is based on seven years of national health survey data that contain numerous child health and access to health care measures for a sample of nearly 84,000 children. Very few nationally representative data sources contain such reliable measures of both family structure and child health.

[Read the whole of the above article on CitizenLink.]




An Apple a day keeps ex-gays away

March 30, 2011

By Christopher Doyle
© 2011 

. . .Turns out some are still threatened by the fact that people can change from gay to straight. So, rather than debate, reason and perform the necessary research to prove their point, perpetrators of viewpoint discrimination use another strategy: defame, intimidate and remove all others' views except their own.

Take, for example, last week's decision by computer-giant Apple to remove a prominent Christian ex-gay ministry's application from their market. After less than a month on the market, Exodus International's app was downloaded by over 16,000 individuals. However, activists pressured the company to remove the app, claiming it was offensive to gays and lesbians because it offered a so-called "gay cure," which is nowhere found in the product. Apple caved, in spite of initially giving the app a 4+ rating, meaning it contains no objectionable content.

Apple's decision to discriminate against ex-gays using their own standards is questionable, especially since their policy also states: "Applications that place the targeted individual or group in harm's way will be rejected." One of these dangerous apps is called "Grindr (Gay, bi, & curious guy finder of the same sex)," which uses GPS to locate casual sex partners for men who have sex with men (MSM). According to the Centers for Disease, Control, and Prevention, over 70 percent of new HIV infections in the United States occur among MSM. …..

[See original article.]



From the "GPS" blog :

JUDGE RULES - NOT GOOD NEWS / For Love and For Justice / Zabeth and Paul Bayne

They are NOT coming home. The three children, Kent (6), Baden (5) and Bethany (3) who have been in foster care for the past three years and four months and visiting with their parents for a few hours each week are not coming home to stay - to live. At least not for the foreseeable future.
In a 40 page judgement, Judge Thomas Crabtree has concluded by granting a Continuing Custody Order for a period of 6 (six) months.

[Immediately below is Ron Unruh's summary of events preceding this ruling.]


An online campaign of solidarity for Paul and Zabeth Bayne. Their infant girl was injured by what they claimed was an accident in the home, a sibling falling on the infant. Attendant paediatrician made a diagnosis of shaken baby. RCMP investigation concluded insufficient evidence for charges. Director believed SBS diagnosis rather than the parents' explanation. MCFD has authority to act on suspicion. Their three small children were removed by B.C.'s Ministry of Children in October 2007. Paul and Zabeth have maintained their innocence from the start. They have lost home and possessions to cover legal costs. MCFD applied for a CCO to legally keep the children forever. The Baynes obtained medical opinions that disputed shaken baby. Judge's ruling will be delivered February 28, 2011. During the year long trial Zabeth became pregnant. Their fourth child, Josiah, was born Feb 10th, 2011. MCFD took custody of him four hours after birth

[Further comment on the decision released March 2nd may be expected on the  "GPS" blog in the near future.]



National Post editorial board: Stop the anti-Christian witchhunt on campus

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) — which describes itself as Canada’s “national voice for academic staff” — says it has investigated four small Christian colleges and universities in the past 18 months because it wants parents to know what kind of institutions their sons and daughters might attend. In other words, we are told, there is nothing nefarious in the 65,000-member union’s action. It is merely performing a valuable public service.

This is disingenuous nonsense. The CAUT is on a thinly disguised anti-Christian witch hunt. There is no other way to describe it.

The investigations were instigated entirely by CAUT executive and staff. The staff at the four universities aren’t even members of the association, so do not come under its mandate. No authorization was sought from the association’s members. There was no resolution passed at any annual meeting encouraging senior staff to scrutinize the schools’ hiring practices. No complaints were received from members — or anyone else — about the faith-based hiring and teaching at the schools: Trinity Western University in British Columbia, Crandall University in New Brunswick, Winnipeg’s Canadian Mennonite University and Redeemer University College in Ancaster, Ont.

Association leaders seem simply to have gotten it in their heads that where Christian values are part of a school’s hiring standards and curriculum, good, independent scholarship is impossible.
So they launched probes all on their own.

“This is not an attack on religious institutions,” James Turk, executive director of CAUT, insisted. Rather, the association merely wanted to alert the public to “the realities of these institutions”; they wanted parents to know what they children might be getting into before they began attending.

It’s hard to believe that a group of people with as many letters after their names as the CAUT leadership would expect anyone to buy such a flimsy explanation. Among them, the four marked schools have about 6,000 students. The association can’t seriously believe that any of those students’ families was unaware they were sending their offspring to religious institution. 

We agree with Paul Allen, an associate professor of theology at Concordia University in Montreal who recently began a petition among CAUT members calling on their association to end its obvious harassment of Christian schools. “What we have here is an academic union ganging up on these smaller Christian universities,” Prof. Allen charges, “and I thought it was high time that people from the public universities take a stand.” . . . .

If the CAUT is so worried about parents and prospective students getting to know the biases of the universities and colleges they are thinking of attending, why isn’t the association also investigating the bias of secular sociology departments, we wonder? Try teaching that men and women are equally guilty of domestic violence at most major Canadian universities and see where that gets you in terms of publications, promotions and tenure. Or how about an investigation of the University of Toronto’s teacher’s college, where post-grad degrees are handed out to essayists who believe Holocaust education is a form of Israeli propaganda, or that opposition to female genital mutilation is a form of quasi-colonial racism.

. . . .

[You can read the whole article on the National Post online.]


MTV's Obsession with Child Abuse   

Posted by Jim_Dalyon Focus on the Family's Finding Home,  21-Jan-2010

On December 29th, the Miami Herald ran a startling headline:  

MTV’s Every Detail Etched on Children’s Minds

The article’s author, Ellen Livingston, spoke with myriad teachers and students about the network’s massive influence, almost all negative. John Anderson, a teacher at a private Lutheran School, said he’s worried kids are obsessed with it.  He cited the fact that creative assignments often include MTV references. 

Livingston asked the question: Knowing that the programming gets “its force from sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll” do parents mind their children spending the best years of their youth in front of MTV? “The kids say no,” she writes – and Susan Long, 14, says her mom watches it, too.

But Susan Long is no longer 14. She’s 42.

Everything I just told you came from an article in the December 29, 1983 edition of the Miami Herald.

Twenty-eight years later, MTV is still pushing the envelope, farther and more disturbingly than ever before. Their newest hit, “Skins,” is drawing fire from nearly every corner, not just conservative-minded people. At issue is the fact that scenes of the program seem pretty clearly to violate federal child pornography statues.

MTV executives are scrambling, trying desperately to get a handle on a controversy that is growing. The premiere episode garnered 3.3 million viewers. Nielsen reported that 1.2 million people under 18 watched this past week.

. . .  .

The tragedy is that scores of young children are having their minds warped and corrupted by images and themes they’ll remember for the rest of their lives. Images and themes that scintillate and nefariously seduce. Images and themes they’re entirely unqualified and unprepared to handle or process.

It is nothing short of technological child abuse. 

[The whole of the above article can be read: here.]


. . . School cancels cross-dressing day

Jan. 20, 2011

TORONTO - Attention all kindergarten to Grade 8 students: Cross-dressing day is now cancelled.  

King City Public pull pulled the plug on the "Opposite Gender Day," when kids as young as six would be allowed to come to school dressed as the opposite sex, following an outcry from parents.

"Opposite Gender Day has been cancelled in the wake of concerns of parents," said Ross Virgo, York Region District School Board spokesman.

"The idea of (kids) experiencing being people of the opposite gender has offended some people in the community, and the school doesn't want to do that."

. . . .

Dr. Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College, believes the school's Opposite Gender Day was part of the Ontario Ministry of Education's "greater agenda" of making gender-identity issues a part of school curriculum.

. . . .

[From an article on CNEWS]




 Canadian Supreme Court embryo ruling will lead to more deaths say pro-life groups

Patrick B. Craine

Wed Dec 22

OTTAWA, Ontario, December 21, 2010 ( - A Supreme Court of Canada decision Wednesday morning threatens to result in the destruction of even more embryonic children, say pro-life groups, as the high court decided to give control of the creation, destruction, and manipulation of human embryos to the provinces.

In a 4-4-1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld in part the Quebec government’s constitutional challenge against the federal Assisted Human Reproduction Act, ruling that key sections intrude on the provinces’ jurisdiction over health.

The Act, passed in 2004, regulates the artificial reproduction industry, and bans such activities as creating animal-human hybrids, human cloning, sex selection prior to implantation, and paying for surrogacy, sperm, and eggs.

Today’s decision left these bans in place, but the provinces will now have jurisdiction over the handling of human “reproductive material” - including licensing for how it is obtained, stored, destroyed, imported, exported, and manipulated.

The provinces are also given control over the issuing of licenses for embryonic research.  As well, the court struck down a section governing transgenic manipulation, which is the combining of genomes from humans and non-human animals. This is different from the creation of hybrids.

The Supreme Court was deeply divided, with four justices upholding the Act, four favoring provincial jurisdiction, and one striking a middle way.

“Parliament has a strong interest in ensuring that basic moral standards govern the creation and destruction of life, as well as their impact on persons like donors and mothers,” wrote Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in her opinion upholding the Act.  “The Act seeks to avert serious damage to the fabric of our society by prohibiting practices that tend to devalue human life and degrade participants.”

“While this initiative necessarily touches on provincial jurisdiction over medical research and practice, these fields are the subject of overlapping federal and provincial jurisdiction,” she added.

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, who jointly intervened in the case, had argued that regulation of the industry is appropriately a federal matter in order to protect the public’s safety and the dignity of human life.

Campaign Life Coalition, the political arm of Canada’s pro-life movement, said the ruling makes an already bad situation worse. The pro-life movement had fought the Assisted Human Reproduction Act for many years, leading up to its passage in 2004, arguing that the bill was flawed by a basic false assumption that a human being is no more than a biological machine, a collection of cells. 

“We already opposed this bill because it removes the child’s right to be conceived in the loving union of husband and wife and because IVF causes the death of many thousands of Canadian embryonic children,” said Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition.  “But with this ruling the permissions to engage in such procedures will be broadened, leading to even more deaths.”

“While we feel compassion for those couples who are unable to reproduce, the creation of new human life must not become a commodity that is bought and sold to the highest bidder in the province with the most liberal laws,” added Hughes.

While Hughes said that the Quebec challenge does not deal with the parts of the Act that ban the creation of animal-human hybrids and the use of human embryos for experimentation, he asked, “how long would it take for this ‘Pandora’s Box’ of horrors to be opened for each province to explore?”

Faye Sonier, legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, wrote on the Activate CFPL blog that a federal law is needed “to ensure consistency in law and in practice across Canada and to ensure the equal protection of all Canadians.”

“This Act communicates our country’s position on the creation, alteration and destruction of ‘human reproductive material’ as well as human and non-human life,” she wrote.  “It will also shape, and perhaps alter, relationships between citizens - parents, children, siblings and spouses.”

Sonier also pointed out that allowing different standards in the provinces could create “competition” where some provinces would “‘push the envelope’ on the use of such technologies, forcing others to follow them or risk being found by the court to have created an inconsistent standard across the nation.”

The Supreme Court decision can be found at:   .





Heather Stilwell, Remembered as a Strong Pro-Life Defender of Children

Heather Stilwell was a founding member of Surrey-Delta Pro-Life in British Columbia and president of both provincial and Canadian pro-life organizations.  She became widely known as a school trustee when she, along with others on Surrey School Board, took as stand against designating  as teaching materials certain pro-homosexuality books for primary children.  Her general interest in education shown by her diligence as a school trustee, along with her staunch defence of the principles she believed in, earned her the widespread respect of those who knew her.  Heather passed away after a long bout of illness on December 3rd (2010).  She is survived by her husband Bill, eight children, and a number of grandchildren.  

In November of this year, Heather was given a standing ovation at the International Pro-Life Conference in Ottawa when she was given the annually-awarded Mother Theresa Award.   (See the article from LifeSite News, entitled "Long-Time Canadian Pro-Life Heroine, Heather Stilwell, Honoured in Ottawa.")



December 13, 2010


Transgender Bill C-389 Proceeds to Third Reading and Debate

 [an Alert from Real Women of Canada]

The controversial Bill C-389 protecting Gender Identity and Gender Expression in the Canadian Human Rights Act i.e. to protect the transgendered and transsexuals, was fast tracked through the House of Commons.  There was only one objection to the bill at second reading on June 10, 2010.  The bill was then pushed through the Justice Committee without hearing any witnesses or carrying out the customary clause by clause review (see REAL Women Alerts dated November 9 and November 17, 2010).

Although this bill was not supposed to come up for a vote until February, NDP MP Bill Siksay who introduced it, traded places with another NDP MP's bill, and as a result, the transgendered bill came forward to the House of Commons on December 8.

 Usually at this stage, a bill goes forward with unanimous consent, but the Conservatives instead opted to force a vote.  The bill, however, passed 143 to 131 in the House of Commons at this report stage. That is, the only substantial opposition came from the Conservative MP's who voted overwhelmingly against this deliberately vague bill. Only 3 Liberal MP's voted against it – Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt), Dan McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough East) and Alan Tonks (York South-Weston). We are disappointed that 5 Conservative MP's voted in favour of the bill – Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs), Sylvie Boucher (Beauport-Limoilou), Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface), Gerald Keddy (South Shore-St. Margaret’s) and James Moore (Port Moody, Westwood Port Coquitlam). Notable abstentions were Conservative MP's Dana Cadman (Surrey North), Lisa Raitt (Halton) and Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre), and Liberal MP John MacKay (Scarborough-Guildwood).

The next stage, debate and third reading in the House of Commons, will probably occur in late February or early March of 2011.

Please contact your MP and thank him or her for voting against this bill. If your MP voted in favour, please try to educate him/her to the unforeseen consequences which could result from such poorly drafted legislation – endless litigation over uncertainties about the legislation, special rights for cross dressers and the gender confused, people using washrooms reserved for the opposite sex with impunity, children exposed to gender confusion in schools, (the American College of Pediatricians distributed a warning letter on March 31, 2010, which stated:  It’s extremely dangerous for children to be taught that transgendered is equal to heterosexual and normal gender.”) and medical personnel will be pressured to disregard known medical practices in treating gender identity disorders.

Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland at one time was the leading authority on transsexual surgery.  It conducted follow-up studies and found that these altered individuals were no happier or well adjusted after all the hormone and surgical treatment.  Authorities at Johns Hopkins then concluded that to assist with this surgery and hormone treatment was to fundamentally cooperate with these individuals’ mental illness and has ceased to provide such treatment.

 If Bill C-389 is passed into law, it would create a legal “right” to change sex at will and the basis of society, i.e. a man and a woman, will be forever altered to accommodate many other manifestations of mental disorders according to subjective social constructs based not on natural order but on arbitrary acts of interpretation by courts and human rights commissions.







These have been three of the longest and most painful years that any parent could possibly live and survive. Three children, with two of whom, the sons Kent and Baden, Paul and Zabeth had already begun a loving parent-child relationship with ideals for their lives, with goals and hoped-for plans of a nurturing family in which their faith in God would play an important role. With the third child, a girl, Bethany, came the exciting prospect of a tiny child in dresses and with long hair and a sweet smile but she was only weeks old and any possibility of relationship had not yet had time to develop. And then with the incident/accident and the hospital diagnosis, and the response by police and the Ministry of Children, any relationship with her was put into jeopardy. Furthermore the two boys were children, for whom no explanation could possibly be adequate to mitigate the sheer terror of being snatched away from their parents. All of that happened three years ago. This past Friday was the third anniversary of their removal.

This case of the Province of BC Ministry of Children against Paul and Zabeth Bayne is waiting for a ruling by Judge Thomas Crabtree. The Baynes were in court since January to contest the application by the Ministry to keep their children forever. It's a Continuing Care Order. It means the children would remain in the care of the Province indefinitely, and that means possibly until the age of majority, age 18, and possibly adoption to another family. The Fraser Valley Region of the Ministry took this position that Paul and Zabeth continue to be a risk and that they should not have their children returned. MCFD holds that position in spite of the fact that Police dropped all charges of abuse and in spite of the fact that there is no actual evidence of danger or risk. The hold that position solely because Paul and Zabeth Bayne have refused to admit to harming their infant daughter whom a medical opinion said was the subject of shaking and trauma. The Ministry took the majority of the court time to prove how unfit Paul and Zabeth are to be parents. It had to embellish and stretch the truth throughout this trial. Many of us do not believe that the Ministry proved its case. All that matters now is that Judge Thomas Crabtree also concludes that the Ministry did not prove this and that it is in the best interests of these children to be returned to their parents.

How anyone could think otherwise is beyond my understanding. One of the special considerations favouring the Baynes that judge Crabtree has recently made in court was to permit one of the visitation days each week when Paul and Zabeth can see their children, to actually take place in the Baynes' own home. So for the past few Saturdays, all three children are brought to the Bayne home where each child is loved, loved, loved. They have six hours on a Saturday. The two boys have a shared bedroom where during the day if they choose to have a nap they can go there. These boys remember some toys and blankets from that brief time they spent with their mommy and daddy in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Baynes' small daughter has a room of her own with everything girly and fun. And there is a giant playroom for everyone and a large yard in which to play. And always these visitations are carried on with a supervisor present to monitor everything that is done. That supervisor cannot help but see how much these children love to be in their home.

That home is a rental house. You will remember that Paul and Zabeth lost their own home to pay for legal expenses in the early stages of this three year old struggle to regain their children. And Zabeth is a concert pianist and plays beautiful music and taught piano lessons but she had to sell her grand piano to pay for other legal expenses. They have exhausted all that they have in order to restore their family to a functioning and happy family once again. Paul and Zabeth deserve the right and the privilege of raising their three children into adulthood, instilling into their lives the values and principles and skills that will make them contributing members of society and contributing disciples of God's Kingdom.

In his closing summation, Baynes' lawyer Doug Christie told the Judge that the Ministry failed to prove its case. He said that this was purely a medical matter. It pertained to injuries sustained by their youngest child, an infant at the time. There was no evidence of wrongdoing by the Baynes. There was no confession by the Baynes. There was nothing to which the Ministry could point to prove that these parents willfully inflicted harm to their child and that is the only reason that these children should be removed from their parents. All that the Ministry has is a diagnostic opinion by a pediatrician who identified the injuries as shaken baby when there is no evidence that these injuries were the result of an act of violence. In fact it was later acknowledged by that doctor that the injuries indicated impact which of course is consistent with the explanation provided by the Baynes of an accident in the home when a sibling brother fell upon the baby.

Within days the Baynes will receive the transcript of the Ministry lawyer's closing summation and then Mr. Doug Christie will prepare a rebuttal and submit it to Judge Crabtree. The Judge wants to make a ruling as soon as possible, and he will take a few weeks, and hopefully make his ruling before the end of this year 2010. The very best scenario would be for Kent and Baden and Bethany to be returned home unconditionally for Christmas Eve and Christmas Morning, so that Paul and Zabeth can rejoice that unto them their children have been given.

All of you who pray, please continue to pray for this family, and particularly Paul and Zabeth who wait so patiently.

Added Nov 22nd 2010: At the beginning of November the Bayne rebuttal of the transcript content was submitted to Judge Crabtree, and at that time he indicated he would take from 8-12 weeks before bringing his ruling which he prefers to deliver in person at another scheduled court date yet to be announced. In all likelihood that will be very early in 2011. Further, prior to the end of the court case, the Ministry was seeking to adjust the Baynes supervised visitation which until then had been three days per week at three hours per visit for a total of nine hours with their own children in a neutral and unpleasant visitation centre. The children love these times, and on more than one occasion the children would ask “can we stay with you now.” The Ministry felt that the children's schedules were too full for nine hours over three days. The Baynes with good advisors helping them countered that any concessions should come with compensations to them and the children, and the judge agreed by awarding them upon request, one day at three hours and Saturday for six hours but in the Bayne residence. Well that latter grant has been remarkable as all three children have their own beds and toys and many things that at least the boys remember. So on the Saturday, they may go for a couple of hours to an outdoor activity environment, library, museum, game farm, miniature golf etc and then come home for food and play and maybe a nap. The encouraging thing about this is that the judge granted this and we view this as an indication of the way he view this case, because to have granted the parents this and then take the children away forever would be terribly cruel. We do not see Judge Crabtree as anything but reasonable and fair. He is now the Chief Justice of BC.

[Our thanks to Dr. Ron Unruh for permission to publish this update.  Ongoing comments on the Bayne case by this author may be read on his "GPS"  blog.]



[We are happy to pass on this message from ARPA, and we encourage our readers to make use of this facility.  We urge you to make your views of Bill C-389 known to your Member of Parliament.]

New Easy Mail Letter: Bill C-389 - the "Bathroom Bill"

Many of you were rightly concerned when reading about the swift passage of Bill C-389 through the Justice Committee on November 2nd. Put forward by NDP MP Bill Siskay, the legislation aims to add yet another group to the list of "prohibited grounds of discrimination" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. This time the group isn't even based on any sort of objective criteria but rather targets any discrimination based on "gender expression" and "gender identity." If it passes, it is likely that similar legislation will make its way through each of the provinces.

The consequences of moving in this direction are dangerous and unpredictable. If we see a man in a women’s public washroom, we rightly are concerned. But when the law recognizes this man based on how he “feels” he should be recognized (perhaps a woman), what assurance is there that the public can ever go into a public washroom with confidence that only people of their sex will be there?

Read more about the disturbing implications of the bill here. Read the text of the bill and more details here.

In response we have prepared the following Easy Mail letter that you can send to your MP with a few clicks through our new Easy Mail technology. Click here to send this letter right now. Click here to pick from 11 other letters.

Dear Honourable [Name of MP]

Thank you for your ongoing service as our representative in Ottawa.

I strongly oppose Bill C-389, which was rushed through parliamentary committee, with no hearings, in a matter of minutes. The private member’s bill proposes to add “gender identity” and “gender expression” to the every-growing list of prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The fact that it does not even define “gender identity” reveals how subjective it is. As the Catholic Civil Rights League points out “The standard diagnostic manual for psychiatrists, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-4th Edition lists gender identity questions as a disorder. The condition is very different from such objective states as race, colour, creed or gender, all of which the law quite rightly protects from discrimination in the workplace, and in the provision of goods and services."

"To protect by law a quality that the law does not even define could have serious implications for employers in their hiring and assignment decisions. People who believe they have faced discrimination on "gender expression" grounds could file human rights claims. This system is already misused by those who believe the issue was discrimination when it was not; to complicate it by opening the process to more subjective grounds is not in anyone's best interest."

The consequences of moving in this direction are dangerous and unpredictable. If we see a man in a women’s public washroom, we rightly are concerned. But when the law recognizes this man based on how he “feels” he should be recognized (perhaps a woman), what assurance is there that the public can ever go into a public washroom with confidence that only people of their sex will be there?

Most important of all, it is not up to government to redefine gender to begin with. The civil government’s role is to promote justice and freedom, not reengineer society according to how people feel.

Instead of trying to appease every interest group, our nation should focus on strengthening the institutions in society that are pivotal to a healthy nation. Marriage and the family should be at the top of that list.

Please have the courage to vote against Bill C-389 and do what you can to strengthen the Canadian family.


Send Easy Mail Letter In Seconds (Update the action meter at - we are 95% of the way there!)


Gender identity and Gender expression

Leaders Pledge to Stop Bill C-389 From Exposing Our Children to Perverts

 By Dr. Charles McVety  Wednesday, November 10, 2010 in Canada Free Press online

Private Member’s Bill C-389 - An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression) is on the verge of becoming law.  If passed, it will add these terms to the list of identifiable groups listed in sections 318 and 718.2(a)(i) of the criminal code and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The new criminal code would make it a crime to speak or discriminate against gender identity and gender expression.  These two conditions are self identified with no proof so anyone at anytime can claim to be another gender.

Dr. Charles McVety, President of the Institute for Canadian Values states “Somehow this ridiculous Bill C-389 has succeeded through two votes in Parliament and has now passed a 30 minute committee hearing.  If it passes third reading and the Senate our children will be exposed to perverts entering girls bathrooms, change rooms and even showers claiming transgender discrimination.  The penalty for “discriminating” against them will be up to two years in prison.  We are working with leaders across Canada and vow to protect our children.

Make gender identity and gender expression mandatory teaching in all schools in Canada

McVety goes on to say “in addition this Bill would make gender identity and gender expression mandatory teaching in all schools in Canada under the principle that the law is a teacher.  Earlier this year Premier McGuinty scrapped such teaching in the Ontario Sex Education Curriculum but now the federal parliament is attempting to re-insert this onerous material by law.  We don’t understand how a Conservative Government would allow this to happen under its watch.”



Bill C-389: The EFC Opposes Proposed "Gender Identity" Amendment to Human Rights Act


Canadian researchers transform skin into blood

Tom Blackwell, National Post · Sunday, Nov. 7, 2010

When scientists at Hamilton’s McMaster University noticed that a petri dish full of long, thin skin cells now also had a quite different occupant — distinctive, round blood cells — they suspected they were on to something big.

The researchers’ hunch, it seems, was dead on. As described in the journal Nature yesterday, the team under Dr. Mick Bhatia seized on that chance microscopic sighting and devised a process that transforms skin cells directly into blood, a mind-bending breakthrough that one expert suggests may turn cell biology “upside down.”

The discovery opens the door to creating healthy blood from a mere patch of skin. For leukemia sufferers unable to find a bone-marrow donor — and other patients — the innovation could one day prove life saving. . . . 

Scientists in Japan managed to derive a type of stem cell from skin in groundbreaking work unveiled three years ago. Stem cells are famous for their ability to change into any other type of human cell, holding out the promise of fixing diseased or damaged parts of the body, from injured spinal cords to sick hearts and diabetic pancreases.

Dr. Bhatia’s discovery appears to go a major step beyond that research, eliminating the middle stage of creating those induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, and directly reprogramming skin into other types of cell. . . . .

[Read more in the National Post online.




RED ALERT: 'Scary' Canadian Transgender Anti-Discrimination Bill Sails Thru Committee

By Patrick B. Craine

OTTAWA, Ontario, November 5, 2010 ( – A private members bill that would criminalize discrimination based on “gender identity” and “gender expression” sailed through a parliamentary committee this week with no amendments, leaving pro-family advocates deeply concerned that the bill will pass when it comes up for a vote perhaps as early as December.

Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition, today called on all people of good will to alert their MPs to the grave concerns and “legal nightmares” at stake in this bill, warning, for example, that it will lead to male cross-dressers and drag queens having the legal right to use female bathrooms.

The private members bill, proposed by New Democrat MP Bill Siksay, passed in mere minutes at the Justice and Human Rights Committee on November 2nd, reports the homosexualist news site Xtra.  The vote was 9-2, with Conservative MPs Brent Rathgeber and Stephen Woodworth opposing.

The committee, which held no hearings on the bill, apparently wanted to push it through to give it a chance at passing before an election, at which point it would die.  Further, Xtra reports that this plan was backed by the Conservative government, even though they opposed the bill at second reading.

Xtra reports that the government asked NDP committee member Joe Comartin to move that all clauses be carried.  Liberal justice critic Marlene Jennings said she expected Conservative committee member Bob Dechert to support the bill “given that he’s the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, and it was the government’s suggestion that a motion be put by Mr Comartin to deem the bill that all clauses been carried [sic], and I assumed then that he was favourable.”

At the same time, the Prime Minister's office told LifeSiteNews Friday that the committee's vote "does not denote our support for the Bill."  "In fact the Justice Minister has stated in the House that Bill C-389 contains provisions which are unclear and unnecessary and that our government will not be supporting this legislation," said Sara MacIntyre, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's press secretary.

If passed, the bill will add “gender identity” and “gender expression” as prohibited grounds for discrimination to the Canada Human Rights Act and as identifiable groups in the Criminal Code’s hate crimes legislation.

Siksay, who serves as the NDP’s “LGBTT” critic, says the bill could come up for reporting, third reading, and a vote as early as December.  It would then move to the Senate.

The committee’s decision is “great news,” said Siksay.  “We are on track toward ensuring the full protection of transgender and transsexual Canadians under the law.”

This is Siskay’s third attempt to bring the bill, known as C-389, after it failed to make it to the House in 2006 and 2007.  He introduced the current bill on May 15th, 2009 and it was sent to committee with the support of the House in June 2010.

The bill is being vociferously opposed by pro-family groups.

According to Alissa Golob, head of Campaign Life Coalition Youth, the move to recognize gender-confusion as a normal lifestyle choice is “not surprising” since we’ve already done so with homosexuality.  “It’s just another attempt to normalize immorality,” she said.  “What’s next? Polygamy? Pedophilia?”

Golob charged that there has been hardly any coverage of the bill in the media “because they have an agenda and will only promote whatever news they deem fit and not what is actually happening.”

“The government’s sole reason for existing is to serve the family, the building block of society,” she affirmed.  “If laws are passed that are not in the family’s best interest, those members of parliament introducing these laws should be removed immediately and those bills automatically defeated. We need to stand up and elect people who will bring normalcy back to our society.”

Gwen Landolt, national vice president of the pro-family group REAL Women, said it’s “scary” that the bill has made it this far so easily.  “The bill’s extremely dangerous,” she said.  “It’s alright to be in favour of human rights, which we all support, but this is being in favour of a mental illness, and playing into it.  It’s not good for individuals, let alone society.”

“It’s extremely dangerous for children to be taught that transgendered is equal to heterosexual and normal gender,” she continued, pointing out that the American College of Pediatricians warned this spring that sexual confusion should not be reinforced. 

In their statement, the College explained that as children develop many will go through a temporary period of sexual confusion that they usually overcome.  But if they are encouraged to self-identify as homosexual or “transgender,” “the confusion is reinforced and the child is conditioned for a life of unnecessary pain and suffering," they wrote.

“It would forever damage them,” said Landolt.

Hughes said that the bill “not only flies in the face of common sense, but is also potentially dangerous by creating the legitimized access that sexual predators often seek,” by opening the door to men using women’s bathrooms.  “Imagine a young girl - your daughter or granddaughter - goes into a washroom and finds a man there. How is the young girl to determine whether or not the man in the bathroom is a ‘peeping tom,’ a rapist or a pedophile?”

Brian Rushfeldt, president of Canada Family Action, said the bill is “extremely dangerous” because it “basically reinforces the notion that gender can be anything you want. ... That I think is dangerous to developing youth.  Then they have no standard by which to judge their behaviour.”

“If the House of Commons passes such an undefined, dangerous piece of legislation, my hope is that sober minds at the Senate will look at that and say we simply cannot have protection for every uncommon, unnatural sexual expression,” said Rushfeldt.

Contact Information:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper
80 Wellington Street
K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Phone: (613) 995-1547
Fax: (613) 992-7910

Find your MP’s contact information here.

See related coverage:

Transexual Protection Bill Passes Second Reading in Canadian Parliament

Canadian MP Tables Bill to Protect "Transgendered" People in Canadian Human Rights Act






Long-Time Canadian Pro-Life Heroine, Heather Stilwell, Honoured in Ottawa

By Patrick B. Craine

OTTAWA, Ontario, November 3, 2010 ( - Hundreds of pro-life supporters honoured a long-time Canadian pro-life heroine with an extended and moving standing ovation on Friday night at the International Pro-Life Conference in Ottawa, Ontario.

"I will fight abortion until the day I die," declared Heather Stilwell, one of Canada's major pro-life leaders for the last 30 years, as she was recognized with LifeCanada's annual Mother Teresa Award.  The devoted mother of eight made a heroic trip from British Columbia to Ottawa for the conference despite her frail health.

"I think for many her name stands with the beginning of the pro-life movement in Canada," said Monica Roddis, LifeCanada's Acting President, who presented the award.



Stilwell is the former president of Alliance for Life, the now-defunct national pro-life educational group.  There she produced 'Feel the Heartbeat', a widely-circulated documentary with interviews of young pregnant women and adoptive parents.

As president of the Surrey-Delta Pro-Life Association, she promoted pro-life candidates for the local hospital board and ran a TV program on local cable.  She also served as president of the Pro-Life Society of B.C, Western Regional Coordinator for Campaign Life Coalition, and as a prominent member of the conservative lobby group REAL Women.

As a trustee on the Surrey public school board for 15 years, she was famous for her opposition to homosexuality, abortion, and sex education.  There she also helped parents lobby for a traditional school and, said Roddis, "courageously stood for parental rights despite very strong opposition."

In 1997, Stilwell was involved in a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the decision to allow three children's books which portrayed same-sex parents in public elementary schools.  The board's decision to not allow the books was eventually overturned by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

Additionally, Stilwell was a founding member and leader of the Christian Heritage Party.  Her other community involvement included serving on the board of an adoption agency.

Roddis explained that even with her many pro-life and pro-family commitments, Stilwell was a devoted wife and mother.  "When bringing home her seventh baby from the hospital, she was followed by the media, eager to interview her as the Alliance president about the Morgentaler decision [of] January 28, 1988," she noted.

"Through all of this, her deep faith and love of the most vulnerable have shone through," said Roddis.  "Those who have worked with her throughout the years have confirmed her kindness, her understanding, and her great encouragement as she endeavoured to be the voice for those who have no voice."

Stilwell and her husband Bill, who recently celebrated their 45th anniversary, received the devastating news in 2008 that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer.  After chemotherapy and other treatments, she recently ceased treatments because they had become too aggressive.

Though frail and confined to a wheelchair, Stilwell's latest wish was to attend the International Pro-Life Conference in Ottawa.  She was able to do this after an outpouring of support from friends and family to cover the first class tickets she and her daughter, Elizabeth, needed so that she could lie down for the long trip.

Jim Hughes, national president of Campaign Life Coalition, a long-time friend and colleague of Stilwell, praised the award in the highest terms.  "She's been a tremendous fighter, she's had dogged determination, she's a faith-filled woman," he said.  "It was wonderful to see her honoured in that way."












CitizenLink, October 5, 2010:  

Teen Suicide is a Complex Issue

Posted by Candi Cushman

Tragically, there have been several heartbreaking reports of young people taking their own lives in recent weeks. The national media has rushed to report these cases with dramatic headlines and quick summaries. National gay activists groups have been equally quick to link the recent tragedies to their own goals, through rapidly issued press releases.

The Human Rights Campaign—the nation’s largest homosexual advocacy group—for instance, issued a statement calling on “Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to speak out immediately to push every school in the nation to implement anti-bullying policies inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity,” and calling for use of its own Welcoming Schools curriculum in elementary schools.

But respected researchers and experts on the issue of suicide have long warned that oversimplified, sensationalized and snap-judgment reporting of the issue can actually have a detrimental impact. This was the concern raised by experts at a conference on the issue of suicide at the University of St. Thomas in Houston this past weekend, who wanted people to understand that “taking one’s life often is the result of multiple issues.”

Likewise, several scientific, medical and research organizations—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Mental Health— have issued recommendations calling for socially responsible reporting about suicide. . . . .

The bottom line is that suicidal behaviors in young people are usually rooted in multiple social, economic, familial, and individual risk factors, with mental health issues playing an important role in the whole mix. To express it another way, suicide is the result of a “perfect storm” of complex, interrelated psychological problems, many of which are not under the victim’s direct conscious control.

Rather than letting the issue be politicized and sensationalized in an irresponsible way, it is important that we recognize the complexity of the issue—and continue to equip families with helpful information on recognizing warning signs.

To that end, below are some Focus on the Family online resources designed to help families recognize trouble signs among teens who may be depressed or having suicidal thoughts.

. . . .






These have been three of the longest and most painful years that any parent could possibly live and survive. Three children, with two of whom, the sons Kent and Baden, Paul and Zabeth had already begun a loving parent-child relationship with ideals for their lives, with goals and hoped-for plans of a nurturing family in which their faith in God would play an important role. With the third child, a girl, Bethany, came the exciting prospect of a tiny child in dresses and with long hair and a sweet smile but she was only weeks old and any possibility of relationship had not yet had time to develop. And then with the incident/accident and the hospital diagnosis, and the response by police and the Ministry of Children, any relationship with her was put into jeopardy. Furthermore the two boys were children, for whom no explanation could possibly be adequate to mitigate the sheer terror of being snatched away from their parents. All of that happened three years ago. This past Friday was the third anniversary of their removal.

This case of the Province of BC Ministry of Children against Paul and Zabeth Bayne is waiting for a ruling by Judge Thomas Crabtree. The Baynes were in court since January to contest the application by the Ministry to keep their children forever. It's a Continuing Care Order. It means the children would remain in the care of the Province indefinitely, and that means possibly until the age of majority, age 18, and possibly adoption to another family. The Fraser Valley Region of the Ministry took this position that Paul and Zabeth continue to be a risk and that they should not have their children returned. MCFD holds that position in spite of the fact that Police dropped all charges of abuse and in spite of the fact that there is no actual evidence of danger or risk. The hold that position solely because Paul and Zabeth Bayne have refused to admit to harming their infant daughter whom a medical opinion said was the subject of shaking and trauma. The Ministry took the majority of the court time to prove how unfit Paul and Zabeth are to be parents. It had to embellish and stretch the truth throughout this trial. Many of us do not believe that the Ministry proved its case. All that matters now is that Judge Thomas Crabtree also concludes that the Ministry did not prove this and that it is in the best interests of these children to be returned to their parents.

How anyone could think otherwise is beyond my understanding. One of the special considerations favouring the Baynes that judge Crabtree has recently made in court was to permit one of the visitation days each week when Paul and Zabeth can see their children, to actually take place in the Baynes' own home. So for the past few Saturdays, all three children are brought to the Bayne home where each child is loved, loved, loved. They have six hours on a Saturday. The two boys have a shared bedroom where during the day if they choose to have a nap they can go there. These boys remember some toys and blankets from that brief time they spent with their mommy and daddy in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Baynes' small daughter has a room of her own with everything girly and fun. And there is a giant playroom for everyone and a large yard in which to play. And always these visitations are carried on with a supervisor present to monitor everything that is done. That supervisor cannot help but see how much these children love to be in their home.

That home is a rental house. You will remember that Paul and Zabeth lost their own home to pay for legal expenses in the early stages of this three year old struggle to regain their children. And Zabeth is a concert pianist and plays beautiful music and taught piano lessons but she had to sell her grand piano to pay for other legal expenses. They have exhausted all that they have in order to restore their family to a functioning and happy family once again. Paul and Zabeth deserve the right and the privilege of raising their three children into adulthood, instilling into their lives the values and principles and skills that will make them contributing members of society and contributing disciples of God's Kingdom.

In his closing summation, Baynes' lawyer Doug Christie told the Judge that the Ministry failed to prove its case. He said that this was purely a medical matter. It pertained to injuries sustained by their youngest child, an infant at the time. There was no evidence of wrongdoing by the Baynes. There was no confession by the Baynes. There was nothing to which the Ministry could point to prove that these parents willfully inflicted harm to their child and that is the only reason that these children should be removed from their parents. All that the Ministry has is a diagnostic opinion by a pediatrician who identified the injuries as shaken baby when there is no evidence that these injuries were the result of an act of violence. In fact it was later acknowledged by that doctor that the injuries indicated impact which of course is consistent with the explanation provided by the Baynes of an accident in the home when a sibling brother fell upon the baby.

Within days the Baynes will receive the transcript of the Ministry lawyer's closing summation and then Mr. Doug Christie will prepare a rebuttal and submit it to Judge Crabtree. The Judge wants to make a ruling as soon as possible, and he will take a few weeks, and hopefully make his ruling before the end of this year 2010. The very best scenario would be for Kent and Baden and Bethany to be returned home unconditionally for Christmas Eve and Christmas Morning, so that Paul and Zabeth can rejoice that unto them their children have been given.

All of you who pray, please continue to pray for this family, and particularly Paul and Zabeth who wait so patiently.

Added Nov 22nd 2010: At the beginning of November the Bayne rebuttal of the transcript content was submitted to Judge Crabtree, and at that time he indicated he would take from 8-12 weeks before bringing his ruling which he prefers to deliver in person at another scheduled court date yet to be announced. In all likelihood that will be very early in 2011. Further, prior to the end of the court case, the Ministry was seeking to adjust the Baynes supervised visitation which until then had been three days per week at three hours per visit for a total of nine hours with their own children in a neutral and unpleasant visitation centre. The children love these times, and on more than one occasion the children would ask “can we stay with you now.” The Ministry felt that the children's schedules were too full for nine hours over three days. The Baynes with good advisors helping them countered that any concessions should come with compensations to them and the children, and the judge agreed by awarding them upon request, one day at three hours and Saturday for six hours but in the Bayne residence. Well that latter grant has been remarkable as all three children have their own beds and toys and many things that at least the boys remember. So on the Saturday, they may go for a couple of hours to an outdoor activity environment, library, museum, game farm, miniature golf etc and then come home for food and play and maybe a nap. The encouraging thing about this is that the judge granted this and we view this as an indication of the way he view this case, because to have granted the parents this and then take the children away forever would be terribly cruel. We do not see Judge Crabtree as anything but reasonable and fair. He is now the Chief Justice of BC.





Sex Education Subject of Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Open Letter to Ontario Minister of Education


[Media Release]

For immediate release from The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

September 14, 2010


OTTAWA – The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) has sent an open letter to Ontario’s Minister of Education, the Honourable Leona Dombrowsky.

The controversial sexual education component of the Health and Physical Education curriculum was both introduced and withdrawn this past spring. It was withdrawn in large part because of many parents’ negative reaction to its content.

“The letter was sent for two reasons,” explains EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel Don Hutchinson. “First, parents felt they had been blind-sided. The way curriculum development currently works in Ontario requires parents to be reactive rather than engaged in the process. Public feedback is only being welcomed after the curriculum has been developed.”

“This lack of parental involvement runs contrary to Ontario’s Reach Every Student, Energizing Ontario Education plan which states that parental involvement is ‘integral.’ Further, it doesn’t recognize the role that parents have in determining their children’s education, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the Province of Ontario has acceded,” states Hutchinson.

Second, the letter addresses the Ministry of Education’s proposed solution to controversial elements of the curriculum, that children can be withdrawn from “any course in conflict with the personal beliefs of the parents.”

“While we’re thankful that the Minister of Education recognizes the legal requirement to accommodate Ontarians’ religious beliefs, this type of accommodation runs contrary to the Human Rights Code, its very own Equity and Inclusive Strategy,” explains Hutchinson.

“While this may appear to be a non-discriminatory solution, it actually discriminates by removing a certain group of students and perspectives from the classroom – those that are either social conservative or Christian – contrary to the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in the Zylberberg case. It’s exclusionary rather than being inclusive.”

“If a child has to leave the classroom because the curriculum doesn’t permit the inclusion or respect for their beliefs, then the entire Strategy has failed. Those students certainly won’t feel included or accepted in the Ontario school system,” states Hutchinson.

The Open Letter to the Minister of Education can be read at

- 30 -

For more information or an interview contact:
Gail Reid
Director, Communications
905-479-5885 ext. 227
Cell: 647-227-3464 




              Media Release from REAL Women of Canada:



For immediate release                                                        September 28, 2010


Ontario court decision on prostitution is without merit


Ontario Courts are one of the most liberal in Canada.  The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has handed down a decision today on the prostitution law that merely confirms the court’s liberal perspective, which previously legalized marijuana for “medical” reasons, three-parent families, and same-sex marriage.  The decision on the prostitution law today is just more of the same. 

What has occurred is that an appointed non-answerable judge has handed down a decision on a national social policy that would never be passed by an elected Parliament. 

Madame Justice Himel has used the vague wording in the Charter of Rights as a tool to interpret a grave national social policy according to her ideology, rather than on sound facts and legal principle.  To declare prostitution and all its accompanying activities as a legal right and activity protected by the Charter of Right’s section 7 (security of persons) is an absurdity. 

The purpose of the law on prostitution is to protect women and children (and also some men) from harm and possible death.  To remove the law, as Madame Justice Himel has done, increases the number of individuals involved in legal and illegal prostitution.  It is particularly important to protect the most vulnerable women, such as aboriginal and other women, who are used and exploited in the human trafficking business.

Ideology should not supplant common sense on a matter which degrades and exploits individuals who need assistance to get out of the horrendous activity of prostitution by protective laws.

 - 30 -

 Please contact:

 Diane Watts

National Office

(613)  236-4001



BC Government Changes Plans on Part-Time Kindergarten

[From the Association for Reformed Political Action]

In a surprising turn of events, ARPA Canada has learned and confirmed that the BC government has announced that independent schools may now maintain half-day kindergarten with funding. According to a notice from the Office of the Inspector of Independent Schools "While government remains committed to the implementation of full-day Kindergarten for all five year-olds by September 2011, government also recognizes that independent schools support parental choice. After reviewing requests for continued funding for half-day Kindergarten in independent schools, government has agreed to fund half-day Kindergarten programs in independent schools."

This is welcomed news for many parents who have expressed concerns about the across-the-board move to full-time kindergarten as part of the BC government's efforts to roll in a "early learning" system for BC's children.

[Read more of this article on the ARPA website.]



News Release:
University of Calgary Students' Union Withdraws Complaint Against Campus Pro-Life


Date: Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 7:20 AM
Subject: For Immediate Release: U of C Students' Union Withdraws Complaint Against Campus Pro-Life



CALGARY – The University of Calgary Students’ Union Review Board has formally withdrawn its complaint against the Campus Pro-Life (CPL) student group in relation to a pro-life display held on campus each semester. On February 10, 2009, the Students’ Union Clubs Committee resolved that Campus Pro-Life lose its status as a sanctioned club.

“From the start, we always questioned which policy or bylaw we broke and never received an answer,” stated new CPL president Alanna Campbell. “Through this decision, the current executive of the Students’ Union has finally demonstrated a commitment to quality and intellectual freedom.”

The Students’ Union Clubs Committee decision was appealed by CPL and discussions between the student group and the Students’ Union had been ongoing. Separate from the Students’ Union, the University of Calgary administration has found eight members of CPL guilty of a major violation of the Non-Academic Misconduct Policy, which they are now appealing. Both the conflicts originate from the group’s display, the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP). The display compares abortion to past historical atrocities, such as the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust in Nazi Germany

“While we’re satisfied with the withdrawal, this is only the tip of the iceberg,” said Peter Csillag, CPL’s Vice-President (Internal), “we still have an ongoing battle with the University administration as long as they, despite being a public university, continue to engage in blatant viewpoint discrimination.”

The group's display has been held on the University of Calgary grounds without incident nine times since 2006. In 2009, the University charged six students with trespassing in relation to the display, but the Crown Prosecutor stayed these charges prior to a trial scheduled for November of 2009. Since then, members of Campus Pro-Life have been threatened with Non-Academic Misconduct upon each display, but only now has the University carried out its threats.

“If something is too terrible to look at then perhaps we should not be tolerating it,” said CPL’s Vice-President (External) Cameron Wilson. “We’re going to continue this coming year as we have before.”

For further information, contact the following:
Club President Alanna Campbell at (403) 690-5217,
Vice-President (Internal) Peter Csillag at (403) 465-1777,
Vice-President (External) Cameron Wilson at (403) 668-9624, or
Lawyer John Carpay of the Canadian Constitution Foundation at (403) 619-8014.




Obama Inserts Gay Dads into Father’s Day Proclamation

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 21, 2010 ( – In his fathers’ day proclamation President Barack Obama made what pro-family leaders have said were a number of praiseworthy statements about fatherhood and the importance of fathers in the lives of their children. At the same time, the president drew sharp criticism for using the proclamation as an opportunity to show his support for homosexual parenting.

“An active, committed father makes a lasting difference in the life of a child.  When fathers are not present, their children and families cope with an absence government cannot fill,” stated Obama, whose own father was conspicuously absent for most of his childhood.

However, the president then made his plug for homosexual families as normative.

“Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian,” he said.

The carefully downplayed, but unprecedented remark drew sharp criticism from pro-family leaders.

“It’s just too bizarre for words,” Brian Camenker of President of MassResistance told Calling the president the “apostle of gay rights” is not far off the mark, he said.

“He is pushing gay rights more than anybody could have dreamed that anybody would. Nobody would have thought that Barney Frank would have done this, and he’s my congressman,” continued Camenker. “I think it sort of fits with his general approach to America, values, Christian values, and everything else. It fits with his whole line of thinking about America and our way of life – it’s completely foreign and completely radical."

Peter LaBarbara of Americans for the Truth about Homosexuality said that Obama was appeasing the homosexualists in his base, without regard to what effect homosexual parenting has on children.
“If an adult man chooses to embrace homosexuality, that’s one thing. But two men imposing their homosexual lifestyle on an innocent, impressionable child — thus intentionally denying that child a mother — is something quite different,” he said. “Shame on Obama for ‘gaying down’ the noble institution of fatherhood to appease his homosexual activist supporters.”

LaBarbara stated that “notorious promiscuity … is rampant in the gay male subculture” and harmful to children and their healthy upbringing. LaBarbara pointed to Dan Savage, a sex-advice columnist, who continued promoting “‘non-monogamy’ as an alternative to marital fidelity” even after Savage and his “husband” had adopted a baby boy.

In late May, President Obama emphasized his bona fides with the homosexualist movement by proclaiming June – for the second year in a row – as “Gay Pride Month.”

The proclamation outlines Obama's policy agendas for the promotion of homosexuality including the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), establishing a right for homosexuals to adopt, repealing the military ban on open homosexual service, and enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).


LaBarbera:  Obama 'Gays Down' Father's Day by Extolling 'Two Fathers' as a Nurturing Family

News Release

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

June 21, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631


CAROL STREAM, Illinois — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera today condemned President Barack Obama for “gaying down” the noble institution of fatherhood by extolling “nurturing families” with “two fathers” in his Father’s Day proclamation yesterday.

Obama proclaimed:

Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian.

“If an adult man chooses to embrace homosexuality, that’s one thing. But two men imposing their homosexual lifestyle on an innocent, impressionable child — thus intentionally denying that child a mother — is something quite different. Shame on Obama for ‘gaying down’ the noble institution of fatherhood to appease his homosexual activist supporters.”

Obama is the most pro-homosexual-agenda president in American history, and is currently working to subvert both the legal ban on open homosexuals serving in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms traditional marriage in federal law.

“Who can deny the notorious promiscuity that is rampant in the gay male subculture – and which often continues even after two homosexual men adopt a child,” LaBarbera said. “Witness gay parenting’s poster-boy, Dan Savage, a sex-advice columnist and author of The Kid: What Happened When My Boyfriend And I Decided to Go Get Pregnant. Savage promotes ‘non-monogamy’ as an alternative to marital fidelity — and admits that he and his ‘husband’ twice engaged in sexual ‘three-ways’ even after they adopted a baby boy. (One wonders who babysat ‘the kid’ during their homosexual sex romp.)”

Such is the extent of tolerated outside sex in male homosexual relationships that their “negotiated” rules for “nonexclusivity” are studied by academics. “The gay community’s normative acceptance of casual sex, anonymous sex and nonmonogamy in couple relationships represents a dramatic departure from heterocentric norms and values,” wrote researchers Johnson and Keren in 1996.

“As a gay therapist who has seen hundreds of male couples in a vast range of unconventional, loving, and sustaining relationship configurations — including monogamy, nonmonogamy, three-partner relationships and more — I have grown to respect the fluidity and customized relationship forms that can work well for gay men (and potentially for all people),” wrote homosexual therapist Michael Shernoff in 2006.

But even if two homosexual men keep their disordered relationship “faithful,” homosexual parenting would not be worthy of celebration, LaBarbera said: “It is wrong to force children into a situation where they have two men modeling immoral behavior — condemned by God and all major religions — as the most important role models in their lives.”

“Gay parenting is a selfish social experiment whose long-term effect on children has not yet been determined — biased homosexual-authored studies notwithstanding,” he said. “We know that dad-and-mom-led homes are the best for children. That is the timeless brand of fatherhood that Obama should be promoting,”

[News release from the Americans for Truth website Americans for Truth About Homosexuality]

Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid has appointed lawyer Don Avison as a fact finder to investigate complaints about the BC College of Teachers.

She really had no choice, given the number of organizations that have lined up behind the 11 college councillors calling for an investigation. (Her news release named the following, including two not mentioned previously: the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the BC School Trustees' Association, the Federation of Independent School Associations, the BC School Superintendents' Association and the BC Principals' and Vice-Principals' Association.)

Avison is a former BC deputy minister who was, most recently, president of the Research Universities Council of BC. He was hired by the Vancouver board of education a couple of years ago to conduct an inquiry into the Tom Ellison sex scandal at Prince of Wales high school on Vancouver's westside.

BCTF vice-president Jim Iker said the union hopes the fact finder will shed light on what it believes is a "manufactured crisis".

"We look forward to the opportunity to meet with the fact finder to definitely express our concerns about the actions of the current chair (Richard Walker) and registrar (Kit Krieger) that we think have needlessly heightened a sense of dysfunction within the college council," he said. Click here to read the staff alert that the union distributed to members.

There is no indication the ministry intends to halt the election now underway in Zone 11. (Norm Nichols is the current Zone 11 councillor and favours greater college independence. But given that the BCTF has endorsed candidate Rob Millard - president of the West Vancouver Teachers' Association - and is helping with the cost of his campaign, Nichols is likely to lose.) The third candidate is John O'Flynn, an independent school teacher.

In a release this morning, the Education Ministry outlined Avison's responsibilities.

The fact finder will consider and make recommendations regarding the B.C. College of Teachers in fulfilling its mandate under the Teaching Profession Act.

. . . .      [Read the whole article in the Vancouver Sun online.]

A Letter of Concern Regarding Proposal to Redesign the Teacher Education Program
(from a University of British Columbia Professor Emeritus)

[April, 2010] 

Dr. Jon Shapiro, Dean
Dr. Rita Irwin, Associate Dean
Faculty of Education
Neville Scarfe Bldg
2125 Main Mall
Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4

Dear Dr. Shapiro and Dr. Irwin:

I wish to express my concerns regarding the UBC Faculty of Education proposal to significantly redesign the Teacher Education Program to ensure that in every class, “Social Justice and Diversity Issues” will be discussed. On the surface, “Social Justice” would appear to be a concept which would have the support of all well meaning people. At the same time, we are all too familiar with the insidiousness of words which can be abused to gain approval of the general population, clouding the true intentions of the abusers. Can we precisely define “social justice”? I think not. Different people have different views of what is right and what is wrong and therefore what constitutes social justice. Which interpretations of social justice will serve as the foundation of the new teacher education proposal, “CREATE” (Community to Re-Imagine Educational Alternatives for Teacher Education)? Will teacher educators be forced to promote conceptions of social justice as defined and dictated by administrators whose interpretations of social justice may be contrary to perceptions of social justice of classroom educators?

Consider the widely different opinions on a social justice issue, that of the right or wrong of abortion. Is there more justice in a woman’s “right to choose” or a fetus’s right to life? Among many debatable issues on what constitutes social justice, such an issue has adherents strongly defending one belief or the other. How will the designers of the Social Justice and Diversity program in the Faculty of Education fairly determine guidelines in teaching such a controversial issue without trampling upon those teaching under the new program whose sincere beliefs and opinions do not coincide with the guidelines?

There is no dearth of debatable issues on which decisions for guidelines on social justice would be difficult. Yes, debate upon social justice issues does need to be addressed in our society, but not at sacrifice to the primary goal of the Faculty of Education which is to prepare teacher education students to become excellent teachers. Teaching methodology should focus primarily on how best to promote learning in particular subject areas or the multiple learning rewards at various grade levels as well as to inspire love and appreciation for the knowledge which student teachers will be endowing their future students. As a mathematics teacher and educator I feel that I achieved great success and satisfaction in the beauty of what I was teaching and passing on to my students. I would not have been happy setting aside the beauty and learning of mathematics to “discuss class, gender or race.” In fact, I feel that as I was teaching, I was simultaneously practicing respect for social justice and diversity simply by paying equal respect to all students. My primary mission was to teach skills and and concepts and motivate students in the learning of mathematics. Abilities varied widely , but with respect to class, gender or race, all students were equal.

Despite the concerns which I have expressed, I respect and appreciate the sincere efforts of Faculty of Education leaders to improve the abilities of beginning teachers to achieve greater success in promoting more positive attitudes and respect for others as well as learning success of their students. The existence of a CREATE committee which in the next few months will engage in discussion on curriculum revision, will provide opportunities for different ideas and interpretations to be explored before final decisions are made. Also, the fact that you and other faculty members will meet with “stakeholders” comprising a wide range of institutes and interest groups in the professional educational community will enhance the likelihood that different ideas will be openly discussed, not arbitrarily imposed upon Faculty who may have legitimate differences with the all too common encumbrance of political correctness in our society of today.

In summary, however, while social justice and diversity issues need universal attention, they need not be given special attention at the expense of knowledge gained from the present teacher education program. This is not to say that the education curriculum should remain static. There is always room for improvement, but with respect to social justice, it can flourish naturally in the teacher education classrooms. Faculty and students can in daily interactions practicing respect for each other, concomitantly promote student awareness and willingness to support and practice social justice and acceptance of diversity .


Walter Szetela, (Prof. Emer., UBC)


Quebec Parents to Take Mandatory Relativistic Ethics Course to Supreme Court

 MONTREAL, Quebec, April 29, 2010 ( – The Drummondville couple who requested that their children be exempted from Quebec's new program in relativism, Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC), have decided to take their case to the Supreme Court of Canada following the February decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal to deny their appeal.

The parents are being supported in this effort by the Coalition for Freedom in Education (CLE), who praised the family Wednesday for their “principled and courageous” fight for the authentic education of children. Sylvain Lamontagne, CLE's president, declared that "as far as the parents are concerned, this curriculum trivializes their religion and moral values and treat[s] them as no more important or true as any other.”

“Some sociologists have even publicly qualified it as indoctrination,” he added.

A study released at the end of 2009 by sociologist Joelle Querin found that the program teaches children that the values their parents espouse at home "are relative and that they are free to develop their own ethical life."

Richard Décarie, a spokesman for CLE, said that "imposing this curriculum to all children is a serious onslaught on parental rights and freedom of conscience, so much so that even the United States government is closely monitoring the situation.”

Décarie was referring to a 2009 report on religious freedom throughout the world from the U.S. State Department that included a paragraph on the Drummondville parents' case, which was before the Quebec Superior Court at the time.

The parents had requested an exemption to the course from the Ministry of Education on the basis that it violated their religious beliefs, but were denied.  They took the Ministry to the Quebec Superior Court in the spring of 2009, which ruled in favor of the Ministry in August.

In a press release today, CLE pointed out that no exemptions at all have been granted to the ERC program.  The loss of the fundamental right for parents to choose the moral and religious education of their children at school is currently limited to Québec, they said, but they warned that if this encroachment by the state goes unchallenged, it may set a precedent and encourage other provinces in Canada to follow Québec's lead.

The Québec family's appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is supported by various associations, such as the 104,000-strong Knights of Columbus of Québec.  The Québec population is also strongly committed to freedom of choice in moral and religious education, according to two successive Leger Marketing polls.  In May 2009 they found that 76% of parents thought parents should be able to choose between ERC and a denominational religious education program.  That was up from October 2008, when 72 percent favored such a choice.

See related coverage:

Quebec Family's Appeal Rejected for Exemption from Mandatory Relativism Course

New Study Rips Into Quebec Relativism Course







Apr. 28, 2010

B.C. teacher claims Catholic school sent her home for being a lesbian


VANCOUVER, B.C. - British Columbia's education minister says she is looking into allegations by a Vancouver teacher who claims she was sent home from her job at a Catholic school because of her sexual orientation.

Lisa Reimer alleges the principal at Little Flower Academy told her to stay home for the remainder of the school year, when her current contract expires, after parents complained about the fact that her lesbian partner recently had a baby.

Education Minister Margaret MacDiarmid said she had only heard about the allegations through the media but has instructed her staff to investigate what exactly happened.

"I'm certainly concerned about the allegations that were reported," Margaret MacDiarmid said in an interview. "Generally speaking, there are labour laws, there are human rights laws in British Columbia that have to be upheld."

The school sent out a news release suggesting Reimer's claims were inaccurate, but the statement failed to shed any more light on what happened or why she is no longer teaching classes at the school.

"A meeting took place between the school and the teacher to discuss projects consistent with the music theory curriculum," said the statement.

"The school understood that her proposed role was acceptable and the matter was resolved. Therefore the school was quite surprised by the press release issued today."

Reimer was teaching music at the private, all-girls Catholic school during a leave of absence from her job at the Vancouver School Board, where she will return this fall.

"They (school administrators) said that they had lots of friends and family who were gay and they were completely supportive of that, but that families at LFA would not accept that," Reimer told reporters on Wednesday.

Reimer said received the news earlier this week after taking two weeks off following the birth of her son. She had previously asked for parental leave but said the school refused.

A group called the Pride Education Network sent out a news release Wednesday on Reimer's behalf, claiming the principal told her that parents were concerned "the girls might follow Ms. Reimer's lead."

Steve LeBel of the Pride Education Network, himself a former teacher, said telling someone to stay home for the remainder of the school year wasn't much different than firing them.

He said the move sends the wrong message to students.

"Every girl in that school is going to know by now ... and the message will be that our parents, our teachers, our principal thinks it's fine to let someone go because they're a lesbian," said LeBel.

"I think it's absolutely the wrong message."

There have been several cases in Canada of teachers being fired for their sexual orientation.

The most notable was that of Delwin Vriend, who was fired from a Christian college in Edmonton in 1991 after school officials learned he was gay. Vriend fought the case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which forced the province to include sexual orientation in its human-rights legislation.

Also in Alberta, a transgendered substitute teacher was fired by a Roman Catholic public school board last year. Jan Buterman has filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

Some Catholic schools and Catholic school boards require teaches to sign a so-called "Catholicity clause" when they're hired, often agreeing to abide by the teachings of the church in their personal and professional lives.

The Catholic Independent Schools of the Vancouver Archdiocese, which has no official connection to Little Flower Academy, has such a clause in its teachers' contract. . . . .

[Read the whole article on the AM 770 web page.]

B.C. school disputes lesbian teacher's allegations

Music teacher, Lisa Reimer, says she was fired from the Little Flower Academy because she is a lesbian parent. She held a press conference at the 
BC Teacher's Federation offices accompanied by Glen Hansman of the Vancouver Elementary School Teacher's Assoc. here in Vancouver, B.C. on April 28, 2010.
Photo Credit: Ian Smith, Vancouver Sun

[Read the whole article on CHBC News online.]





B.C. trustees ask province to "redirect" private school funding to public education

By Stephen, Apr. 24, 2010

School trustees from across the province are calling on the B.C. Liberal government to take the funding it gives to private schools and put it into the public school system.

Today (April 24), at the B.C. School Trustees Association's annual general meeting in Victoria, trustees voted to "request the Ministry of Education to redirect to the public education system the public money spent on independent schools, other than band schools".

The Cowichan Valley school board had submitted the motion.

For the 2008-09 school year, the B.C. government provided $217 million in operating grants to independent schools, according to an overview on the ministry's Web site.

At the AGM, trustees also approved a motion urging Minister of Education Margaret MacDiarmid to release the report of the special advisor she sent to look at the Vancouver school board's books to that board as soon as it lands on her desk.

MacDiarmid announced on April 14 that she had appointed B.C.'s comptroller general, Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland, as the special advisor. Wenezenki-Yolland is expected to report back to the minister by May 31.

The Vancouver school board is projecting a $18-million shortfall for the 2010-11 school year. Patti Bacchus, the Vision Vancouver chair of the board, has said the district cannot make cuts that large without hurting the education received by students.

[Read the whole article online.]


Hillary Clinton stirs the pot on Afghanistan, Abortion and the Arctic

[from, Mar. 30, 2010]

Bruce Campion-Smith Ottawa Bureau chief

OTTAWA – Hillary Clinton was openly critical of Canada’s organization of an Arctic meeting, skipped a news conference on the topic with Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and then went on national television to appeal to Canadians to stay in Afghanistan.

After all that, Canadian officials might have been excused if they woke up Tuesday wondering what the U.S. Secretary of State might do for an encore on the second day of her Canadian visit.

Turns out she had one more pot to stir, telling a Gatineau meeting of G8 foreign ministers that any initiative to improve maternal health – Ottawa’s signature global project this year – must include abortions, an option the Conservative government has tried to avoid.w [sic]

“You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions,” Clinton said Tuesday. . . 

[To read the whole of the article on, click here.]


Obama's Historic Health Care Bill Also A Political Gamble


Baby Isaiah Dies with Family on Parents' Terms

By Patrick B. Craine

EDMONTON, Alberta, March 12, 2010 ( – Baby Isaiah James May died yesterday afternoon in the arms of his parents.  After enduring a legal fight to keep doctors from forcing death upon their child, the May family bade farewell to their son on their own terms after becoming convinced that there was no chance of his recovery.

According to Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, the tragic case “has probably turned out the best it possibly could have turned out.”

Baby Isaiah suffered severe brain damage after his umbilical cord got wrapped around his throat during an arduous, 40-hour labor on October 24 in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta.  He and his parents, Isaac and Rebecka, were airlifted to Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton, where Isaiah was kept alive by a ventilator.

The hospital informed Isaac and Rebecka in a letter on January 13th that there was “no hope of recovery for Isaiah” and thus that they would remove Isaiah's ventilator on January 20th.  Believing their son was improving, and wanting more time, the Mays took the doctors and the hospital to court, demanding a 90-day injunction against the hospital's order.  Judge Michelle Crighton gave the parents time to seek independent medical assessment of Isaiah, delaying her decision about the injunction several times.

A hearing scheduled to hear medical assessments was cancelled by the Mays yesterday morning.

Dr. Richard Taylor, a neonatologist from Victoria General Hospital, independently assessed Isaiah in February and agreed with the hospital that Isaiah would not recover.  "I advised Rebecka and Isaac that I was certain that Isaiah would never recover and that his body movements were likely due to activity in his spinal cord," he said in a statement.  "He would remain ventilator-dependent for the duration of his life. As Isaiah would never recover, we agreed that this degree of life support was no longer appropriate."

Isaiah died shortly after noon on Thursday, in the arms of his parents and surrounded by aunts, uncles, and grandparents.

“We held out hope that there would come a time when we might see [Isaiah's] smile and hear his laugh,” the Mays related in a statement, read yesterday by their lawyer, Rosanna Saccomani.  "Over these last four months, we have cherished every moment with our son. We have marvelled at the perfection of his hands and feet and face... at the color of his eyes and the shade of his hair. We have wondered who he most resembled.

"All along it was our hope that Isaiah's condition would brighten and improve. It has not,” they continued.  “The decision that has now been made may be incomprehensible. But it has been made knowing that we did everything possible to find meaningful answers to our questions and that all reasonable alternatives were fully explored and carefully considered.”

"We very much believe that life is a gift from God and that our son's inherent value and worth as a human being is not diminished by the number of days recorded in this world,” they added.  "Isaiah has reminded all of us once again that life is very precious and fragile.”

"We have set our tiny miracle free and he is now home in the arms of the angels."

Pro-life and disability advocates have applauded the Mays' courage, and called on the pro-life community to support them at this difficult time. . . .




From: The Record

Private and Public Schools Subject to [Proposed] Transgendered Guidelines
By Staff of the Christian Civic League of Maine
Feb 19, 2010
[Public hearing scheduled for March 1, 2010]

The Record wishes to share news of urgent importance to all Christians in Maine. The Maine Human Rights Commission is preparing educational guidelines which will apply to schools across Maine, both private aneawd public. The guidelines will require schools to allow transgendered students access to facilities of the opposite sex, including bathrooms and locker rooms. The  guidelines will be discussed at a public hearing in Augusta on Monday, March 1st.

The guidelines are based on Maine's "Sexual Orientation Law" passed in 2005. The Christian Civic League vigorously opposed the law in a hard-fought referendum campaign. At the time, Mike Heath, the former Executive Director of the League, warned that the law would eventually require schools to grant transgendered children access to facilities of the opposite sex. Despite the best efforts of the League, the referendum was rejected, setting the stage for the eventual application of the law to public and private schools.

The Maine Human Rights Commission first applied the Sexual Orientation Law to schools in a case involving a transgendered student at Asa Adams Elementary School in Orono. The case arose when the parents of a transgendered boy demanded that their son  be allowed to use the girls' bathroom. The school offered the boy the use of the teachers' unisex bathroom, a compromise the boy's parents rejected. The MHRC ruled in favor of the boy's parents, who then sued the school in Penobscot Superior Court.

In early February, the League learned information about the proposed new guidelines which up until now has not been disclosed to the public. This new information reveals that the guidelines will apply to all schools in Maine, with the exception of Christian and parochial schools, and will have the force of law. Schools which violate the guidelines will receive a summons to appear before the Commission. The procedure for bringing a charge of discrimination against a school consists of filling out a simple one-page document. If the Commission rules in favor of the Complainant, the case can be used to bring a lawsuit against the school for monetary damages.

The League has also learned that the Boston-based homosexual rights organization GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) was given a major role in writing the proposed guidelines, which are based in part on existing guidelines used by schools in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The Maine Principals' Association, the Maine School Management Association, and a representative of the University of Maine at Orono have already opposed the guidelines.  They have expressed their concern that schools will be forced to allow boys to participate in girls' sports, giving an unfair advantage to teams with transgendered players. The League has also learned that GLAD is still vigorously advocating sending transgendered boys to girls' teams, saying that to fail to do so is discriminatory. 

The public hearing scheduled for March 1st came about after a representative of the Maine School Management Association voiced his concern that the guidelines were being developed without any input from the public. He reminded the Commission that it has a duty under Maine law to hold a public meeting on the issue. The Commission eventually relented, and agreed to open the proposed guidelines to public comment at one of its regularly-scheduled meetings.

The public hearing will be held at the Senator Inn in Augusta on Monday March 1st. The League urges all concerned citizens to attend the meeting to express their opposition to the proposed guidelines. If you are not able to attend the meeting, we urge you to write the Commissioners and submit your written testimony in advance. The names of the Commissioners and the contact information for the Commission is listed below. The mailing address of the Commission is 51 State House Station - Augusta, Maine 04333-0051.

Commission Members

Patricia Ryan, Executive Director

Paul K. Vestal, Jr.

Sallie Chandler

Joseph Perry








Hold the fort on 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell'

[This is an abridged version of an article on the Catholic Education Resource Centre website.]


Military readiness is not the objective of having openly gay soldiers in the US armed services.

Thanks to recent statements by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mike Mullen, we must acclimate ourselves to what now seems the inevitable rescission of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward homosexuals in the US military. This policy itself was a compromise reached under President Bill Clinton, who had wished to eliminate any obstacles to homosexuals in the armed services at the beginning of his presidency. At that time, a decades-old rule stated that homosexuality was "incompatible with military service." The "don't ask, don't tell" deal prohibited asking a person if he is a homosexual, but allowed for the removal of openly declared homosexuals.

In the intervening years, the willingness to consider the moral argument against homosexual acts has eroded further. Toward the latter part of the Bush administration, the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine General Peter Pace, still had the nerve to say, "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way." He received zero support for his forthrightness.

Now, after President Barack Obama hosted a homosexual celebration in the White House on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Inn riots, Admiral Mullen has appeared before Congress in favor of removing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  . . . 

It might be wise to pause for a moment and think about what others may be forced to do should the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" be abandoned. I may be able to bring a certain perspective to the issue since I have both served in the military and worked extensively in the world of the arts, which homosexual culture often dominates.


I keenly recall my induction at Army basic training. It was conducted at a former WW II POW camp for Germans. At Indian Town Gap Military Reservation, we first had our heads shaved and then were told to strip naked as we, for several hours, went from station to station being prodded and poked to ascertain our fitness for the coming physical ardors. In the barracks, there were no stalls between the toilets or showers, in case any of us thought there might be some small refuge of privacy left. This was deliberately done to break us down, so we could then be reshaped into fighting men.

The question may be asked: "If homosexuals are currently serving in the military under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, why hasn't the mayhem described above already happened?" The answer is precisely because the current policy requires homosexuals to be covert in their behavior and not to display their predilections openly.

Now imagine inserting into this scenario some naked females. What would happen? All hell would break loose. And whose fault would it be? It would be completely unfair to both the men and the women to inject sexual tension into an already highly demanding, emotionally charged situation. Those who contrived such a state of affairs would be largely responsible for the consequences.

Since homosexuals define themselves as being sexually attracted to other men, why would anyone imagine that it is any less combustible to place openly-declared, practicing homosexuals in the same setting? It is curious that the military is the only form of association in which it is suggested that people would have to disrobe in front of others who find them sexually attractive, but with whom they do not desire any sexual intimacy. Is there a work place in which women are required to do this in front of men, or men in front of women? For obvious reasons, there is not. Why, then, make the US military such a place? The answer is, under the faux guise of civil rights, to enforce the rationalization for homosexual misbehavior on the country as a whole. What better way to achieve this than institutionalizing this rationalization in the armed forces?

The question may be asked: "If homosexuals are currently serving in the military under the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, why hasn't the mayhem described above already happened?" The answer is precisely because the current policy requires homosexuals to be covert in their behavior and not to display their predilections openly. Overturning this policy would mean "coming out of the closet" inside the military with the consequences described. Adding to the tensions would be the fact that any heterosexual service member who objected or acted in a way that could be interpreted as "homophobic" would be the one brought up on charges or dismissed. They would be forced not to object to homosexual behavior.  . . . 


. . .  military readiness is not the objective of those seeking to overturn the policy. Moral vindication of homosexual behavior is the goal—no matter what the price. Congress, of course, can still stop this from happening as it requires a change in legislation—which has already been prepared by Congressman Murphy, who purportedly has 187 votes lined up for it (only 31 shy of the 218 needed for passage). At least people in the United States will have the opportunity to register their views with their representatives on whether to hold the fort for US service members, or to open the gates for using them as pawns in the homosexual revolution.






Trinity Western University protests "blacklisting" by university teachers


[By Janet Steffenhagen 31 Jan., 2010 in The Vancouver Sun online ]

Trinity Western University (TWU) has appealed to the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) to reconsider a report that says TWU places unwarranted and unacceptable constraints on academic freedom by requiring a statement of faith as a condition of employment.

In a letter last month, TWU president  Jonathan Raymond . . . . said . . . [the CAUT] it reached its harsh conclusion about the university without fair and careful due process.

"The use of allegations, censure and blacklists is in our view counterproductive and antagonistic," he wrote in response to CAUT's charge. "As colleagues, we urge CAUT to . . . engage with TWU in productive academic dialogue."

 Read the CAUT report here and TWU's response here.

Raymond said the CAUT report appears arbitrary, since it wasn't responding to a complaint. Created by an act of the provincial legislature in 1969, TWU has an excellent academic record and there was no need for an inquiry, he added.

"Despite our requests, CAUT has never articulated a clear reason as to why it launched the inquiry now after TWU has been an accepted and respected member of the higher education community in B.C. for forty years."

. . . . The [CAUT] report says TWU recognizes academic freedom only "from a stated perspective, i.e., within parameters consistent with the confessional basis of the constituency to which the University is responsible."

"The subsequent assurance of free inquiry within these restrictions does not ensure genuine academic freedom."

The CAUT report notes the institution's own claim that "all teaching, learning, thinking and scholarship take place under the direction of the Bible, the wholly authoritative and truthful Word of God."

TWU isn't the only school on CAUT's radar. A story in the National Post says the association will now investigate three other Christian universities that require faculty to sign faith statements - Crandall University in Moncton, Canadian Mennonite University in Winnipeg and Redeemer University College in Ancaster, Ont. 


New plan for teacher education focuses on social justice, diversity


Social justice and diversity issues would get unprecedented attention in every course offered by the University of B.C.’s education faculty if a major program overhaul that began several years ago is approved.

“It’s safe to say that every aspect of our program is going to be changed,” associate education dean Rita Irwin said in an interview. “We want to be as responsive as possible to what’s happening in schools. Right now, we’re doing our best to do that, but we think there’s a need to reconfigure.”

It won’t simply be a matter of the university following the lead of B.C. high schools and offering an optional course similar to Social Justice 12. Rather, social justice and diversity are expected to become dominant themes in all education courses, Irwin said.

“If only one class deals with it, then teacher candidates can kind of set it aside. What we’re trying to say now is that you can’t set it aside. You have to understand that it infuses everything you’re doing.”  
[boldfacing in the above three paragraphs is ours--Editor, BCPTL site]

For example, she said students taking a mathematics course might also end up discussing class, gender or race.

The changes, now being drafted, would also ensure that students wanting to become teachers are better prepared to work with special-needs, ESL and aboriginal children. And there would be a mandatory French course for those hoping to work in elementary schools, where teachers are now required to deliver French lessons in intermediate grades even when they have no training.

Irwin stressed that the redesign has not yet been approved by the university senate. “We’re pretty confident it will go through, but theoretically, it’s not quite through yet,” she said, adding she doesn’t expect changes will take effect before 2012.

The proposals are so far-reaching that Irwin described the process as the “re-imagining” of the UBC education degree. Part of that includes an expectation that education graduates would be “teacher inquirers” with an understanding of a wide range of education issues. As an example, Irwin said they would comprehend the arguments for and against the categorization of special-needs students.

“We want them not to think of teaching in a technocratic, instrumental way but ... [as something] that’s constantly evolving. They need to be attentive to the society around them, they need to be lifelong, life-wide learners, they have to take into consideration what new research in education is saying. . . . .

[Click here to read the whole article in The Vancouver Sun online.]

[Here is one of the comments that accompanied the article online:]

Tunya Audain

The Molding of “New Man” Continues

I agree with the critics who fear that this UBC proposal is more social engineering.

It was in the early days of the Soviet Revolution that one of the aims of communism was to create a “new man”.  Human nature would be changed to turn labor and struggle into the greater good for the collective.  Individualism was discouraged.

I really worry about these “social justice” programs, especially since it’s a major thrust of the teachers' union, the BC Teachers’ Federation, with every local having a “social justice” committee.  
I'm really upset that mathematics classes “might also end up discussing class, gender or race”.  Are math teachers also going to organize field trips to rich houses and poor houses to help student calculate economic disparities? 

I just sent a letter to UBC to express my views to the search committee looking for a new Dean of Education.  

The current Dean, Rob Tierney, has resigned to take a new post in Australia.  I expressed my disappointment that he, as a dean, supports views that I see as inappropriate. He decried best practice and evidence-based practice, even suggesting it was malpractice.  He strongly dismissed phonics as “simple minded” but which is a successful method of teaching reading in many schools.  He also spearheaded the signing of an Accord by Canadian Deans of Education, that among other goals, aims to prepare new teachers to assume social and political activist roles, to interact with their communities so as to produce informed citizens who contribute to social change and community transformation. (Teachers as community organizers?)

As well as what’s going on at UBC, I’m disturbed about a new program just started at SFU Faculty of Education.  It’s a two year Masters program in teacher unionism, the first program of its kind on this planet!

I really worry for the future of education in BC unless citizens check out what’s happening in our university teacher preparation programs.  Citizens and our parliamentarians should have some say in these matters.

A different comment on the same article also posted:

 When I was a kid , conservative Christians in the deep south of the US , were convinced that segregation was compatible with their religious beliefs. The process of overturning that historic injustice meant that real equality had to be shoved down their throats. Today , to the chagrin of many of those same right wingers and their ardent supporters , the country has the first African-American president in history. ( This remarkable fact is accompanied by FBI reports of a dramatic increase in death threats aimed at the leader of the free world.) Similarly , we have groups of various religious pursuasions who refuse to acknowledge the humanity and legal equality of an entitre segment of humankind ; homosexual Canadians , of course. Private religious schools may well have to face Charter rights being forced down their throats , and not one moment too soon.

A comment on the proposed changes to the teacher-education in The Peak (the Simon Fraser University student publication):

Teaching shouldn’t be indoctrination

By Eric Onderwater

Major changes to the teacher education curriculum at UBC are in the works, according to an article in the Vancouver Sun, and the biggest changes will be completely focussed on social justice and diversity issues. As quoted, “social justice and diversity issues would get unprecedented attention in nearly every course offered by the University of B.C.’s education faculty.”

For example, UBC’s associate dean of education, Rita Irwin, was quoted as saying that, “If only one class deals with it, then teacher candidates can kind of set it aside. What we’re trying to say now is that you can’t set it aside. You have to understand that it infuses everything you’re doing.” The article mentions that even courses in mathematics may end up discussing class, gender, and race.

Let’s get one thing straight: the faculty of education is responsible for training elementary, middle, and secondary school teachers for schools in British Columbia, and it wants to brainwash our future teachers by “infusing” them with social justice and diversity. Bear in mind that UBC is responsible for training teachers on how to teach students, not what the teachers teach students. That is the domain of the Ministry of Education in Victoria.

To my mind, this is profoundly disturbing. The idea that my future children may have to spend 12 years listening to brainwashed teachers expounding on the glories of left-wing social theory is deeply unsettling.

Social justice is a leftist concept that arose like a phoenix from the ashes of academic Marxism. In reality, social justice is the big, bad old wolf of Marxism all dressed up as little red riding hood’s innocent grandma in bed. It seems so right and innocent, but in reality it is only concerned with the old failed ideas of the redistribution of income and the state-controlled society.

You have to give it to them, as their ability to resurrect old ideas from the ash heap of history really is remarkable — almost as remarkable as their complete failure to think of ideas that aren’t fused like a baby to the teat of Marxism. . . . .

The goals of social justice are reasonable and relatively good things for society to pursue. The problem comes with the solution to these problems. The solution, invariably, is government control, government programs, government activism, government whatever; the solution is always built on the idea that the state is the solution to all society’s problems. Thus, the left returns to Marxism and state control.

My point is this: regardless of its merits, social justice is a political and ideological issue, not something into which we should be indoctrinating all teachers or elementary school students. Keep it out of the classroom. Nobody should have to be infused with social justice and diversity.

[The article above in its complete form may be found in the online edition of The Peak.]





Rally Planned – “Let the Ad Run!”

Local Pro – lifers Organize Rally at Global TV

February 7, 2010, Kelowna, BC; A rally is being planned at the Global Okanagan building at 342 Leon Avenue for Tuesday, February 9 beginning at 4:00 pm. Members of the local pro life community are organizing the event in an attempt to respectfully but firmly ask Global Okanagan to run the pro life ad, “Everyone Against Abortion, Please Raise your Hand.” The ad contains an image of the severed arm of an unborn child who was killed by abortion.

All who value life and truth in media are welcome to take part.

The ad at the centre of the controversy received prior approval by Global TV and the Television Bureau of Canada. Last week, CHBC news director Derek Hinchliffe told The Province that it would be wrong for Global to refuse the ad, "It has met with [TVB] approval, so if we were to say, ‘No, we're not going to run it,’ we would have been offensive," he said.

Despite their initial approval, Global TV did a last minute about-face and decided not to run the ad. Station manager Dennis Gabelhouse said Thursday, “The more we looked at it, the more convinced we were that this ad was probably going to be objectionable to a lot of our viewers.”

Rally co-organizer Marlon Bartram responds that “disturbing imagery is shown on TV all the time, much if it far more graphic than what's in this ad.” He adds that, “this issue is more than just pro-life vs pro-choice, it is a matter of truth in media and their persistent refusal to show the reality of abortion. Certainly abortion is one of the most, if not the most important moral and social issue of our time, and it is an affront to the idea of informed civil discourse to deliberately keep the truth of it hidden from public view.”

A facebook group entitled “Let the Ad Run!” is attracting people from across Canada and elsewhere, and an on-line petition sponsored by the Campaign Life Coalition is also gaining steam. An on-line poll, access to see the ad, and a link to sign the petition are all available at

- 30 -


Marlon Bartram

250 862-8202



More on the Colbourne Testimony [in the Paul and Zabeth Bayne Court Case]

[From Dr. Ron Unruh, blogging at GPS]

(The first portion was written earlier today and near the bottom you see an urgent addition in red font. The first is positive, the second is a concern)

I return to recap the results of the testimony and cross examination of Dr. Margaret Colbourne. She was in the witness box Wednesday and Thursday. She is a pediatric emergency medicine physician at BC’s Children’s Hospital, Vancouver , BC , and as a pediatrician with the Child Protection Service Unit of the hospital. She was a witness for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It was her well intentioned diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome in connection with Bethany Bayne that initiated the October 2007 police action MCFD actions against the Baynes. It was her testimony of this diagnosis that was pivotal to the continued claim by MCFD that the Baynes are unfit parents. On Wednesday, when Judge Crabtree stepped from the bench and deliberated for one hour and returned to rule on the matter of whether Dr. Colbourne was qualified to testify that seven week old Bethany Bayne’s injuries were accidental or non accidental, and whether she was qualified to state categorically that Bethany’s injuries had been sustained by being shaken by an adult, the earth stopped on its axis for a moment. Then it continued to turn while simultaneously the sun shone more brightly and the landscape became clearer. Finn Jensen and Dr. Colbourne were informed that Dr. Colbourne’s testimony concerning the nature of the injuries she observed on the day in October 2007 when she examined Bethany was admissible, but that Dr. Colbourne was not permitted to state her opinions about whether the injuries were non accidental or accidental nor was she permitted to state her belief that Bethany was a shaken baby.
Fundamentally, this is a ruling which speaks to the requisite expertise for distinguishing accidental injuries from injuries inflicted by someone, the latter leading possibly to criminal charges and other consequences such as removal of the children when the injury inducer is a parent. This ruling on this day is specific at the moment to this one case. In time it may serve as the precedent in British Columbia for subsequent cases in which assumptions of cause have been rendered or will be rendered by medical professionals who are unqualified precisely in the disciplines needed for making such critical diagnoses. It is a ruling that speaks to an understanding that certain types of injuries require particular professional credentials. This may become a standard by which to assess the reliability of an expert witness in such cases as shaken baby and other suspected abuse cases that could have differential diagnoses.

In all the incidents of life that are horrific and painful, the understandable instinctive response is to ask, ‘WHY?’ It is possible and even likely that Paul and Zabeth Bayne asked this simply question. But two years and three months have crawled by. During these past months they began to reflect more seriously on the grand scheme of things and the possibility that their agony might one day result in not only redemption for their family but also the restoration of other families where there have been mistaken diagnoses yet no legal recourse because of the strength of condemning testimonies by professionals.

The following is a quick addendum to the post above. It's important to supporters of the Baynes because it shows they need your support and prayers so much more. If you can be at one of the court days, your presence helps them and makes a point to the Court.


I now have had to hastily add this addendum to my previously more positive note about the testimony of Dr. Margaret Colbourne. Yesterday, Thursday, Finn Jensen cleverly began his examination of Dr. Colbourne this way. Since on Wednesday he had received the Judge’s ruling that he could not have Colbourne speak to the cause as accidental or non accidental, he asked for her opinion on what causes she could rule out for Bethany ’s injuries. Despite Doug Christie’s objections she was permitted ultimately to narrow the causes until shaken baby was the only statement of cause left standing. (This, in spite of the previous day’s ruling.)

It was revealed during cross examination that Dr. Colbourne now views this injury as ‘blunt impact’ and shaking. She was reminded that she did not state this in her initial diagnosis. When asked at what time she arrived at this conclusion, she stated in the spring of 2008. Doug Christie suggested that this would have been following her receipt of the experts’ reports that had been supplied by the Baynes – reports which validated the history of events as the Baynes had described. Her response was that she had believed the ‘blunt impact’ component at the beginning but had omitted it in her initial report. (The point is that her exclusive shaken baby diagnosis was damning and did not allow for other causal possibilities.)

Dr. Colbourne disagreed that Zabeth witnessed the accident of Baden falling on Bethany . Colbourne’s testified that Zabeth told her Baden fell on Bethany but that Zabeth had not seen this happen. (That account of the event contradicts the doctors’ reports that preceded Colborne’s involvement – reports which make reference to a witnessed accidental fall of one child on the other.)

Dr. Colbourne also denied knowing that for three weeks prior to admission at Children’s Hospital, Bethany had severe vomiting. When Colbourne was shown an expert’s article which stated that a head injury accompanied by severe vomiting increases intracranial pressure and can cause supplementary bleeding and eye bleeds, Colbourne disagreed.

When Mr. Christie referenced numerous biomechanical papers to which she had access, articles on shaken baby and the physical impossibility for shaken baby to produce the symptoms under discussion, Dr. Colbourne disagreed. (She admitted that when reading the articles she did not comprehend them since biomechanics is not her specialty.)

The witness also disagreed with the published research papers by noted biomechanic and pathology experts which contend that a shaken infant will bear signs of a neck injury. She said that she could not state with assurance that she had ever observed a neck injury on any of the shaken infants she has diagnosed.

Today, Friday, Dr. Randell Alexander has been flown from Florida to give supporting testimony for Dr. Colbourne’s evidence. (His testimony in numerous other cases has assisted the successful prosecution of parents who are in prison today and their children adopted into new families and some parents have faced the death penalty.) More about him later.




Ontario Bishops Reject High School “Gender Studies” Course

By Patrick B. Craine

TORONTO, Ontario, January 15, 2010 ( – The Assembly of Catholic Bishops of Ontario have rejected a “Gender Studies” course that is being promoted by the Ontario Ministry of Education.

The grade 11 course aims to help students “understand the meaning of gender identity and norms of femininity and masculinity,” according to the draft document, which is available on a Ministry website.

The bishops' education commission decided to reject the course at a December 7th meeting, after which they sent a letter to all of the Catholic chairs and directors of education in the province.

“The fundamental thrust of this proposed optional course reflects an ideology which is at variance with Catholic anthropology and moral teaching,” wrote Bishop Paul-André Durocher, chair of the education commission and Bishop of Alexandria-Cornwall.

“Consequently, we would recommend that Catholic secondary schools NOT include the proposed Gender Studies course in their syllabus of course offerings,” he continued, in bold print.

Among many expectations, the course plans to inculcate an appreciation for “the struggle for women's rights,” including “access to birth control information” and “reproductive rights.”  Additionally, students will analyze the “struggle for the recognition of rights for sexual minorities,” dealing with such issues as  same-sex “marriage” and homosexual adoption.

One section of the expectations seeks to have students evaluate individuals or groups who have promoted “equality between men and women and changing gender roles in society.”  According to the course draft, one such model of “equality” is the infamous Canadian abortionist Henry Morgentaler.  Another is Egale, one of Canada's leading homosexualist organizations.

In their letter, the bishops suggested two alternative courses, both dealing with “equity and social justice,” if Catholic high schools desire to offer more social science options.  They indicated that once the expectations for these courses are released, the Institute for Catholic Education will integrate Catholic social teachings into the curriculum.

LifeSiteNews attempted to contact the Bishops' Assembly for comment, but did not hear back by press time.

The education commission's decision about the “Gender Studies” course followed their reception of a December 1st  letter of concern from Campaign Life Catholic, which was presented at the meeting.

“We were pleased with [the bishops'] response,” said Mary Ellen Douglas of Campaign Life Catholic.

“When we discovered this [program], it didn't take long to read it to alert us to the concerns that were in there that were not following Catholic teaching,” she told LifeSiteNews.  “There were very serious things the matter with this program that might have gone right into grade 11.”

Not all Catholic parties agree, however.  The Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (OECTA), which has become notorious for its promotion of feminist and homosexualist causes despite its role as the official Catholic teachers union, has actually made a public stand in promoting the course.

In March 2008, OECTA representatives joined Ontario NDP Women's Issues Critic Cheri DiNovo and the Miss G__ Project for Equity in Education in holding a press conference in which they called on the McGuinty government to implement the course.  The Miss G__ Project, which currently has the implementation of this course as its main objective, lists the OECTA Toronto Secondary Unit as a financial supporter on its website.

“They're going to have to step back,” commented Douglas.  OECTA's support of the course “doesn't surprise me at all,” she said, “but I'm hoping that they still have enough respect for the Church that they will listen to the Assembly of Bishops in Ontario.”

While it would appear the Ontario bishops' leadership will prevent the course from being taught in Catholic schools, it continues to be promoted for inclusion in the public high schools.

“I think the parents in the public school are going to have to be aware of curriculum changes that are coming in for their own students and speak up when things are contrary to their faith,” said Douglas.  “I don't think there's any doubt they're going to have to take that role, as we do in the Catholic schools.”

See related coverage:

Ontario Gvmt Won’t Say Whether Catholic Schools Can Teach Beliefs on Homosexuality

Lesbian Ontario Education Minister Hires "Homophobia" Watchdog for Schools

Ontario Catholic Teachers Run Far Left Conference Promoting Gay Activism




Half of Urban Teen Girls Acquire STIs within 2 Years of First Sexual Activity

INDIANAPOLIS, December 15, 2009 ( – Half of urban teenage girls may acquire at least one of three common sexually transmitted infections (STI) within two years of becoming sexually active, according to an Indiana University School of Medicine and Regenstrief Institute study.

The study appears in the December 2009 issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

The researchers followed 381 girls enrolled at ages 14 to 17 years and found that repeated infection with the organisms that cause chlamydia, gonorrhea and trichomoniasis also was very common.

"Depending on the organism, within four to six months after treatment of the previous infection, a quarter of the women were re-infected with the same organism," said Wanzhu Tu, Ph.D., associate professor of medicine at the IU School of Medicine and a Regenstrief Institute investigator.

Within two years, about three-quarters of participants with an initial sexually transmitted STI were diagnosed with a second STI, although not necessarily of the same type. Within four years of an initial STI, virtually all (92 percent) of the participants had a subsequent STI.

"To our knowledge, this study provides the first data on the timing of the initial STI and subsequent STI following the onset of sexual activity in urban adolescent women," said Dr. Tu.

The study also found that screening for STI may not be initiated until several years after sexual activity begins, especially for girls with earlier onset of sexual activity.

"This is important because many clinicians are reluctant to address sexual activity with younger teens, and may miss important prevention opportunities," said J. Dennis Fortenberry M.D. M.S., professor of pediatrics at the IU School of Medicine, and senior author of the study.

The study focuses on lower income urban adolescents; a group characterized by early onset of sexual activity, multiple sexual partners, and high STI rates.





From a December 16th, 2009, MassResistance "Update" e-mail:

Resolution introduced in Congress to remove "safe schools" czar Kevin Jennings. 
MassResistance work cited

MassResistance's research and activism exposing Obama's "safe schools" czar Kevin Jennings and has again made it to Congress. Back on October 15, 53 Congressmen signed a letter demanding Jennings be fired. But as more horrible information has surfaced, the pressure to remove Jennings is boiling over. . . . .

Dec. 11, Congressman Michael Burgess (R-TX) introduced a resolution to Congress that Jennings be removed! The resolution cites Jennings' involvement in the "Fistgate" conference (which we uncovered in 2000) and his admiration of NAMBLA supporter Harry Hay, which the MassResistance blog recently helped bring to light.

1st Session
H. RES. 96

Calling on the President and the Secretary of Education to fire Kevin Jennings from his post as 'Safe Schools Czar'.

December 11, 2009

Mr. BURGESS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor


Calling on the President and the Secretary of Education to fire Kevin Jennings from his post as 'Safe Schools Czar'.

Whereas, on December 11, 2009, The Washington Times reported that Kevin Jennings was involved in promoting a reading list for children 13 years old or older that made the most explicit sex between children and adults seem normal and acceptable;

Whereas recorded tapings from conferences previously sponsored by Kevin Jennings had presenters explicitly conveying to adolescents certain types of sexual behavior;

Whereas Kevin Jennings has praised Harry Hay, a vocal supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA); and

Whereas Kevin Jennings in his capacity as 'Safe Schools Czar' may not promote criminal behavior: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) considers the behavior of a 'Safe Schools Czar' promoting sexual relationships between adults and children reprehensible;

(2) supports the belief that any and all who occupy the position of 'Safe Schools Czar' should not promote criminal behavior; and

(3) calls on the President and the Secretary of Education to find an immediate replacement for Kevin Jennings.




Copenhagen: China pushing Population Control as the Final Solution

By Hilary White

COPENHAGEN, December 11, 2009 ( - Population control has emerged as a key issue for "climate change" talks in Copenhagen, after the issue was brought forward by Chinese delegates. Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) said, "Population and climate change are intertwined, but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming."

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture."

The Chinese newspaper China Daily quotes Zhao saying that China's population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society. China has reduced the number of births by 400 million since instituting its one-child "family planning" policies, and this has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions per year, Zhao continued.

Although she declined to mention China's laws forcing women into abortion and sterilization, Zhao did acknowledge that her country faces what some have called a looming demographic crisis because of the policy, with an aging population, a reduced work force and a severe nationwide gender imbalance from sex-selective abortion.

"I'm not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I'm sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited," she said.

Todd Stern, the US Special Envoy to the conference told journalists yesterday that China is the world's largest emitter of CO2, calling the data "frightening."

"By 2020, China will be a 60% bigger emitter than the US; by 2030, it will be 80% bigger. The inescapable conclusion: major developing economies must be brought into an international framework that obligates them to curb emissions," Stern said.

The conference is proceeding despite the recent revelations that some leading climate scientists may have falsified or withheld scientific information to inflate the data on "global warming." Information was released on the internet by unidentified hackers in November that appeared to show that researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, one of the world's key sources of the climate change theories, had sought to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published and deleted e-mails and raw data that would have refuted the global warming theory.

After the internet world was immediately filled with stories and theories on what quickly became dubbed "Climategate," the University of East Anglia announced it would conduct an independent review of the matter.

The 15th Session of United Nations Climate Change Conference . . . runs from December 7 to 18. 




Prominent Canadian Journalist Calls for Imposed Planetary One-Child Policy

By John-Henry Westen

TORONTO, December 9, 2009 ( - In a column published yesterday in one of the major Canadian national newspapers, Diane Francis, the Editor-at-Large of the National Post, has called for a globally enforced one-child policy taken after the example of China.  "A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently of one million births every four days," writes Francis.

Commenting on the ongoing climate talks in Copenhagen, where world leaders are deliberating on possible solutions to hypothetical environmental catastrophes, Francis says, "None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed."

In an attempt to forestall criticism of her proposal Francis stated, "For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pasture land into desert as is now the case or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs."

Don Feder, a free-lance journalist and former media consultant for the documentary films Demographic Winter and the Demographic Bomb responded to Francis' assertions in an interview with

The films document scientific evidence that, rather than overpopulation, civilization will soon be feeling the effects of the collapse of demographic growth, with most nations not achieving even a replacement birthrate of 2.1 children per woman.

Questioning Francis' proposal to impose a one-child policy, Feder asked: "Did she say how she wants to enforce this, if she wants to enforce it with fines, or imprisonment, or execution, or castration?"  Feder added, "It's amazing that someone can look at China, with forced abortions, forced sterilizations and female infanticide, and can see that as a model and say 'we need that on a planetary scale.' It's mind boggling."

Francis' comments, he said, "expose these neo-Malthusians as the coercive utopians that they are. They actually want to punish people for having large families, and I think they would if they had the means to do so."

While Francis is well known for her fiscally conservative stance, she is also radically pro-abortion.  In a 2002 column she exclaimed: "Any law that would force someone to have a child she did not want, or could not look after or have to put up for adoption, would be an act of state-sanctioned violence."

Francis has a particular animosity towards religion.  Lamenting the inability to enforce a one-child policy, she said, "Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world's big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control."


Reporter Fired Over Gay Marriage E-Mail

11 Dec 2009 on

WATERVILLE - Larry Grard, a veteran newspaper reporter at The Morning Sentinel in Waterville, says he was fired for sending an angry e-mail to a pro-gay marriage group.

Grard says he was offended by an e-mail he received from the DC-based Human Rights Campaign the day after the November 3rd vote overturning Maine's same-sex marriage law. He fired off a response, which read, in part, "You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since the campaign began. Good riddance!"

Grard says he was immediately fired when his boss found out about the e-mail.

The union representing Grard has filed a grievance against the owners of The Sentinel.





Abortion an obstacle to health-care bill

Some Democrats vow to block final passage if amendment stays

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 9, 2009

President Obama and Senate Democrats sought on Sunday to generate momentum from the House's passage of health-care legislation, even as a new hurdle emerged: profound dismay among abortion-rights supporters over antiabortion provisions inserted into the House bill.

The House passed its version of health-care legislation Saturday night by a vote of 220 to 215 after the approval of an amendment that would sharply restrict the availability of coverage for abortions, which many insurance plans now offer.

[You can read the whole of this article at The Washington Post online.]



November 7, 2009 News Items Regarding the Passing of the U.S. Health Care Reform Bill Preceded by 
the Passing of an Amendment Prohibiting Coverage of Elective Abortion by a Government Program

 US Congress Passes Health Care Reform Bill 220 to 215

By Steve Jalsevac

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 7, 2009 11:15 p.m. Eastern Time ( - The U.S. House passed the historic health care reform bill Saturday evening 
by a very close 220 to 215 vote. The Democrats needed 218 votes to pass the bill. One Republican voted for the bill.

The bill includes the Stupak Amendment which basically contains the provisions of the long standing Hyde Amendment prohibiting any coverage of elective abortion by 
a government program.

The bill still requires approval by the Senate.

BREAKING: Stupak Amendment to Health Care Bill Passes 240 - 194 Saturday Evening
Next this evening is vote on Health Care Bill

By Steve Jalsevac

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 7, 2009 10:45 p.m. ( - The Stupak-Pitts Amendment that would prohibit coverage of elective abortion in two big new federal programs created by the Democrat's health reform bill passed by a wide margin of 240 to 194 Saturday evening. 

Debate in the House is now under way on another, much less likely to pass Republican amendment. After the vote on this last amendment, there is expected to be a final vote on the main health care bill later this evening.



CitizenLink, Nov. 4, 2009

Election Results Good for Conservatives  [in the United States]

Two big governor's races and a win for marriage headlined the off-year election Tuesday.

Despite last-minute campaigning by President Barack Obama, Republican candidates won clear victories in New Jersey and Virginia. 

In New Jersey, a predominantly blue state, Chris Christie was declared the winner over incumbent Jon Corzine.  President Obama won the state by a 15-point margin in 2008.

Virginia Republican Bob McDonnell easily defeated Democrat Creigh Deeds, 59 percent – 41 percent.

[You can read the whole of the above article at CitizenLink.]


Sask. MP Trost launches petition against funding of planned parenthood group



                                                                        Saskatoon-Humboldt MP Brad Trost
Photograph by: Gord Waldner, The StarPhoenix

The Star-Phoenikx (Saskatoon)                                         
Wed Nov 4 2009
Page: B7                                                    

Byline: Jenn Sharp

A petition calling for a stop to federal funding of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has been launched by Saskatoon-Humboldt MP Brad Trost.

Trost presented the petition to the House of Commons Monday. IPPF is funded through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and, according to Trost's petition, "promotes the establishment of abortion as an international human right and lobbies aggressively to impose permissive abortion laws on developing nations."

The petition says that the government pledged $18 million to the IPPF over four years and that "the IPPF does not support physician's freedom to practice according to their conscience and/or religious beliefs regarding abortion referral."

According to IPPF's website, the federation promotes sexual and reproductive health rights and provides health services for people in six world regions. Its work is focused in five priority areas: Access to services for marginalized groups, education services for adolescents, advocacy campaigns, HIV-AIDS and abortion services. . . . .

[You can read the rest of the above article on The Star-Phoenix online.]


Thursday October 29, 2009

Did Feminism Benefit Men more than Women? Prominent US Feminist Asks

By Hilary White

October 29, 2009 ( - In an Op Ed in the New York Times, leading US feminist Maureen Dowd has expressed her surprise that recent research continues to find that women, who may have been economically "emancipated" by the feminist revolution, are more unhappy now, forty years later, than men.

Calling it a "paradox" that women may have thrown off the aprons, Dowd wrote, "But the more women have achieved, the more they seem aggrieved. Did the feminist revolution end up benefiting men more than women?"

Dowd, a journalist and regular columnist for the New York Times, is known as one of the last of the old-school radical feminists, and is the author of the book "Are Men Necessary? When Sexes Collide".

Dowd's Op Ed follows a report by Time Magazine showing that despite increased economic opportunities, limit-free "reproductive choice" and easy divorce, men are more happy overall than women in the US. Women, Dowd said, are being "driven to distraction" by maintaining both their status as mothers and wives while at the same time maintaining high-powered careers. Citing several different researchers, Dowd said that a big part of the problem is children. "One area of extreme distraction is kids," she wrote.

But an even bigger threat to women's happiness, she said, is the natural instinct of women for forging strong emotional bonds and relationships. "They tend to attach to other people more strongly, beat themselves up more when they lose attachments, take things more personally at work and pop far more antidepressants."

In the Time piece, Nancy Gibbs says that the magazine's research showed that although women have "gained more freedom, more education and more economic power," the study found that "they have become less happy".

Since Time did a piece on feminist gains in the early 1970s, Gibbs wrote, "close to half of law and medical degrees go to women...half the Ivy League presidents are women, and two of the three network anchors soon will be; three of the four most recent Secretaries of State have been women. There are more than 145 foundations designed to empower women around the world."

But women are still saying they are not happy compared to men, according to the surveys, and are suffering more than men in the financial downturn. The mysterious "paradox" of modern, emancipated, contracepting and high-achieving women is not so mysterious to some.

Gibbs writes that among the "most confounding" changes is the evidence "that as women have gained more freedom, more education and more economic power, they have become less happy".  "No tidy theory explains the trend."

Gibbs herself points to an answer, saying, "Among the most dramatic changes in the past generation is the detachment of marriage and motherhood" and that women "no longer view matrimony as a necessary station on the road to financial security or parenthood".

She notes the leap in the numbers of children born to single women (from 12 per cent to 39 per cent) and notes that while "a majority of children in the mid-1970s were raised by a stay-at-home parent, the portion is now less than a third".

But Albert Mohler, commenting in a column, followed the evidence, saying, "The big question raised by these studies is this: Has feminism produced unhappiness among women? That question is inescapable when seen in light of the historical context."

Mohler is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a board member of Focus on the Family and hosts a Christian radio talk show that discusses social issues. He quotes Gail Collins, who wrote in her book "When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present," that the achievements of women "did not resolve the tensions of trying to raise children and hold down a job at the same time".

"Sadly," Mohler writes, "most feminists seem incapable, given their ideological commitments, of asking the hardest questions.

"In reality, feminism was never only about opening doors for women. In order to make the case for the vast social transformation that feminism has produced, the feminist movement aspired to nothing short of a total social, moral, and cultural revolution. Along the way, feminism redefined womanhood, marriage, motherhood, and the roles for both men and women."


Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" Funds Pornographic Display at Harvard

By James Tillman

WASHINGTON, DC, October 21, 2009 ( -- Obama's controversial and embattled "safe schools czar," Kevin Jennings, has helped fund a pornographic, anti-Catholic and sado-masochistic art display currently being shown at Harvard University, reports

The Harvard exhibition, entitled, ACT UP New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993, chronicles the efforts of the homosexual civil disobedience group, Aids Coalition To Unleash Power (ACT UP), through the graphic stickers, posters, and other visual media used as propaganda in the early years of the homosexualist movement.

ACT UP describes itself as a "diverse, non-partisan group of individuals united in anger and committed to direct action to end the AIDS crisis." According to Jenning's homosexual partner, Jeff Davis, Jennings was once a member of the group.

Jenning's name is listed on the Harvard art display's website, beneath those who provided a gift or grant.

The posters on display, which were designed in the early days of the movement, were part of ACT UP's protest against a government that they saw as having failed to do its duty in the AIDS crisis.

One poster is comprised of an up-close photograph of a woman's genitals, with text objecting to the Supreme Court's ban on abortion. Another, ostensibly about sexism and AIDS, includes an up-close shot of male genitalia.

Other posters include a variety of offensive images and messages. One image calls President Ronald Reagan a murderer and President George H.W. Bush a serial killer, for their perceived negligence in not using tax dollars to help those with AIDS.

ACT UP also vented rage against another figure of authority: the Catholic Church. One image visually compares New York's late Cardinal O'Connor to a condom, stating that the condom, at least, helps prevent AIDS. Cardinal O'Connor was well known for maintaining the Church's teaching on contraception and homosexuality. The poster states in large letters: "Know your scumbags."

Similarly, another poster depicts two gay men kissing in front of New York's St. Patrick's Church. ACT UP is infamous for its involvement in a "protest" in St. Patrick's Church on December 10, 1989, wherein a Blessed Sacrament was desecrated.

Yet the displays of how ACT UP raged against all and any authority are perhaps less disturbing than those regarding the sexual desires of the homosexualist movement.

One image features a female toddler, with the word "Dyke" written beneath her in typeset. "Dyke" is a term used to designate a homosexual female, and often carries the connotation of a "butch" homosexual female.

In another part of the museum one finds text apparently describing an adult's violent sexual assault on a child.

ACT UP is described on their website as a group "united in anger" to help end the AIDS crisis. They are notorious for their disruptive protests; their website includes instructions regarding how to handle being arrested.

Kevin Jennings has increasingly come under fire in the last number of months, as more information about his radical views has come to light.

Jennings is a co-founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which targets children in public schools and classroom curricula to embrace homosexuality as a normative behavior.

In addition, during a speech in 2000, Jennings admitted failing to report the statutory rape of a fifteen-year old who was involved in a homosexual relationship with a much older man.  Rather than reporting the situation, Jennings instead instructed the boy to wear a condom.

Jennings has also come under fire for his praise of Harry Hay, an ardent admirer of the North American Man/Boy Love Association and an advocate of lowering the age of consent laws. Additionally, it has recently come to light that Jenning's helped raise money for the Obama presidential campaign.

53 House Republicans have asked President Obama to fire Jennings, stating that he will push a homosexual agenda and that he clearly "lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards to serve in this capacity."


[Can "Gay-Straight Alliance and Christian clubs can co-exist in public schools"?]

School club controversy raises more questions

 . . . .

Naoibh O'Connor, Vancouver Courier

Published: Friday, October 02, 2009

A teacher-librarian's failed human rights complaint alleging religious discrimination at University Hill secondary raises questions about whether Gay-Straight Alliance and Christian clubs can co-exist in public schools.

The complaint by Po Chiang, sponsor of the Christian Fellowship Club at UHill, was dismissed by B.C. Human Rights Tribunal earlier this month, as reported in the Sept. 30 edition of the Courier.

It was filed against the Vancouver Board of Education, Megan Fergusson, sponsor of the Gay-Straight Alliance and Jill Philipchuk, former principal at University Hill.

Several incidents in 2007, outlined by the tribunal, suggest tension. They include Fergusson emailing teachers a video clip of an extremist American Christian group, which Chiang felt depicted all Christians as intolerant bigots. The tribunal reported that Chiang repeatedly asked Fergusson if she could attend an Alliance meeting to talk about the views of the Christian right and the "Protestant Christian's view towards homosexuality." The requests were refused.

Chiang also delayed cataloguing books donated by the Gay-Straight Alliance.

Philipchuk eventually wrote Chiang a letter of expectation, which reads, in part, "I do not expect all staff to actively engage in the work of the [Gay-Straight Alliance] club, but I do ask that all staff cooperate with the teacher sponsor's efforts in relation to activities planned by the club."

The tribunal wrote, "...[such] behaviour [by Chiang] could reasonably give rise to an impression of a lack of cooperation with or professional support for the activities of the GSA."

Chiang complained that days after attending a Christian Fellowship Club meeting, Philipchuk informed student leaders they couldn't have guest speakers because it violated the School Act's prohibition on teaching of religious doctrines and dogma.

The guest speaker was a youth pastor from a local church who had been invited by students. Chiang said students complained it was unfair since the CFC is extracurricular and other clubs are allowed guest speakers. She maintained Philipchuk singled out a religious group for special attention.

. . . .

Chiang argues staff and students with religious beliefs feel increasingly disenfranchised from the Vancouver school system. "I'm constantly wary of the fact that more of this is going to happen again," she said in a phone interview with the Courier earlier this week. "I really do think the attitude of the board and administration--I think there is a bias against Christians and religious people."

But school board chair Patti Bacchus supports the tribunal's decision, while saying she hopes students of all faiths feel welcome in public schools. "I think the question of any club that is extracurricular and based on religion is possibily an area that perhaps we have to maybe take a better look at. We have policies of inclusion. The School Act does state that schools must be conducted on a strictly secular, non-sectarian principle," she said Monday.

Glen Hansman of the Vancouver Elementary School Teachers' Association and a former anti-homophobia consultant for the district, said he's fine with religious clubs meeting after school hours on school property, but proselytizing can't be allowed at schools.

. . .Hansman , , , maintains school boards need to do more to support gay youth.

[See the article above at The Vancouver Courier online.]


A Family In Need Of Reunification


By Raphael Alexander 28 Dec 2009  Vancouver Sun Community of Interest

 A Surrey family that had their three children seized by the government of British Columbia in October of 2007 is still desperately trying to get them back more than 26 months later. Their children were taken by the province after Child Services believed that the parents had shaken their then two-month-old baby girl, Bethany, even though those allegations now seem to be false, and government workers even advised their boys be returned as early as November of 2007.

The children have been in foster care ever since. The two boys who are aged five and four, respectively, and Bethany, now two, were taken by the Ministry of Child and Family Development when Paul and Zabeth Bayne were suspected of shaking their baby girl causing a head injury. The accusation is commonly known as “Shaken Baby Syndrome”. The Bayne’s insisted the injury occurred when their younger son tripped and fell on their daughter, but those pleas fell on deaf ears.  . . .

. . . in April of this year a new and shocking revelation came to light that could explain the injuries of their daughter. Internal documents from the Ministry of Child Development revealed that the head injuries to the little girl were likely not caused by abuse, accident, or otherwise, but from a rare genetic disorder called glutaric aciduria.

Zabeth and Paul Bayne have had to find night jobs in the time since their children were abducted by the government, so that they can visit them during the days when they are granted access.

A court hearing on the alleged abuse will finally commence on January 10. Before then, the parents are holding a fund-raising concert entitled “For Love and for Justice” at Richmond Peace Mennonite Church on January 3 between 6:30-8pm. Those attending are encouraged to call the number 778-228-4717 to reserve a place. You can also visit several Facebook pages to learn more about their plight to get their children back.

For Love and for Justice: Facebook Event
The Bayne Campaign for Justice: Facebook Group
The Bayne Petition Site: Here



Bayne Family in British Columbia Still Without Their Three Children after Government Takes Them in Controversial Seizure 
CASJAFVA Holds Eighth Rally in Support of the Parents

October 3, 2009

The Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association (CASJAFVA) , a group mainly based in the Chinese-Canadian ethnic commuinity in Vancouver, British Columbia, held anotbher rally October 3rd on behalf of the Baynes family.  It was the eighth rally put on by the group on behalf ot the Baynes.   The children of Paul and Zabeth Bayne have been separated from their parents for two years now as a result of a controvsial move by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.  

The story of the Bayne family, can be seen on YouTube at  .   The video includes a clip from earlier CBC coverage of the issue.

The CBC print article below gives a summary of the case as it had developed up to April. of this year (2009):

Ministry disregarded legal advice to return seized children: document
Surrey parents insist they never harmed baby daughter

Friday, April 3, 2009 

Paul and Zabeth Bayne say they never abused their baby girl and are fighting for the return of their three children.Paul and Zabeth Bayne say they never abused their baby girl and are fighting for the return of their three children. (CBC)

A lawyer representing the B.C. government in a child seizure case in September 2007 had advised the return of two of three children to the Surrey parents, CBC News has learned.

The children — two boys, now aged four and three, and a 19-month-old baby girl — were taken by the Ministry of Children and Family Development because Paul and Zabeth Bayne were suspected of shaking the girl and causing a head injury.

The Baynes said their daughter's head was accidentally injured by their second son tripping and landing over her body. The couple have been fighting to get their children back ever since.

The lawyer representing the children's ministry had suggested the return of the two older boys to the parents because there was no evidence of harm done on the boys, according to documents obtained by CBC News on Friday.

Government lawyer Finn Jensen believed the case for holding the two boys would not hold up in court, and John Fitzsimmons, a community services manager, was aware of the lawyer's position, according to a ministry correspondence dated July 14, 2008.

"[A] medical report of November 2007, completed shortly after the two older children came into care, indicates that there was no evidence of harm of injury to the children," the correspondence said.

"No new evidence has come to light, which would indicate a risk to these children," it said.

. . .

The two boys and the baby girl have been placed in foster care.

"The boys have been in four foster homes now; that is not a secure, loving environment," Zabeth Bayne told CBC News Friday.

Kelly Gleeson, communications director of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, said Friday the matter is before the courts and "we will not be commenting."

. . . .

Campbell said Friday he is not aware of the Baynes' fight to get back their children.

"I understand these people, like most people, would like to have their children back," Campbell said when asked by CBC News at a public event.

"My constituency assistants are following it up with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I don't have the details of the case. I'm glad to follow it up," he said.

CBC News reported on Thursday the Baynes obtained internal documents from the children's ministry that suggest their daughter likely suffers glutaric aciduria, which is often mistaken for child abuse.

Glutaric aciduria is a rare genetic disorder with varied symptoms, sometimes including bleeding and swelling of the brain.

The couple, who now work as night janitors, have begun a legal challenge against the ministry's decision. But they said they likely won't get their day in court until next year because of delays and backlogs in the court system. 

[Click here to see the above article on the CBC site.]

Ron Unrah has written a series of blog entries on the plight of the Baynes.   His narration of their story and comments on it is in five parts.   Click here for "Part One."  The links to the other five parts are in the column to the right of Part One in that blog.


The following summary by Paul and Zabeth gives their side of the case:

Summary of the Damage Incurred Through Medical Misdiagnosis

and Ministry of Children and Family Development


During these past sixteen months our family has endured one of the most traumatic experiences as a result of a medical misdiagnosis and the consequent involvement of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I wish to outline some of the injustices and hardships that have resulted as well as the damage that has been inflicted on our children as a result of this. 

Due to the removal process our children have been submitted to experiencing the emotional trauma associated with the invasive and violent manner in which removal occurs. They have had a negative first hand experience with the RCMP and its subjection to the wishes of the Ministry to remove children right in the middle of their birthday party. They have lived through the pain of being separated from their parents and placed in an unfamiliar environment with strangers at a young and vulnerable age.  This removal was the first time that our children had witnessed violence and emotional abuse. It was the first time that they experienced their parents unable to protect and assist them as they reached out for help to us.

The RCMP interrogated us an entire day resulting in an ambulance being called to the station to take me to the emergency room for a body that had completely seized from the brutal interrogation that an innocent mother had to endure. The RCMP then informed us that one set of finger prints and photos had gone missing and therefore could not be destroyed.

The Ministry of Children and Family has denied our premature son the needed Infant Development Programs for many months when first in care. This delay will now affect his ability to adjust in school with his peers. The emotional damages also incurred with removal from a safe and loving environment has also caused delay in his development as well as in the development of our other children who were also premature infants.

The Ministry has sought to undermine the bond that we have developed with our children, has verbally admitted this in phone conversations, and now has evidenced this through limiting and cutting back our access times. Our children are suffering as a result from this.

This wrongful removal has resulted in damaging the trust relationship we have had with our children, their sense of security and stability and their ability to form meaningful attachments due to continued bouncing from one foster home to another and then to times of respite in relief homes.  . . . .

Our family has also suffered financially from this injustice. I had taught piano to children for many years and had to auction off my grand piano to pay for lawyers fees, my husband was laid off one of his positions due to too many missed days for court, visitations and meetings with the Ministry. We had to place a second mortgage on our home to also pay for lawyers fees and medical experts and now have lost our home to bankruptcy because of this. Family and friends have also given much to cover the costs incurred. The expenses now are well over $80,000 to date and the Ministry wishes to draw this over a fifteen to twenty day trial and wish us to fly our experts in for the purpose of cross examination. We now have to self represent ourselves in court.

 The emotional trauma of having your children removed is unspeakable. They have torn our very heart and soul out when they took our treasures. Enduring day after day wondering if they are being cared for properly and knowing they need you and miss you and do not understand. Knowing they think you don’t want them and you have placed them with strangers is another unbearable thought as we had wanted them to know they could rely on us for everything, that they could trust us and they were loved unconditionally. Coming home to empty beds at night brings tears as we go into their rooms and pray for them one by one and blow them a kiss to wherever they are. The pain is unbearable. Putting on a brave smile at the end of a visitation as you wave goodbye to your crying child that is begging you not to leave him is barbaric.

 We have been robbed of our parenthood. We have had our children stolen on false allegations and have missed the whole first year and a half of our first little girl.  We are enduring what no parent should ever have to.

Due to the removal process our children have been submitted to experiencing the emotional trauma associated with the invasive and violent manner in which removal occurs. They have had a negative first hand experience with the RCMP and its subjection to the wishes of the Ministry to remove children right in the middle of their birthday party. They have lived through the pain of being separated from their parents and placed in an unfamiliar environment with strangers at a young and vulnerable age.  This removal was the first time that our children had witnessed violence and emotional abuse. It was the first time that they experienced their parents unable to protect and assist them as they reached out for help to us.



September 17, 2009

European Parliament Raps Lithuania for “Protection of Minors” Law Curbing Homosexual Advocacy 
[title altered]

By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.

     (NEW YORK – C-FAM)  The European Parliament voted 349 to 218 today to condemn Lithuania for its "law on the protection of minors" which prohibits promotion of "homosexual, bisexual or polygamous relations" among children under 18 in the Baltic nation. Conservative critics contend that the measure, crafted in reaction to the domestic legislation of a sovereign member state pertaining to the family, oversteps the Parliament's authority.

     The resolution directs tkhe Agency for Fundamental Rights to opine on whether the law contravenes European anti-discrimination standards. Any such opinion would be non-binding, though activists would likely use it to press for greater recognition of rights based on "sexual orientation."

     An earlier proposal by the Alliance of Liberal and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), the "liberal" parliamentary faction, would have initiated proceedings to suspend Lithuania pursuant to article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, the 1992 pact that created the European Union (EU). Parliamentarians principally affiliated with the Christian Democratic grouping, the European People's Party (EPP), worked behind the scenes to soften the resolution and remove the Article 7 reference.

     While "progressive" parliamentarians lined up to charge Lithuania with promoting "homophobia," several EPP and conservative members spoke in opposition to the measure and in support of the country's sovereign right to pass laws protecting families and children, including Lithuania's first post-Soviet head of state Vytautas Landsbergis and Slovakian parliamentarian Anna Záborksá.

     Nevertheless, the EPP remained divided on the measure, with virtually every EPP member from France voting to censure Lithuania. Surprisingly, Malta's delegation, including its two EPP representatives, voted as a bloc against Lithuania.

Lithuania's Parliament, or Seimas, passed the child protection legislation in June. The President vetoed it, in apparent reaction to criticism from Western European politicians and homosexual advocacy organizations. In July, Lithuania's parliament overrode the veto. The law is scheduled to take effect in March 2010.

     David Quinn, Director of Ireland's Iona Institute and a family rights advocate, called the resolution "a completely unwarranted intrusion in the domestic affairs of a member state." Critics such as Quinn see the non-discrimination principle, particularly with respect to sexual orientation, being used to trump long-enshrined values such as religious liberty and parental rights. Quinn called anti-discrimination "the skeleton key that opens every room of the house."

     Some observers expect the Parliamentary action to have repercussions in Ireland, where the nation will vote in a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty next month.

     While the EU has "guaranteed" that Ireland's constitutional protection of unborn life would be unaffected by a "yes" vote on Lisbon, the European Parliament's action on Lithuania has fueled concerns among Irish euroskeptics that European institutions would seek to override the Republic's domestic laws. Among other changes, the Lisbon Treaty would make the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding upon members. While silent on abortion, critics fear an activist European Court of Justice reading such a right into the charter.

     Forty-six parliamentarians abstained on the Lithuanian resolution, including three Irish EPP members. The four Irish ALDE members broke with their party and voted against the resolution, a move insiders see as tactical and intended to forestall criticism in advance of the Lisbon referendum.


Good News: Science Awards Go to Adult-Cell Researchers

 [From, Septlember 16, 2009

Dr. John Gurdon, a developmental biologist from Oxford University, and Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, a physician and researcher at Kyoto University, have been chosen to receive the prestigious Albert Lasker Basic Medical Research Award. In 2007, Yamanaka discovered Induced Pluripotent Stem (iPS) cells.
iPS cells are embryonic-like cells that can become specialized cell types without destroying a human embryo.
In a promotional video from the Lasker Institute, Yamanaka said he's excited about the future of the research.

"I expect some diseases like heart disease, heart failure, and some retinal diseases," he said, "may be a good candidate" (for therapies using this research).
Gurdon and Yamanaka will split the $250,000 cash prize and receive their awards in New York on Oct. 2.

—Steve Jordahl

Learn more about lifesaving treatments using adult stem-cell research.



Sex Ed Gone Wild: Canadian Mag Covers Trend toward "Pleasure-Based" Sex Ed in Schools
Countered with physician's warning that "There are life and death infections involved here"

By Patrick B. Craine

Warning: The nature of this article required the inclusion of sexually explicit language that some may find offensive.

TORONTO, Ontario, September 8, 2009 ( - Lianne George of Maclean's magazine has penned a piece published this week on a new trend in schools' sexual education offerings to focus on the pleasure of sex. Her article highlights the work of Toronto's Carlyle Jansen, the owner of a 'sex shop' for women, Good For Her, who has launched a new not-for-profit organization devoted to offering free, "pleasure-based" sex workshops to schools and other groups in the area.

Jansen has long offered pleasure-based workshops through her store, but, according to George, a year and a half ago Jansen started getting calls from local high school teachers who wanted her to come and offer sex-ed to their classes.  Since then, Jansen guesses that she has spoken to about 12 or 15 classes.

"Kids are taught to death about all the bad things that can happen to them if they have sex," Jansen told George.  "They've said, 'We've heard about sexually transmitted infections, we know you can get pregnant, but we want to know about pleasure and we want to know about healthy relationships.'"

In the classes, she talks to teens about whatever they would like to know, from masturbation to oral sex to sex toys (examples of which she brings to the classroom in case teens ask). She also teaches the kids about the sexual 'pleasure centres' using items depicting sexual organs.

Now, Jansen has helped launch the Sexual Health Education Pleasure Project (SHEPP) in the Greater Toronto Area, whose mission is "to provide free, pleasure-based sexual health education focused mainly on marginalized communities including youth, people of colour, women, queer and trans communities."  Course topic titles include "Negotiating what you want - in and out of the bedroom," and "Cool, safe, and hot sex."

A topic entitled "Re-visioning 'pro-choice'" is also on the list, with the description: "Not just about abortion any more. Know your rights!"  The group explains their vision of 'pro-choice' further on a page entitled 'What We Believe In'.  While the phrase is certainly used to designate openness to abortion, the groups sees it as including a broader range of sexual choices, including the freedom to exercise sexual license and the freedom to marry whomever one chooses.

Gwen Landolt of REAL Women Canada criticized Jansen's narrow focus on pleasure in teaching about sexuality.  "Obviously this woman is promoting her own business," she told, "but also it absolutely misconstrues the whole objective of sexuality. 

"Obviously pleasure is a component," she said, "but not the component that matters.  It's a part of a loving, truly bonding relationship, and they're missing the whole point in letting children think that sex is just an extracurricular activity, with anyone at anytime as long as it's pleasurable."

Landolt pointed to the moral dimension and to the purpose of sexuality, "which as we know is to bring forward children in a marital relationship," she said. "That's why we've been given this wonderful gift of sexuality," she explained.  "It's missed the whole object of it.  It's zeroed in on one component, but not the whole picture, and children should not be exposed to such a narrow perspective.". . . .



At meeting, NEA declines to remain neutral on abortion
[from the Baptist Press website]

Posted on Jul 6, 2009 | by Erin Roach

SAN DIEGO (BP)--The National Education Association, the nation's largest labor union, voted July 5 to reject a proposal officially to remain neutral on the issues of abortion and family planning.

Also during its annual meeting in San Diego July 1-6, the NEA went on record as supporting laws legalizing civil unions and "gay marriage" -- it said either are acceptable -- and it backed efforts to repeal federal legislation that "discriminates" against same-sex couples, which presumably could target the Defense of Marriage Amendment.

The proposed bylaw amendment regarding abortion would have invalidated NEA Resolution I-16 on family planning, which says NEA "supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom."

The defeated proposal said the NEA takes "no position" on the issues of abortion and family planning. It would have prohibited the NEA from filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in litigation seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, and it would have kept the NEA from "lobbying for or against legislation regarding the dissemination of birth control information, the funding of birth control procedures, or the sale of birth control products."   [Click here to read the rest of this article on the Baptist Press website.]f


John Holdren: Not Even Born Babies Are Human Yet

John Holdren, President Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, has written two books outlining a host of options to deal with what he sees as a global crisis of "human overpopulation."  

First Things quotes Holren as follows:

“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.” 

["Obama Science Adviser: Trees Should be Allowed to Sue, Babies Not Yet “Human Beings,"  "Second-Hand Smoke," First Things online. July 30, 2009, Wesley J. Smith]


Catholics launch anti-euthanasia campaign

Last Updated: 4th September 2009

Local Catholics are inundating their MP’s with emails and letters opposing a proposal to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.

The campaign was launched by Archbishop Richard Smith, who warned parishioners that Bill C-384 is “morally unacceptable and unworthy of our country.”

He’s trying to meet with all Edmonton area federal politicians and is urging Catholics to lobby their MP.

The author of the private member’s bill is Bloc Quebecois MP Francine Lalonde. It’s her third attempt at legalizing euthanasia, but this time it’s made it to second reading, the furthest any such bill has ever gotten.

It’s expected to be debated in Parliament on Sept. 29 — assuming that the Tory minority government isn’t toppled by the Liberals, forcing an election.

But Archdiocese of Edmonton spokesman Lorraine Turchansky said Catholics aren’t taking any chances. . . .

In his letter to parishoners, Smith said, “the common good of any society depends upon the commitment of all citizens to uphold the dignity of every human life at each moment and circumstance. The legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada would be a major social failure.”

Edmonton St. Albert Tory MP Brent Rathgeber says he’s received hundreds of emails from constituents on the issue. Only one was in favour of the bill.

“I was opposed to Bill C-384 long before I met with His Grace or received the voluminous letters and emails from my constituents,” Rathgeber said. “He was preaching to the converted.”

The politician wrote in his blog, “I do not accept the argument that euthanasia or assisted suicide is a compassionate response to suffering. As life nears its natural end, the compassionate response to any pain and hardship is good palliative care, not the termination of the patient’s life.”

But Lalonde has argued that her bill is more compassionate than the status quo. A cancer patient, she says she understands intolerable pain and thinks individuals should have the right to ease their own suffering.

She has the full support of groups like the Right To Die Society of Canada. .. .

She said surveys show growing acceptance of euthanasia and assisted suicide. Polling data on the society’s website says that in 1968 45% of Canadians thought doctors should be allowed to end the life of terminally ill patients who’ve requested it in writing. By 2002, the number had climbed to 79%.

[To read the whole article, go to the Edmonton Sun online]



Kelowna's Mayor's Office Proclaims "Protect Human Life Week"

September 26 — October 4, 2009

September 8, 2009

The City of Kelowna, BC, Canada, has once again proclaimed Sept 26 — Oct 4, 2009 as “Protect Human Life Week” in Kelowna. It is the second consecutive year that Mayor Sharon Shepherd has agreed to sign the proclamation, which promotes dignity and respect for all human beings from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.

“Protect Human Life Week” makes the statement that all human life is sacred from beginning to end.” says Marlon Bartram, the Executive Director of The Kelowna Right to Life Society. “The abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide mentality purports that inflicting death is an acceptable way to deal with difficult life circumstances or to end suffering. We’re here to say 'no,' the taking of innocent human life is always a serious ethical wrong. Offering compassion, and not death, is the a


Evangelical Francis Collins Named to Head NIH

Tiffany Stanley

Religion News Service

July 10, 2009   

WASHINGTON (RNS) -- Francis Collins, the researcher who mapped the human genome and navigated clashes between his Christian faith and science, has been chosen to lead the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Calling Collins "one of the top scientists in the world," President Obama announced his nomination on Wednesday (July 8), one day after the NIH released new stem cell research guidelines that angered many conservative Christians.

Though Collins, a self-described evangelical, will head the nation's primary scientific research agency, the avid supporter of stem cell research seems unlikely to allay the fears fellow evangelicals have over embryonic stem cell research.

"Francis is a great person, a good scientist, but we disagree with his positions on human embryonic stem cell research and on cloning human embryos for experimentation," said David Prentice, senior fellow at the conservative Family Research Council.

Prentice's office, along with the National Association of Evangelicals, Concerned Women for America and other Christian advocacy groups, favor adult stem cell research, but oppose embryonic research because they believe the process destroys nascent forms of human life.

[from  ]


From, June 24, 2009: 

Gay-Activist Movement to be Honored at White House
by Steve Jordahl, CitizenLink senior staff writer

Event comes just months after the Obama administration failed to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer with East Room celebration.

The Obama administration, which refused to send a representative to a Capitol Hill commemoration of the National Day of Prayer, is hosting a White House celebration of what most gay activists regard as the birth of their movement.

President Barack Obama has invited key leaders in the gay community to the East Room on Monday to commemorate the Stonewall Riots of June 28, 1969, during which hundreds of homosexuals threw bottles and garbage at police and set a gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, on fire.

Tim Goeglein, Focus on the Family's vice president of external relations and a former special assistant to President George W. Bush, said the White House event is a boon to the gay lobby, which has been becoming impatient with Obama.

"The president of the United State has the largest bully pulpit in the country and clearly gets to pick and choose among the issues that he would want to highlight," Goeglein said. "There's an enormous amount of pressure (to advocate for pro-gay policies). The president has partially extended health benefits to homosexual partners. The president is of course now doing a commemoration, a very important commemoration.

[Read the whole article on  .]


Scarce Federal Dollars Fund Sex Parade

[The following action alert comes from Canada Family Action in an e-mail of June 22, 2009.]

Action Alert:

 Some of you will not be aware yet that the federal Conservative government “proudly” announced a transfer of $400,000 of your tax dollars to the Toronto Pride s-x parade.

There are pictures and videos from the past parades of perverted sexual acts occurring during those parades. Public nudity and other indecent acts are common in this homosexual parade, although no convictions have ever occurred. One such image I sent to every Conservative MP to show them what they just approved of and paid for. Some MPs were offended. Well - look reality in the face, “lawmakers” – this is what you spent our tax dollars on, I said.  

 On June 4th Prime Minister Harper announced a new program setting aside $100 million for “Marquis Tourism Events”.  With record speed, on June 15th, the Minister of State, Diane Ablonzcy, got a $400,000 cheque out the door to fund the sex parade in Toronto this week. The next giveaway, to who knows what city, for their sex parade remains to be seen. But all this is a clear indication that the Conservative party has abandoned conservative principles. This event combined with the $50 billion dollar (and rising) debt ridden position we have been put into may well be the end to the merged conservative – progressive party as government. This is beyond being acceptable.

 Some will argue that government cannot legislate morality. If that was true, government surely should not pay to promote immorality and indecency.

 The Con-servative party that exists now is a dirty muddied version of liberalism at its worst.

 We are thankful for the raising of the age of consent, and the steps taken to toughen justice in Canada by the Conservatives. But all of that pales when other counter productive actions are taken.

 Canada Family Action is suggesting four things you may want to consider doing:

 1) call upon the government to right a wrong they have perpetrated upon tax paying Canadians.  Ask them to STOP the funding of anti-family and indecent projects with our TAX dollars ( the movie fiasco was such an issue). Real Conservative ideology of smaller government does not take money from tax payers and give it to sex activists.

 2) call the Prime Minister and ask him to cancel this kind of out of control and excessive spending. This is a muddied, weakened, progressive version of liberalism.

 3) consider whether your membership and donations to the current version of the Conservative party are good political investment.

    The Conservative Party number is (866) 808-8407.

4) Call your MP’s constituency office also to express your position on this issue now. Parliament has adjourned.


Brian Rushfeldt

Executive Director

Canada   Family   Action   

"What Would We Do with $400,000?"

[An excerpt from an article on the website of the Association for Reformed Political Action Canada, downloaded July 10, 2009]

 When we read about these developments we can only shake our heads. So many things are wrong with this scenario. Why is our federal government spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a gay pride parade? How many other similar events or activities are being paid for that people aren't responding to? (Think of the millions of dollars that this same government has given to the infamous Canadian museum of human rights, or the ongoing tax-funded slaughter of the unborn). If it was a mistake, what does that tell us about how money is being managed on a bigger picture? Why is the Prime Minister's office giving such a different message to the mainstream media then Mr. Trost is giving to a small Christian media outlet? Christians get blamed for wanting to impose our morality on the general public by applying our faith to politics. How does this government-funded homosexual festival not impose a morality of its own? The question is not whether a government will impose a morality. The question is which morality will it be? Is it the morality that says do whatever you feel like whenever you feel like? Or is it the morality that built so many of the things that we value about Canada (such as the rule of law, equality, and basic human rights)?

What if $400,000 was spent promoting the morality that builds this country stronger? What if the recent March For Life in Ottawa was given a government grant of this size each year. There is little doubt it would draw bigger crowds and be a lot of fun. Think about how backwards this is! An event that praises unrestrained sexual activity is funded (some of the money apparently was used to hire "performers") even though there is no doubt that it hurts individuals and families. But an event that promotes the value of human life is sneered at. At the March for Life children, adults, and seniors unite to proclaim the the importance of upholding our responsibilities by caring for each other, especially the most vulnerable. Afterall, we need this as a basis for the human rights that we claim to value so highly. Even a high-profile think tank recently proclaimed that Canada needs more babies. In contrast, the "gay pride" parade is about selfishness, lust, and individual rights at the expense of responsibilities. Where we spend our money gives us a pretty clear picture of where our heart is at.

Of course the point is not that we want $400,000 for causes that we believe in. The federal government should stop pretending to be a giant philanthropist and allow citizens to pay less taxes so individuals can put more money towards the things that we believe are worth supporting.

Action Items: Let's not settle for cop-out answer from our government officials who give us one answer and the mainstream media a different answer. Phone, write, or email your MP to discuss what we as a nations should be valuing and funding. If you MP is a Christian, be sure to ask them what they are doing within their party to respond to decisions like this.

Second, send a note of support to Mr. Trost ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) and CC Mr. Harper ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) and Mr. Clement ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) so they are aware of your support for those MP's who are brave enough to speak to these issues. We can't just speak up when we disagree with something. We should be commending those who do what is right as well.

Third, beneath all political debates is an underlying war between worldviews. As Christians, we understand this bigger battle that is going on. We have to always be careful to engage in this battle in a way that is consistent with all of God's Word. Regardless of how rediculous or immoral something might be, we have to show both grace and truth. Let us remember to speak to our fellow Canadians in a spirit of love, regardless of whether our comments are public or anonymous.

[Click here to read the whole of the article from which the excerpt above was taken.]




UK, American, Canadian Pro-Life Groups Condemn Tiller Murder

By Alex Bush


June 1, 2009 ( - In the wake of the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller, pro-life groups from across North America and the UK have condemned the killing as “heinous,” “deplorable,” “cowardly,” “senseless,” and “unconscionable.” 


Abortionist Tiller was renowned for performing late-term abortions in Kansas, many of them post-viability. The abortionist only recently found himself in court facing 19 counts of performing illegal late-term abortions, but was found “not guilty” by a jury last month.  He had also survived a previous murder attempt in 1993.


Scott Roeder, a man with no affiliations with the mainstream pro-life movement, has been taken into custody and is expected to be charged with allegedly murdering Tiller. has obtained statements from some 20 pro-life groups, all unanimously condemning the murder.  The statements stress that while Tiller was involved in perpetrating a great evil, all life is sacred, including the lives of abortionists. They also stress that the pro-life movement wishes to change abortion laws by legal means and not by violence. (To read all the statements, click here)


“Pro-lifers do not answer violence with violence,” said Stephen Borden, a Pastor in a pro-life African-American coalition, in response to the news of the Tiller slaying.


Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and a colleague of Borden, said that she “wanted to share with [Tiller] the harm [she] experienced from abortion.”  She continued, saying that she had a deep desire for Tiller to “join me in repentance.”


“I am deeply sorry that his life was taken before that could happen,” King said.


Dr. James Dobson from Focus on the Family issued a statement saying that members of the organization “categorically condemn the act of vigilantism and violence.”  Dobson said that America was built on the rule of law, and despite the verdict in Tiller’s case “he was acquitted by the court and declared ‘not guilty’ in the eyes of the law. That is our system, and we honor it.”


Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition in Canada and Vice President of International Right to Life said that not only is the murder of abortionists “seriously damaging to the pro-life cause, it is also deeply contrary to everything that is meant by the phrase pro-life.”


The Family Research Council issued a statement saying that they “strongly condemn the actions taken today by this vigilante killer and we pray for the Tiller family and for the nation that we might once again be a nation that values all human, both born and unborn.”


The UK group Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) director John Smeaton said on his blog, “SPUC has always condemned violence, whether against abortionists or unborn babies.”


“Those responsible [for violence against abortionists] have on each occasion acted as individuals, and not members of any pro-life group,” he continued.


The American Life League’s executive director Shaun Kenney said that “Leaders within the pro-life movement often discuss justice in connection with our mission to end the tragedy of abortion.  Today, Dr. George Tiller's life ended in an act defying those principles.”


“We firmly hope the perpetrators of this act are apprehended, that the facts be made known, and that justice according to the law is preserved and dispensed.” 


Brian Burch, president of, said in a statement that “We cannot create a Civilization of Love with such violence.  We call upon all people of good will to pray this week for the soul of Mr. Tiller and to pray that our society will abandon every form of hatred and violence.”


Burch quoted Cardinal John O’Connor, who said that killing abortionists “discredits the right-to-life movement. Murder is murder. It’s madness. You cannot prevent killing by killing.”


The National Right to Life Executive Director David O’Steen said that the “pro-life movement works to protect the right to life and increase respect for human life.  The unlawful use of violence is directly contrary to that goal.”


List of pro-life groups condemning the murder (To read all the statements, click here):


Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

40 Days For Life

Operation Rescue

Center for Bio Ethical Reform

American Life League

Focus on the Family

Women Influencing the Nation

Campaign Life Coalition

Kansas Coalition for Life

Family Research Council

The Christian Anti-Defamation League

Kansas Family Policy Council

Susan B. Anthony List

Priests For Life

Kansans For Life

Stand True

National Right to Life

Kelowna Right to Life

Real Women of BC

[British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life would also add its condemnation of this slaying.  I heard the news while travelling on holiday and we have not had time to write a formal statement. --President of BCPTL.]

Canadian Evangelical Leadership Looking to Increase March For Life Attendance

By Alex Bush

TORONTO, Ontario, May 26, 2009 ( - Bruce Clemenger, president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), said in an interview with that the EFC "will be exploring ways in which we can encourage more participation" for the annual March for Life in the future. 

In a recent EFC weekly update Clemenger strongly encouraged Evangelicals to make the trip to Ottawa for this year's March for Life.

Clemenger also said that he was impressed with "the number of youth attending from Catholic schools" and with the "positive and upbeat" attitude of those in attendance "despite the weather."

"We are gaining momentum, evidenced by the size of the rally, the number of young people, the number of MPs and the encouraging reports about the energy in the pro-life caucus," Clemenger said.

Clemenger told LSN that his participation "with the leaders of the Catholic Church" struck him personally. This was the first year in the history of the pro-life event that the Canadian bishops put the full weight of their official support behind the march. Nearly a dozen bishops joined the marchers earlier this May.

Clemenger led the opening prayer at the March, saying, "We stand and bear witness to the truth of life. We ask that You would bring us a government that will honour life.  God, our Father, we ask that these killings stop and that together we can foster a Canadian identity built on relationships of healing." 

He continued, "Give us words of wisdom as we choose life, as we affirm the dignity of all human life, and give us strength as we plea for the protection of unborn children."

Transcript of Bruce Clemenger's opening prayer at the March For Life 2009, here.

Related Coverage

Life Chain: a public pro-life witness

12,000: Canadian 2009 March for Life Smashes Previous Attendance Records

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada




From:  "The Caucus,"  The New York Times,  May 26, 2009, 8:15 am

Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court Nominee

Ron Jordan Natoli Studio/U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, via Associated Press U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his first appointment to the court, officials said Tuesday, and has scheduled an announcement for 10:15 a.m. at the White House.

If confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, Judge Sotomayor, 54, would replace Justice David H. Souter to become the second woman on the court and only the third female justice in the history of the Supreme Court. She also would be the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.  
[Read the whole article in The New York Times online.]


Links to Christianity Today "Politics Blog" Comments on the Sotomayor Choice


·         Hope

  [Note:  Steven Ertelt ison LifeNews, not LifeSite as stated in error on the Christianity Today site.

·         The Offhand Comment Pro-Life Groups Don't Like

·         The Sotomayor Decision Pro-Life Groups Aren't Sure About

The Sotomayor Decision Pro-Life Groups Like



CBC "Engaged in Blatant Media Censorship" Says CLC about Lack of National Coverage for March for Life
CLC lodges formal complaint to the CRTC

By Alex Bush

May 25, 2009 ( - Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), the Canadian pro-life organization that every year organizes the National March for Life, is accusing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) of engaging in "blatant media censorship." According to the pro-life group, "for a broadcaster who is funded by the taxpaying Canadian public" CBC's failure to give national coverage to this year's March for Life "certainly constitutes unethical journalism and professional misconduct."

A letter signed by CLC president Jim Hughes was sent to the CBC Ombudsman today, suggesting that CBC willfully "ignored" the 12,300 people who convened on Parliament Hill two weeks ago to protest the 40th anniversary of the legalization of abortion. This despite the fact that CLC provided CBC with information about the massive pro-life event well in advance, and the fact the station has reported on much smaller protests on the Hill in the past.

"How is it that CBC's national news desk has in the recent past given lengthy coverage to a paltry 200 individuals at a pro-marijuana rally on the Hill," asks the letter, "but fails to notice 12,000+ prolife citizens overflowing the grounds of Parliament Hill?"

"Is this not proof of a double standard which favours 'socially liberal' causes?"

The letter points out that even the local coverage of the March by the CBC was limited to a mere "25 seconds on a local affiliate which misrepresented the numbers attending as 'hundreds'," rather than the more than 12,000 who attended.

According to CLC, the national blackout regarding the March for Life was to all appearances initiated by the CBC "for no other reason than the CBC disagrees with our opinions on abortion." 

CLC suggests out that the omission by the CBC is even more egregious given the unprecedented level of support given to the march by the Canadian bishops, 11 of whom were present on Parliament Hill, and the "explosive 50% growth in attendance" at the march over last year's event.

Jim Hughes concludes the CLC letter, saying, "On behalf of millions of Canadians who have been deprived of unbiased journalism by its public broadcaster and the hundreds of thousands who are disgusted by the CBC's annual blacklisting of the National March For Life, I request a thorough investigation into CBC's programming practices. The results and remedies ought to receive the national publicity and exposure which CBC routinely denies to opinions with which it disagrees."

CLC also sent the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) a letter of formal complaint, which accuses the CBC of discrimination against the March for Life.

"We believe the evidence is overwhelming to support our claim that the CBC has discriminated unfairly against our massive National March For Life in that it gave no national television coverage whatsoever to this historic event," says CLC in that letter.

To read the CLC letter to the CBC:

To read the CLC letter to the CRTC:

Contact information for the CRTC and the CBC Ombudsman:

Toll-free: 1-877-249-CRTC (2782)
Outside Canada: 819-997-0313
Media inquiries: 819-997-9403

CBC Ombudsman Vince Carlin
Telephone: 416/205-2978



Thursday May 14, 2009

12,000: Canadian 2009 March for Life Smashes Previous Attendance Records

By John Jalsevac

May 14, 2009 ( - Under the threat of dark clouds and sometimes through pouring rain, a record-smashing crowd of 12,000 Canadians today gathered on Parliament Hill for a rally and then marched through the streets of Ottawa in protest against 40 years of legalized abortion in Canada.

The number of participants significantly exceeded last year's record-breaking crowd of 8,000, making it by far the largest crowd in the 12 years that the march has taken place.

Those in attendance included 18 Members of Parliament.

Jim Hughes, the president of Campaign Life Coalition, the pro-life group which organizes the annual event, told LifeSiteNews that he was thrilled with the turnout. "It's a real blessing," he said, "especially the growing number of young people that are here."

"This is going to make a difference," said Hughes, who pointed out that pro-life Canadians are beginning to mark the date of the march on their calendars, and are going out of their way to make it every year. "We're having a real impact here," he said.

Today's events began in the morning with interdenominational prayer services at the Canadian Reformed Church and St. George's Anglican Church, and two Catholic masses at Notre Dame Basilica and St. Patrick's Basilica. 

Eyewitnesses at the Catholic masses said that both churches were filled to, and beyond, capacity. Approximately 900 people squeezed into St. Patrick's Basilica, while over 1,100 overflowed Notre Dame. As well, an additional 200 or so at each location had to watch the mass on a screen in the basement of each church, due to the lack of space.

Hughes said he was especially pleased by the unprecedented show of support from the Canadian Catholic bishops, with 11 bishops celebrating at the masses. This was the first year in the history of the march that the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has thrown its official support behind the event.

At 3 p.m., after the rally on Parliament Hill and the march, representatives of Silent No More Awareness Campaign began delivering powerful testimonies about their personal experiences with abortion, repeatedly moving their listeners to tears. Just as the clock on the Hill was striking 3:00, many in the crowd marvelled that the sun suddenly broke through the clouds for the first time that day and soon afterwards the sky cleared with hardly a cloud in sight. Also, some pointed out that as each of the Silent No More Awareness speakers was introduced, as if on cue a strong wind would blow, with the strongest occuring when the Canadian leader of the group, Angelina Steenstra, was introduced. 

[From:   ]


Alberta's culture minister not backing down on parents' rights bill

 By Trish Audette, Edmonton JournalMay 14, 2009

EDMONTON — Alberta's culture minister says he has no intention of backing away from a controversial plan to guarantee parents the right to pull kids from classes that clash 
with their moral beliefs.

Lindsay Blackett, a rookie minister and first-time MLA, says that despite the barbs sent his way from teachers, human rights groups, school boards, parents and opposition 
politicians, he's convinced he's doing the right thing by enshrining 'parents' rights' in the provincial Human Rights Act.

"One of the things that this bill and the parental rights piece has brought to light is a discussion about our rights as parents," Blackett said.

Last month, the minister introduced a package of proposed changes to the act which would, for the first time in provincial history, enshrine in law the right to protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

But it was the parental rights clause, which would allow parents to withdraw their children from classroom lessons on sexuality, sexual orientation and religion, that made headlines. . . . .

[Click here to read the whole article in the Calgary Herald online.]


Good News - Human Trafficking Bill Easily Passes First Vote in Parliament 
[from the ARPA website at]

ARPA Note: Thanks to all those who urged their MP to support this private member's bill. We will continue to watch it as it makes its way through the necessary stages on its way to becoming law. Continue to urge your MP to pass this legislation.


News Release from Joy Smith:

VOTE REVEALS STRONG SUPPORT FOR C-268 - Ottawa, ON:  Joy Smith, Member of Parliament for Kildonan – St. Paul, was delighted with the results of a vote today on Bill C-268 at Second Reading. Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years), passed at Second Reading by a vote of 232 in favour to 47 opposed.


“The resounding support for Bill C-268 is a clear indication that Members of Parliament understand the importance of enacting enhanced penalties for the trafficking of children,” said MP Joy Smith. “Victims of human trafficking, especially children, experience catastrophic lifelong physical and psychological harm. Mandatory minimum sentences would reflect the both gravity of this crime and Canada’s international obligations to protect children.”


MP Joy Smith also tabled petitions containing over 5000 signatures from Canadians who are demanding that the penalties to child traffickers fully reflect the gravity of the crime.


“It is clear that the lenient sentences handed out to for child traffickers in Canada are not acceptable to Canadians,” said MP Smith. “I would encourage Canadians to continue voicing their support for mandatory sentences for the trafficking of children.”


Bill C-268 will now be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, before being reported back to the House of Commons for Third Reading.


A Look Back at Obama's First 100 Days

[ From:  CitizenLink  April 29, 2009 at  ]

'I would hope he would do more to protect families in this country.'

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama will mark his 100th day in office. Focus on the Family Action has analyzed his decisions and policies thus far, as they relate to the family.

In his first 100 days, Obama has:

Signed an executive order allowing taxpayer funding to go to international groups that promote or provide abortions. The “Mexico City Policy,” as it’s known, also was rescinded by President Bill Clinton and then reinstated by President George W. Bush.

Opened the door for more human embryos to be destroyed for unethical stem-cell research despite science showing that adult stem cells provide cures; to date, embryonic stem cells have not.

Begun the process of rescinding the Bush health care provider conscience regulations. This move comes at a time when the U.S. is experiencing a shortage of practicing physicians, a drop one senator described as reaching "crisis proportions." Making it easier for hospitals and medical schools to discriminate against physicians based on their moral or religious beliefs will only drive more of them out of the profession. 

Lifted a seven-year ban on taxpayer funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which is linked to forced abortion programs.

Nominated Hillary Clinton as secretary of State. Clinton is an ardent pro-abortion politician who recently accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award. During her acceptance speech, Clinton praised the eugenicist Sanger as a great Americans.

Nominated Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of Health and Human Services. She has accepted campaign contributions from notorious late-term abortionist George Tiller and welcomed him into the governor’s mansion. Sebelius is one of the most pro-abortion governors in the country.

Nominated Dawn Johnsen, former legal director of NARAL Pro-Choice America, to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. Johnsen has called motherhood “involuntary servitude” and has said that restrictions on abortion make women nothing more than “fetal containers.”

Attacked charitable giving by proposing a reduced tax deduction for gifts to nonprofits. If it becomes law, it will have a major impact on faith-based ministry giving and other nonprofits.

Signed a bill that kills the District of Columbia’s successful school-choice program. The program benefits low-income families by providing private-school scholarships. Approximately 3,500 students have benefited from this program.

. . .

Appointed Ellen Moran to a major communications post at the White House. Moran is the former executive director of the pro-abortion EMILY’s List.

. . . .

Expressed support for hate-crimes legislation and will sign if it reaches his desk. The House will vote on the measure April 29. The legislation creates a special class of crime based on the victim’s sexual orientation. Those accused of “inducing” a federal hate crime could be held responsible for the actions of another person. For example, pastors preaching against homosexuality could be charged with a crime if someone listening committed a “hate crime” against a gay individual.

Ordered a legal review of hiring-and-firing standards instituted by faith-based groups that receive federal funding.

Released a Department of Homeland Security “watch list” that included pro-life Americans. 

. . . .  
[To read the whole of the article, go to  .]



German Parents Convicted after Withdrawing Daughter from Explicit Sex-Ed Program: Appeal Filed

April 22, 2009 ( - Alliance Defense Fund attorneys are representing two German parents in an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights filed Tuesday. The two parents were convicted under German law when they chose to educate their child at home on the subject of sexuality rather than allow her to participate in a four-day "sexual education" course and related stage production at her school, both of which taught views of sexuality in conflict with the family's Christian faith.

"Parents, not the government, are the ones ultimately responsible for making educational choices for their children," said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska.

The parents, Eduard and Elisabeth Elscheidt, and their three children are active in the Christian Baptist Church. The Elscheidts were concerned about allowing their 11-year-old daughter Franziska to attend four school days of "sexual education" and a mandatory, interactive stage play titled, "Mein Körper gehört mir" ("My Body Is Mine") in February 2007. They regarded the play and lessons as morally harmful.

The parents, being convinced that they were within their legal and moral rights to protect their daughter, removed her from the offending play and accompanying lessons, instead opting to educate her according to their own views on sexuality during those days. They did not withdraw their daughter from any other school programs or classes. The parents believe that the play and lessons were not only opposed to their faith, but also obliterated their rights under Protocol 1, Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Elscheidts argued to a German court that no scientific proof existed that the programs prevented child abuse (the play's stated purpose) but, to the contrary, taught the children to become sexually active by ultimately teaching the principle that if something feels good sexually, then it is acceptable to do it. The court nonetheless convicted and fined the Elscheidts in June 2008.

Two subsequent appeals were rejected, resulting in the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights filed Tuesday. The application objects to the punitive measures applied by the German court in convicting the applicants and seeks to establish that such opt-outs of "sexual education" programs are in line with ECHR Protocol 1, Article 2.

ADF Counsel Kiska said, "These parents were well within their rights under the European Convention of Human Rights to opt to teach their children a view of sexuality that is in accord with their own religious beliefs instead of sending them to a class and stageplay they found objectionable. These types of cases are crucial battles in the effort to keep bad decisions overseas from being relied upon by activists who attack parental rights in America."




Miss California USA Loses Crown after Defending Marriage

[From CitizenLink, April 21, 2009]

'It's not about being politically correct. For me, it was being biblically correct.'

Miss California USA Carrie Prejean said she knew she'd lost the Miss USA crown as soon as she spoke in favor of one-man, one-woman marriage.

During Sunday night's Miss USA telecast, Prejean was asked whether other states should follow Vermont's lead in legislating same-sex "marriage."

"In my family, I … believe marriage should be between a man and a woman," she said. "No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

Prejean later told NBC: "I knew at that moment, after I'd answered the question, I knew that I was not going to win because of my answer — because I had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs, and for my God."

Even Donald Trump, who co-owns the pageant, said her answer "probably did cost her the crown." Prejean finished as first runner-up to Miss North Carolina.

Perez Hilton, a gay-activist blogger, was the judge who posed the question to Prejean. He called it the "worst answer in pageant history" and called Miss California profane names.

"That is not the kind of woman I want to be Miss USA," he told MSNBC. "Miss USA should represent all Americans. And with her answer, she instantly was divisive and alienated millions."

Interestingly, tens of millions of Americans in 30 states — including California — have passed constitutional amendments to protect the definition of marriage.

"The majority of California’s voters — more than 7 million people — voted to protect traditional marriage," Ron Prentice, chairman of California's, told Fox News. "And we congratulate Miss California for her conviction to speak her beliefs."
Hilton apologized Monday for his comments, but today said he stands by what he said. . . . .

[To read the whole of this CitizenLink article, click here.]


"Mr. Bean" Star Urges House of Lords to Protect Free Speech Clause in "Anti-Homophobia" Law

By Kathleen Gilbert

LONDON, March 20, 2009 ( - Comedian Rowan Atkinson, best known for his role as "Mr. Bean," has urged the British House of Lords to ignore a bid to remove a clause protecting free speech in the UK's "anti-homophobia" law.

The Blackadder and Mr. Bean actor told the Lords meeting Tuesday: "Do I think that I would risk prosecution because of jokes or drama about sexual orientation with which I might be involved if we don't have the free speech clause? 

"Not really - but I dread something almost as bad - a culture of censoriousness, a questioning, negative and leaden attitude that is encouraged by legislation of this nature but is considerably and meaningfully alleviated by the free speech clause."

The Government is expected to delete a free speech protection added last year to rein in the law against "incitement to homophobic hatred," which carries a maximum seven-year jail sentence.  The protection reads: "For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

If the Government succeeds, it would fall to the House of Lords to possibly recuperate the amendment. A similar scenario was played out last May, when the same words were deleted by MPs in Parliament, then reinstated by Peers in the House of Lords.

Atkinson, who has led criticism of "hate speech" laws in previous years, criticized such laws in general: "The last thing that any academic, or cleric, or practitioner in creative writing wants to hear, is of police officers walking round with a tool box bulging with sanctions against speech and expression that 'could be useful one day'," he said. 

"I do not believe that legislation of such a censorious nature as that of Hate Speech, carrying as it does the risk of a seven year jail sentence for saying the wrong thing in the wrong way, can ever by justified merely by the desire to 'send the right message'." 

Lord David Waddington, who inserted the amendment last year, said after Tuesday's meeting: "Last year the House of Lords voted not once but twice to force the Government to accept a free speech clause in its controversial new 'homophobic hatred' offence.

"Many of my colleagues are shocked that the Government should be trying to repeal such a modest protection so soon after it was passed into law," he continued.  "However, I think the Government has got a fight on its hands."

Waddington noted that "Christian groups are particularly concerned that the homophobic hatred law will be unfairly used against them" as "there have been plenty of examples of heavy-handed police intervention even before the new law."

"In recent months there has been a growing sense that devout Christians are being marginalised in British society. Repealing the free speech clause will only make things worse," he said.



Staring into the Abyss

Why Peter Singer makes the New Atheists nervous.

I write this fresh from debating bioethicist Peter Singer on "Can we be moral without God?" at Singer's home campus, Princeton University. Singer is a mild-mannered fellow who speaks calmly and lucidly. Yet you wouldn't have to read his work too long to find his extreme positions. He cheerfully advocates infanticide and euthanasia and, in almost the same breath, favors animal rights. Even most liberals would have qualms about third-trimester abortions; Singer does not hesitate to advocate what may be termed fourth-trimester abortions, i.e., the killing of infants after they are born.

Singer writes, "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others." Singer argues that even pigs, chickens, and fish have more signs of consciousness and rationality—and, consequently, a greater claim to rights—than do fetuses, newborn infants, and people with mental disabilities. "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at 10- or even 32-weeks gestation. … The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy."

Some people consider Singer a provocateur who says outrageous things just to get attention. But Singer is deadly serious about his views and—as emerged in our debate—has a consistent rational basis for his controversial positions.

To understand Singer, it's helpful to contrast him with "New Atheists" like Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins. The New Atheists say we can get rid of God but preserve morality. They insist that no one needs God in order to be good; atheists can act no less virtuously than Christians. (And indeed, some atheists do put Christians to shame.) Even while repudiating the Christian God, Dawkins has publicly called himself a "cultural Christian."

But this position creates a problem outlined more than a century ago by the atheist philosopher Nietzsche. The death of God, Nietzsche argued, means that all the Christian values that have shaped the West rest on a mythical foundation. One may, out of habit, continue to live according to these values for a while. Over time, however, the values will decay, and if they are not replaced by new values, man will truly have to face the prospect of nihilism, what Nietzsche termed "the abyss."

Nietzsche's argument is illustrated in considering two of the central principles of Western civilization: "All men are created equal" and "Human life is precious." Nietzsche attributes both ideas to Christianity. It is because we are created equal and in the image of God that our lives have moral worth and that we share the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nietzsche's warning was that none of these values make sense without the background moral framework against which they were formulated. A post-Christian West, he argued, must go back to the ethical drawing board and reconsider its most cherished values, which include its traditional belief in the equal dignity of every human life.

Singer resolutely takes up a Nietzschean call for a "transvaluation of values," with a full awareness of the radical implications. He argues that we are not creations of God but rather mere Darwinian primates. We exist on an unbroken continuum with animals. Christianity, he says, arbitrarily separated man and animal, placing human life on a pedestal and consigning the animals to the status of tools for human well-being. Now, Singer says, we must remove Homo sapiens from this privileged position and restore the natural order. This translates into more rights for animals and less special treatment for human beings. There is a grim consistency in Singer's call to extend rights to the apes while removing traditional protections for unwanted children, people with mental disabilities, and the noncontributing elderly.

[Read the rest of the above article on Christianity Today online.]


Obama to lift stem-cell restrictions

Medical ethics at issue

Saturday, March 7, 2009

President Obama on Monday will overturn President Bush's limits on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, negotiating an ethical minefield to fulfill a campaign promise that some think could lead to cures for a variety of diseases.

The president will sign an executive order at the White House on Monday, an Obama spokesman confirmed to The Washington Times.

The Bush administration, citing moral objections to the destruction of embryonic human life, banned federal funding of the research for all but a few lines of embryonic stem cells, those already in existence in 2001, about which President Bush said at the time, "The life-and-death decision has already been made."

"It's very exciting. It means many new opportunities for embryonic stem-cell science," said George Q. Daley, a leading researcher on the subject at Harvard Medical School.

"I'm looking forward to the [National Institutes of Health] being able to make really credible decisions based on science and not on politics," Mr. Daley said.

But opponents of embryonic research said the president is, in fact, defying scientific evidence with his decision to promote research that requires eggs to be fertilized and human embryos created in order to harvest the stem-cell lines.

David Prentice, a former Indiana University researcher now at the Family Research Council, said, "All of the scientific success is taking place with adult stem cells for patients, and the IPS cells for basic research."

IPS, which stands for induced pluripotent stem cells, is the technique that has produced a wave of excitement within the scientific community over the past few years, as researchers have discovered the ability to manipulate adult stem cells to make them similar to embryonic stem cells.

"They look and act exactly like embryonic stem cells, but they're cheaper and easier to make. You can make them from any patient to treat the disease, and you bypass the ethical problems," Mr. Prentice said. "When we talk about science, the results have bypassed using human embryos for these experiments. It really is the poorest and obsolete science." 
[Read the whole article in The Washington Times online.]


The  obsession with stem cells obtained by destroying embryos has little to do with any real evidence of therapeutic benefit, and a great deal to do with researchers’ ultimate goal of being able to manipulate human life at will.  

--Richard M. Doerflinger is deputy director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, quoted on Focus on a the Fanuly website ``Citizen Link``


Local study sheds light on HIV

 More than a quarter of female sex trade workers in city infected with virus

Twenty-six per cent of Vancouver's female sex trade workers are infected with HIV, as are 17 per cent of the city's injection-drug users, a new B.C. study shows.

The study, by researchers at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and published in the Harm Reduction Journal, is the first in Canada to estimate the per-capita prevalence ranges for high risk groups, using United Nations/World Health Organization software, 2006 Statistics Canada data and other sources such as population surveys.

Gay men, the local population of which is said to be 20,000, including male sex trade workers, have an estimated HIV prevalence rate of 15 per cent.

The overall prevalence of HIV in Vancouver is about 1.21 per cent, six times higher than the national rate.

"Drugs and sex are the preferred routes for transmission. Female sex trade workers get paid more money for having unprotected sex with johns," explained co-author Dr. Julio Montaner, who is president of the International AIDS Society and head of the division of HIV/AIDS at the University of B.C.

There are up to 520 female sex trade workers in Vancouver.

[Read the whole article in The Vancouver Sun online.]


California's Temper Tantrum

How the gay rights movement lost more than Proposition 8.

Obnoxious mobs that won't tolerate disagreement don't usually win supporters.

A manager at a Los Angeles Mexican restaurant was targeted for her $100 contribution in support of traditional marriage. Protesters hounded her out of her job, and did the same to a Sacramento theater director and the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival. Churches and Mormon temples were vandalized. The mainstream media ran an all-out public relations campaign in support of same-sex marriage. Hollywood quickly put together "Prop. 8: The Musical," an Internet video that mocked Jesus, the Bible, and Christians.

"Want to cause a nice long backlash to gay rights? That's the way to do it," said lesbian social critic Camille Paglia.

Obnoxious, bigoted mobs that won't tolerate any disagreement don't usually win supporters. Or, as the usually insufferable Objectivist Ayn Rand said, "Argument from intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence." Of course, if the media are to be believed, same-sex marriage is a done deal. "Same-sex marriage is inevitable. It just takes time," a Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist wrote.

The conventional wisdom is that traditional marriage is a demographically lost cause. Younger voters are more likely to support same-sex marriage than older voters, we're repeatedly reminded. Indeed, 61 percent of voters over 65 supported Prop. 8, while 61 percent of people under 30 voted against it.

But if history and demographics are on the side of same-sex marriage, one wonders why journalists, Hollywood executives, and gay activists didn't just sit tight and wait. Why voluntarily sabotage their cause with a coordinated campaign of bigoted, violent, and hateful reactions to recent public votes on the matter?

Despite the story pushed by the mainstream media, the only statistics that really matter are at the ballot box. And marriage supporters have been victorious in each of the 33 states that have put the issue up for vote. The only significant success the same-sex marriage crowd has had has been achieved by judicial fiat. In California, a never-before-assembled coalition of evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons raised $40 million and generated hundreds of thousands of volunteers.

"In spite of repeated efforts by gay activists and mainstream media types to portray this as an issue nobody but the gay-rights people really care about, the Prop. 8 victory itself demonstrates the marriage issue is drawing new attention," said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage.

And just because younger voters support same-sex marriage now doesn't mean their attitudes won't change. As people age, they tend to get married, have children, and worship more regularly—all of which weigh heavily in voting decisions.

The violent mobs and sneering media confirm one of the arguments made by traditional marriage proponents: Same-sex marriage and religious freedom are on a collision course.

Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who drafts federal legislation related to sexual orientation, has publicly said that when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

Indeed, religious liberty almost always loses. A lesbian couple in Albuquerque successfully sued a Christian photographer because she declined to shoot their commitment ceremony. When Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, Catholic organizations had no option but to shut down their adoption services.

The California Supreme Court ruled that doctors must provide reproductive services to lesbians despite religious objections. A Methodist camp in New Jersey lost its tax exemption after it told a lesbian couple they could have their commitment ceremony anywhere except in buildings that are used for religious services. The list goes on.

But the response to California's democratic vote publicized this clash between religious freedom and gay rights like never before.

[Read the rest of the article on Christianity Today online.]


One small victory for freedom of speech

 The Gazette, March 5, 2009

 McGill University's student government has bucked an unfortunate national trend by granting full club status to a student anti-abortion group.

The Student Society's decision to grant recognition to Choose Life is not so much a victory for pro-life forces as it is a victory for free speech and freedom of association, values that seem to be under attack, and poorly defended, on many Canadian campuses - where they should be safest.

Students at the University of British Columbia's Okanagan campus, for example, have denied status to an anti-abortion group, and Carleton University's student leaders are considering a motion to refuse support or space to any group that doesn't support "a woman's right to choose."

[Read the whole of the article in The Gazette online.]



Abbotsford Approves Social Justice 12

By Janet Steffenhagen Feb. 10, 2009 

Abbotsford trustees have decided that schools may teach Social Justice 12 starting in September 2009 to students who have permission from parents or guardians.

The decision was announced in a news release today. It says:

"While there has been a perception that the Abbotsford board prohibited access to the Social Justice 12 elective course, in fact no such decision was made. The board has now reviewed the course, which the Minister of Education approved for elective use in British Columbia schools in late August 2008.

"As part of the process, the board's education committee conducted an in-depth review of the draft version of the course, the board's submission and reply to the ministry, and approved the Integrated Resource Package (IRP).

"The board has approved a recommendation authorizing the course for use in the Abbotsford school district, provided that parents/guardians given their consent." That stipulation - which is unusual in Abbotsford - is due to the "sensitive nature" of some of the course content, it adds. . . . .
[Click here for the whole of Janet Steffenhagen'a article on her online blog, plus comments.]

Obama and evangelicals: Form over substance

Posted: January 24,,on WorldNet Daily 
By Gary Bauer

President Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration was suffused with political overtones. While the selection of Warren (who, like most Americans, opposes same-sex marriage) attracted fierce attacks from homosexual-rights groups, it also was seen as a way for the president to increase his political capital with evangelical voters.

A few days later, Obama's decision to wait until after the anniversary of Roe v. Wade before issuing an order restoring U.S. funding for international abortion groups was seen as proof that our new president is willing to reach out to both sides in the abortion debate. Even though waiting just one day had no substantive effect on abortion policy, many in the media saw it, as one newspaper put it, as proof of the president's "sensitivity to foes of Roe. v. Wade."

But, barring divine intervention, Warren's inauguration prayer and Obama's one-day abortion delay won't help the new president's standing among religious conservatives. To understand why, Obama should study Jimmy Carter, whose presidency taught evangelicals a generation ago that Christian policies, not symbolic gestures, matter most. . . . .

Jimmy Carter attracted religious voters in 1976 because he was an ardent "believer." He lost them four years later in part because of his support for policies most religious voters abhorred, including liberal abortion policies, the Equal Rights Amendment, special rights for homosexuals and ending public school prayer.

Evangelicals also discovered that, though not a regular churchgoer, Reagan understood that America's liberty comes from God and that it was wrong to destroy innocent human life. Religious voters learned a generation ago that strong religious sentiment is not by itself a reliable predictor of policy.

The 1980 presidential election foreshadowed Obama's difficulties with evangelical voters. Ever since bursting onto the national political scene at the 2004 Democratic National Convention announcing, "We worship an awesome God in the blue states," Barack Obama has made attracting religious voters a cornerstone of his presidential aspirations. As David Paul Kuhn of Politico wrote a few days before Election Day, "No Democratic nominee in the modern day has made more of an effort to court religious voters than Obama."

But, according to exit polls, white evangelicals chose John McCain over Barack Obama by 50 percentage points, 74 percent to 24 percent. Obama improved on 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry's white evangelical vote by only 3 percentage points. This despite that Kerry made almost no effort to court religious voters and faced a much more overtly religious opponent whose campaign focused on turning out religious voters.

What happened?

During the campaign, Obama made several mistakes that disenchanted religious voters. First came the revelation of incendiary remarks by Obama's long-time pastor and spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright. Then, during a religious forum at Warren's Saddleback Church, Obama's glib remark that the question of when a child gets human rights is "above my pay grade" stunned those in attendance, including me.

That incident led to increased scrutiny of Obama's abortion position, which evangelicals soon discovered is uniformly anti-life and includes positions even the abortion group NARAL has refused to endorse.

Added to this were Republican nominee John McCain's firmly pro-life answers at the Saddleback forum (When does life begin? "At conception.") and the selection of pro-life heroine Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Like Reagan, McCain is a divorcee who was reluctant to use overtly religious language on the campaign trail. But, again like Reagan, McCain held the right positions on what religious voters call the "nonnegotiable issues."

It's hard to downplay these developments. Last spring, after a giant opinion poll by Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life showed that abortion and marriage continue to be crucial for evangelical voters, Pew's John C. Green told the New York Times that the survey "suggests that the efforts of Democrats to peel away Republican and conservative voters based on economic issues face a real limit because of the role these cultural issues play."

In the days before the election, as polls continued to predict that few evangelicals would turnout for Obama, Green told Politico, "What we could be seeing is that comfort and campaigning only go so far [with religious voters], and that ultimately it's substance that matters to these voters."

Obama should ponder an important lesson of Jimmy Carter's failed presidency, which is that "faith without works is dead." If Obama wants to send a real message of inclusion and build a bridge to the faith community, he must do more than invite evangelicals to offer prayers and wait a day before implementing an extreme policy that forces Americans to pay for overseas abortions in a time of recession. He must affirm basic Christian values in his policies while distancing himself from the extreme social positions that alienate most Americans. It will be by Obama's deeds, not his words, that the evangelical community can be won.

[Clickl here to read the whole article on WorldNet Daily.]


Sexually transmitted disease rates soar: CDC

From the National Post online:

Will Dunham,  Reuters  Published: Tuesday, January 13, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. syphilis rates rose for a seventh year in 2007, driven by gay and bisexual men, while chlamydia reached record numbers and gonorrhea remained at alarming levels -- especially among blacks, health officials said on Tuesday.

Blacks make up 12 percent of the U.S. population, but account for about 70 percent of gonorrhea cases and almost half of chlamydia and syphilis cases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.  . . . .

Chlamydia and gonorrhea are easily diagnosed and treated, but frequently have no symptoms and remain undetected.

Untreated, chlamydia and gonorrhea -- both bacterial infections -- can cause pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility in women. The two infections also can cause ectopic pregnancy, chronic pelvic pain and other health problems.

"Of all the causes of infertility, this is probably the most preventable -- since these infections can be prevented, diagnosed and treated," Douglas said in a telephone interview.

In men, gonorrhea can cause a painful condition of the ducts attached to the testicles that cause infertility. Gonorrhea also can spread to the blood or joints and can be life threatening. Chlamydia complications among men are rare.

Douglas said to avoid STDs, teens can delay the beginning of sexual activity, people can limit the number of sexual partners and use condoms. "Condoms have risk-reduction value for every sexually transmitted condition," Douglas said.

Syphilis is less common than the others, with 11,466 cases reported in 2007. Rates rose 15 percent from 2006. Syphilis rates dropped by 90 percent in the 1990s to a record low level in 2000, and officials thought it might disappear as a public health threat before its resurgence this decade.

Syphilis has increased each year since 2000 -- its rate is up 81 percent -- with gay and bisexual men representing 65 percent of cases, the CDC said.

Douglas said many cases are occurring in HIV-positive men who are choosing other HIV-positive men as sexual partners.

"Within that relationship, they are less concerned about the transmission of other conditions. They're not using condoms. They believe that their partner already has got the worst they can get -- they've got an HIV infection," he said.

When all STDs are considered, including human papillomavirus (HPV or genital wart virus) and herpes simplex viruses, almost 19 million new infections occur each year, with nearly half among those ages 15 to 24, the CDC said.

[Click here to read the whole Natonal Post article online.]


Pepsi Gives $1,000,000 to Advance Homosexualist Agenda

 By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

January 2, 2009 ( - Soft drink giant PepsiCo, which also owns Frito Lay chips, Tropicana orange juice, Gatorade and Quaker oatmeal, has given a million dollars in the past two years to organizations which promote homosexuality, and forces its employees to attend sexual orientation and gender identity/expression classes.

$500,000 went to the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays' (PFLAG) "Straight for Equality" program which, according to PFLAG's website (, "will be used to expand workplace training."

Jacqueline Millan, director of PepsioCo Corporate Contributions, said in a PepsiCo bulletin, "We are delighted to continue our partnership with PFLAG. The Straight for Equality in the Workplace training program is unique in that it is promoting the necessary message of inclusion to untapped groups within the local community, and that is a crucial step towards building a healthy work environment."

Pepsi also gave $500,000 to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a group that describes itself as "America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality," according to an American Family Association (AFA) report.

The AFA indicated that both HRC and PFLAG supported efforts in California to defeat Proposition 8, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. HRC, the homosexual group financially supported by Pepsi, gave $2.3 million to defeat Prop 8.

The AFA has launched a petition and boycott campaign focused on demanding that Pepsi "remain neutral in the culture war."

"PepsiCo has refused a request by AFA to remain neutral in the culture war," said AFA Chairman Donald Wildmon in an Action Alert. "The company indicated that it will continue major financial support of homosexual organizations," adding that "Pepsi refuses to give money to any pro-family organization that opposes the homosexual agenda."

Wildmon explained that the AFA wrote Pepsi two times (on October 14 and October 29) requesting a meeting to discuss Pepsi's support of homosexual groups, subsequently receiving a "condescending letter" from Paul Boykas, director of public policy, in which Boykas refused to address Pepsi's support of the homosexual agenda.

Link to the AFA Action Alert:

Link to the AFA petition:

Contact PepsiCo with your concern:

PepsiCo, Inc.
700 Anderson Hill Road
Purchase, NY 10577
Phone: (914) 253-2000
Toll-free: 1-800-433-2652



Richard Neuhaus, Editor of First Things, Mourned by Pro-Life Leaders

The death of Richard Neuhaus on January 8th, 2008, will be felt as a great loss by many in the United States, in Canada (where he was born0, and in many other regions.  The following may be taken as representative reactions:

The following is from the media release of the American Life League:


Washington, D.C. (8 January  2008) –  The following is a statement by Judie Brown, president of American Life League, on the passing of the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, Catholic priest and editor in chief of First Things magazine. Neuhaus died at 9:30 a.m. today.

"Father Richard John Neuhaus, a wise and holy priest, has gone from this earth on this day to his eternal reward. Those of us who admired him, dialogued with him and always respected him will miss him greatly.

As his dear friend and First Things editor Joseph Bottum wrote of his passing, "My tears are not for him – for he knew, all his life, that his Redeemer lives, and he has now been gathered by the Lord in whom he trusted. I weep, rather for all the rest of us. As a priest, as a writer, as a public leader in so many struggles and as a friend, no one can take his place. The fabric of life has been torn by his death, and it will not be repaired, for those of us who knew him, until that time when everything is mended and all our tears are wiped away."

May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen. 

American Life League was co-founded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death.  For more information or press inquiries, please contact Michael Hichborn at 540.659.7900. 


# # #

 The following article is from Focus on the Family's CitizenLink of January 8th, 2008 (website URL: )

Richard Neuhaus Brought 'Gentle Spirit to Great Debates about Truth'

 The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a leading voice of Catholic conservatism and editor of the journal First Things, died this morning after a battle with cancer. He was 72.

Neuhaus advised President George W. Bush on a range of religious and ethical matters. He spent the latter part of his life seeking to strengthen the bonds among Catholics, evangelicals and Jews. In 2005, Neuhaus was named, along with Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson, one of the "25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America" by Time magazine.

"Richard Neuhaus was to moral principle what William Buckley was to conservative politics: a leader who brought intellectual heft, urbane wit and a gentle spirit to the great debates about truth," said Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy at Focus on the Family Action. "While we differed with Rev. Neuhaus on some aspects of his theology, we appreciate his tremendous contributions."

The chain reaction was something out of central casting. A medical journal starts it off by announcing a study comparing teens who take a pledge of virginity until marriage with those who don't. Lo and behold, when they crunch the numbers, they find not much difference between pledgers and nonpledgers:  most do not make it to the marriage bed as virgins.

Like a pack of randy 15-year-old boys, the press dives right in.

"Virginity Pledges Don't Stop Teen Sex," screams CBS News. "Virginity pledges don't mean much," adds CNN. "Study questions virginity pledges," says the Chicago Tribune. "Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective, Study Finds," heralds the Washington Post. "Virginity Pledges Fail to Trump Teen Lust in Look at Older Data," reports Bloomberg. And on it goes.

In other words, teens will be teens, and moms or dads who believe that concepts such as restraint or morality have any application today are living in a dream world. Typical was the lead for the CBS News story: "Teenagers who take virginity pledges are no less sexually active than other teens, according to a new study."

Here's the rub: It just isn't true.

In fact, the only way the study's author, Janet Elise Rosenbaum of Johns Hopkins University, could reach such results was by comparing teens who take a virginity pledge with a very small subset of other teens: those who are just as religious and conservative as the pledge-takers. The study is called "Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers," and it was published in the Jan. 1 edition of Pediatrics.

The first to notice something lost in the translation was Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former head of both the Red Cross and the National Institutes of Health. Today she serves as health editor for U.S. News & World Report. And in her dispatch on this study, Dr. Healy pointed out that "virginity pledging teens were considerably more conservative in their overall sexual behaviors than teens in general -- a fact that many media reports have missed cold."

What Dr. Healy was getting at is that the pledge itself is not what distinguishes these kids from most other teenagers. The real difference is their more conservative and religious home and social environment. As she notes, when you compare both groups in this study with teens at large, the behavioral differences are striking.  . . . . 

[Click here to read the whole article in the Wall Street Journal online.]


Christian ministry suffers web attack

Allie Martin - OneNewsNow - 12/30/2008 4:00:00 AM

The chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission says homosexual activists have launched a criminal attack on his ministry.

Recently, Dr. Ted Baehr says he learned about the distribution of a number of emails and blog posts that were supposedly from him or his organization. However, the emails were links to pornography, including homosexual content.
Baehr says he heard of the email attack against the CFTC and 
MovieGuide through a longtime supporter.
"I went to the link; it was not our site on YouTube. We do have a MovieGuide site on YouTube, and we have," he explains. "It was a phony site, but it had my picture that somebody had taken and had...very salacious material, occult material, scientology, a lot of hardcore S&M-type stuff."
Baehr said authorities have been contacted and the computer address of the source has been found.
He believes the web campaign is in response to his public statements favoring California's Proposition 8. Baehr says the attacks demonstrate that for homosexual activists, tolerance is a one-way street. "In the last couple of days, the L.A. Times has published some...editorials saying the 'religious right' is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country...[and] another one saying Christians are dumb," he relates.
Criminal charges are being considered, adds Baehr.

[Click here to go to Internet source.]

We recognize that the following excerpt immediately following represents only one angle on the proposed coalition in Canada.  It is, however, one that we think our readers will be interested in.
"Queers uniting around Liberal-NDP coalition" *

POLITICS / Best hope for progress, activists say; rallies planned across Canada

Dale Smith / National / Tuesday, December 02, 2008


With a signed agreement between the Liberals and the NDP to form a coalition government under the leadership of Stéphane Dion, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, progressives across the country are moving to show their support for the union.

Ottawa activist Ariel Troster is rallying support for the coalition.

"In terms of any possibility of making gains for our community, a coalition government is the best way to go," says Troster.

Toronto activist and Spa Excess owner Peter Bochove is moving to organize his network to get involved online.

"I'm delighted," Bochove says of the coalition. "I want to see as many people as possible speaking out in light of the massive public relations campaign the other side is financing."

The Conservatives began their public relations assault almost immediately, inviting their supporters to not only offer up "emergency donations" to the party, but also to call into radio talk shows and to write letters to the editor, complete with scripted talking points.

The party has also set up a number of rallies around the country to take place on Dec 6, which they have called "Rally for Canada," seems largely aimed at both discrediting Bloc support for the coalition, while proclaiming itself as a voice for Canadian democracy.

To counter this sentiment, progressives are rallying around, which highlights the need for a coalition because of the Conservatives' failed economic performance. The site also references the Conservatives' plan to curtail the right of public servants to strike, and their proposal to claw back women's right to pay equity.

' ' ' '

Aside from Harper's lack of responsiveness to queer issues, grassroots organizers are hoping that other areas of social justice will be restored under a coalition government, including the Court Challenges Program, the Kelowna Accord, funding for the Status of Women, and action on the environment.

. . . .

* The word "queers" in the title is the word used in the title of this Xtra/ca article, and is not the word of choice for the editor of this BCPTL website.

Massachusets Department of Public Health "groundbreaking" report says homosexuality linked with health problems, destructive behavior.

December 3, 2008

On November 21 the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) released what it calls a "Groundbreaking Report on Health Disparities Based on Sexual Orientation". 

As the DPH press release describes:

"The report revealed significant disparities among people who identified as homosexual or bisexual in the areas of access to care, self-reported health status, anxiety, depression, suicide ideation, smoking, binge drinking, illicit drug use, sexual assault victimization, intimate partner violence, disability, obesity, asthma and heart disease . . . Lesbians were 2.2 times more likely than heterosexual women to be obese."

Read entire DPH press release.

Read the Department of Public Health report HERE

In other words, the DPH is forced to admit what everyone has known for a long time. Unfortunately, the extremely destructive nature of homosexual behavior - both medical and psychological - is usually not only suppressed, but is considered completely off-limits for discussion. But ultimately, some of the truth gets out, even in Massachusetts.

[Click here to read the whole article on  MassResistance website]


Tolerance?  Not when some activists Do't Get Their Way

Pro-homosexuality activists have reacted vociferously, in some cases in a violent or threatening manner, to the recent passage in California of Proposition 8, which added these words to the state constitution:  "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The following report was passed on to us by Mission America:

Angry homosexual mob surrounds Christians in San Francisco; police escort to safety

On Friday night, before the day of protest we saw across the nation, a conflict erupted in San Francisco's Castro District between a group of residents and a group of Christians who reportedly meet every Friday on the same corner to preach to gays and lesbians about 'converting' into heterosexuals. This time, they were met by an angry mob and the conflict grew so large riot police were called to the area as the Christians were basically chased out of the neighborhood.

KTVU reports: "'Their rights were respected,' said Joe Schmitz, an opponent of Prop 8. 'They got a chance to go ahead and pray on the sidewalk and I had the opportunity to express my freedom of speech which is telling them to get out of my neighborhood.' San Francisco Police officers in riot gear formed a line and escorted the religious group into a van to safely get them out of the area. Members of the gay community insisted that their reaction to the Christian group was spontaneous. 'It was not an organized thing. We're tired of it. It's not religious. It's not a racial thing. It's about hate. We're trying to send a message across the world that we're standing up and we don't want this to go on anymore,' said Adam Quintero." 
[Highlighted section in the above article boldfaced by editor of this BCPTL websitge.  Note the interesting take on the rights.of free speech..]  
See the video of the incident at  [Warning:  bad language from protestors]
[The above article and video link is also posted on our "News and Views" page. of this website.]

'Jesus is a homo' Homosexuals Disrupt Church Service
By Deacon Keith Fournier

Catholic Online (

Using megaphones for amplification they shouted epithets at those entering the service such as “Jesus is a homo”. They also mockingly carried an upside down pink cross.

In a news release, Bash Back referred to Mt. Hope Church as “a deplorable anti-queer mega church.” They further elaborated their disdain for the Christian community at Mt. Hope on their web site.
In a news release, Bash Back referred to Mt. Hope Church as “a deplorable anti-queer mega church.” They further elaborated their disdain for the Christian community at Mt. Hope on their web site.
LANSING, Michigan (Catholic Online) - Dr. Dave Williams is the Pastor of a large evangelical Protestant Church in Lansing, Michigan called the Mount Hope Church. The Church web site informs the visitor of Pastor Williams that “He has served for 25 years, leading the church in Lansing from 226 to over 4000 today.” The Pastor is respected in the broader Christian, religious and civic community and the Church has extensive outreaches.

This past Sunday, during a Worship Service at the Church, a group of loud and intentionally disruptive homosexual activists stood outside of the sanctuary of Mount Hope dressed in strange pink attire. Using megaphones for amplification, they shouted epithets at those entering the service such as “Jesus is a homo”.They also mockingly carried an upside down pink cross.

Reports filed with the Eaton County Sheriff’s office indicate that other demonstrators had staged a further action intended to disrupt the Sunday Worship at Mount Hope. Dressed in clothing which would not have indicated their intention, they entered into the sanctuary and were seated with the community. Then, in an orchestrated manner, they left their seats, pulled fire alarms, distributed anti-Christian literature and stormed the Pastor’s pulpit waving a rainbow colored flag and shouting “It’s Okay To Be Gay! Bash Back”.

The organization behind this action is called “Bash Back”. They describe themselves as “a radical trans/queer/anarcha-feminist group” committed to “fight for liberation while rejecting all forms of state power.” In a news release, Bash Back referred to Mt. Hope Church as “a deplorable anti-queer mega church.” They further elaborated their disdain for the Christian community at Mt. Hope on their web site in these words: “The Mount Hope Church is a deplorable, anti-queer mega-church in Lansing, Michigan. The church works to institutionalize transphobia and homophobia through several repulsive projects including organized “ex-gay” conferences and so-called “hell houses”, which depict queers, trannies and womyn who seek abortions as the horrors. Mt. Hope is complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond.”

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the nation's largest Catholic civil rights organization led by Bill Donohue, Ph.D., has called on the Attorney General of State of Michigan to institute an investigation. :

[Click here to read the rest of this article on Catholic Online.]



Protests Over Gay-Marriage Ban Escalate in California

Friday, November 07, 2008

Fox News online

Angry gay rights activists in California continue to protest the Election Day passage of Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman.

A diverse coalition of social and religious conservatives campaigned to overrule a state Supreme Court judgment six months ago that legalized same-sex marriage and saw 18,000 gay and lesbian couples marry in the Golden State.

Ballot initiatives to illegalize gay marriage also passed in Florida and Arizona on Tuesday.

Supporters of same-sex marriage are aiming their wrath at the Mormon church, which raised $20 million of the overall $75 million that was spent to promote the California initiative.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also encouraged its members to volunteer their time for the campaign.

"The vote's been passed and we're happy with that result, obviously," said Kui Gomez, a member of the Mormon church. "And you gotta remember it wasn't just the Mormon church that donated money. Evangelicals, the Jewish synagogues, Catholic churches" also contributed, Gomez said.

A group of protestors plans to rally Friday in front of the headquarters of the Mormon church in Salt Lake City. Protestors demonstrated Thursday outside a Mormon temple in Los Angeles. About 1,000 gay-marriage supporters waved signs and brought afternoon trafficto a halt.

"This is a very disruptive, small group of fanatics protesting because they were unable to persuade Californians of their position," said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group being Proposition 8.

Gay rights activists produced a commercial that portrayed Mormom missionaries rifling through the home of a lesbian couple and marching off with their rings and their marriage licenses.

Schubert called the commercial a "blatant show of religious bigotry" because the protestors feel comfortable attacking a group that makes up a small percentage of the population.

"They think they can get away with it," he said, adding that other religious denominations are condemning the commercial.

. . . .

More protests are expected to take place in Los Angeles and San Francisco. But gay rights activists acknowledge that their only hope of getting Prop 8 repealed lies with the California Supreme Court, which will consider at least three lawsuits seeking to keep gay marriage legal in the state.

FOX News' Anita Vogel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Click here for the complete article online. 

Pro-gay marriage protests staged in California

By Thomas Watkins
The Associated Press

People protest outside the Saddleback Church today in Lake Forest, Calif. (The Orange County Register)

LOS ANGELES — On the first Sunday after a gay marriage ban passed in California, activists rallied in defiance, including hundreds of protesters outside an Orange County megachurch whose pastor brought Barack Obama and John McCain together last summer for a "faith forum."

About 300 gay-rights advocates fanned out along sidewalks leading to Saddleback Church in Lake Forest to voice their anger of the church's support of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by voters Tuesday that overturns a state Supreme Court decision in May legalizing same-sex unions.

[Click here to read the whole article online.]

  Watch church lady meet same-sex 'marriage' protesters

  Cross-carrying senior, reporter face screams, threats

Posted: November 10, 2008
8:45 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
2008 WorldNetDaily   [November 10, 2008]

An angry mob of homosexual activists in Southern California attacked an elderly bespectacled woman carrying a cross then shouted her down during a live TV   interview as she tried to explain to a reporter her defense of the state's new marriage amendment.

"WE SHOULD FIGHT! WE SHOULD FIGHT!" screams one  protester as the woman, identified as Phyllis Burgess, stands calmly with a reporter waiting to be interviewed.

In the live interview by KPSP-TV in Palm Springs, another protester yells, "GET OUT OF HERE," and the reporter tells her anchor team back at the station, "As you can see we are being attacked."

The confrontation developed when homosexual activists gathered at the Palm Springs City Hall for a protest following voters' approve by a margin of nearly 53 percent to 47 percent a state constitutional amendment that recognizes only a marriage between a man and a woman. The amendment specified that it is effective immediately. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, is encouraging an effort led by the ACLU to overturn the measure in court.

Prior to the aborted interview, KPSP captured footage of Burgess carrying a cross to portray her objection to homosexual marriage on biblical grounds.

Burgess barely had arrived when the cross was knocked from her hand then stomped on the ground.

About 10 minutes later, the on-scene reporter, Kimberly Cheng, tried repeatedly to complete her interview.

"She just wants to express her viewpoint, sir," she tells a protester who was waving his arms in her face.

[Click here to read the complete article on WorldNetDaily online.]

[Watch a video of the incident at  .]

In Canada:
Conservative Convention Delegates Adopt Policy Protecting Pregnant Women from Violent Crime

Also voted to curtail the power of the Human Rights Commissions to prosecute "hate speech"

By Tim Waggoner

WINNIPEG, November 17, 2008 ( – While the 2000 delegates at this weekend’s Conservative Convention in Winnipeg voted on numerous resolutions relating to the party's future, commentators say that the passing of Resolutions P-207 and P-203 in particular indicate that social conservatism is still alive among many delegates of the in-power party.

P-203, which was passed by well over 90% of the delegates, is a resolution to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 (hate messages) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Critics of this section of the Act have long said that the clause creates the precise equivalent of a "thought crime." Under this section of the Act, Christian ministers have been prosecuted simply for defending traditional Christian teaching on marriage.

Prominent Human Rights Commission critic Ezra Levant said he was “delighted” with the vote. The message is clear, said Levant: “the party's grass-tops activists … support freedom of speech and thought, and now see the Canadian Human Rights Commission for what it is: a violator of rights, not a protector of them.”

Resolution P-207 is similar to former Conservative MP Ken Epp’s Unborn Victims of Crime Bill in that it seeks additional charges for anyone who harms or kills an unborn baby while attacking a pregnant mother.  While P-207 is not binding, it is now official Conservative Party policy to recognize the rights of pregnant women by bringing to justice those who harm an unborn baby against their mother's will.

According to, a delegate from the riding in Saskatchewan that proposed the resolution said, "Families who have lost their daughters, wives, sisters ... know there are two victims. They want the law to recognize that."

Although the resolution does indicate a pro-life sentiment among Canadian Conservatives, in an interview with, John Hof, President of Campaign Life Coalition B.C., reminded pro-life activists to take this resolution for what it really is – one seeking to protect pregnant women and not unborn babies.

"As the President of Campaign Life Coalition of B.C., P-207 is not a resolution I would propose to protect unborn children. As much as I stand up for the lives of pregnant women, this resolution doesn't do anything for unborn children," said Hoff.

Hof said the resolution is one which he wholeheartedly supports and that it is a great step forward in protecting pregnant women. However, he indicated that pro-life supporters should keep their feet on the ground.

"I don't want pro-lifers to get excited about this because this simple resolution doesn't make the Conservative party pro-life.  It recognizes that women who are pregnant and are harmed or killed will receive more justice," he said.  "If this resolution becomes a bill in the House of Commons I would expect every party to support this, it is common sense."
"Who could possible be in favor of violence against pregnant women?"

Behind resolution P-207 is a lengthy history, largely surrounding Epp’s Unborn Victims of Crime Bill, which sought to make it a separate crime to kill or injure an unborn child in an attack on its mother. Epp’s bill, which had passed first and second reading in the House of Commons, was effectively scuppered by the Conservative Party this fall, largely in response to criticism from pro-abortion activists that the bill would “reopen the abortion debate” by giving rights to unborn children.

The Conservative Party in August pulled the rug out from under Epp’s feet when it introduced its own, watered-down version of the bill. Critics of the Conservative bill say that it adds little to current criminal law and fails to recognize the unborn child as a separate victim of violent crime.

Following the vote on P-207 Justice Minister Rob Nicholson reaffirmed Prime-Minister Stephen Harpers' commitment not to re-open the abortion debate.

"The prime minister has indicated on a number of occasions that he will not reopen the (abortion) issue. But in terms of protecting pregnant women against violence, we are prepared to make changes to the Criminal Code," said Nicholson.

Nicholson indicated that the Conservative government would continue to move forward with its own version of Epp’s bill. 

[In the United States:]
Scalia Warns Judges against Relying on Foreign Law
. . . .
[Nov. 19. 2008]

He says the Founders of this country did not want us to emulate Europe.

The U.S. Constitution is not a "living document" and should not be filtered through foreign law.

That's the message U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had for a group of judges and lawyers in Houston this week.

"I fear the courts' use of foreign law in interpreting the Constitution will continue at an accelerated pace," the 72-year-old jurist told the local chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

Scalia called on judges to adhere to the constitutional authors' intent. He said the Founders of this country did not want us to emulate Europe.

  [Click here to read the whole article on CitizenLink.]


Parents, Teachers, and Leaders Meet to Respond to the Corren Agreement

[an account of a meeting held August 26, 2008; article republished, with permission, from the website of the Association for Reformed Political Action]

On a dark and gloomy August evening, a group of concerned citizens met together in Surrey, BC to discuss what could be done now that the BC government's agreement with a homosexual activist couple to change the education curriculum is considered binding. Although serious, the atmosphere in the room was far from dark and gloomy. After talks from Len Remple (Parents for Democracy in Education Society, which organized the meeting), Ron Gray (leader of the CHP), Bill Vanderzalm (former Premier of BC), Dan O'Hara (State Deputy of the Knights of Columbus for BC and the Yukon), and Ted Hewlett (BC Parents and Teachers for Life), the audience took part in a lively discussion about where to go from here. The consensus was unanimous: action is needed and we all have a role to play.

The Corren Agreement was made in April of 2006 in response to a complaint that two activists brought to the BC human rights tribunal. They demanded that more content be put in the curriculum that was favourable towards homosexuals and other forms of "gender diversity." Instead of allowing the tribunal to decide the case, the BC government made a secret deal with this couple, without any consultation with parents or the public, that gave them unprecedented access to change BC's education curriculum, from Kindergarten to Grade 12. Parts of the agreement are already in effect and other parts will soon be



Florida Judge Rejects State Law, Allows Gay Man to Adopt

 A Florida circuit court judge has decided the state's 31-year-old gay-adoption ban is unconstitutional, allowing a homosexual man to adopt a teen boy.

The Florida adoption statute has been upheld as constitutional by the state Supreme Court, as well as a federal appeals court. Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the trial judge is bound by those higher court precedents.

"This decision has no legal impact on the adoption statute itself," he said, "but it does demonstrate the arrogance of activist judges who believe they can and should legislate from the bench."


No one to vote for


Margaret Somerville

The Ottawa Citizen

Politicians have failed to realize that Canadians' value systems are far more complex than the old left-right dichotomy

Friday, September 12, 2008


Values always matter in politics. In representative democracies such as Canada, we vote for people who we believe share our values. But what if, when the rubber hits the road, our MPs act contrary to our -- and what we thought were their -- values on an issue we think is of primary importance? And what if they do that in order to get an "embarrassing issue" off the political agenda and placate a vocal minority prior to an election call?

To name just two recent examples: the legalization of same-sex marriage prior to a federal election when a Liberal minority government was in power; and the "attempted murder" of Conservative MP Ken Epp's Unborn Victims of Crime bill (Bill C-484) by the minority Conservative government to get abortion off the agenda prior to the election call.

So, who do we vote for when no one represents our values? Should we just not vote? What do these situations tell us about the "democratic deficit?" What if a majority of Canadians can't find an MP who shares and will reliably uphold their values?

First, we need to understand the changes in our societies and values that have caused these situations to arise.

One is the increasing political influence of identity-based social movements, which seem to have convinced politicians that to act contrary to their movements' values is certain to cause them to lose votes and possibly the election. It's important to understand the strategies these movements use to have their values prevail in the political public square.

In the case of same-sex marriage, gay rights advocates convinced politicians that there were only two choices: one was either for same-sex marriage and against discrimination against homosexuals; or one was against same-sex marriage and for discrimination against gay people. Given that choice, the majority of politicians chose same-sex marriage. The possibility of being against discrimination against gay people and against same-sex marriage was eliminated.

The same strategy has now been used by pro-choice advocates in relation to abortion and Bill C-484: They argued that one is either for respect for women and their rights and against Bill C-484; or one is for Bill C-484 and against respect for women and their rights. Even Conservative politicians -- such as justice minister Rob Nicholson, who torpedoed Bill C-484 by proposing alternative legislation approved by pro-choice advocates -- seem to have bought their argument. The possibility of being for respect for women and their rights and for Bill C-484 (which in fact would have enshrined the right of a woman who wanted to give birth to the baby she was carrying and would not have affected access to abortion) was eliminated.

Many scholars and public thinkers are speaking of movements which are affecting the political process, such as the pro-choice and gay lobbies, as "third spaces." They include the NGOs, and grass-roots advocacy and civil society groups, created outside established national and international institutions, that are emerging as a result of the changes wrought by an interconnected, interdependent world. As we are seeing in Canada, these will affect our values; who the "we" who share those values are; and what kinds of political processes we need.

We can no longer assume, as we could in the past when we lived in small, largely homogenous societies, that all our politicians, no matter to which political party they belonged, largely shared our most fundamental values. We now belong in different socio-ethical-values camps that create borders and manifest deep divides between us. These divides are sometimes referred to as "culture wars" -- battles as to which values will prevail as the societal norms.

[Click here to see the rest of the article immediately above.]

The Ottawa Sun - Sept. 12, 2008:

Christian doctor puts faith into practice  

 A Christian doctor setting up a practice in Perth is advertising for

patients and says he will pray with them - just don't ask him for a Viagra

or birth control prescription unless you're married. "God says that sex is

excellent and belongs only in marriage," Dr. Bob vanNoppen wrote recently in

an open letter to prospective patients. "Therefore, I will only be providing

sex-promoting medical prescriptions - such as erectile dysfunctional

medications for men and contraception/birth control for women - for those

who are willing to indicate they are married." VanNoppen, who expects to

open his practice in October, said yesterday from his Ottawa home that the

letter was fair notice to new prospective patients. "I don't want anyone to

be surprised. I want my patients to have their eyes wide open when picking a

doctor," vanNoppen said.


He also opposes abortions. "I cannot recommend a woman obtain an abortion,

either by prescribing medications or referring her for a surgical procedure,

unless her physical life is at stake," he wrote. "I cannot deliberately kill

anyone. I cannot euthanize any patient no matter how much they might request

it, even if it were to become legal.

I will never subscribe to the deliberate intention to end life."


VanNoppen said he isn't trying to convert anyone. "I am very willing to

discuss these beliefs, even debate them, but I think they are unlikely to

change and patients that find them truly upsetting may need to find a more

suitable physician," vanNoppen wrote. "I am willing to pray with patients,

if they request it. I think it is also natural to assume that much of my

ordinary advice on such things as health living, child rearing,

relationships, work, life, death will be informed by my religious belief."


The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons wouldn't comment on

vanNoppen's introduction letter to new patients. "I can't speak to the

specifics, because there is an investigation process to do that," said

Kathryn Clarke, spokeswoman for the College, which is establishing a policy

for doctors on human rights issues. "There will be guidelines for doctors if

they refuse to provide services for religious reasons. It is indicated in

the draft doctors are expected to communicate clearly what services they

won't provide because of their religious beliefs," Clarke said.




Dejavu - Advertising group says ads are  "deceptive"

Media Release from Edmonton Pro-life

August 25th, 2008
In a bizarre – yet anticipated- ruling last week, Advertising Standards Canada (ASC), rejected fact based evidence 1/ from Stats Canada confirming abortions do occur throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and 2/ from a ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada showing there are no laws against abortion in Canada.

Corry Morcos, president of Edmonton Prolife, the group behind the billboards, said the decision was “unbelievable, but expected” given the previous ruling regarding the Life Canada ads. “Governments have failed to enact any legislation as requested by the Supreme Court in the 1988 Morgentaler decision, and that is why today we have no protection for the unborn in Canada. Abortions are totally unrestricted by any laws. But apparently educating, through advertising, about this truth is not allowed.”

The ad “9 Months! , that is the amount of time the government say it is legal to have an abortion. Abortion. Have we gone too far?" has been running for two years and one complaint has been received. The ad is speaking solely to the legal status of abortion in Canada, yet ASC wanted the ads to include various medical guidelines. Women will be interested to note that according to ASC women may not be assured an abortion simply upon request particularly after the first trimester.

In the appeal ruling, Ad standards was silent on many of the grounds for appeal issues raised by Edmonton Prolife. In particular the issue of competing interests. “Council did not do its due diligence in looking for “competing interest”. The complainant in the case is an activist in the “pro choice” movement and clearly has a “competing interest”.

The ASC, a self-regulating body of Canada’s advertising industry, wants to appear to be the gatekeepe! r for consumers, to make sure we are receiving the truth. Their website states

“ASC is the industry body committed to creating and maintaining community confidence in advertising.”

Confidence? The very media organizations that the Ad Standard represents have written numerous articles deriding the Ad standard council’s prior decisions against similar ads. When your own membership questions your integrity, the confidence that the general public has in the ASC is compromised. When ASC calls facts deceptions, the authority of the ASC to be keeper of all that is “truthful, fair and accurate” in advertising rings hollow to many.

It is completely mind boggling for Edmonton Prolife to be held to the ruling of a self-regulating, unnamed complaints panel of anonymous people who can claim anything they want, without providing a shred of documentation. Yet when Edmonton Prolife, provides documentation, including government statistics, and legal rulings, those facts are dismissed as false, misleading and inaccurate.

Prolife groups and their messages of facts and t! ruth are being censored, that is the bottom line.

For more information, contact Corry Morcos at 780-455-5249 or
Edmonton Prolife at 780-425-1637


Articles in Prominent Medical Journal Doubt Worth and Benefit of HPV Vaccine


By Tim Waggoner  

WASHINGTON, August 21, 2008 ( – The New England Journal of Medicine posted two articles this week that asked why two human papillomavirus vaccines have been so widely distributed given their unproven effectiveness and high costs.

Gardasil by Merck Sharp & Dohme, which has already received tremendous criticism for the severe and fatal side-effects experienced by users, and Cervarix by GlaxoSmithKline were the two drugs called to question.

As reported by the New York Times, Dr. Charlotte J. Haug, editor of The Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, whose editorial appeared in Thursday's issue of The New England Journal, said, "Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer.  With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious."

Both vaccines were tested for relatively short periods of time, revealed Dr. Haug, and researchers are yet to prove whether or not the vaccines offer lasting immunity and if a user's natural immunity to other strains not eliminated by the vaccines will be compromised.  Dr. Haug said it is not certain if the protection offered by the vaccines will even lead to reduced rates of cervical cancer.

Jane J. Kim and Dr. Sue Goldie of Harvard, who likewise had a study published in this week's issue of the medical journal, also brought up the fact that the vaccines have not been proven to offer life-long protection.  They said that until this is certain, the cost of the vaccines cannot be justified.

Furthermore, the costs of the vaccines cannot be offset by eliminating Pap smear screening because the test is still needed to identify HPV strands that the vaccines do not protect against.

These studies criticizing the effectiveness and cost of the HPV vaccines could not come at worse time for Merck – the drug giant is under fire because of a reported 9,749 cases of severe side-effects and 21 deaths associated with Gardasil.

See Related Coverage:

HPV Vaccine Causes 21 Deaths and Counting - CDC Study Launched


Conservative Party of Canada Kills Unborn Victims of Crime Act with Gutless Alternative

Government legislation to mirror proposals on the issue by pro-abortionists

By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, August 25, 2008 ( - In news which came as a shock within and without the Conservative Party of Canada this afternoon, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has announced that the Conservative Government will introduce legislation to bolster penalties for those who assault pregnant women.  The legislation will in effect kill the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, a private members bill with wide public and legislative support that would have recognized in law the separate life of unborn children - at least those who are 'wanted' or intended by the mother for birth.

Conservative MP Ken Epp's private member's bill would ensure that a criminal would receive separate punishment for killing an unborn child in a violent attack on a pregnant mother.  Even though the bill explicitly excluded consensual abortion and acts or omissions by the pregnant woman, the Conservative Government fell prey to the arguments of abortion activists who saw any fetal rights, even of 'wanted' children, as an assault on abortion.

According to Nicholson, the upcoming Conservative bill would add the fact of a woman's pregnancy to the list of 'aggravating factors' which must be considered when sentencing criminals.  The proposal is in fact nearly identical to a Liberal private member's bill which was proposed in May by by pro-abortion Liberal MP Brent St. Denis.

In his announcement of the measure, Nicholson noted that the Conservatives accepted the arguments of abortion activists.  "We've heard criticisms from across the country, including representative from the medical community, that Ken Epp's bill could be interpreted that Mr. Epp's bill as presently drafted could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights," he said.  

"Let me be clear, our government will not reopen the debate on abortion," added Nicholson who in the past was recognized as one of the more heroic and reliably pro-life Conservative MPs. "For this reason, and in the context of the government's tackling crime agenda, I'm announcing that the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights."

This is the second time this year that Nicholson has betrayed and shocked Canada's social conservatives. In May he presented the Conservative government Justice Department's 50-page defense of the notorious subsection 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act that has permitted major assaults on freedom of expression and freedom of religion by the Human Rights commission kangaroo courts.

When asked if Epp was even told of the new legislation, Nicholson indicated Epp was not informed, or consulted on the matter, saying only that he would find out with everyone else.

While Ken Epp did not immediately respond to the announcement, his remarks on the Liberal private member's bill proposed in May would apply equally to the Conservative proposal.  

"I am very disappointed he has fallen victim to the scare tactics of special interests groups who refuse to stand by pregnant women who want their unborn babies protected in law," said Ken Epp responding to St. Denis' proposal. "Why have increased penalties for attacks on pregnant women if the baby doesn't matter?" Mr. Epp asked. "Either the unborn child matters so that attacks on pregnant women are more heinous, in which case Bill C-484 is a direct recognition of that reality; or the child doesn't matter, in which case we don't need any new law - the current provisions in the Criminal Code cover the violence to the woman."

Epp's further comments on St. Denis' bill suggested it was little more than political posturing.  A criticism that, it seems, would apply equally to the Conservative Government proposal. "Besides, my legal advisors and the Justice Department have assured me that pregnancy is already deemed an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, as part of our case law," Mr. Epp said. "And I have also been assured that C-484 will not change that. But if all we do is increase the penalty for attacking a pregnant woman without creating a separate offence for harming or k   illing her child, then we reinforce the offensive notion that the child's fate is irrelevant. But the child's death is very relevant to the mother (and other family members) who want her baby to live. As Mary Talbot, mother of Olivia Talbot and grandmother of Lane Jr. told the media, 'It's two people who died that day…I certainly put two people in a coffin.'"

Mr. Epp concluded, "What right does anyone have to deny a pregnant woman the right to have the child she has chosen to bring to term protected in law? I can't imagine any pregnant woman feeling that justice has been served if the person who brutally and intentionally killed the baby in her womb simply gets a stiffer sentence for assaulting her. What he did was wrong, not because she was pregnant, but because he killed her baby! The "alternative" Mr. St. Denis is proposing does not recognize her baby's death. It does not address the horrible loss and grieving that mother feels. It's not good enough for a caring society like Canada. Victims' families and Canadians in general are crying out for justice! Let us not delay in doing the right thing and pass C-484 into law."


Epp Statement in Response to Government's 
Proposal to C-484

Ken Epp, MP
Edmonton - Sherwood Park
Epp Statement in Response to Government's 'Alternative' Proposal to C-484

 For Immediate Release

August 26, 2008

 (Ottawa) - "An orchestrated campaign against my Private Members Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, has now been followed by the government's announcement that they will unveil new legislation that will include a victim's pregnancy as an aggravating factor when judges consider sentencing offenders. The government is proposing this as an alternative to Bill C-484.

 "In my view, it is unfortunate that they have made this decision. My Bill was carefully worded to ensure women's freedom to choose abortion would be completely respected and physicians who perform abortions would be completely protected. What is disappointing is that the government appears to have bowed to pressure from a number of interest groups including abortion rights groups and some medical organizations.

"Abortion supporters welcomed the introduction in May of Liberal MP Brent St. Denis' Private Members Bill, C-543, which appears to be very similar to what the government is now proposing. Indeed, such a law was actually suggested by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada last November. What I said when C-543 was introduced, I will say again: why have increased penalties for attacks on pregnant women if the not-yet-born baby doesn't matter? Either that child matters so that attacks on pregnant women are more heinous, in which case Bill C-484 is a direct recognition of that reality; or that child doesn't matter, in which case we don't need any new law - the current provisions in the Criminal Code already cover the violence against the woman.

"The saddest thing of all is that the government Bill likely adds nothing that doesn't already exist in law. My own legal advisors - and the Justice Department - have assured me that pregnancy is already deemed an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes, as part of our case law.

"By simply treating pregnancy as an aggravating factor without recognizing a second victim in the crime, we reinforce the offensive notion that the unborn child's fate is irrelevant. But the child's death is very relevant to the mother (and other family members) who want her baby to live. As Mary Talbot, mother of Olivia Talbot and grandmother of Lane Jr. told the media, 'It's two people who died that day.I certainly put two people in a coffin.'

"Does the Minister now tell Mary that, during the violent attack on Olivia and Lane Jr., her grandson was just an 'aggravating factor'? That the brutal attack didn't really lead to the death of Olivia's not-yet-born but very much wanted baby boy? Lane Jr. was deliberately killed that day. At the trial, Olivia's murderer told the court he shot Olivia in the abdomen 'to get the baby.'

 "I can't imagine any pregnant woman feeling that justice has been served if the person who brutally and intentionally killed the baby in her womb simply gets a stiffer sentence for assaulting her, without being charged with a separate offence specifically for intentionally killing her child. What he did was wrong, not simply because she was pregnant, but because he intentionally killed her baby. The 'alternative' which the government is now proposing does not even recognize her baby's death. It does not address the horrible loss and grieving that mother and her family feels. It's just not good enough for a caring society like Canada.

 "I know the critics of C-484 will continue to spread misinformation. But I continue to hope that thoughtful, everyday Canadians, not influenced by political agendas or strident ideology, will continue to support

C-484 - and about 70% of Canadians do, including the vast majority of women across the country. I hope they will continue to contact their MPs, now more than ever, and encourage them to continue to support a compassionate and just response to the horrible loss experienced by pregnant women who lose their not-yet-born babies in a violent attack.

And I hope, as a result, MPs, regardless of party affiliation, will have the courage to vote in favour of Bill C-484 at Third Reading."


- 30 -


For More Information, contact
Ken Epp, MP (780) 467-4944; <>  



MPs take sides on unborn victims bill

Today’s Family News
June 11, 2008

The political battle lines are being drawn over Bill C-484, which seeks to give legal protection to an unborn child who is injured or killed as a result of violence committed against the baby’s mother.

As the Toronto Star reported, critics of the proposed Unborn Victims of Crime Act claim it is merely “a back door method to give the fetus rights and make abortions more difficult to obtain in Canada.” Conservative MP Ken Epp, who introduced the bill, adamantly denies that.

As Epp explained on his website, C-484 “is not about restricting elective abortions – it is about protecting children whose mothers have not chosen abortion – whose mothers have chosen life for their children.” For example, if police believed a woman was murdered by someone who knew she was pregnant, his bill would ensure that her assailant was charged in the deaths of two people.
Last week, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion entered the debate, vowing that his caucus would do all it could to defeat Epp’s bill, Canadian Press reported.

“I want to give my word to all the women of Canada that the Liberal Party of Canada is against to reopen women’s right to decide. . . . We will not allow that to happen,” Dion said.

That prompted a swift rebuke from Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Rona Ambrose, who supports C-484. She said if anyone was trying to reopen Canada’s abortion debate, it was Dion himself.

“I think he’s taking a very partisan tack on what could be a very non-partisan issue that we could address together,” Ambrose told the Star. “I think he’s fear-mongering women on this issue.”

Ambrose, who worked in women’s shelters before entering politics, also told Canadian Press that studies show pregnant women are much more prone to becoming victims of violence, and that C-484 is simply trying to provide some added deterrence to would-be attackers.

“The irony,” Epp wrote last month in the Ottawa Citizen, “is that for years pro-lifers have been accused of trying to impose their views on others. The opponents of C-484 are now attempting to impose on women who want to be pregnant and want to love and protect their babies the view that the child in her womb is unworthy of protection in criminal law, unworthy of any amount of respect at all to the extent that a criminal can brutally attack that mother’s child with a fist or a boot or a gun or a knife or a sword and face no consequences for killing what is so dear to her. . . . ”

“Let us not abandon those pregnant women who choose life for their babies.”

With almost every New Democrat and Bloc Québécois MP opposed to the bill, its fate rests with the Liberals. When it came up for second reading in March, 26 Liberal MPs voted in favour of it. Dion would not say if he will require his MPs to vote against it when the bill comes back to the Commons for the third and final reading sometime this fall.

Most Canadians seem to support the bill. An online poll last March by Angus Reid Strategies found 70 per cent of respondents endorsed C-484, whereas only 19 per cent were opposed to it. And only 19 per cent of women and 29 per cent of men said they saw it as an attempt to re-criminalize abortion in Canada.

Pro-Life Hero Wins Olympic Medal in Beijing

By Tim Waggoner

LONDON, August 25, 2008 ( - In 2004, U.K. Olympian Tasha Danvers-Smith sacrificed her spot at the Summer Olympics in Athens so she could bring her then-unborn baby to term.  Four years later, her little boy inspired her all the way to the podium in the women's 400-metre hurdle event at the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

After discovering she was pregnant in 2004, Danvers-Smith made a joint decision with her husband and coach, Darrell, to put her baby's life ahead of her dream of competing in the summer games in Athens. At the time some in the track and field community urged Tasha, touted as one of the U.K.'s best chances for a gold medal, to abort her baby, and the media chastised her when she did not.

Danvers-Smith was, however, given tremendous support by those who believe in the intrinsic right to life of all human beings.  One such organization, which was greatly moved by Tasha's bravery, was the Life Issues Institute.  Executive Director Bradley Mattes presented the athlete and then-soon-to-be mother with the Hero At Heart award, which is given to those individuals who "demonstrate outstanding courage or compassion on behalf of innocent human life."

Four years down the road, after balancing her schedule between the newest member of her family and training for the 400-metre hurdle, Tasha ran a personal best in Beijing, good enough for the bronze medal.  Matte says Tasha has scored a "tremendous victory" for women and has proved her critics wrong.

"Tasha has demonstrated to women all over the world that they don't have to sacrifice their unborn children to fulfill their dreams. Tasha's three-year-old son, Jaden, was an inspiration to her Olympic goals. The very thing critics said would destroy and derail her hopes was central to helping her fulfill them," said Mattes.

"Tasha stood strong for life, even when it meant temporarily giving up her dreams for an Olympic medal. Now she has become a member of the exclusive club of Olympic champions, and she has her beautiful son, Jaden. I couldn't be happier for her," he concluded.

Mattes has made it known that he will forward any emails to Tasha regarding her remarkable story:

Human Rights Tribunal* to pastor: Renounce your faith!
Now banned from expressing moral opposition to homosexuality

* Note:  --Title changed from original. 


Posted: June 09, 2008
10:00 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

. . . .

In a decision handed down just days ago in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.

According to a report from Pete Vere at the Catholic Exchange, the penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of Father Alphonse de Valk, who also has cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation's debate over same-sex "marriage" and now faces HRC charges.

Boisson had written a letter to the editor of his local Red Deer newspaper in 2002 denouncing the advance of homosexual activism as "wicked" and stating: "Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights."

The activist, local teacher Darren Lund, filed a complaint and the guilty verdict from Lori G. Andreachuk, a lawyer, was handed down some weeks ago. The latest decision involved the penalty phase of the trial.

"While agreeing that Boisson's letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to [stop expressing his opinion]," Vere reported.

Andreachuk noted that Lund, who brought the complaint, wasn't, in fact, injured.

"In this case there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward…," she wrote.

However, that did not stop her from ordering the payment anyway.

And as for the future, she wrote:

"Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by e-mail, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about … Lund or … Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current Web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc," the lawyer opined.

Andreachuk also ordered Boissoin to apologize for the original letter in the Red Deer Advocate and told the two "offenders" to pay $5,000.

The apology letter, Vere said, "threatens civil liberties in Canada, according to Ezra Levant, an author and lawyer who himself was targeted by an HRC attack."

"[The] government now believes that if it can't convince a Christian pastor that he's wrong, it will just order him to condemn himself?" Levant wrote on his blog. "Other than tribunals in Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China, where is this Orwellian 'order' considered to be justice?"

"This is like a Third World jail-house confession – where accused criminals are forced to sign false statements of guilt," Levant wrote. "We don’t even 'order' murderers to apologize to their victims' families. Because we know that a forced apology is meaningless. But not if your point is to degrade Christian pastors."

"In essence, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal is ordering to the minister to renounce his Christian faith, since his opposition to homosexuality is based upon the Judeo-Christian Bible," Vere wrote.

WND reported recently about de Valk, the target of a Human Rights Commission case over his biblical references regarding homosexuality.

"Father [de Valk] defended the [Catholic] Church's teaching on marriage during Canada's same-sex 'marriage' debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II's encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of whom are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman," Vere wrote.

Vere raised the question that Canada now considers morality a "hate crime."

"If one, because of one's sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex marriage in Canada, is that considered 'hate'?" he asked.

Vere wrote that the response he got from Mark van Dusen, a spokesman for the federal human rights prosecution office, shocked him.

The government agent confirmed the agency investigates complaints but doesn't set public policy or moral standards. He said the agency job is to look at the circumstances and decide whether to advance it or dismiss it.

What is shocking about that, Vere wrote, is the admission that unjustified complaints can be dismissed, yet the case against de Valk has continued now for more than six months.

An extended audio recording between Vere and van Dusen is posted on YouTube:

A second part of the interview also is posted.


Obama's Abortion Bombshell: Unrestricted Abortion Over Wishes of Individual States a Priority for Presidency

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 10, 2008 ( - Barack Obama, the presumptive pro-abortion nominee of the Democratic Party, has plans to reward the allies that helped him topple Hillary Clinton from her throne by making total unrestricted abortion in the United States his number one priority as president.

In light of Obama's recently achieved status as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Focus on the Family's CitizenLink has decided to remind its supporters that almost one year has passed since Obama made his vows to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that abortion would be the first priority of his administration.

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

Obama made his remarks in a question-and-answer session after delivering a speech crystallizing for abortion advocates his deep-seated abortion philosophy and his belief that federal legislation will break pro-life resistance and end the national debate on abortion. (see transcript:

"I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page," Obama said in July. "We want a new day here in America. We're tired about arguing about the same ole' stuff. And I am convinced we can win that argument."

Besides making abortion on demand a "fundamental right" throughout the United States, FOCA would effectively nullify informed consent laws, waiting periods, health safety regulations for abortion clinics, etc.

Furthermore, medical professionals and institutions that refused abortions also would lose legal protections. FOCA would expose individuals, organizations, and governments - including federal, state, and local government agencies - to costly civil actions for purported violations of the act.

"Thirty-five years after Roe, abortion supporters, like Senator Obama, are dismayed that abortion remains a divisive issue and that their radical agenda has not been submissively accepted by the American public," states Denise M. Burke, vice president of Americans United for Life.

"Rather than confronting legitimate issues concerning the availability and safety of abortion, they choose to blatantly ignore the concerns and interests of everyday Americans, as well as the growing evidence that abortion hurts women."

Hillary Clinton, once the longtime Democratic front-runner and anticipated abortion president, conceded defeat last Saturday to Obama, who captured the nomination from her after a long and bitter campaign.

Obama has won the crucial endorsement of abortion activist Frances Kissling, who broke from the ranks of other radical feminist leaders earlier this year to endorse Obama, saying Obama, not Clinton, would better use the bully pulpit of the presidency to accomplish their aims and end the culture wars over abortion.

See related links:

Sen. Barack Obama's July 17, 2007 Speech to Planned Parenthood (transcript):

Video footage of Obama's speech can be obtained here:

Senate version of FOCA:

House version of FOCA:

Canada Finally Moves Age of Consent for Sex from 14 to 16

 By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

OTTAWA, March 5, 2008 ( - Canada's new age of sexual consent, raised to 16 from 14, was signed into law on Feb. 28 after passing in the Senate by a narrow 3 votes.

As reported last December by, the Conservative Government's Bill C-2, the 'Tackling Violent Crime Act', passed the House of Commons on November 28, 2007. This bill included a provision to raise the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16. At 14, Canada's age of consent was among the lowest of Western nations, where it typically varies between 16 and 18.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had threatened to call an election if Bill C-2 wasn't passed in the Senate by March 1, 2008. Even though the Liberal dominated senate complained there was not enough time to meet this deadline, the possibility of giving Harper an opportunity to launch an election over the issue pushed them into action.

Nineteen senators voted for the bill, sixteen voted against, while thirty-one senators - all Liberals but one - abstained from the vote, and another twenty-seven didn't show up at all.

In an interview with the Winnipeg Free Press, senior cabinet minister Vic Toews said it was satisfying to see Bill C-2 become law, and that his government's decision to pressure the Liberals to pass the bill or go to the electorate was the right one.

"Most of the measures in the legislation had Liberal support during the last election campaign, and it should never have taken this long to get them into law," Mr. Toews said.

Roz Prober, co-founder of the Winnipeg-based children's rights group Beyond Borders, told the Free Press, "Common sense has prevailed. Raising the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 is a huge protection for children. People were stunned to see Canada was so far behind the eight ball on the age of consent."



Rainbow Sash Movement Plots Papal Protest
Gay advocacy group to throw ashes and blow whistles at pope during April US visit

By Michael Baggot

March 11, 2008 ( - The Rainbow Sash Movement, a homosexual activist group, announced their plans to protest Pope Benedict XVI's opposition to homosexual behavior during his April visit to the United States.

The RSM plans to throw ashes at the Pope, because "ashes are an ancient and appropriate greeting for a sinner who has caused the Church so much division and pain," stated the movement.

"We will also be greeting him with whistles; these were used by the Polish People to show shame for the violation of human rights by the Communist Government prior to the end of the cold war," added a RSM statement.

"We are a community of Catholic GLBT along with our allies who work for change in the Church. To continue to hide our identity only enables shame and homophobia. We are committed to working from within the Church," says the movement.

The RSM is best known for its large Pentecost Sunday protests, in which openly practicing homosexual, bisexual, and "transgendered" individuals identify themselves as such with multicolor sashes and demand Holy Communion during Mass.

The Pope has been a vocal opponent of homosexual "marriage". In January 2007, after praising traditional families, the Pope said, "projects that aim to attribute to other forms of union inappropriate legal recognition appear dangerous and counterproductive."

The RSM contrasts with ministries in the Church that support Catholics in their efforts to live a life of chastity and to overcome homosexual inclinations when possible. The Courage apostolate, founded by Fr. John Harvey, OSFS in 1980, has five main goals: Chastity, Prayer and Dedication, Fellowship, Support, and Good Example.

Courage professes complete fidelity to the teachings of the Catholic Church, including those regarding homosexuality.

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,'" states the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism adds that those with homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law," stated a 1986 Vatican document on the pastoral care of homosexual persons, issued by the then Cardinal Ratzinger.

"But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered," added the document.



New 'Bully' video game raises teachers' concern

Jennifer Moreau, Burnaby Now

Published: Saturday, March 08, 2008

The B.C. Teachers' Federation is calling for parents to boycott a new video game that it says makes light of bullying and promotes violence.

Bully: the Scholarship Edition is just one more reason the provincial government needs to regulate the gaming industry, said Irene Lanzinger, president of the provincewide teachers' union.

"We try to teach kids how to treat each other with respect," Lanzinger said.

"These games give kids the counter-message."

Lanzinger said while academics debate whether violent games lead to violent actions, teachers see children acting out violent behaviour at school.

"It is of no comfort to me that some experts say this doesn't have an impact on children. It is not a healthy psychological experience for a child to play a game that glorifies bullying and violence," she said.

Released March 4, Bully: the Scholarship Edition shows scenes of violence, crude humour, sexual themes, tobacco and alcohol use and "animated blood."

In the trailer, the game's hero is seen smacking another student.

As part of the call for regulation, the teachers' federation pointed to comments that Burnaby-Willingdon MLA John Nuraney made a couple weeks ago in the Victoria legislature.

"It may be of interest to this house to know that one of the top video games for boys in grades 3 to 6 is Grand Theft Auto.

"While it is admirable that our children of today adapt very quickly to this technology, it is also alarming that without proper guidance and supervision, they can fall victims to the unscrupulous predators," Nuraney said.

In an interview with the NOW, Nuraney said he "totally agrees" with the BCTF's position on Bully: The Scholarship Edition, but the issue of regulating the industry is still under discussion.

"The dangers are known to all. I think it's a question of jurisdiction," he said, adding it's not clear if regulations would fall under provincial or federal government mandates.

"The only thing it seems right now is to bring more awareness," he said, adding parents need to supervise the children's activities, including those on the Internet.

Bully: The Scholarship Edition was released by Rockstar, which also produces Grand Theft Auto.

Calls to Rockstar's Vancouver office were redirected to New York, and not returned by NOW deadlines.

From Burnabynow

From  Feb. 11, 2008

[U.S.] CDC: 1 in 4 Teen Girls Has Sexually Transmitted Infection

'We’re missing a tremendous opportunity to talk to them about the benefits of being abstinent until marriage.'

One in four teen girls in the U.S. has a sexually transmitted infection (STI), according to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That adds up to more than 3 million girls.

Among girls who admitted having had sex, the rate was 40 percent, The Associated Press reported. Human papilloma virus (HPV), which causes cervical cancer, is the most common STI in teen girls ages 14 to 19, the CDC found.

But the CDC conference in Chicago , where the study was released, ignored a key component, said Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family Action.

“With such high disease rates in teenagers, we’re just missing a tremendous opportunity to talk to them about the benefits of being abstinent until marriage," she told Family News in Focus. "This is the time to teach kids about personal accountability and abstinence education. As it looks from this conference, the CDC is not grabbing that opportunity and taking it."

Klepacki said not only is the abstinence-until-marriage message left out of the discussion at these conferences, the topic is often mocked by experts at the CDC. 

[Click here to read the whole article on  .]


Abortionist Morgentaler Not on Order of Canada List for 2008

By Hilary White

OTTAWA, February 20, 2008 ( - Earlier this month, reported that some Canadian abortion activists were stepping up efforts to have Dr. Morgentaler awarded Canada's highest civilian honour, the Order of Canada, for his years of advocacy for legalizing abortion and for the thousands of abortions that he personally has performed.

In a piece appearing in the Globe and Mail, several of Canada's most prominent abortion advocates proposed a public campaign to have Dr. Morgentaler awarded the Order of Canada. They said that the matter was especially urgent now that he is ill and not expected to live much longer. The prestigious award is not granted posthumously.

Cathie Colombo, Dr. Morgentaler's assistant, went so far as to say it is "blasphemy" that he has not yet received the award.

But today, a media release from the office of the Governor General, who is responsible for granting the award, showed that Dr. Morgentaler is not included on the list for this year.

More than any other single person, Dr. Henry Morgentaler is responsible for the current Canadian legal situation, in which there is no law restricting or regulating abortion. Morgentaler's decades of campaigning for abortion resulted in the criminal code statute prohibiting abortion being struck down by the Supreme Court in 1988. Since then Canada has been left in a state of lawlessness, in which abortion is effectively legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

Jakki Jeffs, the head of Guelph Area Right to Life Association, told today that she contacted the Governor General's office and was told that the office that oversees the Order of Canada "had a file" about Dr. Morgentaler and that he had been nominated several times. Jeffs pointed out that although this does not mean that Dr. Morgentaler will be granted the award next year, it is nevertheless important for pro-life Canadians to let their opinions be heard.

Pro-life organizations are not the only groups in Canada to have qualms about Dr. Morgentaler's work. In his testimony before the Professional Corporation of Physicians of Quebec, Morgentaler admitted to having committed at least 7,000 abortions himself. However, in a 1976 investigation into his work, that organization suspended Morgentaler's medical licence for a year, stressing that the reason was not only that abortion was illegal but that he had conducted the abortions.

Morgentaler was cited "for not holding a valid interview before the abortion, for failing almost completely to gather a case history of his client, for failing to perform the necessary pregnancy test or blood test, for not obtaining pathological examination of the 'tissues' removed and for failing to follow up the state of health of his patients afterward."

The panel also declared that Morgentaler's behaviour reflected "an attitude which is primarily directed to protecting his fees." Morgentaler currently operates six private for-profit facilities across Canada. In 2002 the paper Le Droit revealed his gross annual revenue to be $11 million from his abortion practices.

The 1976 ruling from the disciplinary medical board said his practice was one which "confers a mercenary character on the doctor-patient relationship," and said it was "incapable of reconciling [Morgentaler's] behaviour with the humanitarian concern that [he] invoked throughout his defence."

The Order of Canada, given on behalf of the Crown by the Queen's representative, the Governor General, is intended to recognize Canadians who have made lifelong commitments to bettering Canadian society. This year, the new members include Al Davidson, who worked promoting nature conservation, Flora Dell, who worked to improve the health of older Canadians, and Terrence Gillespie, who dedicated his career to improving the health and well-being of children suffering from cystic fibrosis.

In June, 2005 the University of Western Ontario conferred an honorary Doctor of Laws degree upon Morgentaler in the midst of protests by students and others. 12,000 signatures were acquired on a petition asking the UWO to reverse its decision.

To Contact the offices overseeing the Order of Canada:
The Governor General of Canada
Attention: The Chancellery of Honours
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A1

Phone: (613) 993-8200
or toll-free in Canada and the United States at:
1 800 465-6890
Fax: (613) 998-8760



Jean Chretien to Receive Order of Canada for His "Legacy" - "Same-Sex Unions"

By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, February 20, 2008 ( - It seems playing a key role in legalizing homosexual 'marriage,' over the objections of a majority of Canadians, is one way to get named to the Order of Canada, Canada's most prestigious award.

Governor General Michaëlle Jean will give the nation's highest honor for 'lifetime achievement' to former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, making him a Companion of the Order, on Friday February 22. The notice that was sent out by the Governor General's office, noting the award recipients and their major contributions to Canada, cited Chretien's "legacy" of homosexual unions.

"His government's legacy includes a number of social reform and humanitarian initiatives, such as recognition of same-sex unions and the abolition of landmines," said the citation. Chretien supported same-sex 'marriage.' However, he was replaced as Prime Minister by Paul Martin prior to the issue coming to a final vote in the House of Commons.

That the honor is being given to Chretien, and that his support for homosexuality has been singled out as one of the prime reasons for his receiving the award, should not come as a surprise to Canadians. Governor General Jean, who made her first affront to family values when, during her induction in 2005, refused to swear on the Bible, awarded same-sex 'marriage' pioneer Rev. Brent Hawkes with the Order of Canada last year.

Hawkes' claim to national fame is also his homosexual 'marriage' activism. In 2001 Hawkes illegally "married" a lesbian couple in his Toronto church, and when the Canadian government would not recognize the "marriage" as valid, he took the government to court. Subsequently, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recognized the "marriage" as legal, beginning a process of judicial activism that eventually culminated in the legalization of homosexual "marriage" by Canada's Parliament.

In an affidavit before the Supreme Court of Canada, Hawkes bashed a Vatican document on homosexual unions, and statements by Catholic bishops on the same, as "expressions of hatred that should not be tolerated in our society."

At the time the courts forced various provinces to permit homosexual 'marriage', and even later when Parliament voted to legalize it, polls regularly showed that a majority of Canadians were opposed to the redefinition of marriage. One such Canadian, who was personally affected by homosexual parenting, has spoken before numerous legislators about her experiences, warning of the dangers to children.

Dawn Stefanowicz, author of "Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting," told that Chretien does not deserve the Order of Canada, precisely because of his pushing of homosexual 'marriage' on the nation.

"Regrettably, Chretien will be known as the prime minister who socially deconstructed and redefined the family unit through the recognition of same-sex unions," she said. "Against the better expressed judgment of many Canadians, Chretien chose to pander to some special interest groups in the name of equality. As an adult survivor who grew up with a father who had numerous homosexual liaisons and involvements in the subcultures in North American cities, I know the incredible pain and longsuffering I endured. As well, there are many adult survivors who have contacted me sharing similar concerns and challenges."

Stefanowicz concluded, "Unequivocally, children will always have their best outcomes and opportunities when they are raised in married father-mother-headed families where gender is defined as male and female."

Dawn can be contacted at:
Or you can order her book at:
Or call 1-877-421-READ (7323)

To express concerns:

Conservative Leader
Prime Minister Stephen Harper



From:   February 14, 2008

Private member's bill would protect unborn crime victims


OTTAWA - Conservative MP Ken Epp is seeking support for a private member's bill that would recognize the unborn as separate victims when their mothers are killed or harmed in an attack.

Epp says the Unborn Victims of Crime Act has nothing to do with abortion but is meant to fill a major gap in the law.

But critics say that's a backdoor effort to reopen the abortion debate by sneaking a recognition of fetal rights into Canadian law.

Epp cited several cases where the killers of pregnant women were charged for the mother's murder - but not for the death of her fetus.

That's because the law does not recognize the unborn as human beings until they are born alive.

Epp says his proposed act is supported by people of all political stripes because it narrowly focuses on cases where a third party harms or kills a fetus in a criminal attack.

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.


He said the bill is constitutional and would not change the Criminal Code in any way that might undermine a woman's legal access to abortion.

A spokeswoman for the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada vehemently disagrees. Spokeswoman Joyce Arthur says the bill has been promoted by right-to-life groups, and that it would create redundant protections. Judges and parole boards can already take into account whether a convict has injured or killed an unborn child, she said.

The bill is to be voted on March 5, but would be derailed if an early election is called



Fire the censors

As ‘human rights’ tribunals act like thought police, there is a simple solution:
Change our human rights statutes


The free-speech controversies currently swirling around Maclean’s magazine and Alberta journalist Ezra Levant ultimately can be attributed to one thing: the legislation that allows Canada’s human rights commissions to act as censors. Amend the various human rights acts blanketing the country and the problem vanishes.

Disturbingly, however, the issue does not seem to be on any government’s radar, either in provincial capitals or on Parliament Hill.

The background to the cases in question is fairly well known by now. Maclean’s and its writer, Mark Steyn, are the subjects of complaints filed at the Canadian, Ontario and B.C. human rights commissions by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC). The CIC is claiming that Steyn’s writings about Muslims’ high birth rate “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.” Levant, my former employer at the now-defunct Western Standard, was taken to the Alberta Human Rights Commission by complainants upset with the magazine’s publishing of the notorious Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.

What is legally significant here is that each commission is governed by its own unique human rights act, and that those acts appear to give the commissions varying degrees of power to censor journalists who might have offended some of their readers. Of the above-named jurisdictions, B.C.’s legislation appears to pose the greatest threat to free speech; Ontario’s the least.

Section 7 of B.C.’s human rights act makes it an offence for any person to publish “any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation” that so much as “indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate” against a protected group, or “is likely to expose a person or group or class of persons to hatred or contempt.” No actual discrimination or hatred has to occur for an offence to occur. And, as pointed out on these pages over the past few weeks, truth is not a defence.

Alberta’s law is similar to B.C.’s, but adds an important caveat: “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.” This would seem to give Levant, for example, the ability to trump his critics. But the fact is that last November, in a case involving a Christian pastor who was critical of homosexuality, human rights panel chair Lori Andreachuk ignored this protection and went so far as to rule that even the right of free speech enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “does not trump the protection afforded [homosexuals] under the Alberta human rights legislation.”

The human rights act of the last of the three provinces in question, Ontario, contains no provisions similar to B.C. and Alberta’s limitations of speech rights.

Section 12 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, on the other hand, makes it unlawful to publish or display “any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or (b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate.”

Furthermore, Section 13 makes it an offence for anyone “to communicate telephonically [a definition that includes the internet] … any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”

Human rights proponents have argued that such restrictions are necessary to protect minorities from language that will lead to their being discriminated against or subjected to hatred and violence. But, as Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, famously observed last year, censoring otherwise free speech was never the intention of activists, like himself, who helped bring human rights laws into being in the first place.

This may be true in most cases, but in my home province, for example, the B.C. act’s infamous Section 7 was specifically enacted in 1993 by the NDP government of the day to gag cantankerous right-wing columnist Doug Collins (since deceased). In 1998, the NDP considered broadening the act even further at the urging of the pro-choice lobby, which tried to persuade then-attorney-general Ujjal Dosanjh to criminalize criticism of abortionists.

Although the episode was virtually ignored by the mainstream media of the day, I remember it quite well because of the growing threat it posed to free speech. I especially recall that, in writing about the prochoicers’ demands, I interviewed an erudite and eloquent public-policy expert who spoke passionately about this threat.

“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” the man said. “It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this very scary stuff.”

That person was the president of the National Citizens Coalition, a politically astute fellow by the name of Stephen Harper, a man who, of course, has now gone on to much bigger and better things.

I don’t think it would be too much to ask of Mr. Harper now that he put his words into action, and move to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to eliminate the commission’s censorious powers. Perhaps such a move would inspire Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell to act similarly.

All three leaders should realize that their governments’ human rights laws are badly flawed, and that the longer they remain unamended, they are, in effect, acting as a barrier separating all citizens from their fundamental right to free speech.

In this light then, we should all exclaim: “Mr. Harper, Mr. Stelmach and Mr. Campbell: Tear down this wall!”

Terry O’Neill is a Vancouver editor and writer.




Drug-resistant staph passed in gay sex -US study

Reuters online, Mon Jan 14, 2008

By Amanda Beck

SAN FRANCISCO, Jan 14 (Reuters) - A drug-resistant strain of potentially deadly bacteria has moved beyond the borders of U.S. hospitals and is being transmitted among gay men during sex, researchers said on Monday.

They said methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is beginning to appear outside hospitals in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles.

Sexually active gay men in San Francisco are 13 times more likely to be infected than their heterosexual neighbors, the researchers reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

[Click here to read the whole article at Reuters online.]

Senior at centre of life-support battle improving

But Grace still seeking the right to pull plug

Sat Jan 12 2008

By Kevin Rollason

TWO weeks after Samuel Golubchuk's family went to court to stop doctors from pulling him off life support last month because he had minimal brain activity, he showed signs he was improving neurologically.

A week later, while doctors still argued to disconnect his ventilator and pull out his feeding tube, the 84-year-old Golubchuk was seen by medical staff to be "awake".


But on Friday in court, more than a month after the battle to keep him alive began, lawyers for the family and doctors were continuing to argue because the physicians say they still need to have control over deciding when to pull the plug.

After court, the family's lawyer, Neil Kravetsky, said Golubchuk is alive today only because of the court's intervention.

"He would be dead if the injunction had been off," Kravetsky said.


"What does awake mean to you?"

But lawyer Bill Olson, who represents Grace hospital, said even if Golubchuk has improved, he still isn't as well as he was when he entered the hospital's intensive care unit and his prognosis continues to be dim.

Olson said even if the judge gives the doctors the green light to pull the plug, it might not happen because the doctors would re-evaluate Golubchuk's medical status to see if the action is still warranted.

"All the court is ruling on is who has the right to make the judgment," he said.

Olson said the medical system would bog down if final life decisions were taken from the hands of doctors and given to the courts.

At the end of the hearing on Friday, Justice Perry Schulman of Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench said he would either render a decision on the matter or give the lawyers "directions" sometime next week.

Golubchuk suffered a brain injury in June 2003 when he fell, but he could still communicate and understand.

He was living at Deer Lodge Centre, but was admitted to Grace in October for pneumonia and pulmonary hypertension.

But after Golubchuk's health continued to go downhill and doctors believed his situation to be hopeless, they told the family they were going to take him off life support on Nov. 30 of last year.


Schulman, who began hearing the precedent-setting civil case last month, is being asked to rule on whether Grace doctors have the right to take Golubchuk off life support against the wishes of his family.

Golubchuk's family has been arguing the doctors would be violating his Orthodox Jewish religious beliefs and committing a sin if they hasten his death.


A News Release Regarding a New Website:

[We are happy to pass on this news release.]

Canada without abortion. By choice.

For immediate release

January 14, 2008 (Ottawa)— Today marks the launch of Canada’s first pro-woman pro-life group, ProWomanProLife, which can be found online at

ProWomanProLife celebrates women, life and freedom and is being launched to mark the Morgentaler decision of January 28, 1988, which removed all restrictions on abortion in Canada at any stage of a pregnancy.

The founding director of ProWomanProLife, Andrea Mrozek, says it is time women took a non-partisan, non-religious stand against the idea that abortion is good for women and furthermore, not just a choice, but a “right.” “We have no hidden agenda here but a very open one: To eradicate abortion in Canada, not by legislation or force, but because that is what women choose. Women should band together to remove abortion from our cultural landscape,” she says. Mrozek is joined by a board of five professional women: Brigitte Pellerin in Ottawa, Raji Shankar in Toronto, Rebecca Walberg in Winnipeg and Dr. Sheryl Alger and psychologist Teresa Fraser in Calgary.

Mrozek notes that abortion has become a pressing issue of freedom of speech. “Pro-lifers are told what they can and can’t say in politics, and pro-life clubs are currently being banned on our university campuses. No Canadian should be comfortable with this suppression of dialogue, irrespective of how they feel about abortion,” Mrozek said.

To address the freedom of speech issue as well as the harm that abortion does to women, children and families, ProWomanProLife will blog with abandon. Our long-term goal is to become a charity that offers women better choices. But the first step is to raise our voices against the conventional, harmful wisdom that a willingness to kill her unborn child liberates a woman.


For further information please contact founding director Andrea Mrozek at

         613-875-5888 or at is the grassroots endeavor of the founding board, is not affiliated with any other organization and depends entirely on donations of time and money from individuals.



From :

Catholic Insight under 'human rights' attack
By Staff

Hardcopy Issue Date: January 2008
Online Publication Date: Dec 18, 2007, 12:24

Catholic Insight has joined a range of Canadian publications, groups and individuals who have become targets of human rights-based legal attacks recently.

In February 2007, Rob Wells, a member of the Pride Centre of Edmonton, filed a nine-point complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that C.I. has targeted homosexuals as being a powerful menace, made negative generalizations about them, portrayed them as preying upon children, blamed them for problems in society and the world, portrayed them as dangerous or violent by nature, conveyed the idea that they are devoid of any redeeming qualities and are innately evil, used inflammatory and derogatory language to create a tone of “extreme hatred and contempt,” trivialized or celebrated past persecution or tragedy involving them and called for action to be taken against them.

Wells’s complaint consists of three pages of isolated and fragmentary extracts from articles dating back as far as 1994, without any context. C.I. counters that these isolated quotes are not meaningful without the contexts of the articles themselves from which they were culled; in fact, most of them are even out of context from the sentences from which they were taken.

C.I. regards all of these charges as unfounded and made with the intent to harass. It intends to defend itself vigorously should the CHRC proceed. The magazine has continually emphasized that, with the respect to homosexual activity, it follows the guidance of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has made clear that persons with same-sex attraction must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity and that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

At the same time, however, the magazine notes the Catechism declares homosexual acts are ones of grave depravity and intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law, close the sexual act to the gift of life, do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity and cannot be approved under any circumstances.

From its beginning in 1993, the magazine has traced and exposed homosexual activists for their attacks against Christians defending the traditional order in law and society and their use of derogatory language against all who stand in their way. Many of C.I.’s articles have quoted homosexual activists, such as the former Burnaby, B.C. MP Svend Robinson, who was known to denounce opponents as “bigots,” “homophobes” and “hatemongers.” The magazine has never replied in kind, but rather has adhered to the maxim, “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.”
[Click here to read the rest of the ariticle on the Catholic Insite website.]


Biased Abstinence Ed Report Draws Criticism

 [From CitizenLink   Nov. 9, 2007

Author works for company that produced condom-based sex ed curricula.

Abstinence educators are crying foul over a report that claims their programs do not delay the initiation of sex, hasten the return to abstinence or reduce the number of sexual partners among teens.

Douglas Kirby, author of the study, is a staff member of ETR, a company that specializes in condom-based sex education curricula.

Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said that alone should cast doubt on the validity of the research.  

 . . . .

Klepacki [also] said that the biased study used a small sample of abstinence programs to make broad conclusions. And she added that it's certainly no accident the report was released just as Congress considered how much funding it will give to abstinence education.

“And then these reports are reported as fact in our liberal media.”

[Click here to read the whole of the above article on the CitizenLink web page.]




(an excerpt from a "Plugged In"  Online review)

The name Bella means beautiful. And it's a word that does not in any way apply to Jose or his life when we first meet him. Scruffy and forlorn, Jose hasn't been the same since a tragic accident ended his promising soccer career. Now he's the head chef at his brother's fancy restaurant.

People worry about Jose.

Working at that same restaurant is a young, unmarried woman named Nina who does not want to be pregnant. But she is. And her morning sickness and late arrivals get her fired.

No one worries about Nina—except Jose.

Jose is drawn to the troubled woman and offers his help. She's suspicious of his intentions at first, but her situation and his quiet persistence motivate her to accept the proffered friendship. Still, she brushes off his gentle encouragement to let her baby live. Nina has come to the conclusion that if her life is ever going to be normal again she must abort her little girl.

This artistically low-key yet emotionally complex and compelling story focuses on two friends—one damaged by the past and the other afraid of the future—who help each other make a pair of life-changing choices.

[To read the whole "Plugged In" review, click here.]

Social conservatives move on to next marriage debate
By Jennifer Ditchburn, THE CANADIAN PRESS OTTAWA -


 Nearly a year after Parliament shelved the same-sex marriage debate, Canada's socially conservative thinkers are shifting gears and pushing government to promote and support the traditional family unit. There was nary a mention of same-sex marriage at a policy conference Thursday of the Institute for Marriage and Family Canada. Instead, speakers that included economists and writers emphasized the benefits of marriage to the social fabric and the economy. With Prime Minister Stephen Harper announcing a $13.5-billion surplus would ultimately translate into tax reductions, the notion of income-splitting was a popular topic.


Right now married Canadians are taxed as individuals, but allowing them to split the total family income would be especially advantageous in situations where one spouse stays at home. "If we have high taxation, people also appear to have fewer children," said David Quist, executive director of the institute. "The two go hand in glove and that's a large part of what today is, to talk about strong family and strong society. If we have a weak family, we will in turn have a weak society as well." Said Douglas Cryer of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada: "There's things to consider, such as income splitting and other measures the government can do to strengthen marriage. Ultimately, it's a cultural as well as a government issue. We can't ask government to solve the problem of marriage. All of us need to work on it together."


Most alarming to many participants was a Statistics Canada study released earlier this month that suggested fewer Canadians are getting married and more are in common-law relationships. Still, a married couple remained at the centre of 70% of families.


American economist Jennifer Roback Morse, a research fellow at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, said her own research has shown that marriage is a much healthier proposition than co-habitation. She said women and their children who lived with boyfriends were more likely to face violence. She too suggested legislators should be encouraging marriage through their policies and regulations. "They should be looking at not treating cohabitation as equivalent to marriage," said Roback Morse. "Living together for one year is not equivalent to marriage, and it's not good policy to say it is. Taxing people as individuals is a mistake, it's better to treat marriage as a real functioning unit."


All speakers emphasized the welfare of children as central to supporting traditional marriages. Fellow economist Doug Allen, of Simon Fraser University, suggested the government could help by revising its position on child support. He argued the guidelines for payments result in some custodial parents - mostly women - getting too much money. He said the system acted as an incentive to divorce for some. "For me the main goal is to have a greater proportion of children living with two married parents,"

said Allen.


But is the Conservative government listening? Income splitting is still being actively discussed in Harper's circles, and modest steps were taken in the last budget to remove any unequal treatment between singles and married couples. His government did away with the concept of a national child-care program, but introduced a $100 per month taxable payment for every child a family has under the age of 6. Jason Kenney, one of the party's leading social conservatives and secretary of state for multiculturalism, attended most of Thursday's conference. Quist is optimistic the message is getting through. "The family advocates are having the best hearing that they've had with this government for many, many years...," Quist said. "I find that encouraging. There are people who are willing to listen to some of the discussions that are going on today or similar discussions in the public sphere.


CitizenLink, September 27, 2007: 

[U.S.]  Senate Passes Dangerous Hate-Crimes Amendment

Democrats don't have enough votes to override a promised veto.

Democrats passed a hate-crimes measure today, but failed to collect enough votes to override a pledged presidential veto.
The amendment, which would create a new federal class of crime based on "actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity," is attached to a Defense spending bill.

Five Republican senators who voted in favor of hate-crimes legislation in 2004 switched their votes today and opposed the measure. They are: Sens. Lamar Alexander, Tenn.; Robert Bennett, Utah; John Ensign, Nev.; and Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens, both of Alaska.
 [Read the rest of this article on CitizenLink.]



Not So Miraculous

TV commercials plug it, the FDA approved it, news highlights tout it, but there are serious concerns about the new vaccine Gardasil® from Merck. Medical Accountability Network Executive Director Dr. Moira Dolan has reviewed the information made generally available to physicians and outlines here the essential components of informed consent for what is being billed as a miracle anti-cancer vaccine. [The following are some quotations from her article.]

"Gardasil® vaccine is Merck's first big drug development since the Vioxx® disaster. The basis for many Vioxx® lawsuits is that Merck withheld information that clearly showed the dangers of the drug. The company's record does not inspire trust.

"The Vioxx® situation revealed a more treacherous problem existing within the FDA itself. FDA insiders exposed how the agency deliberately ignored abundant test information showing that Vioxx® was dangerous to cardiac patients. The systemic failure of the FDA to weigh the risks and protect the public without undue influence of the manufacturers was brought to light by Vioxx® but it has not yet led to any meaningful changes at the agency. In spite of thousands of Vioxx® product liability suits still unresolved, Gardasil® has gotten fast track FDA approval, soon to be followed by Glaxo's Cervarix®."

"Does the vaccine work?
Who studied the vaccine in humans?
It is a crucial part of full informed consent to let patients know that all human studies submitted to the FDA were done by or financed by the drug manufacturers. It cannot be brushed aside that these studies have limited to no independent scientific review. In fact, it takes a formal Freedom Of Information Act request to obtain the exact study reports and statistical analyses that the drug manufacturer gave to the FDA.

"What is the effect of the vaccine on HPV infection?

  • In the general population the Merck vaccine prevented genital warts that were due to vaccine-type strains.
  • The vaccine prevented human papillomavirus infection with four HPV subtypes in people who weren't already infected with these types.
  • The vaccine did not prevent infection with the HPV types that are not contained in the vaccine.
  • HPV disease due to one of the many subtypes NOT included in the vaccine still occurred. Vaccinated subjects got infected with non-vaccine HPV types at the same rate as non-vaccinated subjects.
  • In subjects who were already infected with a particular vaccine virus type, the vaccine did not prevent disease due to that type, but it did prevent new disease caused by the other vaccine subtypes.
  • The studies that the drug maker gave to the FDA did not tell if condom use was tracked; this is very important missing data, since condoms alone are responsible for a 70% reduction in all types of HPV. The vaccine gives 100% protection against four HPV types and no protection against other HPV types, whereas condoms give 70% protection against all HPV types.

"What is the effect of the vaccine on cervical cancer?
Since HPV is found in connection with most cervical cancers, the theory was that a vaccine against HPV would prevent cervical cancer. However the vaccine studies couldn't demonstrate this, simply because there were no cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group or in the group that got dummy shots. So they used a substitute measure (a 'surrogate marker') for cancer. They compared abnormal pre-cancerous Pap results in people who were vaccinated versus not vaccinated.

"The vaccine is nearly 100% effective in preventing four types of HPV infection. Two of the four subtypes included in the vaccine are currently responsible for 70% of cervical cancer. So we would expect a 70% reduction in precancerous Pap results, right?    However pre-cancerous Paps only went down by 12% to 45%, depending on which population was studied."

"Is the HPV vaccine safe?
Can the HPV vaccine actually make infection worse?
The study showed an increase in pre-cancer related to the vaccine types in the people who already had these infections before they got the vaccine. It is possible that when infected girls whose immune systems have not cleared the virus from their bodies are vaccinated, the vaccine may lead to an increased number of cases of a pre-"you get the vaccine.

"How does the HPV vaccine affect fertility? Birth defects? Risk of cancers? Breast milk?
Five subjects who got the Merck vaccine around the time of conception had babies with birth defects, whereas no birth defects occurred in this time period in the subjects who got dummy shots. The manufacturer also specifies that the vaccine has not been tested to see whether it could cause cancer. It is not known if the vaccine virus-like proteins or the antibodies pass into the breast milk. Merck says that it should not be given to pregnant women.

"The longest portion of the study only lasted just under four years. Thus there is no long term data on how it affects the ability to become pregnant (fertility)."

"Who would benefit from the vaccine?
If you have risk factors for HPV infection such as multiple sex partners and no condom use, and you are not already infected by one or more of the subtypes targeted by the vaccine, this vaccine protects you from HPV infection by the four subtypes, but not non-vaccine HPV types.
If you have cervical cancer risk factors such as nutritional deficiencies, multiple sex partners or smoking, the vaccine prevents some episodes of growth of pre-cancerous cells and it may prevent cancer. The vaccine is 12.2% to 16.5% effective in the general population in reducing pre-cancer Pap results. The vaccine is 45% effective over the short term in girls who have never had any of the vaccine-type HPV infections.
The long term safety and effectiveness of Gardasil® is unknown. Effects on causing cancer, infertility, gene mutations, birth defects and effects in breast milk have not been adequately studied in humans.

Click here to access the whole article on the "Medical Accountability Network."

GSAs: not as innocent as they may seem

Gay Straight Alliance promotes sex-toy workshop for youth.

untabi[From the California Catholic Daily online, June 25, 2007]

The Gay Straight Alliance, which has clubs for homosexual and lesbian students on college, high school, and, now middle school campuses, this month promoted a “Pleasure Physiology and Sex Toys” workshop in its internet publication, GSA Network News.

The workshop, hosted by the San Francisco-based Center for Sex and Culture, was scheduled for June 14 at the Pacific Center in Berkeley. The Center, said the News, “will encourage your personal sexual exploration in this fun, informative workshop. Join us for a discussion on pleasure physiology and sexual response, and learn how to choose and use sex toys safely.”

The workshop, the News, “is for youth 14 and over,” but those “under 18 need permission from a parent/guardian to attend.” Further, “this event is also free free free @ the Pacific Center,” said the News, “so come on down and invite a friend won't cha.”

The Center for Sex and Culture says its mission is “to provide non-judgmental, sex-positive sexuality education and support to diverse populations.” The Center says it is “not the only organization trying to effect sex-positive cultural change,” but, unlike other organizations that do “sexuality education,” the Center wants “to make ourselves available to the widest range of people we can, with classes that run the gamut from informational to experiential.”  . . . .
[Click here to read the whole article in the California Catholic Daily online.]

"Thousands cheer gay pride parade"
[But see Michael Corren's article immediately below.]


Jun 24, 2007 07:01 PM
Canadian Press
[Note the enthusiasm expressed by the writer in this article.]

Thousands of people lined downtown Toronto's streets Sunday afternoon to enjoy the city's Pride Parade, Canada's largest gay pride celebration.

. . . .
Mexican tourist Nancy Figueroa, on a visit to Canada with her husband and daughter, said there were no parades like this where she is from and praised Canada's open-mindedness.

"It's good for the people to express themselves, what their preferences are," Figueroa said of the parade.

Figueroa had brought her daughter to the event in order to expose her to gay culture.

"(She) won't see something like this as something forbidden, or as something that is not right," she said. "Hopefully in the future, (she) will see this like something normal."

Several politicians also joined in the march, including Toronto Mayor David Miller, Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory and Liberal MP Michael Ignatieff.  [boldface by editor of BCPTL website]

The event brings in an estimated $80 million to the local economy.



Toronto Sun  online
June 30, 2007

Playing fast, loose

Now that the downmarket bacchanalia of the Gay Pride parade in Canada's largest city has ended we really should pose some of the serious questions that mainstream media seemed terrified to ask last week. Questions that apply to any such event in Canada or elsewhere in the world.
First is the basic issue of truth. The media constantly claimed that at least a million people attended the Toronto event. Which would indicate enormous approval of and support for homosexuality. The million myth was given again and again until it became, as it were, a self-evident truth.
Problem is, it's almost impossible to accept. The average person takes up two square feet of space, meaning that the parade last weekend would have extended for at least 20 km. This is only if both sides of the street were packed solid.
In fact there was plenty of space between the onlookers and the event took up perhaps two km. There may have been 250,000 people present, maybe more or maybe less. But anyone who has seen a photograph of a million strong crowd knows that such a mass of humanity could never fit into the core of a city.

. . . .

The police have a sophisticated grid system that indicates the size of a crowd. Odd, then, that they have said nothing when we hear of the magic million. Just as odd as their failure to arrest people over the years who take off their clothes during the Pride march.

There is ample photographic evidence of the nudity and of officers standing by, grinning and doing nothing. For a community that claims only to want equality, one wonders why the law does not apply to all when it is broken.
Which bring us to question of whether it is abusive to take a small child to a parade where a significant minority of people are semi-naked, simulate sexual activity, bump and grind and even whip each other for some bizarre form of titillation.
There were many parents who took their small children to Gay Pride. Yet if, for example, a parent sat a five or six-year-old down in front of a television and showed a DVD of people pretending to have sex and taking their clothes off, would we regard them as loving and responsible moms and dads or would we call the Children's Aid Society?

Taking vulnerable and powerless little children to Pride, however, has become a badge for those who boast how progressive they are. Proving that broad-minded often means empty-headed.


Gay men and women deserve respect and dignity and have the same right to march as any other group. Difficult to see what was dignified about what went on a few days ago and hard to understand why so many people are so reluctant to state the obvious.

[Click here to read the whole article in the Toronto Sun online.]



[U.S.] Senate passes stem-cell funding bill

CNN, April 11, 2007

Story Highlights

• 63 votes in favor will not be enough to override promised veto
• Bush resists funding research that destroys living human embryos
• Stem cells hold promise for treatment of variety of conditions

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate approved a measure that would roll back President Bush's 2001 limits on embryonic stem-cell research Wednesday afternoon, but the margin was short of the two-thirds needed to override a promised veto.

Bush used the only veto of his presidency to date to kill a 2006 effort to loosen his policy on stem-cell research, which bars the use of federal funding for work that would destroy human embryos.

In a statement issued after Wednesday's 63-34 vote, he said he would veto the new bill as well, saying it "crosses a moral line that I and many others find troubling."

"I believe this will encourage taxpayer money to be spent on the destruction or endangerment of living human embryos -- raising serious moral concerns for millions of Americans," he said.

But the president said he would sign a Republican alternative that would encourage other forms of stem-cell research without changing his 2001 policy. That measure passed by a 70-28 vote.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Republican bill was aimed at providing "cover" for lawmakers who wanted to vote against a popular issue.

"Americans, by a huge majority, favor stem-cell research because they see the suffering of their own friends and relatives and neighbors. ... They put their faith in science," said Reid, D-Nevada.

The measure passed Wednesday would allow researchers to obtain stem cells from embryos created for in vitro fertilization that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics. The House of Representatives passed a similar bill in January, but it also fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

One of the Senate bill's principal sponsors, Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin, said the bill had the support of three senators who did not vote Wednesday, meaning supporters were just one vote shy of the 67 needed to override a veto.

[Click here to read the whole story on CNN online.]


Telus Drops Porn Service After Complaints Onslaught

By Gudrun Schultz

VANCOUVER, B.C., February 21, 2007 ( - Telus announced yesterday the company would cancel pornography sales through its cellular phone service, CanWest News Service reported earlier today, after losing contracts and receiving hundreds of customer complaints.

Jim Johannsson, director of media relations for Telus, said the volume of individual complaints played a significant role in the company's decision to withdraw the service.

Beginning in January, adult customers were offered a porn delivery service that allowed them to download images or video clips for $3 or $4 dollars each. Several thousand users had registered for the service, according to Johannsson.

Numerous readers issued complaints to Telus via the contact information provided by this news service.

Archbishop Raymond Roussin, of the Vancouver Catholic archdiocese, actively opposed the Telus program by directing nearly 130 Catholic parishes and schools to cancel their contracts with Telus Mobility. The B.C. Catholic newspaper, published weekly by the archdiocese, included a 12-page special section covering the issue in this week's edition. A front page editorial criticizes Telus for "hitching its financial future to the abuse-ridden and pain-filled pornography industry."

In a statement issued Tuesday, Archbishop Raymond Roussin said he was "pleased and grateful that Telus is amending its decision. This is for the greater good of the community as a whole and I'm glad Telus is recognizing it," the Archbishop said.

Telus officials had defended the company decision to offer what it referred to as "adult content" by pointing out that most cell phones are capable of accessing the Internet, allowing users to download hard-core pornographic material at will. The Telus service limited images to full or partial nudity and avoided more explicit content.

Archbishop Roussin said last week that Telus' defense was "inadequate."

"So pervasive is the problem of pornography in our society today and so lucrative are the profits from this segment of the industry, that mobile phone providers are willing to take substantial risks in terms of their image."

"They do so by turning a blind eye to the enormous and widespread problems resulting from pornography: the abuse of countless vulnerable persons - including children, women, and men - who view pornographic material, those who are portrayed in sexually explicit material, and those who suffer from the behavior of their loved ones."

Johannsson told CanWest the company had "taken to heart" the concerns expressed by customers. "(Providing adult content) is not a business our customers want us to be in."

"Some of our corporate customers, too, have called to try and understand the direction we were going," Johannsson said.

Gordon Keast, who runs a communications company in Surrey, B.C., is suing Telus over the company's refusal to cancel his three-year cellphone contract, after he objected to the new pornography service, CanWest reported.

"At the time I renewed my contract with Telus in November they didn't market and sell pornography. Now they do, and as a subscriber I don't want my fees to underwrite their pornography business," said Keast. He filed suit yesterday in small claims court, seeking $3,000 for alleged breach of contract.

"Consumers have the power to shape the marketplace," Archbishop Roussin said, in his directive to churches and schools. "I strongly urge you to use your influence to protect our society from the destructive effects of the proliferation of pornography."

See coverage by The B.C. Catholic:   April 5, 2007
[in the U.S.A.]

Appeals Court Rebuffs ACLU; Boy Scout Jamboree Will Go On

by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

Challengers claimed military aid for event was unconstitutional.

 The 2010 National Scout Jamboree is moving "full-speed ahead."

A three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that plaintiff taxpayers from Chicago — represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — had no standing in a case that accuses the military of violating the U.S. Constitution by allowing the Boy Scouts of America to use its facilities.

The ACLU sued the Department of Defense in 1999 over its support of the National Scout Jamboree, because Scouting has a "duty to God" requirement.

"We are very gratified that the 7th Circuit found as it did that the ACLU had no standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place," said Bob Bork, spokesman for the Scouts. "This is very exciting news. It's full-speed ahead."

The Boy Scouts have held the National Scout Jamboree every four years at Fort A.P. Hill near Fredericksburg, Va. Seven presidents have attended the Jamboree, and an estimated 300,000 visitors attended in 2005, along with 43,000 Scouts and their leaders. The 2010 Jamboree will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America.

In another case — this one in San Diego — the 9th Circuit has ruled the ACLU and its plaintiffs have standing to sue the Scouts over use of a public park. The Scouts have asked the court to rehear their appeal. That case and the Jamboree case could reach the Supreme Court at the same time.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the 7th Circuit correctly rejected the notion that any taxpayer with a generalized grievance over the federal government's support of Scouting can use the federal courts as a personal veto tool.

"This national obsession by atheists, secularists and homosexual activists with the Boy Scouts over the years has been disgraceful," he said, "in light of the contributions that organization has made to our national life since its inception here in 1910."


Renfrew County Family Action Council  

2006 Ontario Report


     If nothing else, 2006 was the beginning of awareness, that parents, could no longer ‘sit on the fence’ with social issues in Ontario . As much as the provincial government and the media tried to make all social issues grey matter, the homosexual aggressiveness forced many parents to stand up and pay attention to issues like abortion, same sex marriage, secular evolution and their effect on our school children.

In Ontario we are especially burdened with a gay/abortion secular government and an ‘opposition’ PC party who shares the same platform. In addition we have a gay activist deputy premier who said he wants to remove any religion in schools, an openly lesbian education minister, a gay attorney general and a teachers union that is using homosexuals to further their cause against organized religion in the school system. It should be noted that less than 1% of the 52,754 full-time and 16,137 part-time elementary teachers in the Ont. Teachers Federation reported having a disability, was gay or lesbian or Aboriginal. Where is the voice of the other 99%?

In July/06, the BC Parents and Teachers for Life asked 3 simple questions;

  1. Is parental consent required, except in case of emergency, for health care for minors?

 2. Specifically, are minors subjected to abortions without any requirement for parental consent?

 3. To what extent are students subjected to pro-homosexuality propaganda in the schools, and if they are subjected to such propaganda, is this with
     the permission or connivance of the government?

 In August/06 the Renfrew County Family Action Council sent the questions to the public school administration and subsequently to our local MPP. Neither has given a definitive answer but we can be . . . sure they all know their salary and benefits to the penny.

We really don’t know the education system until we test it. We do know that these 3 matters leave our education system open to health risks, large litigation settlements and abuse by people who clearly have no mandate from the parents.

The Ontario public and separate school system is corrupt in structure where boards kow-tow to Toronto for funding, teachers kow-tow to greedy unions and a handful of secular beaurocrats, with a personal agenda, know how to milk the whole system. As long as they could keep interest and information away from the public , they were safe. That time has passed. Parents must take back our education system.


Ken O’Day, chairman,

Renfrew County Family Action Council

Eganville, Ont.                                                                      7-Jan-07
The questions given were sent out in the July, 2006, BCPTL E-Mail Bulletin  to our readers outside of British Columbia, with a request that we be informed of the answers for other provinces and territories.  Thanks to Ken O'Day for the information from Renfrew County Family Action Council.]


Stem Cells Discovered in Amniotic Fluid, Scientists Announce
Scott Norris
for National Geographic News

January 8, 2007

Stem cells have been discovered in amniotic fluid, the liquid that 
surrounds a fetus during pregnancy, scientists have announced. 

The cells appear to rival embryonic cells in their ability to give 
rise to all of the major tissue types present in the human body. 

Researchers at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North 
Carolina, used the amniotic stem cells to form bone, muscle, nerve, 
fat, blood vessel, and liver cells. 

The report by Anthony Atala and colleagues appears in yesterday's 
edition of the journal Nature Biotechnology

The finding raises new hope for advances in tissue repair and organ 
regeneration without the ethical objections that have surrounded 
embryonic stem cell research. 

Such objections arise because embryonic stem cells must be harvested 
from a fertilized human egg, which is destroyed in the process. 

In contrast, amniotic stem cells can be collected during a routine 
medical procedure that draws fluid from the womb without harming the 
developing fetus. The cells can also be taken from the placenta that 
is expelled after delivery. 

In a teleconference Friday, Atala said that while it is too soon to 
know their full therapeutic potential, the new stem cells have 
advantages over other stem cell types because they are so potent and 
fast growing. 

"I don't think these cells are going to replace [human embryonic 
stem cells], but they provide another choice and are more readily 
available," Atala said. 

Engineering Organs 
Amniotic fluid is known to be rich in fetal cells of various types, 
and physicians have already used some of these to clone "patches" of 
connective or muscle tissue for repairing certain birth defects. 

Atala said the cells his group isolated are unique in their ability 
to form a range of cell types, while also possessing characteristics 
of adult stem cells that generate only a single type. 

The researchers used special chemicals to coax the amniotic stem cells
to develop different specialized structures and functions. 

Cloned lines of the cells grew readily in the laboratory, with populations 
doubling every 36 hours.   
[Click here to read the whole article at National Geographic online.]

Landmark ruling allows children to have three parents

 Peter Brieger, CanWest News Service

Published: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 
[Saskatchewan StarPhoenix]


TORONTO -- Ontario's highest court has ruled a child can have three parents, in a landmark case experts say rewrites the definition of a family.

Calling it an "important and novel case," the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned an earlier judgment that denied a woman status as the legal guardian of a boy she has been raising with her female partner.

"This is the first time in Canada that three parents will be recognized on a birth certificate," said Karen Busby, University of Manitoba law professor. "That's clearly novel." The lesbian couple, a lawyer and university professor in London, Ont., had the child with the help of a longtime male friend.

The boy's biological father, who sees his son twice a week, donated his sperm to one woman, who gave birth to the now five-year-old child.

The biological mother and her female partner, who have been together since 1990, are the boy's full-time guardians. The female partner, known only as A.A., wanted to be recognized as a parent and was supported in a court application by the child's biological parents.

But Justice David Aston ruled three years ago the relevant legislation only contemplated a child having one mother and one father.

He also worried making the woman a parent might open the floodgates to similar claims from stepparents or members of a child's extended family.

However, he added the boy is "a bright, healthy, happy individual who is obviously thriving in a loving family that meets his every need." A.A. "has been a daily and consistent presence in his life," he added. "She is fully committed to a parental role." On Tuesday, the Appeal Court unanimously agreed it can fi ll a "legislative gap" in the Children's Law Reform Act, which protects the rights of children born out of wedlock.

Rather than excluding the rights of children from same-sex relationships on purpose, as Aston suggested, the 1970s-era reforms didn't contemplate a three-parent family, the court ruled Tuesday.

"The CLRA was progressive legislation, but it was a product of its time," the three-judge panel wrote. "The possibility of legally and socially recognized same-sex unions and the implications of advances in reproductive technology were not on the radar screen.

"The act does not deal with, nor contemplate, the disadvantages that a child born into a relationship of two mothers, two fathers or as in this case two mothers and one father might suffer." The court agreed children of same-sex parents can be ostracized, and deserve rights equal to their counterparts from heterosexual families.

 [Click here to read the whole of the story.]  


A Media Release from:

REAL Women of Canada


“Women’s Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights”



NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations


M E D I A    R E L E A S E



Decision of Ontario Court of Appeal to Allow 3 Parent Families



For Immediate Release

Ottawa, Ontario                                                                                                                                                                                                January 3, 2007


Judicial activism has again created confusion, disruption and division in Canada. This occurred in the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal to allow a child to have three legal parents consisting of two lesbian mothers and the natural father, the sperm donor.


The court claiming that this arrangement was in the child’s “best interests” changed the intent and the wording of the Ontario Children’s Law Reform Act without apparently bothering to take into consideration the wider implications of its decision. If a child can now have three parents, why not four or six? Children born into marriages or common law arrangements which end in divorce or separation, may now be subject to multiple parents, unrelated to them by blood or adoption, having legal claims over them, as the adults in his / her life enter into other relationships.


In short, children are now pawns in an adult game promoting adult interests and satisfactions, but not necessarily the best interests of children.


The truth is, the courts were never established to decide these far ranging controversial social issues since the courts can only decide cases on the narrow facts before them. Unlike Parliament, the courts do not have access to extensive research facilities, nor to all the social facts involved in the issue, nor can the courts make compromises often necessary in such issues.


An appointment to the bench does not necessarily mean the acquiring of wisdom or common sense. The courts, therefore, should defer these complex social issues to Parliament since judicial activism leads to confusion not only to the child involved, but also to the infrastructures in society put in place to protect children and others.




- 30 -


C. Gwendolyn Landolt                                                                          Diane Watts

National Vice President                                                                        Researcher

(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425                                                             (613) 236-4001

(905) 889-1993




Court ruling allowing 3 parents for boy raises concerns for custody battles


TORONTO (CP) - Gay rights organizations applauded Wednesday while an evangelical group questioned just how many parents one child can have following a landmark Appeal Court decision that allows an Ontario boy to have three parents.

Legal recognition that the five-year-old has two mothers and one father - which some say opens the possibility of nightmare custody battle scenarios - was hailed by Egale Canada as the courts simply catching up to the reality of Canadian society.

"This isn't the only couple that's had a baby with another person and wanted the three people to be equally involved in the child's upbringing," said Kaj Hasselriis, acting executive director of the Ottawa-based gay rights group.

The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision Tuesday to recognize the child's three parents simply shows that the "justice system is ahead of politicians on this issue," Hasselriis said.

"There is now legal recognition of relationships and families that already exist in Canada, and have existed across Canada for years."

The ruling - believed to be the first of its kind in Canada - revolves around a lesbian couple raising their son with the continued involvement of his biological father.

In 1999, the couple, one a university professor and the other a lawyer, asked the man, who is also a university professor, to help them start a family.

The female university professor became pregnant in 2000 and gave birth early the following year. The boy, who turns six next month, calls both women "mama."

Court documents state that the biological father brings his three other children to the women's home for weekly family dinners.

While the Appeal Court's decision was specific to the boy and his three parents, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada - which had intervener status in the case under the umbrella organization Alliance for Marriage and the Family - said the ruling will have a "definite ripple effect" throughout society.

"We have great concern about the future serious implications of the decision," said Don Hutchinson, legal counsel for the group.

"It raises questions that are unanswered, such as how many legal parents may a child now have?"

If the relationship between three or more parents breaks down, it would complicate custody hearings, he said.

Those concerns were shared by the judge who first heard and dismissed the case in 2003.

"If this application is granted, it seems to me the door is wide open to step-parents, extended family and others to claim parental status in less harmonious circumstances," Superior Court Justice David Aston wrote in his decision.

"If a child can have three parents, why not four, or six or a dozen," Aston wrote, adding that "the potential to create, or exacerbate, custody and access litigation should not be ignored."
[Click here to read the rest of the article.]

Same-Sex Marriage Setback in Massachusetts 
[for proponents of same-sex "marriage"]
[from The New Y
ork Times online Jan. 2, 2007]


"Published: January 3, 2007"

BOSTON, Jan. 2 — Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, took a first step toward possibly banning it Tuesday when legislators voted to advance a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

The amendment now requires the approval of at least 50 legislators in another vote in the 2007-8 session. Then it would be placed on the November 2008 ballot as a referendum question.

If it passed, the amendment would not invalidate the more than 8,000 same-sex marriages that have taken place since they became legal in May 2004. But it would prevent future marriages of gay men and lesbians.

“This is democracy in action,” said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which sponsored the amendment. “It’s giving people the opportunity to vote on the most essential institution in human existence — marriage.”

Arline Isaacson, co-chairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, choked back tears.

“The price that our children and families will pay is so severe that we simply have to recommit ourselves to fight this some more,” she said.

The swiftness of the vote on Tuesday surprised people on both sides of the issue, taking place without any debate, just minutes after the constitutional convention had been gaveled into session. Proponents of the amendment needed just 50 of the legislature’s 200 lawmakers to support it; the final vote was 61 in favor of the amendment and 132 opposed.

Later in the day, supporters of same-sex marriage persuaded lawmakers to reconsider the amendment, but the second vote, 62 to 134, only affirmed the results of the first.

National groups on both sides of the issue said they would commit resources to help advocates wage battle here. This past Election Day, the tide had seemed to be turning slightly in favor of supporters of same-sex marriage, with the defeat of an opposition amendment in Arizona and passage of seven others by slimmer margins than similar amendments in 2004.

Just two months ago, at an earlier constitutional convention, the legislature appeared to have essentially killed the proposal to allow a vote. During that session, legislators recessed without voting on the amendment, tabling it until Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session. Both sides said they expected that lawmakers would then vote to end the session without taking up the measure.

But last week, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court, which three years ago ruled that same-sex marriage should be legal, threw a wrench into things.

The court chided lawmakers for their maneuvers to avoid a vote on the amendment, saying the legislature had demonstrated “indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties.”

The court said it was not empowered to order the legislature to vote on the amendment, which petitioners, including Gov. Mitt Romney, had asked it to do. But the court’s criticism appeared to be enough to make some lawmakers, including some supporters of same-sex marriage, decide to allow a vote.

[Click here to read the whole New York Times article.]

Madrid Restaurant fined for refusing to host gay wedding reception
[From "Spain News:  Madrid

By h.b.
Fri, 29 Dec 2006, 08:13

The La Favorita restaurant in Madrid has been fined 12,000 € by the City Hall for refusing to serve a gay wedding party, according to the El Mundo newspaper today. The council considers that the establishment has committed a ‘serious infraction’ and been guilty of discrimination.

he owners have denied discrimination and say they will appeal the decision.
The fine imposed can range between 3,000 and 15,000 €.

"Healing the Culture was a Great Conference"

[from LifeCanada E-News, November, 2006] 

Almost 400 delegates attended the national pro-life conference in Vancouver , November 16 to 18, 2006.  Pro-lifers from all provinces and even the Yukon were inspired by the exceptional speakers from Life Principles who provided insights and practical tools for effectively Healing the Culture.  Fr. Robert Spitzer and Camille De Blasi Pauley addressed six plenary sessions in which they presented the Life Principles and showed us how to effectively apply them to our pro-life work so we can become effective agents of cultural change. 

Many representatives of pro-life groups purchased videos and books so anyone interested in learning more about Healing the Culture should contact their local pro-life group to see if they can borrow the resources.


 Speaker Fr. Robert Spitzer Addresses Morality of Bill C-338

 [from LifeCanada E-News, November, 2006] 

Fr. Robert Spitzer, president of Gonzaga University and founder of the Center for Life Principles, was asked to respond to a question from the floor at the national conference in Vancouver about whether pro-lifers should support Bill C-338, a private member’s bill introduced by Liberal MP Paul Steckle, which would ban abortions after 20-weeks gestation. He responded affirmatively. 

At a subsequent interview, he elaborated on his response. He said that the bill was a "perfect example" of the double effect principle, that is, that the good effect (saving some babies) outweighs the evil (including abortion in the law) and that the intent of the bill is to achieve the good effect. When asked whether pro-life people should support the bill, Father Spitzer said, "Morally you can't do otherwise." He added that the ethical principle of the lesser of two evils also applies. Although there is currently no law that says abortion is legal, there are over 105,000 abortions performed in Canada each year and most are fully or partially paid for by taxpayers. Fr. Spitzer said that any arguments which use St. Thomas Aquinas to oppose this law are misinterpreting the saint. 

LifeCanada has taken a public position in support of Bill C-338.  Even though this bill does not outlaw all abortions, it is definitely a step in the right direction.  Since it is not possible to ban all abortions at this time, we believe that Bill C-338 provides an incremental step towards our ultimate goal of protecting all human life from conception to natural death. 


Vancouver archbishop calls on the faithful to express their concerns about the Corren Settlement:
Deal threatens education rights, archbishop says

Vancouver Archbishop Raymond Roussin, SM, is concerned that a new B.C. government agreement with homosexual activists represents an unwarranted intrusion on the rights of parents to determine how their children are educated.

The archbishop, writing in this week’s B.C. Catholic, says the agreement to make public school course content more positive toward same-sex behaviour could lead to the introduction of inappropriate and morally objectionable material in the public school system and restrict the right of parents to determine whether their children are exposed to such material.

"This would be clearly contrary to the fundamental and non-negotiable right of parents to raise their family and educate their children," he wrote in the editorial page article. "The right of parents to determine how their children receive instruction on matters of faith and morals must be the primary consideration." . . . .

After a quiet summer during which it looked like the agreement could pass without controversy, growing numbers of individuals and groups are now speaking out as children prepare to return to their classrooms.

The largest protest was Saturday, Aug. 26, when close to 1,000 people rallied at Vancouver’s McBride Park to demonstrate and circulate a petition with more than 15,000 names on it which will be presented to the ministry.  . . .

The gathering heard from representatives of a number of organizations that are concerned about the agreement, including the Catholic Civil Rights League, B.C. Parents and Teachers for Life, REAL Women, the Canadian Family Action Coalition, and Concerned Parents of B.C. . . . .

In his column, the archbishop encourages the faithful to express their concerns to the government and insist that their right to oversee their children’s education be upheld.

He added the issue is not exclusively Catholic but one that "extends beyond our community and is worrisome for a broad range of faith groups, from other Christians to non-Christian groups." 

The archbishop concludes his letter by quoting Pope Benedict XVI, who recently said the right of parents to determine how their children are educated is "non-negotiable," including the right to remove their children from problematic course content.

[Click here for the whole article from The BC Catholic website.]


Who Will Write the Social Justice 12 Course?

Social justice is a most worthy subject for study.  But who will write the Social Justice 12 course which the British Columbia provincial government has promised in its settlement agreement with the Correns? It would appear that as things now stand it will be people chosen by the British Columbia Teachers' Federation, which has its own agenda already for the teaching of social justice.  Not only its own agenda for the goals and content of the course, but a definite "affirmative action" policy as to the makeup of such course-planning committees.  Note that in the BCTF advertisement below, applicants for positions on the curriculum writing team are invited to ". . . provide, on a voluntary basis, the information as to whether he/she is male or female, a person of colour, a First Nations person, or a person with a disability or gay/lesbian."

The text of the  BCTF advertisement (which may be viewed in its original format on the Internet) follows:

Social Justice 12 Curriculum writing team

The BC Ministry of Education is embarking on the development of a new Grade 12 elective course entitled Social Justice. The BCTF is seeking teachers who are interested in being a part of the writing team during the next two school years. The team will meet several times during the year (each meeting will be three to four days long). Some time may be required to develop or refine draft materials outside of scheduled meetings. The number of individuals required for the writing team is yet to be determined.

Writing team members will also have the opportunity to participate in the evaluation and selection of learning resources. The DRAFT course is planned to be piloted in 2007, with full implementation commencing September 2008.

The process for curricular document development has been tentatively planned as follows:
1. Begin development of the course based on a suggested DRAFT framework.
2. DRAFT course available for public review and response during fall/winter of the 2007–08 school year.
3. Possible review and evaluation of selected resources for piloting during the 2007–08 school year, i.e., to support piloting of the DRAFT course.
4. DRAFT to be piloted in selected schools/school districts during the 2007–08 school year.
5. Revise DRAFT course based on field and pilot responses.
6. Evaluate learning resources for the course.
7. FULL implementation in the 2008–09 school year.

Selection criteria
- must be an active BCTF member
- teaching experience and expertise in senior secondary Social Studies or other courses with a particular focus on social justice issues, civics, law, ethics, etc.
- expertise in issues, trends, initiatives, and teaching experience of areas related to social justice/social issues and to critical thinking (including traits/values of fairmindedness, empathy, etc.)
- knowledge of educational theories and instructional trends related to social justice
- knowledge of existing curricula related to social justice in British Columbia, other provinces, Canada, and elsewhere; as well as other resources, e.g., publications, articles, related to the teaching and instruction of social justice issues
- expertise in using and assessing senior courses, i.e., Prescribed Learning Outcomes (e.g., Civic Studies 11, Law 12, ethics or social issues course, etc.), to ensure student achievement. See website:
- free of any contractual affiliation with educational publishers
- representation of a range of teaching backgrounds, instructional styles, and philosophical approaches
- balance on committee==geographic, rural-urban, grade, gender, school size, etc.

Confidentiality and copyright
Writing team members must be free of any contractual affiliation with educational publishing companies. Team recommendations provide a valuable source of input for the ministry; they do not, however, establish policy. Materials produced by the team or by members of the team as a result of the team’s work are the property of the Ministry of Education and may not be used without permission of the ministry. Team members will be required to sign an undertaking of confidentiality and a conflict of interest form.

For further information, contact:
Anita Chapman
B.C. Teachers’ Federation
604-871-1845 or 1-800-663-9163, local 1845

Apply by completing a BCTF reps to ministry committee application form, available from your school staff rep or school PD rep, or by downloading it from the BCTF Web site: Fax 604-871-2286, or mail your application to Anita Chapman, BCTF PSI Division, at the address below. You may append a letter or résumé of no more than four pages if you wish.

Deadline for applications: Friday, September 29, 2006

Because the BCTF has an affirmative action policy, each applicant may wish to provide, on a voluntary basis, the information as to whether he/she is male or female, a person of colour, a First Nations person, or a person with a disability or gay/lesbian.

Distribution: Staff reps and school PD reps of all secondary schools, local presidents, EC, PSI Admin, PSAC, SJAC, Executive of the Social Studies, Peace and Global Education, Aboriginal Educators, and Educators Against Racism PSA.



Anti-homosexuality brochure held up at Canada Post

CBC News, October 26, 2006

Canada Post says a controversial religious brochure that condemns homosexuality will be delivered to hundreds of homes in East Vancouver, despite the objections of letter carriers.

The 28-page pamphlet is published by a fundamentalist Baptist group based in Ontario, and condemns homosexuality as ungodly, unhealthy and unnatural.

Vancouver mail sorter Andy Henderson was the first person at his postal station to notice the pamphlet and was shocked by what he read.
"The first words I saw when I picked it up were: 'The plague of this 21st Century: the consequences of the sin of homosexuality (AIDS).' "
He and the other postal employees say they consider it hate mail and have refused to handle it.
"You wouldn't be able to find one television station that would accept this ad mail as a 30-second advertising spot," said Henderson. "And yet Canada Post will take it. And their point is, 'If it's legal, we'll deliver it.' "
The man who sent the brochures, Rev. Sterling Clark of Waterdown, Ont., told CBC News he was "disappointed" with the postal workers and asserted he hadn't broken any laws.
Clark said he had a contract with Canada Post and regularly sends brochures to several Canadian cities.
Workers stage protest
Canada Post management told the workers on Wednesday that it's not in the business of censorship, and said the letters would be delivered.
That stance prompted about 60 postal workers at the Canada Post plant in downtown Vancouver to hold a short protest Thursday morning.
"So the employees walked out of this facility because most people are deeply offended by the nature of the literature," said union local president Ken Mooney.
He told CBC News that the workers have since returned to their jobs, waiting to see what management is going to do next.
"I'm now told they're not going to force us to handle this mail. So they've backed off a little bit. So we're just waiting to see how this plays out."
Brochures 'deemed appropriate'
Canada Post spokeswoman Colleen Frick says the company has a contract to deliver the brochure and it will do just that.
She notes that it was "deemed acceptable and appropriate for mailing under the Canada postal guide.
"The criteria is very specific. And if something is not deemed obscene in nature, then the item will be acceptable for mailing. And this particular item was deemed appropriate. So it will be delivered."
The union says management has now indicated that the brochures will be put in envelopes and delivered by management personnel.



L.A. billboards say AIDS a 'gay' disease

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 30 (UPI) -- Stunning passersby, billboards have sprung up around Southern California declaring, "HIV is a gay disease," adding the tag line "Own It; End It."

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday that the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center , which paid for the billboards, has declared war on the fact that populations of homosexual men are slacking off in their vigilance against HIV and AIDS.

The campaign, which is also running in magazines, is a 180-degree turn from the years of politicking against stereotyping homosexuals as those most likely to become infected.

The Times said some AIDS counselors are worried the ad campaign will further stigmatize the disease and stack the deck against research funding.

Public health officials have noted that the overwhelming majority of HIV cases -- three out of four -- are among men engaging in sex with other men.

The head of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Michael Weinstein, denied to the Times that AIDS was a "gay" disease. "It is a disease of the immune system," he said.




Thursday, Oct. 5, 2006 5:52 p.m. EDT

California Court Upholds 'Gay Marriage' Ban


A state appeals court ruled Thursday that California's ban on gay marriage does not violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, a critical defeat for a movement hungry for a win after high courts in New York and Washington state upheld similar bans.

In reversing the March 2005 ruling of a San Francisco trial judge, the 1st District Court of Appeal agreed with the state's attorney general, who argued it is up to the Legislature, not the courts, to change the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. . . . .
[More on]



[From -- a Focus on the Family U.S. website]
September 29, 2006

Schwarzenegger Vetoes Two Anti-Family School Bills

by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor

Bills requiring homosexual antidiscrimination policies and redefining "tolerance" struck down.

Two bills aimed at advancing the homosexual agenda were vetoed Thursday by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

AB 606 would have required school districts to adopt anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies based on perceived sexual orientation -- and to update publications, provide information, training and other resources. Failure to do so would have resulted in the loss of state funding.

AB 1056 would have established a $250,000 tolerance pilot program in 10 schools. It also would have redefined "tolerance" to mean active acceptance of people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.

Dr. James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action, was pleased that Schwarzenegger heeded the cries of parents.

"By vetoing these bills, Gov. Schwarzenegger has put parents, children and teachers – and their freedom of speech and religion -- ahead of the demands of homosexuals and their allies in the state Legislature, who tried to impose their agenda on public education," he said.
[Click here for the whole article on "" .]

'Three parents' case heard in Ontario
[from, 2006]


By Jim Coggins

THE ONTARIO Court of Appeal has heard a case that could change the definition of the family and have widespread implications for family law.

Dubbed the "three parents case", it was originally heard in the Superior Court of Justice in 2003. It concerns a lesbian who asked a male friend to donate sperm to help her have a child through assisted human reproduction techniques.

After the child was born, the mother asked the court to have her lesbian partner also listed as a mother of the child under the declaration of parenthood provision of Ontario's Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA). This would mean the child would have one father -- the biological father, who wants to continue to have a relationship with the child -- and two mothers.

However, the judge ruled that the law only allows for two parents and he did not have the authority to change the law. The case was then appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Alliance for Marriage and Family (AMF) was granted intervener status in the case because of the implications it may have for other cases. The AMF is a working coalition of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), the Catholic Civil Rights League, Christian Legal Fellowship, Focus on the Family and REAL Women. The coalition has been involved in a number of high profile cases over the past decade.

Janet Epp Buckingham, director of law and public policy for the EFC, said the Alliance is concerned that the plaintiffs are taking a provision that was created to clarify inheritance and using it to change the definition of parents.

[Click here to read the whole of the above article on]

Chanting the Mantra of Harm Reduction
Tom Blackwell, National Post

Published: Saturday, August 19, 2006

TORONTO - About midway through the International AIDS Conference, Dr. Mark Wainberg, the bookish-looking AIDS scientist from Montreal and the meeting's co-chair, found himself in the thick of a chanting demonstration of prostitutes.

As the sex workers and their supporters, including a statuesque Indian transvestite, shouted out for legalization, Dr. Wainberg shouted along. As
they punched the air in defiance, the respected microbiologist punched, too.

At this massive and extraordinary conference, supporting such causes is almost compulsory. As is speaking out for the rights of injection drug
addicts, lamenting the plight of the overlooked transsexual and tolerating promiscuity, so long as that multiple-partner sex involves condoms.

Abstinence is a dirty word and human rights take precedence over quarantine.
[whole article on National Post website]


Pope assails Canada's laws allowing same-sex marriage and abortion


TORONTO (CP) - Pope Benedict sparked a debate about the place of religious beliefs in Canadian politics Friday, telling Ontario bishops Canada has excluded "God from the public sphere" with laws supporting same-sex marriage and abortion.
The pontiff told a group of seven visiting bishops in Vatican City that Canadian Catholic politicians are ignoring the values of their religion, yielding to "ephemeral social trends and the spurious demands of opinion polls."
"In the name of tolerance your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse, and in the name of freedom of choice it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children," the Pope said.
A representative with the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops who was travelling with the bishops in Italy said the group was busy with engagements and unable to comment immediately on the Pope's message.
Alfonse Ainsworth, general secretary of the organization, said he expects the bishops will take the Pope's words into consideration when planning their strategy for the next provincial and federal election.
"I'm sure they'll be studying the comments and the context and making sure they follow through," he said.
The meeting was a routine one the Pope has with regional bishops every five years. The Pope met with bishops from Atlantic Canada in May, telling them Canada was "suffering from the pervasive effects of secularism" and pointed to "the plummeting birth rate" as proof.


An  Opinion Piece from the Daily Mail (London), Sept. 7, 2006:
"How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime"

by Melanie Phillips

How long will it be before Christianity becomes illegal in Britain? This is no longer the utterly absurd and offensive question that on first blush it would appear to be.

An evangelical Christian campaigner, Stephen Green was arrested and charged last weekend with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.

So what was this behaviour? Merely trying peacefully to hand out leaflets at a gay rally in Cardiff.

So what was printed on those leaflets that was so threatening, abusive or insulting that it attracted the full force of the law?

Why, none other than the majestic words of the 1611 King James Bible.

The problem was that they were those bits of the Bible which forbid homosexuality. The leaflets also urged homosexuals to "turn from your sins and you will be saved".

But to the secular priests of the human rights culture, the only sin is to say that homosexuality is a sin.

[Click here to read the rest of the above essay by Melanie Philips.] 


Germany Uses Nazi Era Law to Imprison Mom for Homeschooling; Family Flees to Austria

By Peter J. Smith

PADERBORN, Germany, September 14, 2006 ( – German police stormed into the residence of a Christian home schooling family, and arrested a mother for homeschooling her children, an offense established since Nazi Germany. Now the woman’s husband has fled with their children to seek refuge in Austria, which allows homeschooling under certain conditions according to the Brussels Journal.

The Brussels Journal reports that Katherina Plett responded to a knock on the door from an undercover police woman Thursday morning at 11:00PM. Once the Baptist woman opened the door, police officers, hidden outside the house, stormed into her home and arrested her for the crime of homeschooling her children. The female officer insisted that she watch Mrs. Plett as she changed her clothes claiming, “She would arm herself and shoot us all.”

German police then hauled Mrs. Plett off to Gelsenkirchen jail, where she is serving a 10 day prison sentence for exercising her right to be the primary educator of her children.

However, on Monday, Mrs. Plett’s husband gathered their children and fled to Austria, finding asylum at a Christian family center in Wolfgangsee, Austria. Another homeschooling family from Germany has also taken refuge after a Paderborn court ordered the seizure of their children.

The sudden arrest of Katherina Plett has also evoked a growing realization that the ghosts of Nazi Germany have resurged, as German authorities have cracked down on homeschooling families (mostly Christian), who have no intention of letting the German schools indoctrinate their children with anti-Christian values.

In January 2005, a mother and father were each sentenced to six days imprisonment in Westphalia after they refused to pay the fines for having forbidden their children to attend a Christmas school play of Grimm’s fairytale “King Thrushbeard”, which they considered blasphemous.

The arrest of Mrs. Plett came as the latest act in struggle between 7 homeschooling families in Paderborn and the local education board of the county. According to the board’s director, Heinz Kohler, “The parents’ right to personally educate their children would prevent the children from growing up to be responsible individuals within society.”

The Paderborn homeschoolers had asked to set up a private school, however the authorities dismissed the proposed compromise as a cover for homeschooling maintaining, “The living room is not a class room.”

Manfred Müller, governor of Paderborn country, has also justified charging homeschoolers with “High Treason,” saying “the obligation to attend school is a civil obligation that cannot be tampered with.”

According to the Brussels Journal, Landrat Müller threatened to charge Hermann Stücher, a 68 year old man giving aid to these families with “High Treason and incitement of the people against the authorities (Hochverrat und Volksverhetzung), the same charge used by Nazis to squelch any resistance to their absolute power. Stücher had called on all Christian parents to withdraw their children from German public schools, which he says are dominated by “neomarxist activists propagating atheist humanism, hedonism, pluralism and materialism.”

The Brussels Journal says Mrs. Plett still suffers imprisonment in Gelsenkirchen jail for advocating her parental right to educate her own children, and remains divided from her family. Mrs. Plett may not understand English, however those who wish to send a letter or postcard of support may contact her here:

Frau Katharina Plett
c/o JVA Gelsenkirchen
Aldenhofstr. 99-101
45883 Gelsenkirchen
Tel.: 0209/ 4021-0
Fax: 0209/4021-301

Also, those who wish to respectfully convey their outrage at the totalitarian persecution of Mrs. Plett, her family, and Germany’s homeschoolers may use these contacts to contact German embassies in the US and Canada:

Wolfgang Ischinger
German Embassy
4645 Reservoir Road NW
Washington, DC, 20007-1998
(202) 298-4000

The embassy can be e-mailed from its website:

Christian Pauls, Ambassador
German Embassy – Canada
1 Waverley Street, Ottawa, ON, K2P 0T8
Tel.: 613-232-1101 Fax: 613-594-9330

LifeSite readers may also respectfully voice their protest with the Landrat (Governor) of Paderborn.

Landrat Paderborn: Mr. Manfred Mueller [] (county official)

Christian Psychologist Suspended by Police over Former Affiliation with Pro-Family Group

ELLYN, Ill., August 29, 2006 ( - Illinois Family Institute (IFI) Executive Director David Smith today decried the Minneapolis Police Department's suspension of Dr. Michael Campion, a former IFI Board Member, after reports surfaced of Campion's past affiliation with IFI.

"Does this mean that any person with a Christian or moral belief system cannot work for the City of Minneapolis?" Smith asked. "This case has all the markings of blatant anti-Christian discrimination and bigotry. People of faith should follow it carefully, because they could be next."

Today the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that the Minneapolis PD "has temporarily suspended the use of a well-known psychologist who has been screening potential officers for more than a year after community members questioned his affiliation with a group that opposes civil rights for gays." (see the Star Tribune report here: )

The newspaper reported that Dr. Campion's "affiliation with a conservative Illinois group that says it opposes the 'gay lifestyle' was brought to interim Chief Tim Dolan's attention on Wednesday during a meeting with the Police Community Relations Council."

Campion served on IFI's Board of Directors from 1998 until 2005. The Star Tribune reported that his business, Campion, Barrow & Associates, based in Champaign, Ill., has "received high marks from a consulting firm hired by the Minneapolis Police Department to evaluate his 'general procedural goodness and specific cultural fairness' of his testing procedures."

This is not the first time Dr. Campion has suffered discrimination after having his character assassinated by liberal activists. Last year, the City of Springfield, Illinois, fired Campion as psychological reviewer for police and firefighter candidates after the left-leaning weekly Illinois Times ran an article about his role with Illinois Family Institute.

"I have known Mike Campion for years, and he is a man of great Christian integrity and character," said Peter LaBarbera, IFI's Policy & Media Advisor. "Mike is a fair and decent man, respected by his peers, who honors the ethical standards of his profession. Now he is being smeared by pro-homosexual activists. The message is growing across our nation: Christians are the only group that can be discriminated against-- especially if they live out their faith in the public square."

Added Smith: "It is ironic that advocates of tolerance and diversity would deny Dr. Campion's right to exercise his First Amendment freedoms of speech and association-not to mention his freedom of religion."

To express concerns to the Minneapolis Police Department:
Mpls Police Department
350 South 5th Street,
Room 130, Minneapolis, MN 55415-1389


Knight: Despite Claims, Pension Reform Not Endorsement of 'Alternative Family Lifestyles'

By Ed Thomas and Jody Brown
August 23, 2006

(AgapePress) - When he signed the Pension Provision Act of 2006 into law last week, President Bush called it the "most sweeping reform of U.S. pension laws" in more than three decades. Part of the provision under the new law allows anyone inheriting retirement account funds to roll it over into an IRA and avoid a huge tax bill. That change is being trumpeted by homosexual "couples" and those who live together as a triumph for their cause -- but that's not quite true, says a spokesman for one pro-family organization.

Simply by default, the new changes apply to anyone -- friend or relative -- and any couple, regardless of marriage status or gender. "Non-spousal beneficiaries," the law calls them; and pro-homosexual groups see awarding of this benefit, heretofore reserved for married couples, as a nod of approval in their direction.

The Human Rights Campaign, the largest pro-homosexual lobby in the United States, is among the groups touting the pension reform and claims a major role in its inclusion of key provisions that benefit the "gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-sexual" (GLBT) community. "In a challenging political climate," says HRC president Joe Solmonese, "we persevered and helped to secure critical federal protections that will make difficult times for domestic partners a little easier." He told the San Francisco Chronicle it is the first change in the tax code to help same-sex couples.

But Bob Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute at Concerned Women for America, says alternative lifestyle groups are looking for anything they can call a victory. "Certainly, the homosexual activists probably had a hand in lobbying for it," he acknowledges. "But if you look at the provision, it's so general that in no way could they claim that it's the government blessing same-sex relationships."

Knight contends that recent defeats at the ballot box and in court rulings are two reasons why proponents of alternative family relationships are claiming a victory in this case.

"The homosexual activists have taken it on the chin lately, with 20 states enacting marriage amendments and seven courts -- actually eight now -- striking down their challenges to marriage laws," he points out. "They've been losing across the board, so I'm not surprised if they'll want to claim this as a gay victory when in effect it's really far more general than that."

It is a real stretch, says Knight, for anyone to claim the pension reform is a government blessing of same-sex partner benefits. "It's not the government saying, 'Okay, now we're going to recognize same-sex relationships just like marriage,'" he comments. "It's not like that at all."

[Click here to read the whole Agape Press article on their site.]

Chanting the Mantra of Harm Reduction
Tom Blackwell, National Post

Published: Saturday, August 19, 2006

TORONTO - About midway through the International AIDS Conference, Dr. Mark Wainberg, the bookish-looking AIDS scientist from Montreal and the meeting's co-chair, found himself in the thick of a chanting demonstration of prostitutes.

As the sex workers and their supporters, including a statuesque Indian transvestite, shouted out for legalization, Dr. Wainberg shouted along. As
they punched the air in defiance, the respected microbiologist punched, too.

At this massive and extraordinary conference, supporting such causes is almost compulsory. As is speaking out for the rights of injection drug
addicts, lamenting the plight of the overlooked transsexual and tolerating promiscuity, so long as that multiple-partner sex involves condoms.

Abstinence is a dirty word and human rights take precedence over quarantine.
[whole article on National Post website]

"Brains" Behind Ugandan AIDS Success Condemns Toronto AIDS Conference “Abstinophobia" and “Matriphobia”
International AIDS groups flooding Uganda with condoms and pornography causing increase in AIDS

By Hilary White 

LAS VEGAS, August 16, 2006 ( – Hatred of motherhood and the family, a pathological fear of fidelity and sexual continence and loathing of traditional Christian values are the defining forces in the international fight against AIDS according to a long-time Ugandan AIDS activist. 

Speaking to from Las Vegas where he is giving talks, Martin Sempa, a Ugandan pastor and the “brains” behind the Ugandan effort against the spread of AIDS, says he avoided the Toronto AIDS conference because of the seething hostility to his message he was likely to find there. The only trouble is, he says, that the delegates in Toronto are missing the one thing that will save the lives of millions. 

Throughout the 1980’s, the rate of HIV/AIDS climbed to a staggering 30% of the Ugandan population in line with most other countries of Africa. But since their establishment in 1987, the country’s home-grown programs of abstinence and marital fidelity brought the rate down as low as 6.2 per cent. The Christian churches, Catholic, Anglican and Evangelical, worked successfully with the government developing policies to promote marital fidelity and a “no grazing” message to “stay with your husband, stay with your wife.” 

But, says Sempa, “all hell broke loose” in 1994 when the news got out that a program based on sexual self-control, one rejecting the condom-plus-promiscuity approach of the international organizations, had succeeded so dramatically. 

AIDS groups began their own counter campaigns. The country is flooding with condoms and pornography and since 1994, the HIV/AIDS rate has begun to climb incrementally. In some areas HIV/AIDS is up to 6.7 per cent. 

Sempa says that a dual “pathology” of hatred for abstinence and motherhood is driving the international AIDS campaign. What he calls “abstinophobia – fear of sexual abstinence and fidelity as a way of fighting HIV AIDS - and “matriphobia” – ” irrational paranoid fear of programs that promote marriage and motherhood – are “the last gasp of life for a sexual revolution that has gone stale in the west is using the AIDS crisis as a means of keeping itself going.”

“They’re afraid to mention it,” Sempa told “They are looking for any other way to combat the disease. The real problem is right in front of them, but they say, ‘Don’t tell me my promiscuity is wrong.’”

The grassroots abstinence and fidelity programs, however, are deeply rooted in Uganda’s mainly Christian culture, he says. “People are very observant Christians in Uganda. There is 80 per cent adherence to Christianity in its various forms and our approach resonates with the culture, with public health and is economically viable.”

Sempa says there is a gulf in the basic understanding of the nature of the problem. “Western experts, Bill Clinton, the UN, and the World Health Organization, look upon the AIDS problem as ‘not enough condoms.’ We on the ground, those who actually live in the country, see that the problem is too much promiscuity.” This gulf sets home-based Ugandan AIDS activists against those attempting to impose a western-style culture of “free sex” with condoms at odds with traditional Ugandan culture.

The Ugandan success story is not over yet, however. While the AIDS rate has climbed, it is still among the lowest in Africa and the abstinence and fidelity program is being spread to other countries. 

Four other countries are importing the Ugandan program in the last year and are seeing some success already. HIV/AIDS rates are starting to fall in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Swaziland since the beginnings of implementation.

If Sempa had a message for Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, who has used the Toronto International AIDS Conference to promote the condoms approach to combating the disease, he says it would be to point to his own long and happy marriage as an inspiration. 

He said, “The best thing Bill Gates can do for Africa is to speak about how his own marriage to one wife has helped him be successful in life.”

“Bill Gates’ best story is not his money, but his marriage to Melinda. He has had the experience of being faithful to one wife. He need to bring that story to all those who have come from divorce and broken homes. We don’t need more condoms from Bill and Melinda, but more hope and fidelity in marriage is a message of hope.”



Germany Drops Opposition to EU Embryo Research Funding

By Hilary White 

BRUSSELS, July 24, 2006 ( – An EU concession has prompted Germany and Slovenia to drop objections to a proposal to fund embryonic stem cell research.

The EU has allotted €37bn to an omnibus science budget that included allowing funding for destructive research on living human embryos. Germany has been heading a shrinking coalition of countries opposed to the funding.
The German objections were dropped today after the European Commimssion assured the country that no EU money would be spent on projects in which human embryos would be destroyed. Without Germany's opposition the funding proposal will go ahead as planned, but with stricter regulations. The new rules, in addition to forbidding research which directly results in the destruction of embryos, also forbids the use of the funds for the purpose of human cloning. 
Other European countries who had opposed the proposal included Poland, Austria, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Malta, Lithuania and Ireland.

Poland, Austria, Malta, Slovakia and Lithuania voted against the revised proposal, for "ethical and moral" reasons, according to USA Today. The revised rules still allow for some human embryonic stem cell research, in what news reports have quoted EU ministers ambiguously calling "subsequent steps." 

Slovenian minister Dusan Lesjak, however, said that today's compromise, struck during a last-minute meeting in the hope of finding a workable compromise, “takes into account the legal situation in every member state. It enables the enforcement of high ethical standards.”

Germany, in most other ways regarded as the most liberal of states on most social issues, retains strong opposition to bioengineering. While German law has erased prohibitions on homosexual activity, contraception and divorce, and has established government-supervised brothels, there is still broad public opposition to any practice that in any way recalls the Nazi eugenics experiments. Germans of all political persuasions are widely opposed to scientific research that tends to manipulate or exploit human life. 

Austrian minister Elisabeth Gehrer, speaking against the initial EU proposal, said “Do we really want 300-400 fertilised human embryos to be destroyed to create stem cells? This destruction of human embryos to create stem cell lines is not something we can support. We do not want community money, which includes Austrian money, to support this.”

After US President George Bush last week vetoed a bill that would have funded embryo research, German science minister Annette Schavan said, “We have got to do something that will conserve broad support for human life from its conception. The EU science programme should not be used to offer financial incentives to kill embryos.” 

The late German President, Johannes Rau, summed up German opposition to genetic experimentation, euthanasia and the current revival of the eugenics philosophies in a speech in 2001: “Eugenics, euthanasia and selection - these are terms that, in Germany, are bound up with bad memories.”
“It does not take a believing Christian,” Rau said, “to understand that new forms of genetic manipulation and control would run contrary to the conditions of human freedom and human dignity.”
See related coverage:

Germany Hopes to Block Deadly Human Embryo Experimentation in the EU 


Canada Unborn Victims of Violence Bill Loses Appeal to be Declared Votable
Attorney General Scuttles Effort with Shock Last Minute Letter Claiming Unconstitutionality

OTTAWA, June 6, 2006 ( - Mr. Leon Benoit MP Vegreville-Wainwright, Alberta appealed a decision today to the Standing Committee on Procedural and House Affairs. Last week his Private Members Bill C-291 was deemed non-votable by the sub-committee. Bill C-291 would make it a separate criminal offence to harm an unborn child in cases where a pregnant mother is assaulted or murdered.

Mrs. Mary Talbot, the mother of Olivia Talbot who was six months pregnant when her assailant shot her once in the head and her child in utero three times, travelled from Alberta to speak to the committee, but was denied the opportunity to do so. Her daughter's assailant was only charged with one count of murder. Since then Mrs. Talbot has been seeking justice on behalf of her grandchild.

Talbot is reportedly dismayed with the callous disregard with which her concern was received by the members of the committee.

The committee voted 7 against the appeal, 1 in favour, with 4 abstentions. Attorney-General Vic Toews sent a message to the committee just prior to the vote that the Bill was unconstitutional.

In his defence of the bill, Benoit pointed out clearly how the charges of unconstitutionality were groundless.

Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) responded to the nixing of the bill saying, "This very reasonable piece of legislation deserved to be debated and heard by the whole of Parliament...The Laci Peterson case in the United States proved that most reasonable people understand that two victims die at the hands of the murderer when the woman is pregnant."

"When it was decided that all Private Members Bills would be votable, it seemed that the voices of the average MPs would finally be heard in Parliament," said Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organizer of CLC. "But when a committee can so easily squelch those voices I wonder how much democracy we really have, no matter which Party is in power," she continued.

Campaign Life Coalition has called on Parliament to give Mr. Benoit an opportunity to bring his Bill C-291 before Parliament for a debate and a vote in the House.


Pedophilia Party Launched in the Netherlands

by Hilary White
AMSTERDAM, May 30, 2006 ( -  The newly formed Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party of the Netherlands has introduced itself to Dutch politics as a champion of children's rights and has vowed, "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"
The NVD is Europe's first political party dedicated to promoting and legitimizing pedophilia. In a press release, the NVD's spokesman and co-founder, Ad van den Berg said among their goals is lowering the age of consent for sexual activity from 16 to 12 and eventually eliminating it completely.
"A ban just makes children curious," van den Berg told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper. The party will also be working to decriminalize child pornography and to lower the age for which it is legal to appear in it from 18 to 16. The party suggests that in order to prevent "abuse" a governmental body be appointed to investigate whether children had been forced to appear in pornographic movies.
"We want to get into parliament so we have a voice. Other politicians only talk about us in a negative sense, as if we were criminals," Van den Berg told Reuters.
The party says toddlers should be given sex education and wants pornography to be broadcast on daytime television. Other party platform planks include the right of everyone to go naked in public and legalizing all soft and hard drugs.
It is unlikely that even the extremely liberal social views of the Dutch public is ready for a political party all about sex with children, however. Reuters reports that a poll found that in the same country that has legalized prostitution, marijuana use, euthanasia of children and  homosexual "marriage," 82 % said the government must do something to stop the pedophilia party from advancing its agenda.

(c) Copyright: is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use

Pedophile's sentence too harsh, court rules

CBC News 

A Montreal man convicted of sexually assaulting his young daughter and posting pictures of the crime on the internet has had his prison sentence reduced by the Quebec Court of Appeal.

In a 2-1 ruling on Tuesday, the court ruled the man's crimes were not among the worst sexual assaults ever committed, and agreed to reduce his sentence from 15 years to nine.

"There was no violence, such as gagging, threatening or hitting the child," Judge Lise Côté wrote.

The 32-year-old — who cannot be named to protect the identity of his daughter — was found guilty in March 2005 of sexual assault and of producing, possessing and distributing child pornography.

The assaults started when his daughter was 24 months old and lasted for two years.

The man, who is a father of four, was given the maximum sentence of 15 years in prison in November 2005.

When the court reduced that sentence on Tuesday, Côté cited the man's young age and the fact that he has only one other criminal conviction (for sexually assaulting another child when he was 17).  [His young age?  At 32?  How long is adolescence?  --Editor of BCPTL website]

The prosecution's case was based on roughly 5,000 pictures and 5,000 videos found on the man's computer, some featuring very young children.

 [Click here for the story on the CBC website.]

WWU student arrested for destroying anti-abortion display

May 3. 2006

Canadian Victory for Christian Freedom: Bible = Hate Literature Ruling Reversed

By John-Henry Westen

REGINA, April 13, 2006 ( - One of the most concerning court decisions against religious freedom in Canada has been reversed. The highest court in the province of Saskatchewan has reversed a 2002 decision by the Court of Queen's Bench which ruled that a man who placed references to Bible verses on homosexuality into a newspaper ad was guilty of inciting hatred.

The December 11, 2002 decision was in response to an appeal of a 2001 Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (HRC) ruling which ordered both the Saskatoon StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens of Regina to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the Saskatoon newspaper quoting bible verses regarding homosexuality.

The human rights board of inqui! ry held that Mr. Owens had violated s. 14(1)(b) of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. It prohibits the publication or display of a sign or statement which exposes or tends to expose to hatred, or which ridicules, belittles, or otherwise affronts the dignity of persons on the basis of various grounds. One of those grounds is sexual orientation.

In 1997, Mr. Owens placed an advertisement in a Saskatoon paper which reflected his religiously-based views on homosexuality.

The purpose of the ad was to indicate that the Bible says no to homosexual behaviour. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side. The symbol was comprised of two males holding hands with the universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top.

The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan ! released its 37 page decision in Hugh Owens v. Saskatchewan today.
The ruling stressed that s. 14(1)(b) had to be read and interpreted in a way which respected the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, citing Supreme Court authority, the Court said s. 14(1)(b) must be read as applying only in cases where the message in question involved extreme emotions and strong feelings of detestation, calumny and vilification. The Court also stressed that any message impugned under s. 14(1)(b) must be carefully examined with regard to its full context in order to determine whether the section has been offended.

The Court concluded that, although his advertisement was jarring and offensive to many, Mr. Owens had not acted contrary to s. 14(1)(b).

Since the previous court ruling had indicated that the Bible verses themselves expose "homosexuals to hatred", Christian legal experts were concerned that the Bible itself may be banned due to the passage of! the hate propaganda legislation in Canada.

See the full ruling online

[The following press release has to do with the above decision.]

Press Release

Appeal Granted in Hugh Owens v. Human Rights Commission ( Sask )
For Immediate Release from the CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP

13 April, 2006





As part of the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance (CRFA), the Christian Legal Fellowship intervened before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in the Hugh Owens v. Human Rights Commission ( Sask ). The Code expressly prohibits the publication of statements which "expose or tend to expose to hatred, or which ridicule, belittle or otherwise affront the dignity of any person or class of persons".


Mr. Owens had a local newspaper publish an advertisement of two stick men holding hands with the universal symbol of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over top.  References to four Bible passages: Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 were included.  The case had been interpreted by some as promoting the "Bible as Hate Speech/Literature" based upon the decision of the lower court which left it unclear whether Biblical texts alone can violate the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code. 


In a unanimous decision handed down today, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned the lower court decision and makes it abundantly clear that the Bible passages in and of themselves, and as presented in this case, do not violate the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.  


Saskatchewan Court of Appeal Justice Richards, in delivering the decision, stated that although the advertisement was "bluntly presented and doubtless upsetting to many, the essential message conveyed ... is not one which involves the ardent emotions and strong sense of detestation, calumny and vilification required".  Justice Richards also made it clear that the Bible or any other sacred text, cannot serve as a licence for acting unlawfully against gays and lesbians and that each case must be decided on its individual merit in terms of context, timing and intent.


"We applaud the decision", says Ruth Ross, Executive Director of Christian Legal Fellowship. "The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal unambiguously stated that freedom of religion and expression are enshrined in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code itself, namely: freedom of conscience, opinion and belief, and freedom of religious association, teaching, practice and worship. This includes freedom of expression through all means of communication, including the arts, speech, the press or radio, television or any other broadcasting device."


“This is a clear victory for Christians who have in recent years been marginalized in speaking out publicly on issues of morality and Christian family values and beliefs, comments Ruth Ross. “What this decision confirms is that passages contained in the Holy Bible, the foundation of our faith, cannot and should not in themselves be deemed hate literature.”



Mr. Owens appeared on his own behalf. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association also intervened in this case in support of freedom of speech. Other members of the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance include the Catholic Civil Rights League and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.  Counsel for the CRFA is Weyburn Lawyer, Thomas Schuck.


For background information and to view our written legal arguments, visit our website at:


For further information or to arrange an interview, please contact:


Elizabeth Davis, Director of Communications


Ruth A.M. Ross, Executive Director




l’Alliance des chrétiens en droit


Phone: (519) 641-8850  Fax:  (519) 641-8866


Judge sets July 10 date for trial in homosexual activist lawsuit 
against Brian Camenker, Scott Whiteman, and Parents Rights Coalition [of Massachusetts] for exposing "Fistgate" in Apl 2000

The homosexual movement continues to use whatever methods it can to "punish" and destroy anyone who gets in its way, and to intimidate anyone else from exposing their activities with children.

On Monday, July 10, [2006] the trial is scheduled to begin against Brian Camenker, Scott Whiteman, and Parents Rights Coalition in the lawsuit being brought against them by Margot Abels, lesbian activist and former state employee who was fired for her involvement in a workshop where children were taught about hard-core homosexual sex.

Canadian Supreme Court Nominee Says Judges Should Not Decide Policy

By Gudrun Schultz

OTTAWA, Ontario, February 28, 2006 ( –The judge first in line to fill a vacancy in Canada’s Supreme Court said in a nomination hearing yesterday that it is not up to judges to decide on social policy issues, i.

During questioning by a committee of MP’s under the new judicial appointment process Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said he does not support judicial activism.

"I'm not sure that I would be comfortable thinking that judges should be advancing the law with a social agenda in mind," he said. "It seems to me that the social agenda is the agenda for Parliament.”

"Where Parliament wants to advance the law in social terms, that's their job — that's your job. The courts' job is really to take what you say about social issues and try to interpret it as best we can and apply it to the facts."

Judge Rothstein said that although the Charter of Rights may sometimes “force” judges into policy decisions by allowing legislation that may violate a right when “demonstrably justified,” most laws passed by democratically elected legislatures do not intend to violate the Charter.

"Therefore, [judges] have to approach the matter with some restraint," he said. "But the most important thing is that they apply a rigorous and thorough analysis and if they do that, then I'd say that they're doing their job. If they depart from that, it might be a different thing."

Prime Minister Harper has said in the past that justices who pursue a social activist agenda unduly influence Canada’s court system. He accused the Liberal government of deliberately using justice appointments to bypass the Canadian public in pushing through controversial legislation, such as the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

 In the final days of the 2006 election, Harper said the qualities he would look for in judicial appointees would include “the ability to competently and shrewdly and wisely apply the laws that are passed by the Parliament of Canada.”

Judge Rothstein, 65, is a Federal Court of Appeal judge from Manitoba. The Globe and Mail described his demeanour at the hearing as ”quiet, respectful and occasionally witty.”

Justice Minister Vic Toews, who chaired the committee, said he would recommend that Mr. Harper confirm Judge Rothstein's appointment, which the Prime Minister is expected to do on Wednesday.

See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Courts Stacked With Liberal Judges says Conservative Leader Harper

Nine Pro-Life Members of Parliament in New Canadian Government Cabinet
At least six of new Conservative government Ministers known to support same-sex marriage

By John-Henry Westen

OTTAWA, February 6, 2006 ( - Canadian Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper was sworn in this morning with his new Cabinet.  Campaign Life Coalition noted that nine pro-life Members of Parliament are among the 26 Cabinet Ministers, representing a third of the cabinet.

The pro-life cabinet ministers include Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl, Justice Minister Vic Toews, Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Monte Solberg, Minister for Democratic Reform Rob Nicholson, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn and National Revenue Minister Carol Skelton.

Many pro-life Canadians wondered at the absence of Jason Kenney, one of the most capable MPs and a stalwart defenders of life and family. has learned that Kenney has been appointed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. 

Another pro-life MP of prominence within the Conservative Party who was passed over for a cabinet post, Diane Ablonczy, will be the parliamentary secretary to the Finance Minister.

A pro-family analysis of the cabinet reveals at least six of the new Ministers do not adhere to the Conservative Party's official policy in support of traditional marriage.  Two of the those known to oppose traditional marriage are Quebec MPs: Transportation Minister Lawrence Canon; and International Cooperation Minister Josee Verner - the pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia MP known as 'Quebec's impoverished Belinda Stronach'.

Other cabinet members known to oppose traditional marriage are: homosexual-activist MP John Baird who was named Treasury Board Minister; Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice; and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong who, while he voted against the homosexual marriage Bill C-38, has reportedly reconsidered his position. 

Finally, Liberal MP David Emerson was rewarded for switching to the Conservative Party with the position of Minister of International Trade.  Emerson is pro-abortion and voted against traditional marriage on Bill C-38.

Unknown is the stand of Michael Fortier the new Minister of Public Works who was appointed to cabinet without being an elected MP.  Fortier, a Montreal businessman was a close advisor to Harper.

Tomorrow the government is to announce its full list of parliamentary secretaries.

The official list of cabinet Ministers follows:

The Right Honourable Stephen Joseph Harper
Prime Minister of Canada

The Honourable Robert Douglas Nicholson
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

The Honourable David Emerson
Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

The Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn
Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

The Honourable Gregory Francis Thompson
Minister of Veterans Affairs

The Honourable Marjory LeBreton
Leader of the Government in the Senate

The Honourable Monte Solberg
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

The Honourable Chuck Strahl
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

The Honourable Gary Lunn
Minister of Natural Resources

The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

The Honourable Loyola Hearn
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

The Honourable Stockwell Day
Minister of Public Safety

The Honourable Carol Skelton
Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification

The Honourable Vic Toews
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

The Honourable Rona Ambrose
Minister of the Environment

The Honourable Michael D. Chong
President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport

The Honourable Diane Finley
Minister of Human Resources and Social Development

The Honourable Gordon O'Connor
Minister of National Defence

The Honourable Beverley J. Oda
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women

The Honourable Jim Prentice
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

The Honourable John Baird
President of the Treasury Board

The Honourable Maxime Bernier
Minister of Industry

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon
Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

The Honourable Tony Clement
Minister of Health and the Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

The Honourable James Michael Flaherty
Minister of Finance

The Honourable Josée Verner
Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages

The Honourable Michael Fortier
Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Activist Supreme Court Chief Justice Lectures Canadian Prime Minister on Court Appointments

OTTAWA, February 6, 2006 ( – The Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court, Beverly McLachlin, has warned Canada’s new Prime Minister Stephen Harper not to “politicize” the appointment system to the Court. In comments to the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce on Friday, when asked if Parliament should have more of a say in the appointment of Supreme Court Justices, McLachlin said, “The short answer is no.”

“The courts are not just a mirror of Parliament and I think in order to preserve the public confidence in the impartiality of the courts, we should avoid politicizing” the appointment process, said McLachlin.

McLachlin’s definition of “politicizing” may be open to interpretation however. Gwen Landoldt, head of Real Women of Canada, said that when McLachlin says “politicization” she means democratizing the selection process. Landoldt said to, “The only reason the Justices sit on the bench is because of their ties with the ruling party. In what way is this not politicized?”

Landoldt said, “What else is it but a political appointment? It has more power and influence than any other court in the world. She doesn’t want anyone who will be deferential to Parliament.”

Greater public input in the selection process was not one of Prime Minister Harper’s campaign issues, but the newly appointed Justice Minister, Vic Toews has long been a vocal critic of McLachlin’s “unfettered” activist court.

McLachlin has been a staunch opponent of more transparency and democratic input in the justice system in general and the selection process in particular. She has long been a voluble enthusiast of leftist judicial activism in which Canada’s courts have reconstituted much of the legal environment of Canada.

In a speech last December to a group of New Zealand law students, McLachlin said the Courts must not be subject either to the scrutiny of Parliament or the constraints of the written law. McLachlin said, “The rule of law requires judges to uphold unwritten constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion.”

Vic Toews responded, “It concerns me very much to hear our Chief Justice say that judges don’t have to follow what is set out in the law for them. If judges don’t have to follow the constitution, what will guide them?”

“I’m hoping that she was taken out of context, that she was not suggesting that she can ignore the very clear requirements of the constitution,” said Toews. “Only Parliament is qualified to change the constitution.”

Stephen Harper said during the campaign, “When I appoint judges, what we’ll be looking for is what I call the judicial temperament, and that is the ability to competently and shrewdly and wisely apply the laws that are passed by the Parliament of Canada.”

Read related coverage:
Canada’s Chief Justice Says Courts Must Ignore Written Laws in Favour of Judge-Decided Unwritten “Norms”


MPs vote against raising age of sexual consent  [in Canada]
   (September, 2005) News Staff

A Conservative MP's attempt to raise the age of consent has failed, with a resounding defeat in the House of Commons.

When Conservative MP Rick Casson's bill was put to a vote Wednesday night, 99 parliamentarians voted in favour of increasing the minimum age for sex by two years, to 16.

A total of 167 MPs voted against the bill.

Under existing law, 14-year-olds can legally have sex in Canada. Casson wanted the minimum age raised to 16, in the hope increasing the scope of the law would protect children from sexual predators.

The Lethbridge, Alberta MP had the support of his fellow Conservatives, as well as several members of the Liberal Party.

"I support it basically on the important principle that people need to be protected," Liberal MP Maurizo Bevilacqua told CTV News ahead of the vote.

And Liberal MP Dan McTeague agreed, criticizing the existing law for doing little to protect young teenagers from sexual exploitation.  

[Read the rest of the article on]

Canadians:  Find Out How Your Member of Parliament Voted on  the Bill  to Raise the Age of Sexual Consent
Click here for "LEGISinfo" and then click on "Second Reading."

EGALE  Argued Against Raising the Age of Consent
It is significant that LifeSite had predicted that Casson's bill would fail due to opposition from the homosexual lobby.  This opposition is made clear on the website of EGALE-Canada, which has the text of "EGALE's Submission on Age of Consent to the Department of Justice Canada."



Swedish Pastor Acquitted of Inciting Hatred Against Homosexuals

[From an article entitled "Swedish anti-gay pastor acquitted"--BBC online "last updated Nov. 29, 2005"]
Sweden's Supreme Court has acquitted a Pentecostal pastor accused of inciting hatred against homosexuals.  
In a sermon two years ago, Pastor Ake Green told his congregation that homosexuality was a "deep cancer tumour" on society.
  He was convicted in 2004 under Sweden's hate crimes law.
  But on Tuesday the court upheld an appeals court verdict that Pastor Green's remarks did not constitute incitement to hatred.
  In a 16-page ruling, the Supreme Court said his sermon was protected by freedom of speech and religion.
  Mr Green was the first cleric convicted under Sweden's new hate crimes law, which was amended two years ago to include homosexuals.
[Click here to read the whole article on BBC online.]

Canada Legalizes "Sex Clubs" - "14-year-olds will be exploited"


By Gudrun Schultz

OTTAWA, Ontario, December 21, 2005 ( - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that group sex in publicly accessible venues is legal.

In a ruling handed down this morning, Canada's Supreme Court has declared it is legal for clubs to provide opportunities for group sex. As long as consent is given, the area is somewhat private, and no payment is directly involved, partner exchanging or "swinging" and group participation in sexual acts is not considered illegal.

"The decision is certainly in line with the tendency of this court to throw out any restrictions to behavior," said Gwen Landolt, vice president of Real Women of Canada. "The courts are gradually reducing public concern about morality and behavior that is offensive. Judges don't have legitimacy."

"There is a real trend to break down moral principles in Canadian society. Those principles have been built based on human experience about what is in the best interest of society."

With sex clubs now protected by Canada's supreme court, the potential social repercussions are staggering. The age of sexual consent in Canada is 14. Canadian teenagers can now legally participate in group sex offered by clubs (so long as alcohol is not sold on the premises).

"The implications are horrendous," said Landolt. "It's an exploitation of human sexuality. 14-year-olds will be exploited."

The Supreme Court ruling addressed two Quebec Court of Appeal decisions that had arrived at opposite conclusions.  The owners of two Montreal 'swingers' clubs were charged with operating bawdy houses, in both cases involving group sex. One was convicted, the other acquitted. The owner who was convicted appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. The Crown appealed the acquittal of the other owner.

The Supreme Court's decision was based upon the definition of what constitutes a public place and an 'indecent act'. (Prostitution was not a factor in either case, even though payment was required at both locations before entry.)

One club was for members only, and the sexual activity took place in designated rooms, sometimes with on-lookers.  The other club, which had a cursory doorman in place, used a moveable, transparent curtain to block off the dance floor at regular intervals, and the activity took place behind the curtain. In both clubs, according to the owners, entry was granted to adult patrons after a fee was paid and the person was notified about the nature of the club.

 In general, case law has defined an indecent act as that behavior which either offends the community or has the potential to cause harm to the community in some way.

According to Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, group sex neither offends nor harms the Canadian public.

Supreme Court Justices Major, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron agreed with McLachlin's ruling. Justice Michel Bastarache and Justice Louis LeBel disagreed.

To view the ruling, see:
R. vs. Kouri
R. vs Labaye


(c) Copyright: is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use


MP Questions Cable Porn

November 4, 2005  

B.C. Member of Parliament Mark Warawa wants to curb the virtually unlimited access that inmates in federal prisons now have to pornographic programming on cable television, the Ottawa Citizen reported.

Appearing before the Commons Justice Committee, Warawa said this was the “number one issue” raised by guards at the Mountain Institution in British Columbia – where 30 per cent of the inmates are sex offenders – when he asked what they felt needed to be done to improve the medium-security facility.

In the U.K.:
One in nine has 'silent sex disease'
Daily Mail online, 9th November 2005

One in nine young people is infected with the chlamydia, screening programme has found. 

The sexually transmitted disease can cause infertility in women but often shows few symptoms, and experts fear the number of cases in 16-24 year-olds may be far higher. 

Although the number of young people tested for the disease has tripled to more than 78,000 in a year, the scheme currently only covers a quarter of primary care trusts in England. 

Robert Whelan, deputy director of the think-tank Civitas said: "This is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

"More young people are having early sex with multiple partners which is causing the epidemic of infections."

Chlamydia is the most commonly diagnosed STI, with the number of cases trebling in ten years. Two thirds of them are in men and women under 24. 

Shockingly, over 1,000 cases were found in girls aged 15 and younger.

The silent infection

It is often called the 'silent infection' because up to 70 per cent of people infected show no symptoms but are still capable of passing on the disease. 

If left untreated it can seriously affect the uterus and fallopian tubes and can cause infertility and chronic pain.

[Read the rest of the Daily Mail article online.]

In the U.K.:
Mother No Longer Knows Best, High Court Told

Excerpt from an article by Helen Carter
Friday November 11, 2005
The Guardian

The long-held belief among parents that they know what is best for a child is out of date and represents a traditional paternalistic approach that contradicts social changes in western Europe, it was claimed at the high court yesterday.
Nathalie Lieven, representing the Family Planning Association, made the submission in a case involving Sue Axon, 51, a divorced single mother of five who is challenging government guidance allowing doctors to provide abortion or contraception advice to children under 16 without their parents' knowledge.

Lieven argued that parents are no longer necessarily the best people to advise a child on contraception, sexually transmitted infections and abortions - and they have no right to know if their children under 16 are seeking treatment

Canadian Government Caught Funding Anti-Christian Bigotry - Minister Won't Apologize
OTTAWA, October 27, 2005 ( - A Conservative MP has discovered through documents obtained under Access to Information that Status of Women Canada has been funding anti-Christian bigotry and pro-abortion activism.  However, in a startling exchange of correspondence, the Minister responsible for the funding neither offered to pull the funding nor to apologize to Christian Canadians for funding groups which defame them.

Writing to Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women Liza Frulla last month, Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott pointed out that the documents obtained through access to information requests revealed the government granted $27,400 last year to the BC Pro-Choice Action network (pro-CAN).  [More]

"British Columbia School District Cancels Explicit Gay Propaganda Play"
[ reporting and opinion]
SURREY, September 23, 2005 ( - The administration of the Surrey School district in British Columbia has cancelled a sexually explicit play meant to preach acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle to school children. The play, The Laramie Project, is based on the murder of U.S. homosexual student Matthew Shepard which the gay rights movement has for the past several years heavily exploited to promote its agenda.

School officials said that the play’s sex, violence and foul language are “unacceptable” for their students. “The play wasn't appropriate as family entertainment,” said Doug Strachan, communications manager of the Surrey school district. “It's not going ahead simply out of respect for and sensitivity of the audience,” he added.

The Laramie Project was to be acted by the students, some as young as 14, as a school project. It was to be presented during the pre-Christmas period of school events.

The playwright, Moises Kaufman, said he was “shocked” that the school cancelled the play. "It's one of the most-performed plays in America at universities and at the high school level. It's been done in hundreds and hundreds of high schools all over America,” he said.

The play is indeed a high-profile component of a concerted effort to normalize homosexuality and vilify opponents. It is based on the 1998 tragic, brutal killing of Matthew Shepard who, according to homosexual propagandists like Kaufman, was killed in a “hate crime” because he was homosexual. But the facts apear to have been manipulated for political reasons. An ABC 20/20 investigation revealed that Sheppard was killed in a robbery and that it had nothing to do with “homophobia” or “hate.”

Homosexual activist and former BC MP Svend Robinson also heavily exploited the murder of a B.C. homosexual as part of his tactics to motivate successful passage of his bill adding sexual orientation to Canada’s federal hate crimes law. In that case, also, it was later found that the Vancouver victim’s sexual orientation had nothing to do with the murder.

Still, despite the facts, the Sheppard legend persists and the Laramie Project is indeed being used in the US at universities and high schools to promote the homosexual political project.

The Vancouver Sun reports that Doug Strachan, communications manager of the Surrey school district, said the play might be staged later for senior students at the high school and that the issue of homosexuality in the play was not the reason it was considered inappropriate. "We cover homosexuality in our curriculum," he told the Sun.

Read related coverage:
ABC 20/20 Report Says Matthew Shepard Killed During Robbery Not Anti-Gay Hate Crime

. . . .


Note by editor of this BCPTL website:  I have not had the opportunity to read the text of the play mentioned above (other than small quotations) or to see the film made of it.   For a variety of other opinions on the film, you may go to 
"IBMd User Comments"  [Click here.]

Board's decision not made lightly
. . . .

[The following letter from the chair of the Surrey School Board appeared in The Surrey-Delta Now of September 28, 2005.]

The Editor,

Re: "Students cry homophobia," the Now, Sept. 24.

On behalf of the Surrey school board, I am providing key information that was omitted from many media reports regarding the determination by district and school administration that The Laramie Project was inappropriate for younger students. There has been a great deal of public comment about this issue involving provocative and emotional words such as "censorship" and "homophobia." It's important people know all the facts.

Terms such as "violence," "sexuality" and "profanity" are open to interpretation and don't have the same impact as the actual passages and words in the script. People judging this issue should read them to fully appreciate what school and district administration believed to be inappropriate for young children:

[Examples  are given of highly obscene language to be found in the play.  We have omitted this language,` and the editor of The Now prefaced the letter as printed wuth the words "
Warning: the following letter contains profane language"]

There is a much longer list of words and phrases that caused concern. . . . .

[For parents and other adults, the full text of the letter may be found --as of this date of September 27, 2005-- on the Internet version of The Surrey-Delta Now.]

Excerpts from Letters to the Editor in Surrey School  District on the decision regarding The Laramie Project

"Re the controversial Elgin School play: “ Laramie ”.
One of the fundamentals which should be taught and mentored in the school system is that of respecting authority be it the school teachers, your boss at work, whoever.  . . . . the elected school officials and parents who turned down his play. . . have a vested interest in the students, are accountable to us as parents, and we have entrusted our children to them. They need/are to be respected as the authorities.

Laramie ”.  How about “The Elephant Man” or “Helen Keller” or Les Misables or some C. S. Lewis classics or Shakespeare or ………."  [M. Penner]

Another letter to a local newspaper:
"Our main concern as parents,grandparents and citizens is not about name calling homophobic or heterophobic , but about the brutality in the play.
                "The Laramie project play is about two thugs beating 21 year old homosexual Matthew Shepard to death in October 1998."
         ". . . .        If [the teacher in question] 
. . .were to get his students to do a play about the brutal rape and murder of 13 year old Jesse Dirkhising , by two
homosexual men aged 22 and 38 on September 26,1999. We think this also would not be proper.
                There are lots of better plays for secondary school students to perform that parents,grandparents and citizens would enjoy. . . . .  [Gary Sahl]  

From "Today's Family News" (an e-mail service of Focus on the Family Canada), Sept. 16, 2005:

Ethicists Seek Halt to Harvesting Stem Cells from "Fresh" Embryos

The revelation that researchers had created Canada's first human embryonic stem cells using "fresh" - as opposed to frozen - embryos has prompted two medical ethicists to call for an immediate halt to the practice, CanWest News Service reported this week.

Writing in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dr. Jeffrey Nisker, a professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the University of Western Ontario, warned that physicians who suggest to their patients that they donate fresh embryos for stem-cell research "may unknowingly become complicit in decreasing their patients' chance of pregnancy and increasing their risk of harm."

"There should be a national ethical debate before doctors go taking fresh embryos from women," wrote Nisker.

Dr. Francoise Baylis, who teaches bioethics and philosophy at Dalhousie University in Halifax, agrees - but also goes further. She questions the propriety of how the Canadian Institutes of Health Research on June 7 quietly allowed researchers to begin using fresh human embryos without any public announcement.

Just one day later, a Toronto-based research team headed by Dr. Andras Nagy announced it was not only working with fresh embryos but had used them to create two embryonic stem-cell lines. Nisker, who co-chaired Health Canada's now-disbanded advisory committee on reproductive and genetic technology, was shocked at the news.

"We worked for seven years to come up with assisted reproduction guidelines," he told Canadian Press. "In the deliberation, we never for one minute had on our radar screen that fresh human embryos would be used for any other purpose but to achieve pregnancy.

"So because we were not thinking in terms that a doctor would one day approach a woman and say, 'Would you donate a fresh human embryo to research?' there is no prohibition in the legislation."

"Ironically," noted, "Dr. Nisker is making exactly the same accusation . . . as was made by pro-life critics during the debates on Bill C-6," the Assisted Human Reproduction Act which MPs passed in October 2003. At the time, they argued that the wording of the legislation was so ambiguous it "allowed a loophole that makes legal the creation of embryos for research, despite the ostensible prohibition."

But Nagy, who works at Mount Sinai Hospital's Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, says couples are never asked to donate embryos for research purposes until after they have decided not to freeze their existing embryos for possible later use in fertility treatments.

Kristen Best, from Focus on the Family Canada is appalled at the disregard for the value of life displayed in this debate. "Regardless of whether the embryo is frozen or 'fresh' - as they disturbingly put it - and regardless of parents wanting the child or not, there is never a valid reason to harvest an unborn child for experimentation. As long as this disregard for the sanctity of human life continues, scientists will have difficulty drawing any line at all when it comes to how they treat the unborn."


Allstate on list of top 10 pro-'gay' firms
Insurance giant target of lawsuit over column critical of homosexuality
 July 15, 2005 on

 Allstate, the insurance company being sued by a former employee who was  fired after writing a column critical of homosexuality, is one of the top  10  firms supporting the "gay" lifestyle.

 The list, compiled by Diversity Inc., includes, in ranked order: Eastman  Kodak, Ford Motor Company, Citigroup, D&T USA, PepsiCo, Merck & Company,  Kaiser Permanente, Visteon Corporation, Allstate Insurance and The  Coca-Cola  Company.

 As WorldNetDaily reported, a former manager at Allstate's headquarters  recently sued the company, claiming the insurance giant, which financially  supports homosexual advocacy groups, fired him solely because he wrote a
 column posted on several websites that was critical of same-sex marriage  and  espoused his Christian beliefs.

 The insurance company's foundation has donated money to
 homosexual-advocacy  organizations, including the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation  and
 the LAMBDA Legal Defense and Education Fund. A notice about the Allstate  foundation says funds are given to "nonprofit organizations that are  related  to tolerance, diversity and inclusion."

 The American Family Association distributed the "Top 10" list to its  supporters, saying it was not surprised by the companies cited.

 "These are companies which endorse and financially support the homosexual  lifestyle, including homosexual marriage," said Donald E. Wildmon,  chairman  of AFA, in a statement.

 "Polls, in addition to the overwhelming passage of every marriage  amendment  to reach a ballot, indicate the majority of the American public do not  support homosexual marriage. We will continue urging our supporters to  voice  their disapproval of these companies financing the homosexual agenda and  same-sex marriage and encourage them to consider this information when
 making consumer decisions."

 Earlier, AFA announced a boycott of Ford due to its support of  homosexuality, but suspended it until Dec. 1 after representatives of the  company asked the organization to discuss the matter.

Evangelist Proposes to Combat Homosexual Agenda in Public Education
[ article reproduced on this website by kind permission of Agape Press --website ]

By Jim Brown and Jenni Parker
May 11, 2005

(AgapePress) - A popular black evangelist is hoping that the proposed resolution on homosexuality in public schools that he has helped to put before the Resolutions Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention will spark a mass exodus of Baptist children from public schools.

The resolution, submitted by attorney and author Bruce Shortt and Dr. Voddie Baucham, Jr., calls on Southern Baptist churches to investigate whether their local school district has a "gay-straight alliance" or other homosexual clubs. The resolution also calls upon churches to encourage parents' removal of their children from schools that have curricula or programs that treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.

Baucham, a Christian evangelist from Texas, insists that more people need to realize that "Christianity is not a Sunday morning religion" but, rather, is about life in its entirety. "We need to think very seriously about what we're doing to our children," he says, and also to "think about the stewardship that we have been given as parents."

The popular author, Bible teacher and apologist has been called "an evangelist to intellectuals." However, he contends, far too many Christians simply are not thinking when it comes to the education their children are getting "when they spend 40 to 50 hours a week being inundated by secular humanism -- and, now, being inundated with this information from a radical homosexual agenda."

Repeatedly Baucham urges believing parents, "Think about what we're doing to our children." But unfortunately, the evangelist observes, many Christians have been bullied into silence on the aggressive homosexual agenda in public schools. The resolution is a political "hot potato" in the denomination, he says, because more than 80 percent of Southern Baptists are sending their children to public schools.

Also, the Texas minister notes, many leaders in the SBC are afraid to speak out on the issue of the corruption in public schools for fear of alienating members. Then, too, there is the poverty argument.

"One of the complaints that is sort of levied against us because of this resolution is that we are somehow insensitive to poor families who cannot afford to send their children to private schools," Baucham says. That is the very reason why, he explains, "one of the things that we call for in the resolution is for our churches to provide affordable alternatives to government education. It is not hard to do."

Uncovering Public Education's Campaign to Mainstream Homosexuality
Several experts consulted about the Baucham-Shortt resolution affirm there is a widespread trend in public education towards legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle and presenting it as normal and positive through various education programs and curricula. Peter LaBarbera, founder of Americans for Truth and executive director of the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), has observed the trend and agrees with many that it poses a serious danger to children.

"I have monitored the homosexual movement for 15 years, with special focus on its campaign to penetrate schools," LaBarbera states. "Radical gender and homosexual advocacy groups influence teacher-training programs dealing with 'sexual orientation' and 'diversity,' creating school environments that are heavily biased against Christian moral teachings."

The IFI spokesman says groups like GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) and PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) work with pro-homosexual student groups to promote the false notion of inherent homosexual, bisexual, or transgender identity, resulting in sexually confused students "coming out" at young and younger ages. Even grade-school students are targeted, he adds, with manipulative programs and lesson plans about bullying and homosexual parenting.

LaBarbera says Christian families are often completely unaware of what is already happening in their community's schools. "Most parents, especially those living near big cities, simply have no clue as to the many ways that the 'sexual orientation' agenda works its way into their children's education," he says.

And psychology professor Dr. Warren Throckmorton, an expert in the area of sexual orientation, notes that government schools often devote instructional time to political activism, much of it aimed at undermining traditional beliefs concerning sexuality. "Most parents have no idea that this is going on," he says, "or that public school officials collaborate with political activists to attempt to alter the beliefs of school children."

Voddie Baucham hopes the resolution he is urging on the SBC Resolutions Committee will help to raise awareness among Christian parents and others about what he considers a crisis in public education. The proposal encourages every SBC church to investigate whether the school district in which it is located has either a homosexual club or program that attempts to influence children to accept homosexual behavior as a legitimate lifestyle. And where that is found to be the case, the resolution urges the church to inform parents and encourage them to remove their children from the district's schools immediately.

Notably, the Baucham-Shortt resolution does not discourage adult Christians from serving in public schools and actually commends those so employed. Meanwhile, it asks Baptists to make a greater effort to provide and support Christian educational alternatives to government schools, especially for low-income and single-parent families.

© 2005 AgapePress all rights reserved.


Thoughts of a Social Conservative
After the Montreal CPC Convention of March, 2005

Note:  British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life is non-partisan.   The first part of the following essay, which concerns a particular party,  is published because of the interest of social conservatives in resolutions on marriage and abortion which were dealt with at the March convention of the Conservative Party of Canada.

1. What I Experienced in Montreal

For a while it looked like the “hot-button” topics such as the definition of marriage, abortion, and euthanasia would be excluded from the Conservative Party of Canada’s “Policy Convention.”  Party brass, anxious to ensure that their organization emerge from the convention unified and ready to fight the Liberals in the election which could come at any time, had attempted to ensure  that the controversial topics would not be discussed. They did this by attaching to a certain policy resolution a note stipulating that if it passed then certain controversial resolutions would not be discussed.   But a groundswell of resentment, apparently mainly coming from pro-lifers, caused the caucus committee to  relent and remove the note prohibiting discussion of the contentious issues.

  It was with some trepidation mixed with hope that I travelled to the convention.  I was hardly naïve enough to expect a ringing endorsement of all socially conservative positions from a party as diverse in its nature and origins as the Conservative Party of Canada.  But I did have some hope that at least the motion affirming marriage as a union of one man and one woman would pass.  And, now that a resolution against partial-birth abortion was  to be discussed, we could at least hope that the nature of this horrendous procedure would be revealed to the Canadian public through its discussion at the convention.

  I think it was on the second day after my arrival in Montreal that I was once again reminded of the fact that the dirty secret of partial-birth abortion is one that even socially-conservative Canadians are largely unaware of.   A baby with one foot in the birth canal can be killed by having its brains sucked out.  That is the gruesome truth.  But, discussing the procedure in the foyer of our hotel with some newly-met fellow-delegates, I found once again that one of them, a social conservative lady, was shocked to learn the truth about the procedure.

The night before the last day of the convention,  Stephen Harper, frequently associated with a lack of passion, delivered a rousing speech in which he castigated the Liberals for corruption and promised a better future under a Conservative government.  In the course of his speech he made two specific promises relating to social issues.  He promised that as prime minister he would bring in a bill defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but recognizing rights for  “other couples” equal to those of  married pairs.    Secondly, Harper said he would not bring forward any bill dealing with abortion. 

The statement on a marriage bill I found encouraging.  Harper was apparently actually  committing a future Conservative government to the traditional definition.  His statement about equal rights for other couples was worrisome, but perhaps he would recognize that a right such as the right of adoption is not a basic right but one that should depend on the suitability of a couple to raise children; and most people would recognize the advantage for children of having a parent of each sex.

The statement on abortion, though it should not have been unexpected, was a blow, coming as it did a day before the delegates were to vote on a motion that said a Conservative government would not support any law regulating abortion.  Harper’s statement was likely to encourage the delegates to support that resolution.  On the other hand there was reason for hope.  Pro-life opponents of that motion could point out that Harper had not said his government would not support an abortion-regulating bill, only that he would not bring in such a bill.  A private member could perhaps bring in a bill on abortion, such as one prohibiting partial-birth abortion, and the government might not oppose it—might even end up supporting it, as the Liberals had supported Svend Robinson’s infamous bill. 

  At any rate, there was reason to hope that  pro-lifers would have a golden opportunity to make public the existence of partial-birth abortion and its horrible nature.

The following day  delegates were to vote on a motion supportive of the traditional definition of marriage.   In addition, they were to vote on a motion stating that the government would not bring in legislation regulating abortion.  If that was defeated they would then vote on a resolution stating that a Conservative government would bring in legislation prohibiting partial-birth abortion.

Partly, no doubt, taking encouragement from Harper’s statement of the previous night on marriage, the delegates,  in a vote said to be about 75 percent in favour, approved the resolution affirming the opposite-sex nature of marriage.

The first motion on abortion came up:  the one saying that a Conservative government would not support any legislation regulating abortion.  In spite of Harper’s statement of the previous night on the matter, there was still hope.  The first motion on abortion went beyond what Harper said, and this could be pointed out.  It could also be pointed out that the resolution would mean that the government should not even put in safety regulations governing abortion.  Finally, perhaps pro-lifers could sway delegates by spelling out the horrendous nature of partial-birth abortion.  If they did this, then--win-or-lose—they would have been able to raise Canadian awareness of the procedure, and sow seeds that would result in a movement of conscience such as had occurred in the United States when this procedure was highlighted.  Such a movement of conscience, long over-due, might even in time turn the tide against abortion in general.

  Well, speakers lined up.  A respected pro-life member of parliament noted for her outspoken opposition to abortion, gained the floor.  She merely repeated a pro-life mantra opposing the killing of millions of babies—a sentiment all of us could agree on, but she made no mention of the particular nature of partial-birth abortion, which might have moved even those not considering themselves against abortion in general.   A second speaker spoke, but he too made no mention of partial-birth abortion as one of the procedures that was not to be legislated on if the resolution were passed.  Two speakers in favour of the pro-abortion resolution had spoken, question was called, and the delegates proceeded to vote.

Not surprisingly, in view of how things had turned out, the motion calling for no regulation of abortion passed.     What I found disappointing was not so much that the Conservative Party had passed it but that a golden opportunity to make a very important statement was lost, for who knows how long?

Well, pro-life people are used to disappointment.  The solid core of activists will not give up.  But what a shame it would be if we did not learn some lessons from this loss.

In the second part of this piece, I will attempt to state what I perceive are some of those lessons.

           2. Strategies for the Future

Legislative change in a democracy, or in any country where the populace can on occasion exercise an over-riding influence, depends not merely on legislators but also on a host of opinion-makers.    These include writers and broadcasters, educators, and leaders of various groups which work to influence public opinion. Actually, we are all influencers of public opinion to the extent that we make use of the opportunities which are open to us.  Public opinion in turn can influence those who actually enact legislation.  

It is legitimate and necessary to hold legislators to account for their action and failure to act.   It has been said that politics is the art of the possible.   But it is true that some of those in government do not make the best use of political possibilities, and fail to exercise leadership.  (Others go beyond merely reacting to public opinion and seek to lead it.)  Unfortunately, among those who fail to exercise leadership are some who mouth good principles but do not act to promote them in their role as legislators.

We should remember, however, that since all of us are influencers of public opinion, we help to determine what is possible for legislators to accomplish.  Even a law-maker who is dedicated to good principles cannot accomplish what he sets out to do if the climate of public opinion is implacably hostile to him.  

In the matter of abortion, we need to face the fact that public opinion is not sufficiently pro-life to allow for the introduction of general legislation against induced abortion.  But in Canada our situation is about as bad as it can be.  We have no law at all to prevent the slaughter of any of the unborn.    A baby with one foot in the birth canal can be killed by having its brains  vacuumed out.  Horrible, but true!  Surely our fellow-citizens could at least be moved by the knowledge that such a thing is tolerated in our midst.    But, time and again,  pro-lifers will find in discussion with others  that after all these years of pro-life activity, our fellow-citizens--even many pro-life citizens--are unaware that this procedure is allowed in Canada.

Through all the years following the Supreme Court of Canada's throwing out of abortion regulations, and the failure of our parliament to establish new ones in their place, pro-lifers have maintained a steady witness for life.  Many have poured out their souls for the cause, and it is gratifying to see a new generation of pro-life activists  arise.

We, who can lay some claim to being pro-life leaders, however,  must admit that we have failed in a major way.  We need to readjust our strategies or that failure will continue.

In fighting injustice it is a good strategy to highlight the worst results of injustice.  The abolitionists of the nineteenth century drew attention to the worst aspects of the slave system that degraded human beings to the status of property.  Partial-birth abortion is the most obviously horrific procedure of all abortion procedures.    Our aim should be to inform every Canadian voter that our nation is one where this procedure can be carried out without limit--when there is no danger to the life or health of the mother and when the infant may be a perfectly healthy one.    Induced abortions in general are wrong, but surely, even many of those who are not committed pro-lifers will be unwilling to accept the present state of affairs in Canada where so horrible a procedure as partial-birth abortion is given a protected status. 

The pro-life movement of late has emphasized compassion for the woman who is tempted by circumstances to consider the option of abortion. There is good reason to continue to emphasize compassion in our efforts to persuade pregnant women to choose life for the unborn.  But at the same time we need to vigorously contend for life in the public arena, and in doing this we need to inform the public of the sorry state of affairs in our nation where such a thing as partial-birth abortion is allowed to go on.  n     --E.S.H


[U.S.] Government Web site touts sexual abstinence
Organizations criticize advice intended to help reticent parents
Associated Press
March 31, 2005, 9:43PM


WASHINGTON - How should you talk to your children about sex?

Tell them no sex, says a new government Web site that proclaims "abstinence is the healthiest choice."

That's dictating values, say organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and gay rights groups, and they want the site taken down.

Michael Leavitt, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, says the Web site is right on target.

The site was designed for parents who are embarrassed about talking with their children about sex, Leavitt said.

"Parents have a tremendous amount of influence on their children and we want them to talk with their teens about abstinence so that they can stay safe and healthy," he said.

Promoting abstinence is fine, said Monica Rodriguez of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, but the government should also address the needs of teenagers who are already sexually active, gay or lesbian, or who have been sexually abused.

For example, she said Thursday, the site should promote the proper use of contraceptives, and it should not imply that homosexuality is wrong by encouraging parents of gay or lesbian children to consult a therapist.

"By and large, it's a Web site that believes in abstinence until marriage," said Rodriguez, whose advocacy group promotes comprehensive sexual education. "Everything on the Web site is designed to promote that value and help parents communicate that value to their children."

Her 41-year-old organization as well as the ACLU, the National Education Association and more than 100 other advocacy groups are asking HHS to take down the Web site.

link to article

This is the link to the government

 "Conservative Caucus Backs Down on Controversial Measure to Stifle Debate at Convention"

MONTREAL, March 9, 2005 [with correction made from bulletin later on the same day] ( – Sources within the Conservative Party have revealed to that at a Conservative Caucus meeting this morning MPs voted to remove the controversial note on the Caucus-sponsored resolution P-90 which would have nixed discussion and voting on popular resolutions on traditional marriage and partial-birth abortion. The now vetoed note read “If resolution P-90 is passed at the plenary, the plenary will not consider resolutions P-91 through P-95.”

The vote to oust the note comes after heavy pressure from grassroots Party membership and groups supporting life, family and freedom. With the note removed, resolution P-90 becomes innocuous and pro-life/family delegates can feel comfortable voting in favour of the resolution which simply affirms the long-standing tradition of MPs voting their conscience on so-called ‘moral’ issues.

On Monday, the day the resolutions were made public on the website of the Conservative Party, and were first to report on the deceptive note to squelch discussion of life and family matters at the upcoming March 17-19 Convention.

A grassroots rebellion ensued with ordinary party members calling, emailing and faxing Conservative MPs denouncing the note. Pro-life and pro-family leaders were quick to get behind the grassroots effort against the stifling of debate. That was followed up with news reports on the controversial note in the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, the Sun chain and in the National Post today a commentary by Andrew Coyne accuses the Conservatives of being afraid to debate the ‘A’ word.

According to sources, the vote was extremely close.

Official ranking for resolutions by ridings demonstrated that protecting traditional marriage is by far the most pressing issue for Conservatives. The pro-marriage resolution received 26.5 weighted votes, with its closest competing resolutions receiving less than half the support.

The resolution to defend marriage reads: "A Conservative Government will support legislation defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

The two competing resolutions on abortion read:
- “A Conservative government will support a ban on the performing or funding of third trimester partial birth abortion (also known as intact dilation and evacuation).”
- “A Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion."

Group Expresses Concern in New Brunswick Over Nature of "Comprehensive Sex Education" Program.
While rejecting sex education based on contraception, the Executive Director of the Christian Action Federation of New Brunswick Inc. wrote to the Minister of Education (in a letter of December 15, 2004):
"We want the best possible health for the children of New Brunswick. We want youth to enjoy the brightest future possible. We believe you would be in agreement with these goals. Beyond dispute, the message of sexual abstinence provides the best possible health and keeps the door of opportunity open for future potential."  
[Click here to see the whole letter.]

Canada Dumping Tens of Millions into Controversial United Nations Population Control Agency
Announcement of Increased Funding to be made during Bush Visit

OTTAWA, November 29, 2004 ( - Canada is increasing its contribution to the controversial United Nations population control arm UNFPA. The Toronto Star reports today that the official announcement of the increased funding will come during the visit of President Bush to Canada, and will an indication of Canada's "independence". For the past three years the Bush Administration has denied the UNFPA funding, due to the organization's collusion with China's coercive one-child program. Nonetheless, Canada is set to announce a $67 million increase (over four years) to its annual $13.1 million UNFPA contribution.

To determine the extent of UNPFA's involvement with the Chinese coercive one-child program, the US sent an investigation team to China. Explaining the findings, then Secretary of State Colin Powell explained that "UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion."

The investigative team sent to China in May 2002 found, for instance, that UNFPA works in one county in which women who have more than one child must pay a "social compensation fee," a penalty sometimes as high as three years worth of income. Such "crushing fines", said Powell, constitute a "program of coercive abortion" since they "have the purpose or effect of forcing mothers to have abortions." According to Powell, "UNFPA is helping improve the administration of the local family planning offices that are administering the very social compensation fee and other penalties that are effectively coercing women to have abortions."

Of note, the Toronto Star, in its coverage, quotes the same State Department report, but conveniently leaves out the condemning sections choosing only the portion of the report where it suggests UNFPA is not "knowingly" cooperating in forced abortion. While other parts of the report demonstrate that UNFPA is indeed cooperating in the program of forced abortion, the Toronto Star quotes only the sentence: "Based on what we heard, saw, and read, we find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the (People's Republic of China). Indeed, UNFPA has registered its strong opposition to such practices."

Campaign Life Coalition, the political arm of the pro-life movement in Canada expressed outrage at the move. CLC International Affairs Officer Samantha Singson said, "It is shocking and disgraceful that the Canadian government should approve any increase in funding to the UNFPA without making any of its own efforts to investigate allegations of UNFPA's involvement in forced abortions and sterilizations in China."

US Supreme Court Rejects Massachusetts Gay "Marriage" Challenge

WASHINGTON, November 29, 2004 ( - The US Supreme Court rejected Monday a bid challenging the Massachusetts law allowing same-sex "marriage." The Court declined the hearing without comment.

In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state government to rewrite marriage laws to include same-sex couples. Since the decision, approximately 3,000 same-sex Massachusetts couples have 'married'. Robert Largess, Vice President of the Catholic Action League, along with eleven Massachusetts legislators launched the suit. Their initial challenge, heard at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, was lost.

In 2006, it is predicted that the issue will come before voters in a referendum during the next Massachusetts election. Earlier this month, 11 out of 11 states voted overwhelmingly to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman, while President George W. Bush has promised to enact a constitutional amendment on marriage while in office.

"This decision highlights the need for an amendment to the United States Constitution protecting marriage and defining it as the union of one man and one woman," Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, said in a release. Liberty Counsel represented Largess and the legislators in the suit. "Marriage will be defined by someone. I would rather have it defined by the people of the United States instead of the judiciary."

"This battle is far from over," he concluded. "The Constitution should protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state Supreme Court's usurpation of power."

School Ordered to Pay $100,000 for Censoring Christian Student over Homosexuality

DETROIT, October 5, 2004 ( - Detroit Federal District Judge Gerald E. Rosen has ordered the Ann Arbor Public Schools to pay $102,738 in attorney fees and costs to the Thomas More Law Center because school officials in that Michigan community prevented student Betsy Hansen from expressing her religious views against homosexuality during her high school's annual "Diversity Week" program.

Robert Muise, the Law Center attorney handling the case, commented: "If the Ann Arbor Public School District wants to continue to promote the homosexual agenda at the expense of the rights of Christian students, then this will be the cost of doing business.  This case should remind school officials that public schools are not a forum for their personal political agenda."

During the 2002 "Diversity Week" program, Pioneer High School officials prevented Hansen from expressing her Roman Catholic view against homosexuality at a "Homosexuality and Religion" panel sponsored by the school, and also refused Hansen's request to have a panel member who would express her Roman Catholic belief against homosexuality. Hansen objected to the fact that school officials had handpicked religious leaders who endorsed the school's pro-homosexual agenda.

In response, school officials claimed that Hansen's religious view toward homosexuality was a "negative" message and would "water-down" the "positive" religious message that they wanted to convey-that homosexuality was consistent with Christianity and that homosexual behavior is not immoral or sinful. 

Last December, Judge Rosen ruled that the school had violated Hansen's constitutional right to freedom of speech and right to equal protection, as well as the Establishment Clause.  The judge's 70-page opinion in favor of the Christian student was highly critical of the action taken by the school to censor Hansen's speech.  The six-figure fee award is a result of that earlier decision.

See related coverage:
Judge Compares Censorship of Christian Student During Homosexuality Discussion to Actions of Nazi Germany

President Bush Chides Kerry on Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage

WASHINGTON, October 18, 2004 ( - US President George W. Bush, in a radio address Saturday, renewed his commitment to the pro-life life and traditional marriage cause, in anticipation of the November 2 presidential elections.  

"In this time of change, some things do not change," he said. "Those are the values we try to live by -- courage and compassion, reverence and integrity. I stand for a culture of life in which every person matters and every being counts. I stand for marriage and family, which are the foundations of our society. I stand for the appointment of federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law."

While highlighting his own pro-life activities, President Bush reminded voters of the abominable pro-abortion record of his opponent, Senator John F. Kerry: "My opponent has voted against sensible bipartisan measures, like parental notification laws. He voted against the ban on partial birth abortion."

Also attacking Kerry for his views on traditional marriage, the president again reiterated that "My opponent says he supports the institution of marriage, but he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which Congress passed by an overwhelming majority and my predecessor signed into law."


We are glad to pass on this important news release from REAL Women of Canada:

REAL Women of Canada


“Women’s Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights”



NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations



Supreme Court of Canada is a Political Toy



For immediate release                                                                                                         Ottawa, August 24, 2004



The appointment today of two hard-line feminist judges, Judges Abella and Charron, both known to be in support of the gay agenda, confirms that the Supreme Court of Canada is a political toy used by the Liberal government to further its own agenda.  It seals the fate of the same-sex marriage reference case to be heard by the Court in October.


Madam Justice Rosalie Abella explained the power and biases of the judges best when she wrote in a 1987 feminist book, “Equality and Judicial Neutrality,” (before her judicial appointments).


Every decision-maker who walks into a courtroom to hear a case is armed not only with the relevant legal text but with a set of values, experiences and assumptions that are thoroughly imbedded.


The imbedded biases of Judges Charron and Abella are well known.  Madam Justice Louise Charron was one of the presiding judges in the M and H case which held that the same benefits must be awarded to same-sex partners as to common-law heterosexual couples.


She was also Associate Director of the National Judicial Institute which conducts a highly biased gender sensitivity program that promotes feminist legal theories, statistics and analyses.


Judge Abella, who has spent only a very few months in the actual practice of law, has climbed up the political / legal ropes based on her reputation as a “human rights” activist.  In fact, many of her decisions were based not on any established law, but rather on her own feminist ideology. 


In the Rosenberg (1998) case, Judge Abella ignored a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Nesbit and Egan case (1995), which she was bound to follow as a legal precedent, and instead dismissed that case as “wrongly decided,” and declared that same-sex partners were “spouses” under the Income Tax Act.


Appointment Process of Judicial Appointments


The so-called “new” appointment system of judges by the Liberals is merely the “old” system in a not very careful disguise.  The Prime Minister still makes the appointment from a short list provided him by the Minister of Justice, and the latter only

appears before a Parliamentary Committee to “review the qualifications and track records of the appointed judges.”  This is a charade.  The committee cannot vote on the appointments, there is no mechanism to object to nominations, and any decisions of the Committee is not binding on the Prime Minister.  This process is nothing more than a Liberal ploy of smoke and mirrors to pretend there have been some changes to the process and democratic input into it, when obviously there has been none.


According to REAL Women’s National Vice President, lawyer, Gwen Landolt:


The appointment of Judges Charron and Abella confirms that the characteristics of impartiality and respect for parliamentary democracy and fairness are no longer qualifications for appointments to the court and confirms that judicial appointments are political toys to be used at the government’s discretion.

The credibility and integrity of the courts have been undermined by the appointments of Madam Justices Charron and Abella, and respect for this court is a part of the past.”



For further information contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt

(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425

(905) 889-1993

- 30 -




What God Hath Not Joined
Why marriage was designed for male and female.
By Edith M. Humphrey

[excerpt from an opinion piece from Christianity Today online August 20, 2004]

[Note:  As a group defined by a moral consensus rather than a specific theological one, BC Teachers for Life has highlighted the issue of how the promotion of homosexual unions as "marriages" will violate parental rights of parents of traditional morality.  For many of those parents, though, that morality is rooted in theological understanding.  It is significant to consider the depths of that understanding, as related to marriage.  the article from which this excerpt is taken enunciates a Christian understanding of marriage.  Click here to go to the full Christianity Today article.]

"All societies have honored this special union [marriage] that Christians, Jews, and Muslims rightly recognize to be a gift of the Creator. Even in an atheistic context like Russia during the Communist period, Muscovite couples were married with festal trappings at what passed for a sacred site, Lenin's tomb.

"Our generation has introduced a tear in this universal fabric. Same-sex activists are clamoring for the state to grant homosexual couples marital status. These blows to the definition of marriage are landing not only in the North American civil sphere, but within churches. Theological arguments may not hold much sway in public debate, and there are certainly good social reasons for preserving the definition of marriage. But for the defense of marriage in both civil society and church, Christians must look to—and guard—the deep theological foundations of marriage."


Gay Film Used as Liberal Election Propaganda Tool Wins CBC Sponsored Festival
Canadian Public Broadcaster Sponsors Homosexual Film Festival

VANCOUVER, August 18, 2004 ( - Canada's public broadcaster, CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), has sponsored a homosexual film festival in Vancouver.  The film that was named best feature at the festival was 'Let No One Put Asunder', a political documentary by B.C. filmmaker Alexis Fosse Mackintosh.  The film's footage was used during the federal election this summer as cannon fodder against the Conservatives.

While the documentary was scheduled for release only in August, in June, during the final days of the federal election, a portion of the film containing an interview with Conservative MP Randy White was leaked to the Liberals and prominently featured on CBC.  In the interview, White commented negatively on the judicial activism of Canada's courts.  Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin used the footage as a political weapon against the Conservatives, charging the statements amounted to "a fundamental attack on one of the pillars of our democratic system."

The CBC, a tax-payer funded venture, was hesitant to discuss its sponsorship of the gay film festival.  Ruth-Ellen Soles, Head of Media Relations at CBC television told she would inquire about the sponsorship of the festival and return a call.  No call was returned by press time.  Moreover, the sponsorship by CBC was not direct but undertaken by CBC's ZeD program. ( )

To keep an eye on the CBC's latest foibles go to:


18 August 2004  [Focus on the Family Press Release]


VANCOUVER, BC – Focus on the Family Canada Association announces the departure of Dr. Darrel Reid, who served as president from June 1st, 1998 until August 16th, 2004.

Dr. Reid’s passion for strengthening families, combined with his strong organisational and team building skills, were hallmarks of his tenure at Focus on the Family. During Dr. Reid’s time as president, the ministry experienced tremendous growth, developed new ways to reach out to families and provided national leadership in matters pertaining to family and marriage. Dr. Reid’s analytical skills and familiarity with the political process gave Focus on the Family the ability to address public policy issues of concern to all Canadians.

“It has been a real privilege for me and my family to be a part of the great organisation that is Focus on the Family, and I wish the staff there every blessing,” Dr. Reid said. “I know their hearts, and because of that, I know that Canadian families are in good hands. I look forward to seeing how God will continue to use this special ministry to achieve His purposes.”

Reid continued, “As to the reasons for my departure, I can tell you that none of them are of the traumatic, sensational type that sometimes, unfortunately, create change in ministries. I am led by a growing sense that I had accomplished the things God gave me to do when I came six years ago, a powerful sense of God’s assurance and peace about new directions, and a unity of spirit between Barb and I that this was the time. For the time being I will be joining the private sector here in the Vancouver area.”

Bill Stanley, Chairman of Focus on the Family Canada’s Board of Directors, said, “Darrel is a great leader and a good friend. He brought the sort of vision, dedication and expertise to this organisation that we sought. On behalf of the board, I want to thank him and his family for their service. We praise God for His continued faithfulness and look forward to the future.”

The Board of Directors has appointed Terence Rolston as Interim President. A process has been initiated to identify Dr. Reid’s permanent replacement and the Board of Directors has encouraged Mr. Rolston to put his name forward. Mr. Rolston joined Focus in 1997 and most recently served as Focus on the Family Canada’s Executive Vice President, overseeing day-to-day operations and strategic planning. He and his wife Joyce live in Richmond and have three young children.

Dr. Reid was Focus on the Family Canada’s third president.

Focus on the Family is a charitable organisation, based on Christian principles, which serves and strengthens families through education and resources. Focus on the Family Canada is based in Langley B.C. and has served Canadians since 1983.


Presidential Candidate John Kerry charged in Catholic Court 
for Abortion Stand


National Survey Shows That More Americans Support Terri Schiavo's Right To Life

TAMPA BAY, August 19, 2004 ( - A recent national poll found that 46 percent of Americans felt that Terri Schindler-Schiavo should continue to receive her nutrition and hydration through a feeding tube, while 32 percent felt that her feeding tube should be removed.  Twenty-two percent said that they did not know or that they had no opinion.

Respondents were asked:

Terri Schiavo is a disabled woman in Florida who currently receives food and water through a feeding tube.  Her husband, who lives with another woman and with whom he has two children, says she would prefer to die.  Her parents, sister and brother say that she would prefer to live and should be given therapy to live without her feeding tube.  Do you feel that Terri should continue to be fed or should her feeding tube be removed causing her death?

"Clearly, more Americans agree with the family of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, the Florida legislature, and the Governor of Florida that Terri has a right to life and should not be starved and dehydrated," said Megan Dillon, director of Media Relations for the National Right to Life Committee. 


Federal Marriage Amendment Defeated in U.S. Senate
Pro-Family organizations vow to hold opponents accountable in November elections

WASHINGTON, July 14, 2004 ( - The Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposal to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage within the US Constitution, was defeated 50 to 48 in a procedural vote Wednesday. Supporters of the amendment failed to garner the minimum number of votes necessary to overcome procedural opposition by Senate Democrats.

In response to the vote, Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins said: "The Senate's vote today has left the future of marriage in the hands of unelected judges, at least for the time being." Perkins emphasized that, despite the loss, "We now know which Senators are for traditional marriage and which ones are not, and by November, so will voters in every state."

"One thing is certain: the effort to protect marriage has unprecedented support," Perkins continued. "Nine states are poised to have state constitutional amendments on their ballots this fall on marriage, and poll after poll shows that between 60 and 70 percent of Americans want marriage to remain one man, one woman. Americans realize that the protection of marriage is vital to the future of the family, the welfare of children and the security of our nation. This fight has just begun."

"This is the first stage of a lengthy legislative battle that will not go away," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. "The cloture vote was an important barometer in determining where members of the Senate stand on this critical issue. An overwhelming majority of Americans want marriage to remain an institution between one man and one woman."

The ACLJ has been gathering signatures on its Petition to Preserve Marriage in support of a federal marriage amendment and has received nearly 475,000 names to date. The petition drive will continue as the ACLJ keeps leadership in both the Senate and House informed as the total continues to grow.

See the LifeSiteNews Special Report listing how each Senator voted 

See also the family Research Council's Roll Call

See also Focus on the Family:
"How Did Your Senators Vote on the FMA?"

Presidential Candidate John Kerry charged in Catholic Court 
for Abortion Stand

BOSTON, July 5, 2004 ( - A Catholic canon lawyer has filed
suit with the Archdiocese of Boston, charging John Kerry with causing a
"most serious scandal to the American public," for continuing to take
Communion while being an active proponent of the grave sin of abortion.

Marc Balestrieri, a Canon lawyer and Associate Judge for the Los Angeles
archdiocese tribunal, launched the suit June 14, which was released to the
public on Sunday . . . .

Swedish Pastor Sentenced to Month in Prison 
for Preaching Against Homosexuality

STOCKHOLM, July 5, 2004 ( - Ake Green, the pastor of a
Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one
month in prison by a Swedish court, for inciting hatred against homosexuals.
Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a
sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.

During a sermon in 2003, Green described homosexuality as "abnormal, a
horrible cancerous tumour in the body of society".  . . . .

(c) Copyright: LifeSite Daily News is a production of Interim Publishing.
Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of
source is *REQUIRED* (use

Leading Catholic Bishop in Spain Speaks Out Despite Threat of Losing Public Funding

( [says] "the proposal of a homosexual marriage"... "a grave disorder in the
mentality of the prevailing culture")

TOLEDO, Spain, July 6, 2004 ( - The primate of Spain,
Toledo Archbishop Antonio Cañizares Llovera has said that threats of loss of
public funding will not hamper speaking out in truth. While informing
Catholic politicians of their obligation to oppose legislation to legalize
same-sex unions, the archbishop said, of the possible loss of funding: "The
Church is able to live in poverty," but not able to live, "without
proclaiming Jesus Christ and the sole Lordship of God." . . . .

Homosexual Civil Unions Exclusivity Halted in House of Lords 
by Expanding Definition

LONDON, July 6, 2004 ( - A bill that would have allowed
homosexuals to register their liaisons as legal "civil unions" has been
stopped in the House of Lords by adding amendments broadly expanding the
domestic arrangements it covers. A group of Conservative Peers has used the
ambiguity of the term "civil union" to thwart the homosexual lobbyists'
dream of creating a legal definition of civil unions exclusive to homosexual
partnerships. The amendment was successfully added to the Civil Partnerships
Bill and passed by a vote of 148-130.

Pro-family activists have frequently pointed out that civil unions, if they
include homosexual pairings, could as easily include any two or more people
who live together for economic reasons. The argument could mean that an
adult child caring for an elderly parent, or two siblings sharing
accommodations, ought to receive the protection of civil union legislation.

It is an argument that worked last week in Britain. The amendment to the
Civil Partnerships Bill expanded the definition of civil unions to the point
where advocates for homosexual marriage said it would be useless for their

The Christian Institute, a pro-family organization that lobbied against the
bill pointed out the inconsistency of granting homosexual partners special
status. In explaining the rationale of the amendment, the group wrote,
"...many people in greater need face precisely the same problems whenever
they live in a relationship of co-dependency, such as two sisters or two
friends who live together. If 'hard cases' are to be tackled, why should
only those in homosexual relationships benefit?"

Complaining that the amended bill had been wrecked, homosexual lobby groups
have vowed to move the fight on to full legal recognition of homosexual
"marriage." George Broadhead of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association
said, "The Bill was seeking to create a second-class status for gay
relationships. If the Government can't live with opening it up to all
relationships, then it should scrap the whole thing and start again from a
standpoint of equality. Gay marriage is the only equitable way to proceed
and if we have to play the long game in order to achieve it, then we can

Guardian coverage:

Babies that Survive Abortion 'Deserve Life' 
Says British Medical Association

LLANDUDNO, England, July 6, 2004 ( - The British Medical
Association decided recently that babies born alive after an attempted
abortion should be given the same care and treatment as other infants.
Delegates at the Association's annual conference in Llandudno voted for the
motion by a majority of 65%,

The motion was proposed by medical student Ibukumoluwago Adedugbe from
Imperial College London, who said that "If a child is alive then it surely
has rights." Comparing babies born alive after an abortion to premature
babies, she cited the case of a baby who lived unsustained by life support
for three days. "Anyone who has been near a screaming baby or heard a baby
gasp for breath must realize this must have been traumatic for the
healthcare professionals involved - that is to find themselves having to
ignore this for three days," she said.

See the Daily Post:

Homosexual "Marriage" Soon to be Reality in Spain

MADRID, July 6, 2004 ( - Spain's new Socialist government
has passed a preliminary resolution paving the way for the legalization of
homosexual "marriage" by early next year, Justice Minister Juan Fernando
Lopez Aguilar said last week.

The legalization of homosexual "marriage" would make Spain the third
European country to do so, after Belgium and the Netherlands. Massachusetts,
Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia have enacted similar laws in the US
and Canada.

In a bid to garner election support, Spain's ruling Popular Party legalized
civil unions for homosexuals in March, before losing the election to the
Socialists, led by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. Zapatero
pledged to legalize homosexual "marriage" the day he was raised to the
office of Prime Minister of the country. He has also expressed a desire to
ease Spain's restrictions on abortion, and to end compulsory religious
education in public schools.

In a meeting last month with Zapatero, Pope John Paul II criticized the new
Spanish government's intention to permit homosexual "marriage."

Alabama allowed to distribute information 
to women considering abortion

ALABAMA, July 6, 2004 ( - A federal judge has ruled that
the state of Alabama may proceed with the distribution of informational
materials to women who are considering an abortion.

Senior U.S. District Judge Harold Albritton ruled recently that the state
has met all the requirements of the settlement of a lawsuit that challenged
the 2002 Women's Right to Know Act. The Act requires that women be informed
about agencies that offer assistance before and after a child's birth,
adoption agencies, the development of the unborn child, the risks of both
abortion and childbirth, and alternatives to abortion.

"I'm glad to see that the women who are having abortions will now have the
opportunity to know what is physically taking place in their bodies," said
Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin, who sponsored the original bill in the Alabama

Concessions, however, were made in the settlement. The health department
agreed to remove information from their brochures linking abortion to breast
cancer. The state also agreed that the information need not be distributed
in several instances where survival of the unborn baby is deemed to be
impossible. Larry Rodick, executive director of Planned Parenthood, said he
was pleased the settlement removes "false assertions" from the health
department materials, but wished the law was found unconstitutional because
"we think the materials are unneeded."

Colorado Court Declares Null Order that Prohibits Mother from Exposing Her Child to "Homophobic" Religious Upbringing

DENVER, July 6, 2004 ( - The Colorado Court of Appeals
issued a 50-page opinion Thursday in the case involving a mother who was
ordered by a judge to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious
upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be
considered homophobic." While the court vacated that ruling, it also sent
the case back to the trial judge to determine the definition of "homophobic"
and whether the child would be harmed by being introduced to whatever
"homophobic" teachings and upbringing means.

The Court also affirmed the trial court's ruling that granted a 50/50
custody split between the child's Christian mother, Dr. Cheryl Clark, and a
nonparent lesbian, Dr. Elsey McLeod. Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief
in support of Dr. Clark, requesting the Court to reverse the order.

Dr. Clark entered into a lesbian relationship with Dr. McLeod. Dr. Clark
legally adopted a child from China. Dr. McLeod did not participate in the
adoption and had no parental rights over the child. Dr. Clark became a
Christian and became convinced that the lesbian relationship was wrong, and
thus left Dr. McLeod. After some time, Dr. McLeod sued for parental rights
and requested that Dr. Clark not expose the child to what she called
"homophobic upbringing or teaching." This request was made because Dr.
Clark's church maintains a rack in the lobby which contains literature from
Focus on the Family and Promise Keepers. The trial court granted Dr.
McLeod's request. Under the order, Dr. Clark could be found in contempt when
she and her daughter listen to the pastor preach about traditional marriage,
or if they read chapter one of the book of Romans or listen to some
Christian radio or television programs.

Liberty Counsel commented that the ruling was troubling. "First, the court
adopted a so-called psychological parent doctrine, meaning that parental
rights can be established merely by an emotional attachment between a
nonparent and a child. Thus, the Court granted parental rights to Ms.
McLeod, a mere third party who has no legal relationship to the minor

Liberty Counsel also notes that "the Court did not outright reverse the
ruling about 'homophobic' instruction. Instead, the Court sent the case back
to the same trial judge to define 'homophobic' and to determine if the child
would be harmed by such 'religious instruction'." It is possible the trial
court will not reinstate this section of the order, or if it does, that the
same court of appeals will later reverse it.


Dutch Marriage Registrar Ordered to Resign for Refusing to Officiate at Gay Marriages

AMSTERDAM, July 7, 2004 ( - The Leeuwarden City Council is demanding that a marriage registrar who refused to officiate at gay and
lesbian weddings resign her position. The city council previously tried in
2001 to force the resignation of the public servant - who is in principle
opposed to gay 'marriages' - but a judge thwarted the move due to a
procedural error on the part of the municipal authority.

The public servant has not yet said whether she will take legal action
against the council's decision, which was passed by a small majority. If the
issue does go to court, the judge will have to make a precedent setting
ruling as to whether a public servant with conscientious objections may
refuse to 'marry' homosexual couples.

Gay marriages have been legal in the Netherlands since April 2002.

Manitoba to fund Private Abortion Facility with Taxpayer Dollars

WINNIPEG, July 8, 2004 ( - The Manitoba government, after
sensibly holding the line for twenty years against funding for private
abortuaries, has knuckled under to pressure from the 18 pro-abortion staff
of Jane's abortuary in Winnipeg. The province began publicly funding
abortions at the centre on Canada Day, July 1.

"Why, after all this time is the government of Manitoba washing its hands of
its responsibility to provide good health care for the women of the
province," asked Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition.
"Tax payers should never have to finance life style choices." . . . .

Former MP Robinson Only Gets Slap on Wrist for Stealing $64,000 Ring for Gay Lover
Will receive neither jail time nor criminal record for the theft

VANCOUVER, August 6, 2004 ( - Homosexual activist and
former NDP MP Svend Robinson pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000 in a
Vancouver court Friday. In response to the judge, who asked if he would like
to plead guilty, Robinson said "Yes I do, your honour." Robinson, who has
already been convicted on other crimes, was given a conditional sentence.
Thus he will receive neither jail time nor a criminal record for the theft.
He has been ordered to do 100 hours of community service.

At the hearing, several letters were read supporting Robinson, claiming him
to be an outstanding citizen. As no surprise to readers of
letters supporting Robinson came from anti-life personalities including
former UN ambassador Stephen Lewis and environmentalist David Suzuki. The
National Post reports that Robinson will be eligible at age 55 for his
parliamentary pension, which for him amounts to $86,663 per year.

None of the coverage on the sentence mentioned the fact that Robinson has
repeatedly been in trouble with the law, and has already been convicted and
jailed for a criminal offence. In 1994 he spent over a week in jail after
being convicted of criminal contempt of court for defying an injunction
against interfering with logging on Clayoquot Sound. Robinson has also had
other arrests and fines associated with his radical environmentalist

Read related coverage:
Theft over $5000 Not First Criminal Charge against Homosexual Activist
Former MP Svend Robinson

Why did Deputy Leader of Conservatives Write Letter Supporting Robinson in Theft Trial?
Svend Robinson's Sentence a Miscarriage of Justice

VANCOUVER, August 9, 2004 ( - The judicial farce which
resulted in homosexual activist former MP Svend Robinson being let-off
without even a criminal record for his admitted theft of a ring valued at
$64,000, has raised the ire of grass roots Canadians concerned about
equality before the law. Another aspect of the case that has at least
grass-roots Conservatives irritated is the fact that the deputy leader of
the Conservative Party, Peter MacKay, lent his support to Robinson by way of
a letter to the court requesting that the judge go easy on him.

MacKay, acting as part of the House of Commons Justice Committee, voted in
favour of sending homosexual activist MP Svend Robinson's private members
Bill C-250 back to the House of Commons without voting on a Canadian
Alliance motion that sought to address concerns over its effect on freedom
of expression and religion. A message of request for a copy of MacKay's
letter to the court was not returned to by press time.

Robinson, who has a previous criminal record, was not even given the
kid-glove treatment suggested by special prosecutor Len Doust. Doust
requested that Robinson be handed a conviction, be fined and put on
probation for his crime. Instead, British Columbia Provincial Court Judge
Ron Fratkin gave him a conditional sentence, meaning no criminal record,
plus 100 hours of community service.

According to court testimony, Robinson signed in to the auction house and
gave his license to an officer at a security desk. He asked to view three
rings. "He put two back and surreptitiously put one in his jacket pocket,"
Doust said. "He was very calm and very cool. He knew exactly what he was
doing. Then he gets rid of it, he hides the ring in his car and locks it."
Doust charged that Robinson frantically tried to come up with a plan to
return the ring without being identified. Robinson told police he was trying
to locate a place where he could return the ring anonymously. Robinson
increasingly became aware that police were on to him, he had been caught on
tape, and consequences would be harsh. "If he had truly wanted to turn
himself in and take responsibility, he could have done it right away and
simply gone to the police station," Doust said. "He chose to turn himself in
just before the RCMP caught up with him."

Robinson's lawyer, Clayton Ruby, also notorious abortionist Henry
Morgentaler's lawyer, said the judgement "reflects no different treatment
than that which we accord to any Canadian."

"Judges Party with Homosexual Activists"

"If there is anyone in Canada who still believes that our judges are fair and impartial on the homosexual issue, they should know about an event that took place during Gay Pride Week in Toronto"
[Read the article on the REAL Women of Canada website.]


New York Times:  Many Homosexuals Don't Believe in Marriage

Canadian homosexuals haven't rushed to the altar largely because many of them don't believe in marriage, The New York Times reported Sunday. "  [quoted in Christianity Today article online for the week of Sept. 1, 2003]  

Focus on the Family--Canada, CFAC, and REAL Women of Canada Asked the Supreme Court of Canada to Hear an Appeal of the Ontario Court of Appeal Decision on Same-Sex "Marriage"

To read about this appeal, the federal government's opposition to the Supreme Court hearing it, and its rejection by the Supreme Court of Canada, go to
"News Releases" and click on the releases for October 6th, 2003 and October 9th, 2003.

BBC Online Report--June 11:
Warning over sex health crisis  [in the United Kingdom]

The rise in sexually transmitted infections (STIs) has reached crisis point, MPs have warned.

A report by the influential Commons health committee has found the NHS is no longer able to cope with the record number of people with STIs.

It has called for urgent government action to tackle what it describes as a public health crisis.
[Read the  whole BBC report.]

Canadian Federal Government Uses Voucher System for Native Education

The federal government has been quietly running the equivalent of a voucher system for native students by letting them use the full amount of public funding allocated for their education toward the cost of private schooling . . . . 
[See National Post article of Jan. 20, 2003.]

Interim Article Charges  "Incredible Media Bias During Federal Election"

by Tony Gosgnach
Preview article from the July 2004 Interim Newspaper

Two of the most notable slogans by media guru Marshall McLuhan were “the medium is the message” and “all news is fake.” Given the recent Canadian federal election campaign, one can verily say that truer words were never spoken.

“Mainstream” media outlets and their reporters exhibited a shocking degree of selective, slanted and outright biased coverage throughout the campaign, but never more so than when it came to the so-called hot-button issues of abortion and homosexuality. In fact, if one took the coverage at face value, it would be difficult to discern that these were even contentious and controversial issues at all. Instead, one might easily have thought that the whole country was pro-abortion and pro-homosexual, and that anyone thinking outside that little box was an extremist wingnut of the first order.

The ball started rolling when media pundits jumped on Conservative Rob Merrifield’s rather tame remark early in the campaign that women may benefit from receiving third-party counselling prior to undergoing abortions. That was the red blanket that the pro-abortion bulls, and their allies in the media, needed to swing into action.

“The Conservative party’s health critic is advocating a dramatic shift in abortion regulations,” claimed the Globe and Mail’s Jill Mahoney in a June 1 article. Mahoney went on to quote extensively from outraged remarks by the usual suspects, including Henry Morgentaler, the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada and the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League.

Opposing these three pro-abortion voices was just one pro-life voice – Campaign Life Coalition’s Jim Hughes – but the reporter did not contact any of the post-abortive women suggested as sources to her who could have added a unique and often ignored perspective on the issue. Nor did the media report on the press releases issued by groups such as CLC and the Canadian Physicians for Life. The Canadian Press claimed Conservative leader Stephen Harper was “on the defensive” over the issue.

In a follow-up Globe article the next day, Mahoney and Brian Laghi characterized Merrifield – who ultimately was re-elected – as “beleaguered.” Even National Post commentator John Ivison characterized Merrifield’s remarks as “a gaffe.” The Toronto Star, that bastion of liberalism and leftist thinking, came up with an editorial suggesting “Harper’s position on abortion (is) unclear” – even though he unequivocally stated his prospective government would not be introducing abortion-related legislation in the next Parliament.

Globe columnist Margaret Wente opined that Merrifield’s observations immediately lost the urban Ontario female vote. The Hamilton Spectator, in a June 4 front-page piece, printed an all-capital headline that only lacked an exclamation point at the end: “HARPER WOULD ALLOW FREE VOTE ON ABORTION” – as if that was a hideously undemocratic thing to do.

Anne Dawson of CanWest News Service, in a June 5 article, suggested that “demons of the past … dangerous and uncomfortable moral issues” (read: abortion, same-sex marriage and capital punishment) had come back to “haunt” the Conservative party.

Mainstream reporters then obsequiously filed into a pro-abortion press conference June 4 to hear and report on outrageous comments by Morgentaler (again), June Callwood, Doris Anderson (curiously, chair of the Ontario Press Council), Shirley Douglas and Norma Scarborough. Toronto Star reporter Caroline Mallon, in a generously long article on the non-event, amazingly could find no space for rebutting comments from pro-life representatives.

One Columnist Honestly Asks, “On abortion, who’s the extremist?”

A little bit of sanity was provided by National Post columnist Andrew Coyne – a journalist who is not pro-life - who, quite appropriately, asked the question, Coyne accused reporters of fabricating a “self-generated story … reporting about reporting.” He said, “The media manage to make themselves a part of every campaign, but it’s rare to see them openly acknowledge this role.”

Toronto Sun columnist Linda Williamson, meanwhile, observed that there is a “commandment” in Canadian politics that reads: “You must not raise abortion as an issue – not in your first term, or ever. You must not allow anyone else to put forward a private member’s bill on it, either, or allow a free vote on it – even though that’s what parliamentary procedure dictates. Better to shut down all debate on this one, regardless of your professed devotion to democracy, MPs’ rights or ‘fixing the democratic deficit.’”

Around the same time, results of a survey in the U.S. revealed that only seven per cent of national news journalists there considered themselves conservative. Eighty-eight per cent, on the other hand, believed society should accept homosexuality. One suspects the situation is not any better – and is likely worse – in Canada.

When the Liberal party dredged up a video of Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant at this year’s March for Life, comparing abortion to the beheading of civilians in Iraq, the mainstream press jumped on that bandwagon. CTV News suggested that Gallant “has already caused her party leader trouble this election campaign.”

The ambush didn’t hurt Gallant’s re-election bid, however, as she won handily in her Renfrew-Nippissing-Pembroke, Ont. riding.

Media also went into a tizzy when Catholic Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary publicly pointed out Prime Minister Paul Martin’s “moral incoherence” for claiming to be a devout Catholic while supporting unrestricted abortion rights. One Calgary newspaper ran a poll on whether people approved of Henry’s statements, yet it would have been hard to imagine a media outlet doing the same over, say, Henry Morgentaler’s wading into the abortion-politics fray.

In a June 7 editorial, the Globe and Mail predictably – but erroneously – echoed Jean Chretien’s old line that “social peace on the status quo” on abortion is prevailing. Then, Globe columnist John Ibbitson, in a June 8 piece, suggested discussions on abortion were obscuring “more important issues” – like money. The same day, CTV News, in a blatantly untrue statement, reported that, “Polls have found that a large majority of Canadians are satisfied with the status quo (on abortion).” In fact, polls consistently show Canadians do not want unrestricted abortion-on-demand.

Tories Benefited From Emphasis on Abortion

What effect was all this negative media coverage having on the Tories? None at all. In fact, it may have even been aiding their electoral efforts. A June 11 poll revealed that women’s support for the Tories was rising, from 26 to 28 per cent.

As the abortion issue faded in intensity during the campaign, the media bias quotient similarly diminished. However, until the end, the Liberal party kept playing up its charges of an alleged Conservative threat to a woman’s “right to choose” (whatever that means) and mainstream media outlets continued to paint the Conservatives as out-of-sync with alleged “Canadian values” (whatever those are) on other issues such as the Charter of Rights, use of the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution, Supreme Court appointments, hate-crime revisions and the like.

But as Globe Media Watch columnist Hugh Windsor put it so well in a June 8 piece, mainstream media have been engaging in, and have often prompted, hyperbole. He chastized them for going along with it and openly questioned whether they had unwittingly become partners in Liberal election strategies.

Whatever the answer, one must conclude that the mainstream media were, as a whole (with the possible exceptions of the National Post and the Sun Media chain) hopelessly biased, if not negligent and incompetent, in their coverage of social issues during the recent election campaign.

Given McLuhan’s dictum that the medium is the message, Canadians need to – with apologies for stealing the Conservative campaign slogan – “demand better” from their news media. The era when reporters acted as lackeys for abortionists, homosexual activists, feminists, liberals and other assorted narrow interests should be long past. That it still isn’t is a troubling situation that needs to be dealt with immediately, before another election campaign comes upon us.

Write letters, send e-mails, support alternative media, yell, scream, jump up and down and do whatever you have to do to demand better and fairer coverage from our well-paid and monopolizing mainstream media. The future of our country – not to mention generations of unborn Canadians and families – depends on it.

Tony Gosgnach is the assistant editor of The Interim

See the Interim

(c) Copyright: LifeSite Daily News is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use

Liberals Poll Ontarians on Opinion about Possibility of "Scary" Evangelical Christians in Government

OTTAWA, May 3, 2004 ( - The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) is demanding an apology from the Prime Minister, and is demanding that the Liberal party's pollster be fired. The Liberals are polling Ontario residents, asking them if they are "more or less likely to vote for the Conservative/Alliance if they knew it had been taken over by Evangelical Christians," according to a letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin from EFC president Bruce Clemenger.

"…[T]here are people running for Harper that hold socially conservative views," spokesman for the federal Liberals, Steven McKinnon told the Calgary Herald. "We think it is entirely appropriate to ask Canadians how they feel about these views."
[See the LifeSite article.]

News on Bill C-6 (formerly Bill C-13)

From the website of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada:
Assisted Human Reproduction, Bill C-6 
The Senate Committee on Science and Technology unanimously approved the Assisted Human Reproduction bill, Bill C-6 (formerly-13) on March 3. 
 Bill C
Bill C-6 contains long-awaited and important prohibitions on activities such as human cloning, germ-line genetic alteration, commercial surrogacy and the sale and purchase of human eggs and sperm. However, the bill does allow the destruction of human embryos ‘left over’ from in vitro fertilization procedures for research purposes.

From the LifeSite Website:
Problems With C-13 (C-6) - Brief Summary Paragraph
As passed, C-13 actually only bans some cloning, allows the creation of human embryos for destructive research and harvesting of their body parts and leaves many questions about what the bill actually does and does not do because of ambiguous language and poor definitions. There are also serious questions about the long-term accountablilty and powers of the regulatory body charged with overseeing the implementation of much of the bill.

Supreme Court of Canada Hands Down Ruling on Spanking

Supreme Court of Canada Upholds Spanking but Sets Age Limits
The Supreme Court of Canada refused to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code, but laid out rulings about the age of the children spanked.

From the CBC Website:
Supreme Court upholds spanking law
Last Updated Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:47:36

OTTAWA - Canada's top court has upheld a law allowing parents to spank their children, but also set guidelines outlining "reasonable limits" to the act.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to repeal Section 43 of the Criminal Code that allows parents and school teachers to physically discipline children in their care by using "reasonable" force.

In its decision Friday, the court ruled that reasonable corrective force can be used against children between the ages of two and 12 years old.

The court said it was unacceptable to hit a child with an object, like a belt or paddle. Blows and slaps to the child's head would also be unacceptable.

For corporal punishment to be legally acceptable, it must involve only "minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature," the court ruled.   [To read the rest of the CBC article, go to: ]

To read the Supreme Court Ruling for yourself, go to:  
(The form of such legal documents necessitates rather careful study of them.)

Reactions of Pro-Family Leaders:
After examination of the details of the Supreme Court's ruling, the reaction of pro-family leaders has been mixed.  
The following is from LifeSite Daily News--Monday, February 2, 2004:

Canada's Top Court Criminalizes Spanking Under 2, Over 12 and With Any
Supreme Court press release mislead public on ramifications of spanking
case decision

OTTAWA, February 2, 2004 ( - The Supreme Court of
Canada has now criminalized following the biblical direction, "spare the
rod and spoil the child."  [not a direct quote from the Bible--editor, BCPTL site]

The original press release from the Supreme Court of Canada on its June
30 ruling in the case seeking to overturn the law permitting parents to
use spanking as a form of discipline, failed to mention critical
information.  In effect, the Supreme Court has once again donned its
activist hat and written law in Canada banning spanking of children
under 2 and over 12 and criminalizing it at any age with an implement
such as the common 'wooden spoon' - effective immediately.

The ruling states: "Generally, s. 43 exempts from criminal sanction only
minor corrective force of a transitory and trifling nature. On the basis
of current expert consensus, it does not apply to corporal punishment of
children under two or teenagers. . . . Discipline by the use of objects
or blows or slaps to the head is unreasonable."

Gwen Landolt, Vice President of REAL Women Canada, one of the
interveners in the case, told in an interview today
that while pleased with certain aspects of the ruling she has concerns.
While she stressed that "no one wants children to be abused or hurt" she
noted that the ruling seems culturally insensitive particularly for some
faith groups which regard use of the hand in spanking as a problem.

Canada Family Action Coalition President, Dr. Charles McVety [said]. . . , "Many child-rearing experts recommend that the hand should not be used for corrective discipline. Instead an inanimate object, such as a wooden spoon, could be used. However, the child should never be damaged. The hand should be reserved for loving and caring. The Courts have now made criminals of those who obey such logical advice."

Landolt also wondered if the definitive cut-off dates of 2 and 12 were
not more in keeping with political correctness rather than an understanding of child development and family life.

"The 22 month old who is consistently scratching at his newborn brothers
eyes, may find reasoned arguments more difficult to follow than a tap on
the hand to reinforce a 'NO'," was told by a child
clinical psychology MA graduate who wished to remain unnamed.

Dr. McVety said, "I applaud the effort to protect children, however, I
do not want to see mothers go to jail for using a corrective,
non-damaging tap on a 23-month-old child who needs to learn to stay away
from danger".

The Canada Family Action Coalition warned parents in a release saying,
the Court's Citation gives "guidelines" to Canadian judges on how to
rule in related cases. "This Citation makes it very clear that the law
has been changed and "immunity" from criminal prosecution will no longer
be granted if a parent uses non-damaging physical corrective measures on
a child under two years of age or over twelve or if an instrument is
used at any age.

"Suspiciously, none of these changes to the law were mentioned in the
Supreme Court's press release. Only after reading the lengthy full
decision are Canadians realizing that parents are now in danger of
criminal prosecution and having their children removed from their
custody. These changes are in effect as of January 30th, 2004, so
parents must beware."

Dr. McVety stated "I believe the Supreme Court of Canada has grossly
breached democratic principles by not simply interpreting law but rather
blatantly rewriting it. These new laws are not mentioned anywhere in
Section 43 or any other area of the criminal act. In a democracy, the
writing of laws is strictly reserved for elected members of
legislatures. No hired or appointed individual should enact laws. That
is only found in dictatorships."


Spitzer Study Published:
"Evidence Found for Effectiveness of  Reorientation Therapy"
By Roy Waller and Linda A. Nicolosi

"The results of a study conducted by Dr. Robert L. Spitzer have just been published 
in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417.

"Spitzer's findings challenge the widely-held assumption that a 
homosexual orientation is "who one is" -- an intrinsic part of a 
person's identity that can never be changed.

"The study has attracted particularly attention because its author, a 
prominent psychiatrist, is viewed as a historic champion of gay 
activism. Spitzer played a pivotal role in 1973 in removing 
homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders. . . .

"Although examples of "complete" change in orientation were not common, 
the majority of participants did report change from a predominantly or 
exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or 
exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year as a result of 
reparative therapy.

"These results would seem to contradict the position statements of the 
major mental health organizations in the United States, which claim 
there is no scientific basis for believing psychotherapy effective in 
addressing same-sex attraction. Yet Spitzer reports evidence of change 
in both sexes, although female participants reported significantly more 
change than did male participants. . . ."
[Read the whole article at ]


In British Columbia: Surrey School Board Again Rejects the Three Pro-Homosexuality Books as Teaching Resources

At a heavily-attended meeting in the city council chambers on the evening of June 12th, Surrey School Board revisited the question of the "Three Books" as required of them by a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling.  They again rejected each of them.  We are thankful for that  verdict, but realize that this will not be the end of the story.  The pro-homosexuality movement will seek other opportunities.  In fact, there have already been rumblings from one or two of those promoting the books that they will take the Surrey School Board to court once again.

At the same June 12th (2003) meeting where Surrey School Board once again turned down the three  pro-homosexuality books as teaching resources, the Board instructed staff to find other books depicting a variety of families, including same-sex families.  This was somewhat of a shock to supporters of the Board's stand against the books.  However, it reflects Surrey School Board trustees' belief that the Supreme Court of Canada has left them no choice but to include same-sex books as teaching resources for Kindergarten and primary pupils.  The motion should protect the Board against successful legal action from the pro-homosexuality activists.  At\ the sane time, it leaves a difficult decision to be made by the Board when books are recommended to them which depict same-sex parents  but in a manner which is not obviously propagandist.  One of the bases which the Supreme Court of Canada claimed necessitated same-sex primary books was a directive of the British Columbia Ministry of Education.  If that directive could be changed, that might remove the necessity of a school board adopting such books as learning resources.

It should also be noted that Surrey School Board plans to institute parental notification should it be planned that such books depicting same-sex parents be used as teaching resources in the future.  Parents would have the option of teaching the required topic, for which such a book was to be used, at home instead of having their children taught it in school.  

Contrary to press reports, the three books have not been banned from schools in Surrey School District.  They can be held by school libraries, and in a school where such a book is to be found in the library, it is entirely conceivable that a teacher can take out such a book, hold a discussion of it in his class, and in effect build a lesson around such a discussion.  n

"Pro-gay education gets rights hearing"

"The men who went to Canada's highest court to bring books about same-sex families into Surrey kindergartens are now seeking an order that would compel all teachers to deliver positive messages about homosexuality throughout the curriculum."  
[The Vancouver Sun of January 6, 2003, on ""--link now expired]

Parents may not be able to opt their children out of classes dealing with homosexuality:

The Surrey Leader online had the following significant statement:
"The outcome of next month’s human rights hearing could have further implications with regard to parents opting their kids out. If Cook and Warren are successful and the ministry of education is required to include sexual orientation and gender identity, the topics would essentially be removed from the ‘sensitive’ list. If not sensitive, parents don’t necessarily have to be informed and therefore might not have the opportunity to opt their children out."
[See also the article immediately following, regarding this case.]

Citizens' Research Institute Denied Intervenor Status in the Case Brought by Cook and Warren 
Kari Simpson, Executive Director of Citizens' Research Institutes sought intervenor status in the "human rights" case brought by Cook and Warren, who are seeking to compel are now seeking an order that, in the words of a Vancouver Sun article, " would compel all teachers to deliver positive messages about homosexuality throughout the curriculum."    However, intervenor status was denied to CRI   A possible bright spot:  Intervenor status in this case was also denied to Youthquest.  [Click here for the June 11, 2003, BC Human Rights Tribunal ruling on this.] 

The news January 28, 2003, release given below gives background information on the story immediately above:

Executive Director of Citizens' Rights Instute Plans to Seek Intervenor Status in Homosexual Education Case in BC.

Kari Simpson, Executive Director of Citizens' Research Institute, has sought information in order to seek intervenor status in the "human rights" case brought by Cook and Warren.  [see immediately preceeding article.]  Here is the text of a press release from the Citizens' Research Institute:

Release January 28, 2003

Kari Simpson, Executive Director of the Citizens Research Institute, to seek
intervenor status in unconfirmed case before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal is refusing to confirm that a complaint has
been referred to Tribunal from the B.C. Human Rights Commission.  The case,
if successful, will undermine the rights of parents in B.C. Schools and make
the exposure of pro-homosexual propaganda to children mandatory.

Perpetual homosexual activist and teacher Murray Warren is one of the
complainants.  Warren is attempting to make pro-homosexual education
compulsory in British Columbia schools through curriculum changes.  In
addition, the complainants want the Ministry of Education distinction of
"sensitive subject matter" assigned to topics involving homosexuality to be
removed. This would result in allowing activist teachers to promote a
pro-homosexual agenda without parental notification.  Presently, parents
should (although some teachers ignore this requirement) receive prior notice
that the topic of homosexuality is to be discussed or if homosexual
activists are making classroom visits.

Discussions around the medical consequences of homosexual sex, family
dysfunction, and sexual identity crisis would be banned because they would
portray a "negative stereo-typing."

Kari Simpson contacted the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal attempting to access
information crucial to making an application for intervenor status.  So far
the Tribunal has refused to release any information. Kari Simpson in a
letter to Tribunal Chair Heather MacNaughton, wrote:

"As you are aware Rules 15(2)(a) and 15(2)(b), require an understanding of
the complainant's case in order to address the specific requirements of the
rules.  Therefore, in the interest of judicial fairness and efficiency I
would like an opportunity to view the file associated with this matter as
soon as possible."

Ms. MacNaughton responded by saying, " I appreciate the difficulty of
seeking intervention and complying with the Tribunal's Rule 15 if the
Tribunal cannot confirm whether a particular complaint has been referred to
the Tribunal.This situation has not arisen before at this tribunal."

The tribunal has now decided to treat this as a Freedom of Information
request even though the Tribunal process is a public proceeding. The hearing
is scheduled to commence on February 24, 2003 the Tribunal advised CRI that
it has until February 15, 2003 to respond.

On January 24, 2003, the Citizens Research Institute requested that the
matter be adjourned due to the unusual circumstances associated with this
case.  Sources advised Kari Simpson early today that the case had been
adjourned and while we have not been formally notified it is our
understanding that we will have access to the file, at least part of it!

For more information please contact the Citizens Research Institute @

Included with this release is a copy of the article appearing in the
Vancouver Sun

Vancouver Sun Article below
Pro-gay education gets rights hearing

Janet Steffenhagen
Vancouver Sun

Monday, January 06, 2003

The men who went to Canada's highest court to bring books about same-sex families into Surrey kindergartens are now seeking an order that would
compel all teachers to deliver positive messages about homosexuality
throughout the curriculum.

Murray Warren and his partner Peter Cook are asking the B.C. human rights tribunal to force the education ministry to add sexual orientation and
gender identity to a list of issues -- called "cross-curricular
interests" -- that was drawn up in the mid-1990s to encourage equal
treatment of all students.

They say the exclusion of those two items from the list amounts to
discrimination against non-heterosexual students and their parents. Their
omission discourages teachers from making education relevant for students who aren't heterosexual and from teaching heterosexual students about gay, lesbian and transgendered issues, they argue.

The tribunal has scheduled a three-week public hearing in February to
examine the complaint.

Speaking about the issue publicly for the first time, Warren said the
inclusion of those items would bring a profound change in attitude.
"Teachers would get a clear message from the ministry of education that not only is it okay to deal with these issues in the classroom, but they must
deal with them in their classrooms."

"I think in certain classrooms that is happening but not to the extent it
should because teachers are fearful of the backlash that will come from
certain members of the community," he said.

"Teachers are reluctant [to deal with such issues] because ministry policy
doesn't support them in a positive manner."

The items on the ministry list include gender equity,
English-as-a-second-language, multiculturalism and special needs. According to information gathered by the human rights commission, the ministry describes the list as an historical document that is no longer relevant, and says it neither authorizes nor prohibits classroom discussion on any topic.

In response to Warren and Cook's concerns, the ministry said in 2000 the
list would be eliminated as the curriculum is updated.

That didn't please Warren. In a letter to the ministry, he said deletion of
the list -- also known as Appendix C -- "sends a negative message to
practising teachers that the concerns of equity, access and inclusion are no
longer relevant or important [and] prevents in-service and beginning
teachers from receiving the information altogether."

Warren and Cook filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Commission, which investigated and found a prima facie case of discrimination. Before it was disbanded last year, the commission referred the matter to the tribunal.

At the same time, Warren and Cook were involved in the legal action they
initiated against the Surrey school district after it told kindergarten
teacher James Chamberlain he could not use three books about same-sex parents in his teaching. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ordered the Surrey school board to reconsider the issue. Chamberlain, who was involved in the Surrey case, is also participating in the human rights complaint.

Warren has offered to drop the human rights complaint if the ministry
retains Appendix C with the addition of sexual orientation and gender
identity, and instructs teachers to deal with these issues as a normal part
of the curriculum, rather than as "sensitive issues" under courses called
Personal Planning and, in later years, Career and Personal Planning (CAPP).

Before addressing "sensitive issues," the ministry urges teachers to consult with students and parents and give them alternatives if they don't want such lessons in a classroom. Warren agrees that some issues -- such as sexual relations -- are sensitive, but insists sexual identity is not.

As examples of how homosexuality could be included in the curriculum,
Warren, a Coquitlam teacher, said teachers could talk about the sexual
orientation of historical figures, use same-sex parents as examples in math problems about family finances or discuss sexual orientation when
discouraging students from name-calling.

The ministry says Appendix C was intended to address personal
characteristics that are, for the most part, readily apparent.

The B.C. Teachers' Federation is considering joining the case against the

Supreme Court of Canada Rules Against British Columbia School Board in "Surrey Books Case"

  On December 20, 2002,  the Supreme Court of Canada finally released its decision in the Chamberlain vs. Surrey School Board Case.  The Court claims that the Board made its decision regarding the three books on the wrong basis, and orders the Board to consider the matter all over again.
Moreover, costs are granted to those who fought the Surrey School Board's ruling and  brought the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.  
  One of the comments of the Chief Justice reads:  "The curriculum requires that all children be made aware of the array of family models that exist in our society, and that all be able to discuss their particular family model in the classroom."  Hence, primary children must be able to discuss homosexual "family models."
  Logically, they must also be able to discuss "family models"  of other sorts.  It is hard to see an end to the implications of this decision.  It is a very dangerous one.  Watch this website for more on this topic.  To see the ruling and the full text of the "reasons for judgement," click here to go to the relevant Supreme Court of Canada website.

Human Rights Complaint Against Alberta Pastor
Who Wrote Protest Letter
The following article was written by Pastor Stephen Boissoin, against whom a human rights complaint was filed by a Calgary professor.  [November, 2002]

I have worked with youth, many at high risk, for the last 9 years.  The last 4.5 I have worked as the pastor and Executive Director for a registered Christian charity here in Red Deer.

While doing so, I regularly facilitated youth life-skills programs, parent-teen mediation, and at times  worked closely with the local high schools.  I have even spoken in them when invited, as I have a relevant childhood and adolescence to share about, with them.

Working with troubled youth was not new to me.  In addition, I was an at-risk youth myself, so seeing the diverse range of youth lifestyles was not new to me either.  Teaching teens their value in the Lord's eyes and providing the support and skills that they required to overcome a lack of self-worth, hopelessness, drugs, crime, promiscuity, and the like, were my and the centre's goals.  After a while, my heart became burdened as I would listen to what I believed were damaging and total contradictory concepts and morals being taught to the teens that came to our centre. The youth club had approximately 100-150 teens who would frequent it weekly. We used this club as a relevant outreach to the youth and at the same time it provided safe, positive and supervised fun combined with purposeful relationships with these young people.

As I worked with them and experienced first-hand how they lived and also heard their viewpoint and what they were being taught when I facilitated interactive life-skills programs, I realized in a very powerful way that there was a system that was working against much of the moral foundation that I and our Christian centre stood for and was trying to teach these young people.  Our centre was a biblically-based centre. We taught lifestyle principles that are in line with the Bible and of course shared the glorious Gospel throughout.

The trouble started when I decided to expose teachings and concepts that were not in line with what I believe are healthy lifestyle principles, in addition to our biblically based teachings.  I felt that if I did not do this,  I was doing a great disservice to the youth and disobeying my calling and the instruction within the Word of God.  God confirmed this with me through many scriptures one being..... Ephesians 5:11 "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them."

"What a weak type of teaching that I was sharing to these youth that only presents them an option," I thought.  I decided to not only teach an option but to far more purposefully include WHY the other options were wrong.  The teens needed FACTS not more options....they needed the truth...I had to share this with them with confidence.  This I believe they yearned for: truth--someone sharing truth.

As time went on teens would enthusiatically tell me that they would opt out of a sex-ed class that taught about homosexuality.  They would tell me that they now didn't agree with the safe-sex and pro-choice initiatives that they were starting to become very aware of in their schools.  At the same time, I encouraged them to ALWAYS remain respectful and not rebellious or challenging "Just live out what you believe: that is your right  And, when asked, share why you want to live this way."

Well before I knew it, I was being labled a religious fanatic by teachers, social workers, and others; and was told that I was manipulating youth and teaching archaic concepts that would do more damage than good.

Early this year, I started writing letters to the editor of our local newspaper.  I wrote one about abortion that I received an award for and I have written many about other issues.

In June of this year I wrote a very strong one about homosexual activism. This topic was never spoken of around here and avoided when introduced.  I wrote it because of what I had witnessed in the lifestyles of the youth that I worked with and what I was continuously hearing propagated in the public realm, in my city and across our nation.  I wrote this letter to the editor to "Mr. & Mrs Heterosexual."  It was a wake-up call to what I hoped was a sleeping giant.  I was right.  After this article a wild fire of commentary started.  Letters to the Editor, the media, television interviews, radio spots, and so on.  Most importantly, the churches started to share about this topic and biblical sexuality was back in the pulpit.  During this time a young boy, supposedly homosexual, was beaten by a bunch of bullies.   The newspaper exploited this incident and allowed comments a suggesting that this boy was beaten as a sign of my "call to arms" as they said. It was even suggested that these bullies were my foot-soldiers.

Selectively, I rebutted many of these articles and claims.

In August, Dr. Darrend Lund, a former Red Deer High School Teacher, award winning pro-homosexual human rights activist and now Univeristy of Calgary professor, filed a human rights complaint against me.

In the report of his  interview with the media are these words:
  As a human rights advocate, Darren Lund, one of the complainants, said he had to take a stand against Boissoin's letter. "I felt the letter fostered hatred," Lund said. "I think there is a parallel to other hatemongers - James Keegstra, Terry Long - in the area." Terry Long was a well-known white supremacist who led his Aryan Nations church from his Caroline-area compound before leaving the area in the early 1990s. James Keegstra was an Eckville teacher who was convicted of promoting hatred against Jews for teaching that the Holocaust was a hoax.  
(Red Deer Advocate)

I have contacted many people about this complaint against me and Scott Brockie suggested that I speak with Kari Simpson of the Citizens Reseach Institue.  I spoke with her and after reviewing all of the documentation she believes that this man, Dr. Darren Lund needs to be stopped.

Mrs. Simpson put me in contact with attorney, Gerald Chipeur, who reviewed the facts and said that he would take the case if I desired. 

Since then, my name and reputation have been slandered.  This was no surprise to me, though-- but what was, was that the Centre lost so much public funding that was not countered by the Christians here, that we had to close our doors to over 100 teens weekly.  The politicians claimed that is was a tragedy.  The city claimed we were not a duplication, but FCSS turned us down and a fully functional, relevant, very well equipped, youth facility was lost.

When I started, I felt the Lord ask me, "what are you willing to sacrifice in order to share truth and expose lies Stephen?"  I told him and my staff...."everything Lord, everyhting."  My staff prayerfully agreed.  Unfortunately many of us are now looking for work.

To clarify:  I love all people, homosexual, drug dealer, pimp and prostitute.  I have ministered in the gu