|
British Columbia Parents
and Teachers for Life |
Search our site! |
|
Threats to Freedom
Please thank the Canadian Medical Association for upholding conscience protection for doctors. Give Us Freedom to Speak Our Minds "No Compromise" [on the defeat of an Alberta bill offering protection to those opposing homosexual "marriage"] Disciplinary Hearing for Firefighters Refusing to Distribute Homosexual Leaflets European Christians slam 'homophobia' resolution Freedom of Conscience, Tudor Style The Canadian Federal Election 2004: Cries to Rein in Social Conservatives Reveal Contempt for DemocracyJudicial Press Gangs Conscript Religious Believers" [article re Scott Brockie Homosexual Hate Crime Bill Signed into Law [in Canada] How Canadian Senators Voted on Bill C-250 Canadian Parliament Passes Homosexual Hate Crime Bill Threatening Freedom of Speech "Preacher's conviction over anti-gay sign upheld" "Hate-Crimes Bill Neglects Freedom of Non-religious Citizens" Bill C-250 Passes in Canadian House of Commons How MPs Voted on the Alliance Motion on Marriage Radio Interview Illustrates Why Bill C-250 is Feared "Court Rules Against Freedom of Expression at BC University" "MD under fire for denying birth control" CBSC Finds The Dr. Laura Schlessinger Show in Breach of Broadcast Standards Please
thank the Canadian Medical Association [The following letter was sent out by Physicians for Life. and passed on to us on May 14th, 2007.]
Dear Pro-Life Friends,
The National Post recently reported that the National Abortion Federation is lobbying the Canadian Medical Association to remove its "conscientious objector policy, which allows physicians to refuse to refer patients for abortions," saying that doctors should put the interests of women seeking abortion before their own "religious and moral convictions." (See article copied at the end of this email, "Doctors asked to change national abortion policy," by Melissa Leong, National Post, May 10, 2007). . . . .
If CMA's policy were to be changed so that
doctors were compelled to make abortion
referrals against their conscientious /
religious beliefs, Canada may one day find
itself without any practicing pro-life doctors.
Canadian Physicians for Life is already in
dialogue with the CMA, the CMAJ, and CPL's
membership regarding this issue (and has
been ever since the offending guest editorial
was published in the CMAJ in July
2006). But if you, as a member of the
Canadian pro-life public, are also concerned
about the pressure that is currently being put
on pro-life doctors to participate directly or
indirectly in an abortion, please
consider writing to Dr. Blackmer and to the
president of CMA, Dr. Colin McMillan, the
president-elect, Dr. Brian Day, and the
editor-in-chief of the CMAJ, Dr. Paul Hebert,
THANKING them for upholding and clarifying the
CMA's abortion policy, while politely
asking that the protections for doctors with
respect to freedom of conscience be
strengthened.
Contact info for CMA/CMAJ:
Dr. Jeff Blackmer, Executive Director, Office of
Ethics (email: Jeff.Blackmer@cma.ca)
Dr. Colin McMillan, President (email: Colin.McMillan@cma.ca)
Dr. Dr. Brian Day, President-Elect (email: Brian.Day@cma.ca)
Dr. Paul Hebert, Editor-in-Chief, Canadian
Medical Association Journal, (email: Paul.Hebert@cma.ca)
You might also consider copying your letter to
the National Post: letters@nationalpost.com ;
Mleong@nationalpost.com
After you send your letter to CMA/CMAJ, we'd
appreciate it if you could forward a copy of it
on to us at info@physiciansforlife.ca so
that we have some idea of how pro-life Canadians
are reacting to this issue. Thank you. [More]
Toronto Sun
January 27, 2007
Give us freedom to speak our mindsI believe that homosexuality is not normal and not naturalBy MICHAEL COREN
I may be asking those of you who believe in freedom of speech and conscience
to give me some financial support before long because what I am about to say
is apparently illegal and not to be tolerated in Canada.
I believe that homosexuality is not normal and not natural.
I also believe that homosexuals should be treated with respect and protected
against discrimination in areas such as employment and housing. I believe they
should be allowed to inherit money and property from their partners.
I believe that, just like anybody else, they can be loving and kind and
wonderful.
I believe that they should enjoy complete freedom to live their lives as
homosexuals without any interference from the state or other people and I
would, and have, defended homosexual friends from bigots and thugs.
But I believe that homosexuality is not normal and not natural.
I use the words carefully and precisely because this is what John DiCicco, a
city councillor in Kamloops, B.C., said and why he has been forced to pay
$1,000 by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
The settlement allows DiCicco to avoid a full Human Rights hearing after it
accepted the complaint from a homosexual couple who were offended by the
councillor's remark.
Apparently the City of Kamloops will pay the fine. It is not known who will
pay the cost of repairing DiCicco's barbershop after it was vandalized and
"Homophobia Die" painted on the door. This occurred after he had
opposed the proclamation of a homosexual pride event.
DiCicco has said that he has no issue with homosexuals themselves but that he
feels that he shouldn't have to endorse their behaviour.
Thing is, he is a Roman Catholic. And the catechism of the Catholic church
states that homosexual activities are "intrinsically disordered."
So this is very much about freedom of religion. But then we've known that for
some time. Also in B.C., the Knights of Columbus had to pay two lesbians for
"hurt feelings." The Knights had refused to rent their hall to the
couple for a "wedding" reception.
In Calgary, Bishop Fred Henry was the subject of complaints because of his
opposition to homosexual marriage and at a federal level the human rights
commission forced a Catholic woman to continue paying union dues even after
the union in question used money not to represent members but to lobby, again,
for homosexual marriage.
This is not about whether you are homosexual or not or whether you support
homosexual marriage or not. It is about whether you support freedom of
thought, speech and religion or not.
Nobody is obliged to agree with the Catholic church, John DiCicco, me or
anyone else.
As Canadians, however, you are supposed to respect and allow our right to
disagree with you.
There was a time when the current legislation did not exist.
If anyone then had argued in a council chamber, on television or in a
newspaper that "homosexuality is certainly normal and natural" my
response would have been to disagree. But not to try to silence.
Similarly now, homosexuals and their supporters are allowed to say whatever
they want, and I for one would battle to defend that right.
Today it is John DiCicco or perhaps me. Tomorrow it could be you.
Do stand up for that which millions have fought and died.
[Article in The Toronto Sun. January 27, 2007]
By Paul Stanway The rights and freedoms of Albertans suffered a double blow yesterday, as the opposition parties torpedoed a bill to protect the rights of those among us who don't want to be actively involved in gay marriage. A private member's bill sponsored by Foothills-Rocky View
Tory MLA Ted Morton died as a result of the time-wasting tactics of opposition
MLAs. Morton's bill would have offered some protection to those who continue to
oppose gay marriage, and it forbid the punishment of anyone who refuses to
officiate at a same-sex wedding. Way back in the mists of time - OK, a year and a half ago -
Ralph Klein declared himself opposed to gay marriage and said he was determined
to fight the issue on behalf of the majority of Albertans he figured were
opposed to overthrowing one of humanity's most long-standing practices. The government of former prime minister Paul Martin went
ahead and changed the federal legislation anyway, and when push came to shove
there was precious little Alberta could do about it. But the premier promised something else. He promised that
the change in federal marriage law would not trump the rights of Albertans for
whom traditional marriage - one guy, one gal - remains a fundamental belief. Brave words, but to this point the Alberta government
hasn't actually done anything to fulfil that promise. So Morton, a University of
Calgary professor, drafted his own bill. No one in government actually said this was just another
futile gesture that was guaranteed to be turfed by the courts, but that was the
impression left by the premier. As recently as last week Ralph suggested Morton
had been told "many times" that his bill was legally flawed. Well, no doubt the Supreme Court will one day decide
whether gay rights or religious freedom rules, but, in the meantime, Alberta
Justice officials quietly admit that there's nothing to prevent Morton or the
province from levelling the playing field. And that's all anyone is suggesting. Gay marriages are
legal. Only Ottawa can change that, and Stephen Harper has said that would only
happen after a free vote in Parliament, which pretty much guarantees no change. In the meantime we have a majority who - according to the
opinion polls - don't oppose gay unions, but are concerned about protecting the
traditional definition of marriage and their own rights. And they have reason to be concerned. As Morton has pointed out, in neighbouring B.C., we've
already seen a Catholic organization fined for refusing to rent space for a gay
wedding, and a teacher suspended for daring to voice opposition to gay marriage
in a newspaper. If the gay community were at all sensitive to such
concerns, we could likely find a compromise that 90% of Albertans could live
with. Call it passive acceptance, if you like. But gay activists don't want passive acceptance. They want
a victory, and official endorsement - with all the legislative enforcement that
implies. At a demonstration outside the Alberta legislature last
week, activist Julie Lloyd actually claimed a bill like Morton's "would
make it open season on gay and lesbian Albertans." Gay Edmonton city
councillor Michael Phair, who really ought to know better, claimed "we're
expendable - gays and lesbians be damned."
Disciplinary Hearing for Firefighters Refusing to Distribute Homosexual Leaflets Four firefighters are due before a disciplinary hearing over their
refusal to hand out leaflets at a gay pride march in Glasgow.
Another five men who are also
based at the city's Cowcaddens fire station had their cases considered last
month. All nine will be told later
whether the fire brigade plans to take action. Some of the men were opposed to
attending the event on religious grounds while others did not think it was part
of their core duties.
However, gay rights campaigners
argue that firefighters are public servants who cannot be seen to discriminate. [Click here to read the whole article on the BBC Website.] European Christians slam 'homophobia' resolution
European
Parliament's action equates condition to racism,
anti-Semitism
By
Mary Jo Anderson
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The European Parliament's recently passed
resolution "Homophobia in Europe" has
raised alarms among European pro-family groups,
Christians and others who worry the measure is a
move to cut off public debate over same-sex unions
and force universal acceptance of the homosexual
lifestyle.
We are grateful to the author of the following essay for permission to publish it. The Catholic Civil Rights League is an organization that has shown itself to be concerned not only about the rights of Catholics, but about those of other Canadians as well.
By Sean Murphy
Director, Catholic Civil Rights League, Western Region
"Thomas, I’ll have no opposition," warned Henry VIII in A Man
for All Seasons.
The scene in Robert Bolt’s play takes place in Sir Thomas More’s garden. Henry has just learned that More does not support his plans to unmake his marriage. "No opposition, I say!" he roared. "No opposition! Your conscience is your own affair, but you are my Chancellor!" "I’ll leave you out of it," growls the king. "But I don’t take it kindly, Thomas, and I’ll have no opposition!. . . Lie low if you will, but I’ll brook no opposition - no words, no signs, no letters, no pamphlets - mind that, Thomas - no writings against me!"1 Freedom of conscience, Tudor style. Sound familiar? In Canada, we call it "party discipline" and "cabinet solidarity." A Man for All Seasons follows More as he resigns his office and retires to private life, avoiding comment upon the King’s marriage. But, ultimately, ‘lying low’ isn’t enough. More’s silence, complains Thomas Cromwell, "is bellowing up and down Europe,"2 and, what’s worse, Henry can hear it. "The King’s a man of conscience,"says Cromwell, "and he wants either Sir Thomas More to bless his marriage or Sir Thomas More destroyed."3 It took three more years to accomplish More’s destruction, for new laws were needed to indict such disturbers of the king’s conscience. Unlike Canadian superior court judges, even Henry VIII could not ignore parliament or single-handedly make and unmake the law of the land. Though still married to Catherine of Aragon, Henry had a private wedding ceremony with Anne Boleyn in January, 1533. The Archbishop of Canterbury later declared the marriage of Henry and Catherine invalid, and the Act of Succession was passed in March, 1534, to ensure that their progeny could legally succeed to the throne. But the Act of Succession also asserted that Henry had not been truly married to Catherine and declared his marriage to Anne Boleyn valid. It made it treason to question or speak against the marriage of Henry and Anne, and almost treason to criticize the Act itself. Finally, citizens were required to swear an oath to defend the full contents of the Act, including its statements about marriage. "Almost immediately," wrote Richard Marius, a biographer of More, "the English people were subjected to a swarm of commissioners buzzing through the country to administer the oath to everyone they could find."4 In April, 1534, More refused the oath and was imprisoned in the Tower of London. Thomas Cromwell and his minions closed remaining legal loopholes with the passage of three more statutes, among them the Act of Supremacy, which pronounced Henry the "only Supreme Head on earth of the Church in England." The law claimed its first victims in May, 1535. More was beheaded two months later, and others followed. All of this to serve the personal dreams and aspirations of Henry VIII. He wanted recognition of his children by Anne as his legal successors, but he also demanded public and universal affirmation that his relationship with Anne Boleyn was worthy of the same respect and recognition as his marriage to Catherine. He got his way by having parliament pass statutes that not only defined marriage in his terms, but punished any expression of opposition. Jay Budziszewski ascribes this frantic effort to silence all opposition to ‘the revenge of conscience’. The law written on the human heart cannot be obliterated. It can be denied, but the reproach of conscience at the deepest levels never, ever stops.5 That is why even More’s silence was, finally, intolerable; it was less than acceptance, less than approval. "If you cannot convert your critics by argument," writes historian John Thomas Noonan, "at least by law you can make them recognize that your course is the course of the country." 6 Canada is following in Henry’s footsteps. Judges tell us that to deny persons of the same sex the right to ‘marry’ would be "a rejection of their personal aspirations and the denial of their dreams."7 They assert that same-sex couples may not be "excluded" from marrying because that would mean their relationships are "not worthy of the same respect and recognition as opposite-sex relationships."8 Citing the ‘rule of law,’ these judges are demanding public and universal affirmation that there is no moral difference between homosexual and heterosexual conduct, that both are "worthy of the same respect and recognition," and they are demanding that all citizens unconditionally accept their definition of marriage. Canadians who oppose the marriage bill need not fear imprisonment or execution if Martin’s bill passes, and there are no plans to compel us to swear allegiance to the new order. But there is good reason to expect the kind of pervasive legal persecution and oppression visited upon Tudor England. It will look different in 21st century Canada, for when history repeats itself it adopts the costumes and customs of the age. Sir Thomas More was jailed because he was suspected of ‘misprision of treason’ - of having treasonous intentions. Some human rights laws now make it unlawful to ‘indicate an intention to discriminate.’9 BC teacher Chris Kempling ran afoul of this when he spoke publicly against homosexual conduct in response to others - including other teachers - who were speaking in favour of it. He was charged for professional misconduct and is threatened with suspension for ‘indicating an intention to discriminate.’ Call it ‘misprision of discrimination.’ The judge who rejected Kempling’s appeal clearly holds that authentic Christian teaching that proscribes homosexual conduct is a lie; that it is not merely derogatory, but harmful and damaging; that it is wrong, and that those who articulate such teachings deserve to be punished.10 It is reasonable to expect that the same accusations will be hurled by judges against Christian teaching on marriage. If we will not be allowed to speak publicly, what about conscientious objection? Ask the Catholic high school principal ordered by a judge to let a homosexually active student bring his ‘date’ to a school dance.11 Ask Scott Brockie, a Christian printer fined and ordered to serve Gay and Lesbian Archives of Canada,12 an organization that not only promotes homosexual conduct but promotes pro-paedophilia literature.13 Ask the marriage commissioners who have already been ordered to resign if they will not perform services for persons of the same sex.14 Ask the Knights of Columbus, sued by lesbians because they refused to rent their hall to them for a ‘wedding’ reception.15 Judges are demanding that every citizen submit to their ideas about sexuality and marriage. Like Robert Bolt’s Henry, they will brook no opposition to the new order. They will not send objectors to jail or to the scaffold, but they will fine them, award monetary judgements against them, see them suspended or fired, force their schools to close, and order that all children be taught their new doctrines. And this government applaud, because Paul Martin has chosen to serve these judges rather than the people who elected him: to play the part of Thomas Cromwell rather than Thomas More. Notes 1. Bolt, Robert, A Man for All Seasons. Act One. Scarborough, Ont.: Bellhaven House, 1968, p. 33 2. Ibid, Act Two, p. 58 3. Ibid, Act Two, p. 70 4. Marius, Richard, Thomas More. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985, p. 459 5. cf. Budziszewski, J., What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide. Dallas, Texas: Spence Publishing, 2003 6. Noonan, J.T., A Private Choice. New York: The Free Press, 1979, p. 82. Quoted in Budziszewski, supra, p. 154 7. Barbeau v. British Columbia (Egale Canada Inc. v. Canada) BCCA (1 May, 2003), para. 130 8. Halpern v. Attorney General of Canada Ont CA (10 June, 2003), para. 94 9. Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 211, Section 7(1) 10. Kempling v. The British Columbia College of Teachers, 2004 BCSC 133 11. Hall (Litigation guardian of) v. Powers [2002] O.J. No. 1803 Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Court File No. 02-CV-227705CM3. Judgment: May 10, 2002. Most relevant to this paper, the judicial suppression of religious freedom in the Hall case is supported by Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples: http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/marc_hall_injunction_decision.htm (Accessed 2005-03-24) 12. Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Scott Brockie, Ont. Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court (2002) O.J. No. 2375, Court File No. 179/00 [17 June, 2002] 13. For example: Gerald Hannon, "Men Loving Boys Loving Men", The Body Politic, Issue 39, December 1977/January 1978. "This is an archived ‘original web site’ brought to you by the: Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, © 1997-2004. Contact information. This page is: http://www.clga.ca/Material/Records/docs/hannon/ox/mbm.htm. (add to Favourites). Last revised: December 14, 1995." Accessed 9 July, 2003, 14 April, 2004, and 23 March, 2005. 14. "In a letter Tuesday, B.C. Commissioners were given an ultimatum from the B.C. Vital Statistics Agency, which stated that any Commissioner ‘who feels that they cannot solemnize same-sex marriages’ must ‘resign their appointments’ by March 31. The letter gave no details about what would happen if a Commissioner refused to step down." VANCOUVER, January 23, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) 15. B.C. lesbians fight to hold wedding reception in Catholic hall (25 January, 2005) http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/24/lesbian-wedding-050124.html Accessed 2005-01-27
Report Says Homosexual U.S. Attorneys
Complicit in "Frightening" Charges Against Christian Protesters The Canadian Federal Election 2004 Cries to Rein in Social
Conservatives Somehow one expects the press to be the natural defenders of free speech. But some segments of the press revealed a very different tendency during and after the federal election we have just gone through in Canada. There were cries of outrage at comments by social conservatives during the election, and suggestions that in the future Stephen Harper should muzzle the expression of their views, and presumably give the new Conservative party a more "progressive" tone, making it more like the Liberal Party. It was not enough that Harper made it very clear during the election that he had no program to change the abortion situation in Canada during his mandate. (The situation is one of lawlessness where nothing prevents the taking of an infant's life at least up to the moment of birth). Harper should in future--these promoters of political correctness suggested--prevent back-benchers from doing anything that would be remotely threatening to this supposedly satisfactory condition of social peace. A blatant example of this school of thought is found in an article by John Ibbitson in The Globe and Mail (June 30, 2004, P. A4, "Tory Leader should study Tony Blair"). "If Stephen Harper wants to become prime minister [says Ibbitson], he must emulate Tony Bair, . . . who ended 18 years of Tory government by purging radical elements from his party. . . . While redoubling his commitment to economic conservatism . . . Mr Harper must expunge the social conservatives from any position of influence." Well, that is pretty straightforward. It is all right to stand for curbs on government spending and programs, but any form of conservatism that stands for preserving moral principles must be denied a voice in Canadian society, according to John Ibbitson and his ilk. To this crowd, the status quo has been quite satisfactory, thank you. Social conservatism was denied an effective voice in either the Liberal or the old Progressive Conservative Party (and now, it is argued in effect, its limited signs of expression in the fledgling new Conservative Party must be squelched). Our voting system works to prevent the rise of effective minority parties that might champion moral causes. The most influential segments of the Canadian press have been pretty well unanimous in working to destroy what might remain of the old moral consensus that gave character to our nation. And with rulings like the court decisions against Scott Brockie and Chris Kempling, combined with "progressive" new laws like Svend Robinson's Bill C-250, the new totalitarian progressives may hope that even minority voices may be silenced and a mind-numbing "social peace" may prevail. We social conservatives have our work cut out for us. But there is some room for hope. Even in the bleak public moral environment that is dominant in Canada there are many voices raised to protest the degredation of our nation. And increasingly we are finding a sense of unity among those who are willing to speak out. It is unlikely that they will be willing to be silenced. It seems unlikely that social conservatives will be purged from the Conservative Party. (That would surely mean the fragmentation of the party.) And if they are purged they will perhaps find expression in a different party which under a more democratic national voting system would be able to make some headway. Perhaps, too, there will be a reaction in Canada against the totalitarian impulse represented by the passing of Bill C-250. At any rate, there are many who recognize that to despair is not an acceptable option; that even if we do not see victory in the near future, it is necessary to bear witness for truth and against the moral degredation represented in evils such as induced abortion, euthanasia, and the propagandizing of the young for immoral life-styles. We need to realize the truth embodied in the words of Kipling's poem If, and "Learn to meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same." Our struggle is an ongoing one. A triumph in a particular battle one is not ultimate victory, and an apparent disaster is not a final defeat. Recognizing this fact will prevent our letting our guard down in time of apparent success, and prevent our despairing in times of apparent failure. --E S. H.
Homosexual
Hate Crime Signed into Law; Chilling Effect on Free Speech, Religion and
Importing Materials.
We are grateful to REAL Women of BC for having passed on the following information regarding how Canadian senators voted. The following senators voted for Bill C-250: YEAS
NAYS
ABSTENTIONS
From a LifeSite bulletin of April 28, 2004: In
England:
|