Do we want more of Pierre Trudeau's Liberal Socialism in Canada? It has brought us high taxes, wasteful social programs. Multiculturalism and political correctness are destroying Canadian values and destroying Christian values. Liberal Socialism just isn't working. I am also including my favourite articles about the US, because I see them heading in the same direction.
The "gay" lobby hates the thought of raising the age of consent. EGALE is pushing for a lower age of consent for homosexual sex. Svend Robinson former NDP MP and a known homosexual has pushed for a lowering of the age.
One slogan for NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) says "Sex before eight or it's too late"
CANADIAN LIBERALS AND THE NDP SUPPORT THESE PEOPLE AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A PLATINUM SPONSOR OF EGALE !!!!!!
carfix2000ca.........
Pro-Family groups will note individual MP votes on 2 items raising age of consent for sex
OTTAWA, September 27, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canada is notorious for having one of the lowest ages of consent for sexual activity in the world at age 14, while the international standard is minimally 16 and 18 in many nations. Despite Canada's growing reputation as a haven for pedophiles two separate measures seeking to raise the age of consent, scheduled for a vote tomorrow, are likely to be rejected.
Bill C-313 (http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/b... ) submitted by Alberta Conservative MP Rick Casson will be voted on second reading tomorrow. Presenting his bill in May, Casson explained, "The Criminal Code of Canada, as exists today, provides tacit approval for sexual relations between adults and adolescents as young as 14 as long as the sexual relations are consensual and the adult is not in a position of authority or trust over the minor. The same Criminal Code also excuses adults who have sexual relations with children as young as 12 years of age as long as the adult involved was under the impression that the minor was at least 14 years of age, the sexual relation was consensual and there was no abuse of position of authority or trust."
Also tomorrow, Motion M-221, a Private Members Motion from Nina Grewal, Conservative MP from British Columbia, asks Parliament to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16 years old.
If the bill passes second reading it will be sent to committee and eventually come for a final vote. The motion would show the will of the House to amend the law, which would be followed by legislation.
International human rights activists are keeping a close eye on tomorrow's vote but don't expect any progress as Canada's ruling elite is known to be lax, at best, on child protection. Gregory Carlin of the Irish Anti-Trafficking Coalition told LifeSiteNews.com, "'The age of consent issue has to be internationalized. The contempt for the rights of the child shown by the government of Canada has to be condemned."
The likelihood that C-313 will fail is shocking particularly considering the bill seeks only to stop adults from sexually preying on children as it contains an exception for minors engaging in sex together - what Casson calls a "close-in-age exception". Nonetheless, homosexual activist groups such as EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) are against raising the age of consent, and in fact are demanding that the age of consent for anal sex be lowered from 18. (see the EGALE submission to government on the subject http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&menu=37&a
Even "pro-gay" feminists have called on gay groups to distance themselves from efforts to lower the age of consent. Writing in the UK Guardian newspaper in 2001, Julie Blindel points out, "If gay men are going to, on the one hand, campaign for sexual access to younger and younger boys, but bleat about public perceptions of them as a league of child abusers, is it any wonder that the whole thing is such a mess?" Blindel concludes, "If gay men are serious about distancing themselves from child sexual abuse, then it's up to them to make some real efforts to join forces against this gross violation." (see Blindel's piece here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
The IATC's Carlin concurs, "If gays are going to campaign (by way of zero change), for sexual access to young boys, they may lose the right in the eyes of many people to complain about the perceptions associated with their choice".
Despite the gravity of the lack of protection from sexual exploitation for Canadian children, political experts are predicting most MPs will vote against the proposals. However, political activist groups will be watching the votes closely to note which MPs are concerned with stopping sexual abuse of children by adults and which are not.
Campaign Life Coalition National President Jim Hughes told LifeSiteNews.com, "We will be using these votes in the voting records of MPs in our upcoming report cards of MPs." The report cards demonstrate how MPs voted on key issues related to life and family issues. Hughes and other pro-family leaders maintain that Wednesday's votes will provide a straightforward assessment of an MP's integrity and worthiness to hold public office.
A poll conducted in 2002 found that 80% of Canadians believe that the federal government should raise the age of consent from 14 years to at least 16 years
jhw
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05092705.html
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Homosexual Activist Opposition to Child Porn Law
Canadian Women’s Group Exposes Homosexual Activist Opposition to Child Porn Law
Bill C-2 includes “serious loopholes” for those charged with violating child porn law
OTTAWA, September 26, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Influential gay activist political tactics against child porn laws and raising the age of consent has been a disturbing and on-going phenomenon that the public is not aware of according to leaders of organizations fighting child porn.
On July 20, Canada’s House of Commons passed Bill C-2 which added amendments to the Criminal Code on matters related to child pornography. Gwen Landolt, National Vice President of REAL Women of Canada, says that the amendments were helpful but still do not provide full protection for vulnerable children. Furthermore, in a detailed article scheduled for the September 26th edition of REAL Women’s Reality magazine, Landolt reveals there was predictably strong opposition from Canada’s homosexual activist organizations to C-2.
Bill C-2, says Landolt “includes some serious loopholes for those charged with violations of our child pornography law”. Some of the problems she identifies are:
1.The defence of “artistic merit” to a charge of child pornography was retained.
2. No minimum sentence was included in the bill when it was introduced in the House of Commons.
3. It did not include a provision to raise the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years "despite the fact that the Provincial Attorneys General had approved, at their annual federal/provincial meetings in October 1998, December 1999, and again in September 2003, to raise the age of consent'.
Landlolt notes that Canada’s most prominent, and often government funded, homosexual activist organization, EGALE, opposes raising the age of consent and that the mild amendments to the child pornography law “made the homosexual community decidedly unhappy”.
Revealing the extraordinary influence of the homosexual organizations on government policy Landolt notes, “it is well known that the Liberal government never brings forward legislation unless it has passed inspection by the homosexual lobby.”
The article reports that the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO) submitted a brief to the committee considering C-2 and complained that the bill would deny lesbian, gay and bisexual teens the free expression of their sexuality and create more circumstances in which sexual relations with adolescents would be criminalized.
CLGRO stated in its brief that “younger persons are capable of seeking and do seek out consensual same-sex relationships with older persons and, in fact, may be the initiators of such relationships. In addition, contrary to popular belief, a relationship with an older person may not in fact be damaging for a young person”.
The national newspaper, the Globe and Mail, “which never fails to promote the homosexual agenda”, says Landolt, also opposed the C-2 amendments. In a July 6 editorial it stated that Bill C-2 was “extreme” and objected to the limits placed on freedom of expression.
The REAL Women article concludes by warning that “The homosexual activists’ objection to Bill C-2, together with the Globe and Mail editorial, are setting the stage for our liberal judges to overturn the child pornography law at the first opportunity they get”.
See the complete REAL Women article
Child Pornography Law Under Attack by Homosexuals
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/050926a.html
Bill C-2 includes “serious loopholes” for those charged with violating child porn law
OTTAWA, September 26, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Influential gay activist political tactics against child porn laws and raising the age of consent has been a disturbing and on-going phenomenon that the public is not aware of according to leaders of organizations fighting child porn.
On July 20, Canada’s House of Commons passed Bill C-2 which added amendments to the Criminal Code on matters related to child pornography. Gwen Landolt, National Vice President of REAL Women of Canada, says that the amendments were helpful but still do not provide full protection for vulnerable children. Furthermore, in a detailed article scheduled for the September 26th edition of REAL Women’s Reality magazine, Landolt reveals there was predictably strong opposition from Canada’s homosexual activist organizations to C-2.
Bill C-2, says Landolt “includes some serious loopholes for those charged with violations of our child pornography law”. Some of the problems she identifies are:
1.The defence of “artistic merit” to a charge of child pornography was retained.
2. No minimum sentence was included in the bill when it was introduced in the House of Commons.
3. It did not include a provision to raise the age of consent from 14 years to 16 years "despite the fact that the Provincial Attorneys General had approved, at their annual federal/provincial meetings in October 1998, December 1999, and again in September 2003, to raise the age of consent'.
Landlolt notes that Canada’s most prominent, and often government funded, homosexual activist organization, EGALE, opposes raising the age of consent and that the mild amendments to the child pornography law “made the homosexual community decidedly unhappy”.
Revealing the extraordinary influence of the homosexual organizations on government policy Landolt notes, “it is well known that the Liberal government never brings forward legislation unless it has passed inspection by the homosexual lobby.”
The article reports that the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO) submitted a brief to the committee considering C-2 and complained that the bill would deny lesbian, gay and bisexual teens the free expression of their sexuality and create more circumstances in which sexual relations with adolescents would be criminalized.
CLGRO stated in its brief that “younger persons are capable of seeking and do seek out consensual same-sex relationships with older persons and, in fact, may be the initiators of such relationships. In addition, contrary to popular belief, a relationship with an older person may not in fact be damaging for a young person”.
The national newspaper, the Globe and Mail, “which never fails to promote the homosexual agenda”, says Landolt, also opposed the C-2 amendments. In a July 6 editorial it stated that Bill C-2 was “extreme” and objected to the limits placed on freedom of expression.
The REAL Women article concludes by warning that “The homosexual activists’ objection to Bill C-2, together with the Globe and Mail editorial, are setting the stage for our liberal judges to overturn the child pornography law at the first opportunity they get”.
See the complete REAL Women article
Child Pornography Law Under Attack by Homosexuals
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/050926a.html
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Temple of Propaganda-Powerful Propaganda Institute Being Planned
If anyone doubts that Canada has become a cesspool of socialist multiculturalism, just read this....
Canada is one of the biggest pushers for the globalization of humanity. Not just economically, but culturally...
200 million taxpayer dollars down another liberal socialist toilet
carfix2000ca........
The Temple of Propaganda
Canada’s one-world priests leading the world into the ideological abyss – quietly
‘Izzy’ Asper, when expounding on his dream for the Museum For Human Rights lamented “We Canadians have a tendency to aim for the middle, not the top, not for the stars.”
But this statement isn’t true. Although Canadians on the whole seem to be increasingly unimpassioned, certain wealthy and powerful Canadians, the high-priests of the new-world religion, have stepped into influential roles and are leading the world in a most unobtrusive, deceptive—and effective—manner. For years they have been carefully guiding the fate of the world using their favorite vehicle—the United Nations.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the activist judges who have used it as a platform to ‘discover’ or create never before imagined ‘rights’, are merely the Canadian branch in this experimental new world-wide movement, which with the quiet unobtrusiveness of a creeping vine consumes and crushes the walls of tradition and the rock foundation of Judeo-Christian principles on which Canada, and so many other nations, were built.
Few realize that Canada is one of the most influential forces at the UN, pushing hard and skillfully for a one-world order dominated by leftist liberal ideologies. Canada has done considerable work in paving the way for global eco-extremism, ‘sexual rights’ and ‘reproductive rights’ (read: homosexual ‘marriage’, abortion, forced sterilization, contraception). Ask any of those who’ve lobbied in the UN on the behalf of family and life issues who it is they often spend the most of their time fighting – Canada.
And few, if any, have been more influential in pushing the one-world, ideological agenda than Canada’s own Maurice Strong. Strong, coincidentally enough, is one of the members of the advisory board for the Museum For Human Rights.
Maurice Strong is a notoriously soft spoken, deceptively Canadian businessman. He has served as senior adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, as well as the president of the World Bank, and has more awards and honorary degrees to his name than it is worth the time to recount; most have been for his extensive work in environmentalism. A mere handful of his many, many powerful connections include communications magnate Ted Turner, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore, Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien, and current prime minister Paul Martin, and he is especially tied into the powerful web of influence of Canadian businessman Paul Desmarais. But that’s a story for a different article. A few of Strong’s many nicknames include the ‘godfather of globalism’, and ‘custodian of the planet’. In 1990 the Globe and Mail, with unusual insight, reported that on his 160,000 acre Colorado ranch he is “laying the groundwork for what amounts to a new world order.”
That 160,000 acre ranch once called by Strong’s wife the “Valley of the Refuge of World Truths” (now renamed “The Place of the Heart”) is a gargantuan new-age colony. It is a haven of religious and moral relativism. It brings together representatives of the world’s ‘traditional’ religions in the hope of fusing them together and creating a new world religion which is heralded by a return to the pagan earth spirituality of native Indians. Indeed, it isn’t at all surprising that a huge portion of the Museum For Human Rights will celebrate the supposed original innocence of the natives and lament their supposed subsequent corruption and destruction by white, male Europeans. The odds are minimal that it will mention the horrors of the frequent tribal warfare and violent practices which often appear throughout native history.
As Oscar Wilde would say to a friend at the height of his dissolution: “While we wait for a new religion of light, let Olympus serve as a shelter and refuge. We must let our instincts laugh and frolic in the sun like a troop of laughing children.” Paganism is in vogue.
Maurice Strong is only one such member of the list of advisers and donors, albeit one of the most noteworthy. The list reads like a who’s who of liberal ideologues—extreme feminists and environmentalists and homosexual-rights activists. It includes such groups as Egale Canada, Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples, Canadian Human Rights Commission, The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). They are the priests and the priestesses that are quietly leading the world into the abyss of new age, one world, relativistic paganism.
Conclusion – The Temple of Propaganda
So far, it is unlikely that there will be much public criticism of the $300 million Human Rights Museum. Even Conservatives with the insight to see through the farce probably and sadly won’t have the courage to point out the emperor’s nakedness; instead they will gush enthusiastically about the mad project.
The left has long waged a war of words, a war of propaganda, and they have won almost every battle. They have usurped and made a monster of the word ‘tolerance’, they have raped the word ‘gay’, and they have beheaded the term ‘human rights’. To speak out against the museum is to risk being labeled ‘intolerant’, to risk finding your face in the Museum’s planned Hall of Shame which documents past violations of human rights. There you will annually be mocked and jeered at by hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren as a ‘bigot’ and an ‘extremist’.
To speak out against the museum might be to risk being in the shoes of Bishop Henry of Calgary who faces an expensive and exacting trial in the hands of a Human Rights Commission for simply laying out the teachings of the Catholic faith on homosexuality. To speak out is to risk being prosecuted and persecuted, like Chris Kempling, the British Columbia teacher whose teaching license was suspended for writing letters to the editor in defense of marriage. And then there is Scott Brockie, the Christian printer who refused to print letterhead for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives whose battle with the Human Rights Commission left him doubled under the weight of a $5,000 fine and $40,000 in legal costs. The list goes on. The human rights of these persecuted Canadians of principle are anathema in the new temple.
Will there be a section devoted to China’s notorious forced one child policy, and its violent forced aborting of women and infanticides, of which so many of those on the board of the museum are supportive of?
Don’t count on it.
What are the chances that violations against human rights committed by Human Rights Commissions will be granted an exhibit in the Museum?
None at all.
The completion of the Museum For Human Rights will be the coup de grâce, the last button on the sash of liberal propaganda. After all, how did the Liberal federal government finally justify committing $100 million to building the museum? According to Martin Knelman of the National post, the realization that they could use the museum as a “training centre where police officers, military personnel and government employees will be sent for courses and seminars designed to make them more knowledgeable and sensitive to issues of cultural diversity, racial bigotry and the human rights of Canadian citizens under the Charter of Rights.”
God save us from the hands of these ideologically brainwashed individuals who are meant to protect us.
With the completion of the Museum Canada will finally have the means to create a bureaucracy passionately dedicated, and a police and military force fully equipped, to defend the new state ideology. The full coercive power of the state will stand vigilantly against detractors against the new order. And with such passionate and powerful protectors, who would dare speak out against it? Who would dare risk a place in the Museum For Human Right’s Hall of Shame?
I can think of a few who would. And they had better speak up now – about the museum, about the Charter, judicial activism, institutional corruption and so much more that is genuinely threatening to usurp our freedom.
Nothing about the Museum project is yet final. It is still thankfully almost $100 million short of its goal. And the museum website states that construction will not begin until full funding is put in place. Perhaps full funding will never be found. Perhaps Canadians will start vociferously objecting to this obscene waste of multi-millions.
Let us make it clear to our government and our fellow countrymen that the Museum for Human Rights is, at best, little more than a dangerous throwaway of $300 million.
Canada is one of the biggest pushers for the globalization of humanity. Not just economically, but culturally...
200 million taxpayer dollars down another liberal socialist toilet
carfix2000ca........
The Temple of PropagandaCanada’s one-world priests leading the world into the ideological abyss – quietly
‘Izzy’ Asper, when expounding on his dream for the Museum For Human Rights lamented “We Canadians have a tendency to aim for the middle, not the top, not for the stars.”
But this statement isn’t true. Although Canadians on the whole seem to be increasingly unimpassioned, certain wealthy and powerful Canadians, the high-priests of the new-world religion, have stepped into influential roles and are leading the world in a most unobtrusive, deceptive—and effective—manner. For years they have been carefully guiding the fate of the world using their favorite vehicle—the United Nations.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the activist judges who have used it as a platform to ‘discover’ or create never before imagined ‘rights’, are merely the Canadian branch in this experimental new world-wide movement, which with the quiet unobtrusiveness of a creeping vine consumes and crushes the walls of tradition and the rock foundation of Judeo-Christian principles on which Canada, and so many other nations, were built.
Few realize that Canada is one of the most influential forces at the UN, pushing hard and skillfully for a one-world order dominated by leftist liberal ideologies. Canada has done considerable work in paving the way for global eco-extremism, ‘sexual rights’ and ‘reproductive rights’ (read: homosexual ‘marriage’, abortion, forced sterilization, contraception). Ask any of those who’ve lobbied in the UN on the behalf of family and life issues who it is they often spend the most of their time fighting – Canada.
And few, if any, have been more influential in pushing the one-world, ideological agenda than Canada’s own Maurice Strong. Strong, coincidentally enough, is one of the members of the advisory board for the Museum For Human Rights.
Maurice Strong is a notoriously soft spoken, deceptively Canadian businessman. He has served as senior adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, as well as the president of the World Bank, and has more awards and honorary degrees to his name than it is worth the time to recount; most have been for his extensive work in environmentalism. A mere handful of his many, many powerful connections include communications magnate Ted Turner, Mikhail Gorbachev, Al Gore, Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chretien, and current prime minister Paul Martin, and he is especially tied into the powerful web of influence of Canadian businessman Paul Desmarais. But that’s a story for a different article. A few of Strong’s many nicknames include the ‘godfather of globalism’, and ‘custodian of the planet’. In 1990 the Globe and Mail, with unusual insight, reported that on his 160,000 acre Colorado ranch he is “laying the groundwork for what amounts to a new world order.”
That 160,000 acre ranch once called by Strong’s wife the “Valley of the Refuge of World Truths” (now renamed “The Place of the Heart”) is a gargantuan new-age colony. It is a haven of religious and moral relativism. It brings together representatives of the world’s ‘traditional’ religions in the hope of fusing them together and creating a new world religion which is heralded by a return to the pagan earth spirituality of native Indians. Indeed, it isn’t at all surprising that a huge portion of the Museum For Human Rights will celebrate the supposed original innocence of the natives and lament their supposed subsequent corruption and destruction by white, male Europeans. The odds are minimal that it will mention the horrors of the frequent tribal warfare and violent practices which often appear throughout native history.
As Oscar Wilde would say to a friend at the height of his dissolution: “While we wait for a new religion of light, let Olympus serve as a shelter and refuge. We must let our instincts laugh and frolic in the sun like a troop of laughing children.” Paganism is in vogue.
Maurice Strong is only one such member of the list of advisers and donors, albeit one of the most noteworthy. The list reads like a who’s who of liberal ideologues—extreme feminists and environmentalists and homosexual-rights activists. It includes such groups as Egale Canada, Equal Marriage for Same-Sex Couples, Canadian Human Rights Commission, The Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations and the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). They are the priests and the priestesses that are quietly leading the world into the abyss of new age, one world, relativistic paganism.
Conclusion – The Temple of Propaganda
So far, it is unlikely that there will be much public criticism of the $300 million Human Rights Museum. Even Conservatives with the insight to see through the farce probably and sadly won’t have the courage to point out the emperor’s nakedness; instead they will gush enthusiastically about the mad project.
The left has long waged a war of words, a war of propaganda, and they have won almost every battle. They have usurped and made a monster of the word ‘tolerance’, they have raped the word ‘gay’, and they have beheaded the term ‘human rights’. To speak out against the museum is to risk being labeled ‘intolerant’, to risk finding your face in the Museum’s planned Hall of Shame which documents past violations of human rights. There you will annually be mocked and jeered at by hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren as a ‘bigot’ and an ‘extremist’.
To speak out against the museum might be to risk being in the shoes of Bishop Henry of Calgary who faces an expensive and exacting trial in the hands of a Human Rights Commission for simply laying out the teachings of the Catholic faith on homosexuality. To speak out is to risk being prosecuted and persecuted, like Chris Kempling, the British Columbia teacher whose teaching license was suspended for writing letters to the editor in defense of marriage. And then there is Scott Brockie, the Christian printer who refused to print letterhead for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives whose battle with the Human Rights Commission left him doubled under the weight of a $5,000 fine and $40,000 in legal costs. The list goes on. The human rights of these persecuted Canadians of principle are anathema in the new temple.
Will there be a section devoted to China’s notorious forced one child policy, and its violent forced aborting of women and infanticides, of which so many of those on the board of the museum are supportive of?
Don’t count on it.
What are the chances that violations against human rights committed by Human Rights Commissions will be granted an exhibit in the Museum?
None at all.
The completion of the Museum For Human Rights will be the coup de grâce, the last button on the sash of liberal propaganda. After all, how did the Liberal federal government finally justify committing $100 million to building the museum? According to Martin Knelman of the National post, the realization that they could use the museum as a “training centre where police officers, military personnel and government employees will be sent for courses and seminars designed to make them more knowledgeable and sensitive to issues of cultural diversity, racial bigotry and the human rights of Canadian citizens under the Charter of Rights.”
God save us from the hands of these ideologically brainwashed individuals who are meant to protect us.
With the completion of the Museum Canada will finally have the means to create a bureaucracy passionately dedicated, and a police and military force fully equipped, to defend the new state ideology. The full coercive power of the state will stand vigilantly against detractors against the new order. And with such passionate and powerful protectors, who would dare speak out against it? Who would dare risk a place in the Museum For Human Right’s Hall of Shame?
I can think of a few who would. And they had better speak up now – about the museum, about the Charter, judicial activism, institutional corruption and so much more that is genuinely threatening to usurp our freedom.
Nothing about the Museum project is yet final. It is still thankfully almost $100 million short of its goal. And the museum website states that construction will not begin until full funding is put in place. Perhaps full funding will never be found. Perhaps Canadians will start vociferously objecting to this obscene waste of multi-millions.
Let us make it clear to our government and our fellow countrymen that the Museum for Human Rights is, at best, little more than a dangerous throwaway of $300 million.
Liberals Furious Over New Children's Book
This one is so good I am going to add a side link.....:))
carix2000ca......
New kid’s book “Liberals Under My Bed” becomes lightning rod for controversy. Prominent liberals liken it to Nazi propaganda, but conservative author laughs off allegations.
Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) September 20, 2005 –- Liberals all over the country are up in arms over a new children’s book that portrays cartoon versions of left-wing icons Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy taxing and regulating a lemonade stand.
“Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed” (Kids Ahead; hardcover: $15.95; ISBN 0976726904) hits bookstore shelves today, but author Katharine DeBrecht has already found herself under fire from liberals. MSNBC host Ron Reagan was incensed over the book and scolded DeBrecht on his cable television show. Fox News host Alan Colmes claimed the book exists for the purpose of “brainwashing.” Democratic Underground, a popular liberal Web site, named DeBrecht to its “Top 10 Conservative Idiots” list. And Daily Kos, the most trafficked left-wing blog, likened the book to Nazi propaganda.
In spite of the unflattering comparisons to Hitler, “Liberals Under My Bed” author DeBrecht is nonplussed by the allegations.
“What else would you expect from liberals?” shrugs DeBrecht, a mother of three and former co-captain of Security Moms for Bush. “Liberals have been foisting their ideological agenda on our kids for years, and now they’re beside themselves that someone would stand up to them. Evidently books about socialist fish and gay kings are OK, but a story about hard work and self-reliance is too extreme.”
DeBrecht asserts that no liberals have protested the presence of books such as “Rainbow Fish” (where a fish is hectored into giving away his beautiful scales so that all the fish look the same) and “King & King” (where two princes marry each other and adopt a little girl) in classrooms. She also points to the prohibition on prayer in school, attacks on the Boy Scouts, opposition to school choice, and the recent court ruling banning the Pledge of Allegiance because it contained the phrase “under God” as evidence of a liberal agenda targeting kids.
“Evidently liberals oppose parents who believe in traditional values having a book that will help them teach those values to their children,” says DeBrecht. “But, then again, liberals oppose anything that supports religion, traditional families, and the free market. Those institutions are obstacles to their goals of eliminating personal responsibility and establishing a welfare state.”
“Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed” -- which features full-color illustrations by award winning artist Jim Hummel -- tells of two brothers who open a lemonade stand. Their plans to save up their hard earned profits to buy a swing set go awry when a Ted Kennedy character taxes away their profits and a pants-suit clad Hillary Clinton look-alike outlaws sugary drinks.
About World Ahead Publishing:
Kids Ahead is an imprint of Los Angeles-based World Ahead Publishing, the West Coast's premier publisher of conservative and libertarian books. To learn more, visit www.worldahead.com.
Contact Information:
To interview author Katharine DeBrecht, contact Special Guests at (630) 848-0750.
Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! Cartoon Caption Contest
carix2000ca......
New kid’s book “Liberals Under My Bed” becomes lightning rod for controversy. Prominent liberals liken it to Nazi propaganda, but conservative author laughs off allegations.
Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) September 20, 2005 –- Liberals all over the country are up in arms over a new children’s book that portrays cartoon versions of left-wing icons Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy taxing and regulating a lemonade stand.
“Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed” (Kids Ahead; hardcover: $15.95; ISBN 0976726904) hits bookstore shelves today, but author Katharine DeBrecht has already found herself under fire from liberals. MSNBC host Ron Reagan was incensed over the book and scolded DeBrecht on his cable television show. Fox News host Alan Colmes claimed the book exists for the purpose of “brainwashing.” Democratic Underground, a popular liberal Web site, named DeBrecht to its “Top 10 Conservative Idiots” list. And Daily Kos, the most trafficked left-wing blog, likened the book to Nazi propaganda.
In spite of the unflattering comparisons to Hitler, “Liberals Under My Bed” author DeBrecht is nonplussed by the allegations.
“What else would you expect from liberals?” shrugs DeBrecht, a mother of three and former co-captain of Security Moms for Bush. “Liberals have been foisting their ideological agenda on our kids for years, and now they’re beside themselves that someone would stand up to them. Evidently books about socialist fish and gay kings are OK, but a story about hard work and self-reliance is too extreme.”
DeBrecht asserts that no liberals have protested the presence of books such as “Rainbow Fish” (where a fish is hectored into giving away his beautiful scales so that all the fish look the same) and “King & King” (where two princes marry each other and adopt a little girl) in classrooms. She also points to the prohibition on prayer in school, attacks on the Boy Scouts, opposition to school choice, and the recent court ruling banning the Pledge of Allegiance because it contained the phrase “under God” as evidence of a liberal agenda targeting kids.
“Evidently liberals oppose parents who believe in traditional values having a book that will help them teach those values to their children,” says DeBrecht. “But, then again, liberals oppose anything that supports religion, traditional families, and the free market. Those institutions are obstacles to their goals of eliminating personal responsibility and establishing a welfare state.”
“Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed” -- which features full-color illustrations by award winning artist Jim Hummel -- tells of two brothers who open a lemonade stand. Their plans to save up their hard earned profits to buy a swing set go awry when a Ted Kennedy character taxes away their profits and a pants-suit clad Hillary Clinton look-alike outlaws sugary drinks.
About World Ahead Publishing:
Kids Ahead is an imprint of Los Angeles-based World Ahead Publishing, the West Coast's premier publisher of conservative and libertarian books. To learn more, visit www.worldahead.com.
Contact Information:
To interview author Katharine DeBrecht, contact Special Guests at (630) 848-0750.
Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed! Cartoon Caption Contest
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
All Canadians pay too much in taxes for the value they get back
Posted by ENN at free dominion
All Canadians pay too much in taxes for the value they get back.
The reference above shows Manitoba paying slightly more percentage tax that Ontario, based on that estimate.
For a comparison across all provinces, consider my post below from earlier this year, based on Fraser Institute estimates in 2004, which are close to the estimate above.
More importantly, consider the wide disparity between Canada and the US' Tax Freedom Day, and how our higher taxes buy us poor comparative value.
Ever wonder why we pay and pay and pay, yet our "socialist eutopia" doesn't seem to pay off?
Because of government fiscal mismanagement: Corruption, excessive bureaucracy, economically inefficient pork-barrelling, subsidies and patronage programs all designed to win power, secure it, enjoy it and profit from it.
Canadians are getting ripped off. No wonder we feel we are falling behind in personal wellness compared to other countries: It's because we are!
How does Tax Freedom Day in Canada and the U.S.A. compare?
U.S.A.Tax Freedom Day April 17 this year.
Definition:Tax Freedom Day is calculated by dividing the official government tally of all taxes collected in each year by the official government tally of all income earned in each year. Governments — federal, state and local — took
Taxes as a Percentage of Income are 29.1% in the U.S.A.
CanadaTax Freedom Day
for the year 2004 was June 28
Definition: The taxes used to compute Tax Freedom Day include income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes, as well as profit taxes, health, social security and employment taxes, import duties, license fees, taxes on the consumption of alcohol and tobacco (‘sin’ taxes), natural resource fees, fuel taxes, hospital taxes, and a host of other levies.
Taxes as a Percentage of Income are 48.8% in Canada
About that historical tax cut that Mr. Dithers often boasts about? The one where he says it's the largest tax cut in Canadian history?
Note the trend in Table 7: Climbing year after year since 1981, except the Fraser Institute reports: "After a seven-day decline from 2000 to 2001, Tax Freedom Day has been steadily increasing."
Canadian Tax Rates
But you say, Canada has its public health care system and the U.S has private health insurance! According to the Fraser Institute Report http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/CSFENGrev.pdf A Canada Strong and Freep. 27:
The good news about Canadian health care is that Canadians are living longer and healthier lives than they were 30 years ago. The bad news is that while recent data shows Canada tied with Iceland as the number-one per-capita spender on health care among all the OECD countries with universal access health systems, we are not number one in any of the major categories used to measure the quality of health care provided (see Table 1).
According to a recent study, Canada ranks sixteenth in terms of doctors per capita (2.3 doctors for every 1000 Canadians), out of the 23 countries for which data is available. With respect to access to advanced medical technology, we ranked fifteenth of 24 in access to MRIs, seventeenth of 23 in access to CT scanners, and eighth of 22 in access to radiation scanners. Despite spending more on health care than any other industrialized country in the OECD (except Iceland), our citizens ranked fourteenth in the percentage of total life expectancy that will be lived disability free, sixteenth in infant mortality, eighth in mortality amenable to health care, ninth in potential years of life lost to disease, and sixth in the incidence of breast cancer mortality (Esmail and Walker, 2004).
So if our health care is so comparatively lousy compared to other OECD nations, where are all those extra taxes going? According to the same Fraser Institute report (p. 7) not to our military:
The Canadian military, once a source of national pride, has for many years been starved of funding, equipment, and personnel. This is true whether the services are viewed in absolute size, size relative to the population, or military spending as a percentage of GDP.
* Canada’s 52,500-person armed forces ranks 56th in the world, just behind Croatia and Sweden.
* Canada has 1.83 military personnel per 1,000 residents. By this measure, our armed forces are the smallest among the 26-member NATO alliance except for Luxembourg and Iceland; and 118th in the world, just ahead of Togo.
* Canada spends 1.1% of its GDP on the military—133rd in the world, tied with El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Niger, and the Central African Republic. (International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2002).
What about foreign aid?Canadians pride ourselves as the quintessential "kind and generous nation," right?
Our national government talks about its compassionate commitment to helping the world’s poor but its actions do not begin to match the commitment of the Canadian people to that objective. The Canadian government’s budget for foreign aid (as a percentage of GDP) is 0.26%, placing it thirteenth among the 22 rich OECD aid-giving nations, and its efforts to open free-trade doors for impoverished nations (the real answer to combating poverty internationally) are even weaker than its commitments to military and foreign-aid spending.
Where does the money go, then? Government waste, corruption and cronyism, unaccounted trust funds for foundations, pork-barreling and sponsorships?b]
Summary
* The difference in total tax rates between Canada and the US is 48.8-29.1= 19.1%.
* Almost 20% more of your income is siphoned off as taxes in Canada than in the US.
*For the dollar you earn in the U.S., all levels of government combined take nearly 30 cents.
* For the dollar you earn in the Canada, all levels of government combined take nearly 50 cents.
* Put another way, the average Canadian tax rate is 67.7% higher then the US tax rate.
Is our nanny state worth 67.7% higher taxes then the U.S.?
The CPC policy includes plans for deep tax cuts. The 2005 Liberal budget gave a $16 personal income tax cut: the typical cost of one pizza. Given that the average Canadian www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=613 (refer to Tax Freedom Day tables link), that's a whopping 0.13% tax cut!
The Certified General Accountants Association of Canada gave the budget a http://www.cga-canada.org/budget2005/scorecard.htm failing grade for competitive tax policy.
Meanwhile, the government is on a http://www.cga-canada.org/budget2005/scorecard.htm# govspending spending spree, exceeding growth in the GDP:
Oh, thank-you so much for the irresponsible budget, Mr. Dithers!
All Canadians pay too much in taxes for the value they get back.
The reference above shows Manitoba paying slightly more percentage tax that Ontario, based on that estimate.
For a comparison across all provinces, consider my post below from earlier this year, based on Fraser Institute estimates in 2004, which are close to the estimate above.
More importantly, consider the wide disparity between Canada and the US' Tax Freedom Day, and how our higher taxes buy us poor comparative value.
Ever wonder why we pay and pay and pay, yet our "socialist eutopia" doesn't seem to pay off?
Because of government fiscal mismanagement: Corruption, excessive bureaucracy, economically inefficient pork-barrelling, subsidies and patronage programs all designed to win power, secure it, enjoy it and profit from it.
Canadians are getting ripped off. No wonder we feel we are falling behind in personal wellness compared to other countries: It's because we are!
How does Tax Freedom Day in Canada and the U.S.A. compare?
U.S.A.Tax Freedom Day April 17 this year.
Definition:Tax Freedom Day is calculated by dividing the official government tally of all taxes collected in each year by the official government tally of all income earned in each year. Governments — federal, state and local — took
Taxes as a Percentage of Income are 29.1% in the U.S.A.
CanadaTax Freedom Day
for the year 2004 was June 28
Definition: The taxes used to compute Tax Freedom Day include income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes, as well as profit taxes, health, social security and employment taxes, import duties, license fees, taxes on the consumption of alcohol and tobacco (‘sin’ taxes), natural resource fees, fuel taxes, hospital taxes, and a host of other levies.
Taxes as a Percentage of Income are 48.8% in Canada
About that historical tax cut that Mr. Dithers often boasts about? The one where he says it's the largest tax cut in Canadian history?
“The fact that Tax Freedom Day has been steadily increasing since 2001 and comes only four days earlier than its peak should be cause for concern. All the talk of tax relief has not resulted in meaningful reductions in the tax burden for Canadian families,”commented Veldhuis.
Note the trend in Table 7: Climbing year after year since 1981, except the Fraser Institute reports: "After a seven-day decline from 2000 to 2001, Tax Freedom Day has been steadily increasing."
Canadian Tax Rates
But you say, Canada has its public health care system and the U.S has private health insurance! According to the Fraser Institute Report http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/CSFENGrev.pdf A Canada Strong and Freep. 27:
The good news about Canadian health care is that Canadians are living longer and healthier lives than they were 30 years ago. The bad news is that while recent data shows Canada tied with Iceland as the number-one per-capita spender on health care among all the OECD countries with universal access health systems, we are not number one in any of the major categories used to measure the quality of health care provided (see Table 1).
According to a recent study, Canada ranks sixteenth in terms of doctors per capita (2.3 doctors for every 1000 Canadians), out of the 23 countries for which data is available. With respect to access to advanced medical technology, we ranked fifteenth of 24 in access to MRIs, seventeenth of 23 in access to CT scanners, and eighth of 22 in access to radiation scanners. Despite spending more on health care than any other industrialized country in the OECD (except Iceland), our citizens ranked fourteenth in the percentage of total life expectancy that will be lived disability free, sixteenth in infant mortality, eighth in mortality amenable to health care, ninth in potential years of life lost to disease, and sixth in the incidence of breast cancer mortality (Esmail and Walker, 2004).
So if our health care is so comparatively lousy compared to other OECD nations, where are all those extra taxes going? According to the same Fraser Institute report (p. 7) not to our military:
The Canadian military, once a source of national pride, has for many years been starved of funding, equipment, and personnel. This is true whether the services are viewed in absolute size, size relative to the population, or military spending as a percentage of GDP.
* Canada’s 52,500-person armed forces ranks 56th in the world, just behind Croatia and Sweden.
* Canada has 1.83 military personnel per 1,000 residents. By this measure, our armed forces are the smallest among the 26-member NATO alliance except for Luxembourg and Iceland; and 118th in the world, just ahead of Togo.
* Canada spends 1.1% of its GDP on the military—133rd in the world, tied with El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Niger, and the Central African Republic. (International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2002).
What about foreign aid?Canadians pride ourselves as the quintessential "kind and generous nation," right?
Our national government talks about its compassionate commitment to helping the world’s poor but its actions do not begin to match the commitment of the Canadian people to that objective. The Canadian government’s budget for foreign aid (as a percentage of GDP) is 0.26%, placing it thirteenth among the 22 rich OECD aid-giving nations, and its efforts to open free-trade doors for impoverished nations (the real answer to combating poverty internationally) are even weaker than its commitments to military and foreign-aid spending.
Where does the money go, then? Government waste, corruption and cronyism, unaccounted trust funds for foundations, pork-barreling and sponsorships?b]
Summary
* The difference in total tax rates between Canada and the US is 48.8-29.1= 19.1%.
* Almost 20% more of your income is siphoned off as taxes in Canada than in the US.
*For the dollar you earn in the U.S., all levels of government combined take nearly 30 cents.
* For the dollar you earn in the Canada, all levels of government combined take nearly 50 cents.
* Put another way, the average Canadian tax rate is 67.7% higher then the US tax rate.
Is our nanny state worth 67.7% higher taxes then the U.S.?
The CPC policy includes plans for deep tax cuts. The 2005 Liberal budget gave a $16 personal income tax cut: the typical cost of one pizza. Given that the average Canadian www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=613 (refer to Tax Freedom Day tables link), that's a whopping 0.13% tax cut!
The Certified General Accountants Association of Canada gave the budget a http://www.cga-canada.org/budget2005/scorecard.htm failing grade for competitive tax policy.
Meanwhile, the government is on a http://www.cga-canada.org/budget2005/scorecard.htm# govspending spending spree, exceeding growth in the GDP:
Program expenses are expected to increase by 11.9 per cent in 2004 — 05. Average annual growth in program expenses over the 2005 — 06 to 2009 — 10 periods is projected to be around four per cent.
Oh, thank-you so much for the irresponsible budget, Mr. Dithers!
CHRISTIAN MEETING ATTACKED BY GAY MILITIA
CALGARY POLICE TO LAY CHARGES
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION COMPLAINT TO BE FILED
(Calgary) The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc., (CCC)www.concernedchristians.ca held it’s national convention in Calgary, Alberta on Saturday, April 17, 2004. At the national convention dinner the Gay Militia stormed the meeting with sticks, angry chants and verbally assaulted the delegates at hand. The dinner was being held in support of Rev. Stephen Boissoin who is currently being dragged before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for defending the Biblical view of homosexuality. Half of all profits were donated to Rev. Stephen Boissoin and fundraising will continue in order to help offset his legal costs. Further, information on Rev. Stephen Boissoin can be found at www.concernedchristians.ca
"I was dumbfounded at the fact that the Gay Militia would storm into a private meeting where we were praying and discussing Bill C-250 a bill that will affect our freedom as Christians to discuss certain beliefs. Just as our guest speaker Rev. Tristan Emmanuel was discussing how Bill C-250 is about silencing our freedom of speech and freedom of assembly the Gay Militia stormed the meeting and proved the point," stated Jim Blake, CCC Business Chair.
The CCC feels that all groups have a right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the freedom to assemble and protect their deep held personal and moral beliefs. "We are very concerned about the Christophobia and the growing hatred towards Christians in Canada. We are also very concerned that the media continually ignores the blatantly bigoted actions of the militant minority in this country. Can you imagine if our organization stormed a Homosexual gathering? It would be on the front page of every paper in the country and the headlines would not be flattering towards us," continued Blake.
The Calgary City Police arrived at the event just moments after the Gay Militia was cleared out by hotel security. The Calgary Police Service seized all the videotapes but one and some video footage has been placed on the internet at http://www.justicenetworkcanada.com.rmvb and on the CCC website of www.concernedchristians.ca The Calgary Police Service has assured the CCC that charges will be laid against members of the Gay Militia when they are found. The CCC has cited 3 sections of the Criminal Code that have been breached by the Gay Militia. Those sections are as follows:
175-1 A i Causing A Disturbance - every person who not being in a dwelling house causes a disturbance in or near a public place by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language.
176 2 Disturbing a Religious Worship - everyone who willfully disturbs or interrupts and assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
265 1 B Assault - A person commits an assault when he attempts or threatens by an act or a gesture to apply force to another person if he has or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has present ability to affect his purpose.
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION COMPLAINT TO BE FILED
(Calgary) The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc., (CCC)www.concernedchristians.ca held it’s national convention in Calgary, Alberta on Saturday, April 17, 2004. At the national convention dinner the Gay Militia stormed the meeting with sticks, angry chants and verbally assaulted the delegates at hand. The dinner was being held in support of Rev. Stephen Boissoin who is currently being dragged before the Alberta Human Rights Commission for defending the Biblical view of homosexuality. Half of all profits were donated to Rev. Stephen Boissoin and fundraising will continue in order to help offset his legal costs. Further, information on Rev. Stephen Boissoin can be found at www.concernedchristians.ca
"I was dumbfounded at the fact that the Gay Militia would storm into a private meeting where we were praying and discussing Bill C-250 a bill that will affect our freedom as Christians to discuss certain beliefs. Just as our guest speaker Rev. Tristan Emmanuel was discussing how Bill C-250 is about silencing our freedom of speech and freedom of assembly the Gay Militia stormed the meeting and proved the point," stated Jim Blake, CCC Business Chair.
The CCC feels that all groups have a right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the freedom to assemble and protect their deep held personal and moral beliefs. "We are very concerned about the Christophobia and the growing hatred towards Christians in Canada. We are also very concerned that the media continually ignores the blatantly bigoted actions of the militant minority in this country. Can you imagine if our organization stormed a Homosexual gathering? It would be on the front page of every paper in the country and the headlines would not be flattering towards us," continued Blake.
The Calgary City Police arrived at the event just moments after the Gay Militia was cleared out by hotel security. The Calgary Police Service seized all the videotapes but one and some video footage has been placed on the internet at http://www.justicenetworkcanada.com.rmvb and on the CCC website of www.concernedchristians.ca The Calgary Police Service has assured the CCC that charges will be laid against members of the Gay Militia when they are found. The CCC has cited 3 sections of the Criminal Code that have been breached by the Gay Militia. Those sections are as follows:
175-1 A i Causing A Disturbance - every person who not being in a dwelling house causes a disturbance in or near a public place by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language.
176 2 Disturbing a Religious Worship - everyone who willfully disturbs or interrupts and assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
265 1 B Assault - A person commits an assault when he attempts or threatens by an act or a gesture to apply force to another person if he has or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has present ability to affect his purpose.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Can A Completely Secular Society Survive?
Liberalism would prefer that we throw God out of society. Secular "Christians" would argue that Christ did away with the law. But they do not know God and don't understand just what happened when Christ died and rose. Yes, He did away with the law. Religious Law. But His moral law is still in effect. He laid it on mans heart and He poured His Spirit upon the world to convict us of sin.
Secularist believe that man made the law, and has a right to change it as man sees fit to suit man.
Lets look at some points about a completely secular society with man made laws and principles.
In the beginning there was only one law, and man broke it. So then law had to be created to show man right from wrong.
If it was not for the law, there would be no wrong.
When you tell your child , don't touch, what does he do? He touches. And in essence he has sinned against you. But if you had not said do not touch, he would not have sinned because he would not have known.
No different than man in general. But man did not make the law.
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Which is not illegal now) was laid down so man would not hurt others.
But if you take the path of just making it simple and say treat others how you would be treated, then this should be illegal. After all, it hurts, and you don't want to be treated that way, unless you don't care. It stirs something in you, and the law does not stir that, Gods spirit poured out on you does. It is a moral law that is written on mans heart, through the Spirit of God. You can't change it, unless you are immoral, which really just means the opposite of moral.
Treating others how you would be treated is scriptural, so if you take God out , you have to take that out of society also, and you could do anything to anyone, which we see more and more in society anyway..
One hundred years ago, society was based on Gods law, and immoral behaviour was dealt with, because man defended the principle of treating others as you would be treated.
All the laws of the bible have to be taken out if you want a secular society, because they came from there. These laws have been around for 6000 years.They are basic moral principles, which include Christian "Law"
And if you are going to say we don't need God involved in our law , or society then all these moral principles have to be removed. They have to be , because they came from God in the first place.
Before this was laid down as an absolute, there was no theft or murder. It was a "free" society.
Liberalism would do away with those morals.
Man did not just grab these laws out of the air. They came from somewhere. Moses didn't just dream them up.
Same as "Eat freely, just do not eat from that one tree" That was the only law in the beginning. But we could not even keep that one.
The Law was set down to bring sin into the open. If there had been no law there would not be sin.
So in a secular society you must go back to before any law was laid out, but we can't go back to paradise no matter how much we would like to.
And the law will not make you moral, it will only tell you the difference between right and wrong, but as we sink deeper into liberalism , we have created a society that is throwing a lot of this out, so we see a society that is falling more and more into bad behaviour. And is more and more confused.
This is why Jesus came, to show us that the law won't save us. The law won't give us a happy life. The law won't give you peace. Because man can't keep the law.
He said, Love God first, and love others. Pretty simple, but we mix it all up with religion, but if we follow Gods moral code that He laid out , then we have a life that is at peace, and we won't kill, we won't steal. We won't commit adultery.
But we can not follow God's moral code unless we follow Jesus, and surrender our lives to Him as our leader, our guide, our strength.
But if we throw God out of society then we have to throw out Love God first and Love others.....
How close has our society come to that?
Secularist believe that man made the law, and has a right to change it as man sees fit to suit man.
Lets look at some points about a completely secular society with man made laws and principles.
In the beginning there was only one law, and man broke it. So then law had to be created to show man right from wrong.
If it was not for the law, there would be no wrong.
When you tell your child , don't touch, what does he do? He touches. And in essence he has sinned against you. But if you had not said do not touch, he would not have sinned because he would not have known.
No different than man in general. But man did not make the law.
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Which is not illegal now) was laid down so man would not hurt others.
But if you take the path of just making it simple and say treat others how you would be treated, then this should be illegal. After all, it hurts, and you don't want to be treated that way, unless you don't care. It stirs something in you, and the law does not stir that, Gods spirit poured out on you does. It is a moral law that is written on mans heart, through the Spirit of God. You can't change it, unless you are immoral, which really just means the opposite of moral.
Treating others how you would be treated is scriptural, so if you take God out , you have to take that out of society also, and you could do anything to anyone, which we see more and more in society anyway..
One hundred years ago, society was based on Gods law, and immoral behaviour was dealt with, because man defended the principle of treating others as you would be treated.
All the laws of the bible have to be taken out if you want a secular society, because they came from there. These laws have been around for 6000 years.They are basic moral principles, which include Christian "Law"
And if you are going to say we don't need God involved in our law , or society then all these moral principles have to be removed. They have to be , because they came from God in the first place.
Before this was laid down as an absolute, there was no theft or murder. It was a "free" society.
Liberalism would do away with those morals.
Man did not just grab these laws out of the air. They came from somewhere. Moses didn't just dream them up.
Same as "Eat freely, just do not eat from that one tree" That was the only law in the beginning. But we could not even keep that one.
The Law was set down to bring sin into the open. If there had been no law there would not be sin.
So in a secular society you must go back to before any law was laid out, but we can't go back to paradise no matter how much we would like to.
And the law will not make you moral, it will only tell you the difference between right and wrong, but as we sink deeper into liberalism , we have created a society that is throwing a lot of this out, so we see a society that is falling more and more into bad behaviour. And is more and more confused.
This is why Jesus came, to show us that the law won't save us. The law won't give us a happy life. The law won't give you peace. Because man can't keep the law.
He said, Love God first, and love others. Pretty simple, but we mix it all up with religion, but if we follow Gods moral code that He laid out , then we have a life that is at peace, and we won't kill, we won't steal. We won't commit adultery.
But we can not follow God's moral code unless we follow Jesus, and surrender our lives to Him as our leader, our guide, our strength.
But if we throw God out of society then we have to throw out Love God first and Love others.....
How close has our society come to that?
Monday, September 19, 2005
Organ “Harvesting” Policy in Canada to Allow Terminal Patients to be Killed for Parts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organ “Harvesting” Policy in Canada to Allow Terminal Patients to be Killed for Parts?
TORONTO, September 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Before the practice of organ donation and transplants began, the definition of death was not very difficult. If a person had no signs of life, if his brain, heart and other organs had ceased to show any activity, he was dead. But in the age of transplants and “miraculous” resuscitation, what constitutes death has become a controversial issue. Increasingly, the need to wait until the patient is no longer using his organs, is being overlooked in the rush to get fresh organs to transplant patients. The longer a donor has been dead, the less likely a donated organ will be to “take” in a recipient’s body.
Coupled with the erosion of the value of life from abortion and the rise of euthanasia, assisted suicide and related “end of life” issues, medical ethics is moving more and more into a dangerous grey area. From less-developed countries, it is becoming more common to hear news reports, horror stories, of patients having their organs “harvested” without permission and of poor and marginalized persons being killed for their organs.
Now Canada, always keeping in the forefront of such “developments” in post-modern medical ethics, is considering changing the rules for organ donation to allow organs to be removed after cardiac arrest after life support has been withdrawn. This has some concerned that terminal patients and non-terminal disabled will be prematurely ‘unhooked’ in order to procure organs for transplant. Walter Glannon, a clinical ethicist at the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre in Vancouver said, “The concern is that the removal of organs for transplant will take precedence over the (donor) patient.”
“Life support,” he said, “may be removed prematurely, without going through the medical and ethical protocol.”
The recommendation, by the Canadian Council for Donation and Transplantation, would have Canada join other countries that are expanding the limits of “ethics” in organ transplants. Dr. Michael DeVita, a critical care physician at UPMC Presbyterian Hospital in Pittsburgh, quoted in today’s National Post, says, “It gets worse when you’re going to withdraw life support and then procure organs. People get more and more concerned that you’re going to be caring for people who are dying inappropriately just to get at their organs.”
The problem is compounded when the definition of “life support” includes food and water, as was the case with Terri Schiavo. In Canada, the medical community considers nutrition and hydration taken by some means other than by mouth, through an abdominal tube for example, to be “extraordinary” means of life support. The practice of passive euthanasia by starvation and dehydration is not uncommon in Canada and the US but it is nearly impossible to obtain reliable statistics.
See National Post article
Catholic medical authority raps 'brain death' criteria
HEART TRANSPLANTS: IS BRAIN DEATH REAL DEATH?
Commentary on the address by Pope John Paul IIto the participants in the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas" (March 20, 2004)
GOV'T MAY PRESSURE CANADIANS TO DONATE THEIR ORGANS
Organ “Harvesting” Policy in Canada to Allow Terminal Patients to be Killed for Parts?
TORONTO, September 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Before the practice of organ donation and transplants began, the definition of death was not very difficult. If a person had no signs of life, if his brain, heart and other organs had ceased to show any activity, he was dead. But in the age of transplants and “miraculous” resuscitation, what constitutes death has become a controversial issue. Increasingly, the need to wait until the patient is no longer using his organs, is being overlooked in the rush to get fresh organs to transplant patients. The longer a donor has been dead, the less likely a donated organ will be to “take” in a recipient’s body.
Coupled with the erosion of the value of life from abortion and the rise of euthanasia, assisted suicide and related “end of life” issues, medical ethics is moving more and more into a dangerous grey area. From less-developed countries, it is becoming more common to hear news reports, horror stories, of patients having their organs “harvested” without permission and of poor and marginalized persons being killed for their organs.
Now Canada, always keeping in the forefront of such “developments” in post-modern medical ethics, is considering changing the rules for organ donation to allow organs to be removed after cardiac arrest after life support has been withdrawn. This has some concerned that terminal patients and non-terminal disabled will be prematurely ‘unhooked’ in order to procure organs for transplant. Walter Glannon, a clinical ethicist at the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre in Vancouver said, “The concern is that the removal of organs for transplant will take precedence over the (donor) patient.”
“Life support,” he said, “may be removed prematurely, without going through the medical and ethical protocol.”
The recommendation, by the Canadian Council for Donation and Transplantation, would have Canada join other countries that are expanding the limits of “ethics” in organ transplants. Dr. Michael DeVita, a critical care physician at UPMC Presbyterian Hospital in Pittsburgh, quoted in today’s National Post, says, “It gets worse when you’re going to withdraw life support and then procure organs. People get more and more concerned that you’re going to be caring for people who are dying inappropriately just to get at their organs.”
The problem is compounded when the definition of “life support” includes food and water, as was the case with Terri Schiavo. In Canada, the medical community considers nutrition and hydration taken by some means other than by mouth, through an abdominal tube for example, to be “extraordinary” means of life support. The practice of passive euthanasia by starvation and dehydration is not uncommon in Canada and the US but it is nearly impossible to obtain reliable statistics.
See National Post article
Catholic medical authority raps 'brain death' criteria
HEART TRANSPLANTS: IS BRAIN DEATH REAL DEATH?
Commentary on the address by Pope John Paul IIto the participants in the International Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas" (March 20, 2004)
GOV'T MAY PRESSURE CANADIANS TO DONATE THEIR ORGANS
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Children Taught to Question Their Sexuality?
Certain school boards have introduced policy that asks teachers to "combat heterosexism." Many parents will object if their children are asked to question their sexuality.
Compiled by Janet Epp Buckingham | Posted 9/07/05
As children go back to school, it is time to pray and act to ensure that their faith remains intact.
Will the change in the definition of marriage make a difference in what our children are taught at schools?
There is not getting around it, September feels like the beginning of the year. It is back to school. Back to university. Start of new activities. End of summer. End of holidays.
My own kids are starting at new schools this fall. They are moving up. One starts at middle school, the other at high school. There is a sense of anticipation but also of apprehension. What will the new year hold?
For some in public schools, there are new concerns. Will the change in the definition of marriage make a difference in what our children are taught at schools? How will we, as parents, deal with this?
For teachers, cases like the Kempling show a new intent to muzzle teachers. Will teachers be forced to teach material that is contrary to their beliefs?
Pro-gay curricula is not new. The Toronto District School Board developed a human rights policy back in 2001. The TDSB actively encourages teachers to combat "heterosexism" in kindergarten to grade six. "Heterosexism" is the concept that we assume children to be heterosexual.
In both London and Hamilton, the school boards have been developing similar policies, under names like "Equity Policy" and "Safe Schools". There are accusations that these policies have been developed with little input from the public. Many parents will object if their children are asked to question their sexuality.
In Vancouver, a gay couple has brought a human rights complaint that there is a heterosexist bias to public education. Murray and Peter Corren say that children should be taught "queer issues" in school.
In the meantime, what is the place of religion in schools? Over the last few years we have witnessed increasing restrictions on Christian clubs in schools. And few schools have any religious content in their course selection. While a "world religions" course may be on the books, it is rarely taught. And besides, the Correns are not asking for a course to be added to the B.C. curriculum on queer issues, they want it across the curriculum. Does this mean that we can ask for positive portrayals of Christians and "Christian issues" to be taught across the curriculum?
And let's put this in perspective. We have already had to deal with evolution and sex education in public schools.
Sigh. It is no wonder many Christian parents have opted for the alternatives. Homeschooling is very popular across the country. Homeschooling provides Christians with the opportunity to instil Christian virtues in their children while enhancing their education. It does require one parent to be available to be "the teacher," however.
Others choose Christian independent schools. Christian schools provide education from a Christian worldview and allow students to build a strong network of Christian friends who support their faith perspective. There is that problem of paying tuition, however. Even in the most enlightened provinces, only half the per pupil grant is covered by the province. And some provinces do not provide any funding at all for private, Christian schools. Remember too that the Correns have challenged the "heterosexist" curriculum in private schools as well because British Columbia provides some funding to these schools.
Some Protestant parents, and even Muslim parents, have opted for Roman Catholic separate schools in provinces where these are publicly funded (Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan). This at least allows students to be educated in a Christian worldview even if it is not entirely consistent with the faith perspective of the parents. My kids went to a Roman Catholic separate school for a time. They found it difficult to be designated "non-Catholic" and excluded from certain religious observances. As Protestant Christians, they felt that they were being treated the same as non-Christians and that their particular faith perspective was not respected.
So, what about those of us who continue to opt for the public school option?
First, we cannot abdicate our responsibilities as parents to take responsibility for educating our children. We must ensure that our children know their own faith. We have to talk with our kids regularly to know what they are learning and if they are being indoctrinated into ideologies that are opposed to what we believe. Incidentally, when it came to learning evolution, my daughter thought it was hilarious that anyone believes that we are descended from monkeys. She chose not to take this up in class as an issue (she was only in grade 5 at the time) but let me know that she does not believe everything her teacher tells her.
Second, we can be involved in the schools themselves. My experience has taught me that parents that are actively involved with parent councils, or their equivalent, have a much stronger voice in the schools. Those who are seen to participate in the life of the school are given access to principals and teachers that others do not enjoy. I realize that not everyone has time to do this but it sure does help if an issue comes up.
Third, we have to be prepared to negotiate around difficult issues. My husband and I had an opportunity to present the message of Jesus at Christmas because the principal was prepared to have a multi-religious assembly at that time. The principal called this the "festival of lights" and let a Jewish parent, a Hindu parent, a Muslim parent and us share what our religious observance means. It was the only way that we could present a Christian message in the school.
Let's not bury our heads in the sand but be proactive with both our children and their teachers.
Lastly, with new issues in schools around marriage and sexuality, we would do well to try to address issues before they happen. Take advantage of the "meet the teacher" night to open dialogue with your children's teachers. Let them know you are Christians, that you pray for the teacher, that you take an active role in your child's education and that you have religious views that you would like respected.
The EFC has some great resources on religion and education. Focus on the Family also has some on-line resources on education. And of course, the Christianity.ca itself has a variety of resources on this topic.
If you, like me, are sending your children off to public school this year with some concerns about what will be imposed on them, know that you are not alone. Let's not bury our heads in the sand but be proactive with both our children and their teachers. But let's assume goodwill on all sides. And, most important, let's remember to pray!
Janet Epp Buckingham is director of Law and Public Policy and general legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada in Ottawa.
Compiled by Janet Epp Buckingham | Posted 9/07/05
As children go back to school, it is time to pray and act to ensure that their faith remains intact.
Will the change in the definition of marriage make a difference in what our children are taught at schools?
There is not getting around it, September feels like the beginning of the year. It is back to school. Back to university. Start of new activities. End of summer. End of holidays.
My own kids are starting at new schools this fall. They are moving up. One starts at middle school, the other at high school. There is a sense of anticipation but also of apprehension. What will the new year hold?
For some in public schools, there are new concerns. Will the change in the definition of marriage make a difference in what our children are taught at schools? How will we, as parents, deal with this?
For teachers, cases like the Kempling show a new intent to muzzle teachers. Will teachers be forced to teach material that is contrary to their beliefs?
Pro-gay curricula is not new. The Toronto District School Board developed a human rights policy back in 2001. The TDSB actively encourages teachers to combat "heterosexism" in kindergarten to grade six. "Heterosexism" is the concept that we assume children to be heterosexual.
In both London and Hamilton, the school boards have been developing similar policies, under names like "Equity Policy" and "Safe Schools". There are accusations that these policies have been developed with little input from the public. Many parents will object if their children are asked to question their sexuality.
In Vancouver, a gay couple has brought a human rights complaint that there is a heterosexist bias to public education. Murray and Peter Corren say that children should be taught "queer issues" in school.
In the meantime, what is the place of religion in schools? Over the last few years we have witnessed increasing restrictions on Christian clubs in schools. And few schools have any religious content in their course selection. While a "world religions" course may be on the books, it is rarely taught. And besides, the Correns are not asking for a course to be added to the B.C. curriculum on queer issues, they want it across the curriculum. Does this mean that we can ask for positive portrayals of Christians and "Christian issues" to be taught across the curriculum?
And let's put this in perspective. We have already had to deal with evolution and sex education in public schools.
Sigh. It is no wonder many Christian parents have opted for the alternatives. Homeschooling is very popular across the country. Homeschooling provides Christians with the opportunity to instil Christian virtues in their children while enhancing their education. It does require one parent to be available to be "the teacher," however.
Others choose Christian independent schools. Christian schools provide education from a Christian worldview and allow students to build a strong network of Christian friends who support their faith perspective. There is that problem of paying tuition, however. Even in the most enlightened provinces, only half the per pupil grant is covered by the province. And some provinces do not provide any funding at all for private, Christian schools. Remember too that the Correns have challenged the "heterosexist" curriculum in private schools as well because British Columbia provides some funding to these schools.
Some Protestant parents, and even Muslim parents, have opted for Roman Catholic separate schools in provinces where these are publicly funded (Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan). This at least allows students to be educated in a Christian worldview even if it is not entirely consistent with the faith perspective of the parents. My kids went to a Roman Catholic separate school for a time. They found it difficult to be designated "non-Catholic" and excluded from certain religious observances. As Protestant Christians, they felt that they were being treated the same as non-Christians and that their particular faith perspective was not respected.
So, what about those of us who continue to opt for the public school option?
First, we cannot abdicate our responsibilities as parents to take responsibility for educating our children. We must ensure that our children know their own faith. We have to talk with our kids regularly to know what they are learning and if they are being indoctrinated into ideologies that are opposed to what we believe. Incidentally, when it came to learning evolution, my daughter thought it was hilarious that anyone believes that we are descended from monkeys. She chose not to take this up in class as an issue (she was only in grade 5 at the time) but let me know that she does not believe everything her teacher tells her.
Second, we can be involved in the schools themselves. My experience has taught me that parents that are actively involved with parent councils, or their equivalent, have a much stronger voice in the schools. Those who are seen to participate in the life of the school are given access to principals and teachers that others do not enjoy. I realize that not everyone has time to do this but it sure does help if an issue comes up.
Third, we have to be prepared to negotiate around difficult issues. My husband and I had an opportunity to present the message of Jesus at Christmas because the principal was prepared to have a multi-religious assembly at that time. The principal called this the "festival of lights" and let a Jewish parent, a Hindu parent, a Muslim parent and us share what our religious observance means. It was the only way that we could present a Christian message in the school.
Let's not bury our heads in the sand but be proactive with both our children and their teachers.
Lastly, with new issues in schools around marriage and sexuality, we would do well to try to address issues before they happen. Take advantage of the "meet the teacher" night to open dialogue with your children's teachers. Let them know you are Christians, that you pray for the teacher, that you take an active role in your child's education and that you have religious views that you would like respected.
The EFC has some great resources on religion and education. Focus on the Family also has some on-line resources on education. And of course, the Christianity.ca itself has a variety of resources on this topic.
If you, like me, are sending your children off to public school this year with some concerns about what will be imposed on them, know that you are not alone. Let's not bury our heads in the sand but be proactive with both our children and their teachers. But let's assume goodwill on all sides. And, most important, let's remember to pray!
Janet Epp Buckingham is director of Law and Public Policy and general legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada in Ottawa.
Growing Support for Alberta Pastor
September 14, 2005
CALGARY, Alberta, September 14, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The case against Stephen Boissoin, a young Alberta pastor facing an Alberta Human Rights tribunal over letters he wrote on the issue of homosexuality, has received widespread publicity which is generating a growing wave of support for the Christian pastor, even from homosexuals.
In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com last night Boissoin revealed that he has received a barrage of phone calls from the US and Canada since the publication of the Sept. 2nd LifeSiteNews.com story on his case. A US organization is even seriously considering funding his legal defense.
All afternoon yesterday Boissoin sat with three homosexuals who came to him concerned about the charges. He says they “were disgusted” that his right to freedom of speech was being impinged upon and that they wanted to speak out on his behalf even though they did not necessarily agree with what he said. Stephen believes that after their lengthy discussions the three men experienced that he sincerely cares about homosexual persons.
A web page presenting documents and details on the case and background on the two principal persons has been set up on the web site of the Concerned Christians organization for which Boissoin was at one time the Executive Director. The page reproduces the original letter by Boissoin to the Red Deer advocate on June 17, 2002 (see Lund complaint) as well as subsequent letters and the detailed full complaint by University of Calgary assistant professor Darren Lund.
Concerned Christians is co-accused in the case since pastor Boissoin was in their employ at the time the letter was published and he signed it in his capacity as the central Alberta chairman of the organization. However, Boissoin told LifeSiteNews.com he believes the case against the organization is weak.
A large Free to Speak dinner is scheduled for October 29 at the Coast Plaza Hotel in Calgary. This awareness and fundraising benefit will have as speakers Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, Western Standard magazine publisher Ezra Levant, Dr. Chris Kempling and other prominent speakers. The dinner and the issue will have their own website in the next few days at http://www.freetospeak.ca. Comments on the controversy and its free speech aspects will also be able to be posted to the site.
Boissoin emphasizes that for him the awareness aspects of this initiative is much more important than the fundraising. In addition to what he sees as the necessity to raise awareness of the facts and dangers of homosexual activity, he wants to increase awareness of the danger to Canadians’ free speech and freedom of religion as illustrated by actions to silence persons such as himself.
Stephen emphasized to LifeSiteNews.com that if he is forced to pay any money to the gay advocacy organization EGALE Canada he will request to instead pay his fine to Exodus International, which works with homosexuals attempting to leave the gay lifestyle, or he would pay it to an AIDS/HIV gay hospice for dying AIDS patients . If that is not allowed by the commission Boissoin says he will have no problem going to jail.
Boissoin says that should the US organization fund his defense and for that reason or others there is money left over from the fundraising campaigns he is ensuring it will go to specific AIDS hospices and the abstinence program of the Calgary Pregnancy Care Centres.
The correspondence that began the controversy involved letters published in the Advocate from June to September of 2002 in which Boissoin persisted in maintaining the validity of the arguments in his original letter which received hostile response from responding letter writers and others.
Boissoin explains it all began when he was investigating funding opportunities for his ministry on the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s website. “To my disbelief” he states, “I came across a page that highlighted an initiative that the A.H.R.C funded. This initiative was undertaken by the Alberta PFLAG Faith Society and stated that the gist of its agenda was to teach that homosexuality was ‘Normal, Necessary, Acceptable and Productive.’” Boissoin says he “absolutely disagreed with this untruthful, dangerous and scientifically baseless agenda” and that he also “felt that as a taxpayer, and indirect funder of this initiative through my tax dollars, I had a right to communicate my opinion which is reflective of my religious beliefs. In an attempt to do so, I decided to potentially share my opinion at large by submitting letters to the editor in newspapers”.
Darren Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary, whose intense interest is advancing “social justice” causes, submitted a complaint to the Human Rights Commission charging that Boissoin contravened the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act in the area of “Publications and Notices” on the grounds of “Sexual Orientation.”
Lund’s original complaint was dismissed but he appealed and that has led to the upcoming tribunal hearing three years after the original letter was written. According to the Human Rights Commission’s policies, since his original complaint was dismissed, Lund must prosecute the appeal himself and will have four hours at the tribunal in the near future (date still unknown) to do so. Stephen Boissoin then has 7 days to respond to the complaint.
The young pastor has not written any further letters on the topic since 2002 and his move to Calgary to focus once again on youth and assume the directorship of the Alberta Youth Outreach Foundations ‘’Cave” youth centre initiatives.
See previous LifeSiteNews.com story
Alberta Christian Pastor Hauled Before Human Rights Tribunal For Letter to Editor on Homosexuality
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05090204.html
CALGARY, Alberta, September 14, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The case against Stephen Boissoin, a young Alberta pastor facing an Alberta Human Rights tribunal over letters he wrote on the issue of homosexuality, has received widespread publicity which is generating a growing wave of support for the Christian pastor, even from homosexuals.
In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com last night Boissoin revealed that he has received a barrage of phone calls from the US and Canada since the publication of the Sept. 2nd LifeSiteNews.com story on his case. A US organization is even seriously considering funding his legal defense.
All afternoon yesterday Boissoin sat with three homosexuals who came to him concerned about the charges. He says they “were disgusted” that his right to freedom of speech was being impinged upon and that they wanted to speak out on his behalf even though they did not necessarily agree with what he said. Stephen believes that after their lengthy discussions the three men experienced that he sincerely cares about homosexual persons.
A web page presenting documents and details on the case and background on the two principal persons has been set up on the web site of the Concerned Christians organization for which Boissoin was at one time the Executive Director. The page reproduces the original letter by Boissoin to the Red Deer advocate on June 17, 2002 (see Lund complaint) as well as subsequent letters and the detailed full complaint by University of Calgary assistant professor Darren Lund.
Concerned Christians is co-accused in the case since pastor Boissoin was in their employ at the time the letter was published and he signed it in his capacity as the central Alberta chairman of the organization. However, Boissoin told LifeSiteNews.com he believes the case against the organization is weak.
A large Free to Speak dinner is scheduled for October 29 at the Coast Plaza Hotel in Calgary. This awareness and fundraising benefit will have as speakers Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, Western Standard magazine publisher Ezra Levant, Dr. Chris Kempling and other prominent speakers. The dinner and the issue will have their own website in the next few days at http://www.freetospeak.ca. Comments on the controversy and its free speech aspects will also be able to be posted to the site.
Boissoin emphasizes that for him the awareness aspects of this initiative is much more important than the fundraising. In addition to what he sees as the necessity to raise awareness of the facts and dangers of homosexual activity, he wants to increase awareness of the danger to Canadians’ free speech and freedom of religion as illustrated by actions to silence persons such as himself.
Stephen emphasized to LifeSiteNews.com that if he is forced to pay any money to the gay advocacy organization EGALE Canada he will request to instead pay his fine to Exodus International, which works with homosexuals attempting to leave the gay lifestyle, or he would pay it to an AIDS/HIV gay hospice for dying AIDS patients . If that is not allowed by the commission Boissoin says he will have no problem going to jail.
Boissoin says that should the US organization fund his defense and for that reason or others there is money left over from the fundraising campaigns he is ensuring it will go to specific AIDS hospices and the abstinence program of the Calgary Pregnancy Care Centres.
The correspondence that began the controversy involved letters published in the Advocate from June to September of 2002 in which Boissoin persisted in maintaining the validity of the arguments in his original letter which received hostile response from responding letter writers and others.
Boissoin explains it all began when he was investigating funding opportunities for his ministry on the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s website. “To my disbelief” he states, “I came across a page that highlighted an initiative that the A.H.R.C funded. This initiative was undertaken by the Alberta PFLAG Faith Society and stated that the gist of its agenda was to teach that homosexuality was ‘Normal, Necessary, Acceptable and Productive.’” Boissoin says he “absolutely disagreed with this untruthful, dangerous and scientifically baseless agenda” and that he also “felt that as a taxpayer, and indirect funder of this initiative through my tax dollars, I had a right to communicate my opinion which is reflective of my religious beliefs. In an attempt to do so, I decided to potentially share my opinion at large by submitting letters to the editor in newspapers”.
Darren Lund, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary, whose intense interest is advancing “social justice” causes, submitted a complaint to the Human Rights Commission charging that Boissoin contravened the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act in the area of “Publications and Notices” on the grounds of “Sexual Orientation.”
Lund’s original complaint was dismissed but he appealed and that has led to the upcoming tribunal hearing three years after the original letter was written. According to the Human Rights Commission’s policies, since his original complaint was dismissed, Lund must prosecute the appeal himself and will have four hours at the tribunal in the near future (date still unknown) to do so. Stephen Boissoin then has 7 days to respond to the complaint.
The young pastor has not written any further letters on the topic since 2002 and his move to Calgary to focus once again on youth and assume the directorship of the Alberta Youth Outreach Foundations ‘’Cave” youth centre initiatives.
See previous LifeSiteNews.com story
Alberta Christian Pastor Hauled Before Human Rights Tribunal For Letter to Editor on Homosexuality
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05090204.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
