Canadian Pro-Life Groups Appalled that Abortionist Morgentaler May be Awarded Order of Canada July 1st

By Steve Jalsevac

OTTAWA, June 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Various sources are reporting that Canada’s Governor General intends to approve a bypassing of normal routine and bestow the Order of Canada on abortionist and militant atheist Henry Morgentaler on Canada Day, Tuesday July 1st. More than any other single person, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, who is referred to as Canada’s Father of Abortion and Father of Secular Humanism is responsible for the current Canadian legal situation of no law restricting or regulating abortion.

“It is dreadful that this honour should even be considered for a man who’s only claim to fame is that he is a professional killer of defenseless babies in their mothers’ wombs,” said Jim Hughes, National President of Campaign Life Coalition. “Those who have received this prestigious medal should return it because it will have been devalued and disgraced,” he continued.

“If Morgentaler had any integrity he would refuse the medal”, said Mary Ellen Douglas, National Organizer of CLC. “This presentation should be given to people who have made Canada a better place to live and the elimination of thousands of human beings who would have contributed to the future of Canada is a disgrace not an honour.”

This past February LifeSiteNews reported that a group of abortion supporters were attempting to force an Order of Canada nomination of Dr. Morgentaler in a “last ditch effort.” A public furor ensued. This quickly ended after a February 20 media release from the office of the Governor General, who is responsible for granting the award, showed that Dr. Morgentaler was not included on the list for 2008.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062901.html

 

New Vancouver School Policy: Parents Refused Right to Pull Kids from Pro-Homosexual Lessons

By John Jalsevac

VANCOUVER, B.C., June 25, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Vancouver school board has announced that it intends to enforce the B.C. Ministry of Education’s policy that forbids parents from removing their children from the classroom during pro-homosexual discussions.

The school board announced their staff-recommended decision this past Friday. A spokesman for the board said, in the board’s defence, that the board was simply falling in line with Ministry guidelines. 

“We’re expected to do that (enforce the policy) by the (Education) ministry, so it’s not something we’ve initiated of our own volition,” said Ken Denike, a Vancouver school board trustee, according to Canwest News.

“It’s a very touchy subject,” he admitted, saying that the board expected some backlash from disgruntled parents. “It has to be handled sensitively. It’s going to be difficult.”

The province of British Columbia has been subjecting its curriculum to a complete revamp in the last several years, largely under the supervision of a homosexual “married” couple, Murray and Peter Corren.

In 1999 the Correns filed a human rights complaint against the B.C. Ministry of education, alleging that the Ministry’s curriculum didn’t adequately “address issues of sexual orientation.” Subsequently the Ministry made a settlement with the Correns in the form of a contract that gave the couple an unprecedented level of control over the development of the province’s revamped, pro-homosexual curriculum. Under the Correns direction, a host of new and redesigned courses in various subject areas that include positive portrayals of “alternative sexualities” have been introduced in B.C.

One aspect of the new curriculum that the Correns insisted on was a stipulation that B.C. parents could not choose to remove their children from the classroom during discussions on homosexuality – a stipulation that, in the end, the B.C. Ministry of Education agreed to.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062512.html

When did the Bible become ‘hate speech’?

Four years ago, I wrote an article entitled “Thinly Disguised Totalitarianism” for the religious journal First Things, surveying the erosion of Canadian religious liberty under various regulatory bodies, professional associations and human rights tribunals. I wrote then that “there are no restrictions on freedom of worship in Canada today.” That’s no longer true.

As Ezra Levant details below, the Stephen Boissoin case is an egregious assault on religious liberty, press freedom and freedom of speech. And for those of us who previously underestimated the threat to religious liberty, it serves as a rude correction.

The judgment of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC) against the Reverend Stephen Boissoin, a Protestant youth pastor, is a direct violation of his religious liberty. Whatever his “guilt” –and who is not guilty before the human rights commission? — the judgment requires him to write an apology abjuring his views on homosexuality, and prohibits him and the Concerned Christian Coalition from making “disparaging” remarks about homosexuals.

It is not specified what the AHRCC might consider “disparaging,” but simply reading in public — as in a sermon — the Biblical admonitions against homosexual acts is not precluded. Indeed, the scope of the AHRCC order is so wide that it effectively says that Rev. Boissoin may not speak publicly on homosexuality ever again, unless he changes his opinion.

Given that the “offence” was a letter to the editor published in the Red Deer Advocate, the judgment by implication would apply the same restrictions to the newspaper itself. The offence was “causing to be published” the letter, which “was likely to expose homosexuals to contempt or hatred because of their sexual orientation.” In order for something to be published in a newspaper, both a writer and an editor/publisher are required. Had the complainant in this case named the Red Deer Advocate in his charge, there is every logical reason to expect that the AHRCC would have slapped a perpetual ban on the newspaper publishing any “disparaging” stories on homosexuality.

Rev. Boissoin is not the only Alberta clergyman hauled before the AHRCC. In 2005, Frederick Henry, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary, was brought before the commission for writing a pastoral letter against same-sex marriage to his own flock. Before the AHRCC had a chance to find him guilty, Bishop Henry clarified his remarks and the complaint was withdrawn. It is now clear that had it gone ahead, the AHRCC would have ordered the bishop of Calgary not to speak about same-sex marriage ever again.

There have been numerous other cases too, including ones against the Knights of Columbus and Catholic Insight magazine. We can expect more after this most recent AHRCC ruling.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=ceebc006-06cc-4aa8-ad1a-5e3f7f5c8229

Experience Shows Anti-Spanking Laws do More Harm than Good

New Zealanders petition to reverse anti-spanking bill

 

By Tim Waggoner

WELLINGTON, NZ, June 23, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A police review shows that New Zealand’s new anti-spanking law has not reduced the number of physical abuse cases against children, but it has deterred good parents from properly disciplining their children.  The report is the result of a three month review that took place directly after the passing of the bill and a separate three month review which was initiated six months later.

New Zealanders are today presenting parliament with a petition calling for the law to be struck down.

Family First NZ National Director Bob McCoskrie explained that the police review, which shows an almost 300% jump in the number of parents being investigated for minor acts of physical discipline since the law was passed, indicates that there has been almost no reduction in actual child abuse incidents.

“The worst aspect is that the number of actual child assaults are now at almost the same rate as before the law change,” he said.

McCoskrie also observed, “When the author of the law change Sue Bradford tells us that the law change was never intended to deal with the epidemic of child abuse and child violence, it is quite obvious that this law change was not about solving a problem – it was about telling parents how to raise their children. And parents who are already doing a great job have responded by saying ‘we’re doing fine thanks.'”

The director of Family First criticized the law for wasting police resources. “What this particular review shows is that police resources are being wasted on attending and investigating smacking and minor acts of physical discipline, yet less than 5% are serious enough to warrant prosecution,” he said.

 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062301.html

Free speech on the ropes

In Canada you can go to jail for offending someone with the truth.

Calling someone a bastard may not be the nicest thing, it may even hurt their feelings, but it may in fact be true, in the technical sense, if the person’s parents were never married. Truth is a great defence. It was truth that saw Oscar Wilde lose in his lawsuit against the Marquis of Queensbury. Queensbury had called Wilde a sodomite by posting a notice of such on a sign inside a prestigious gentlemen’s club in London. Wilde who was engaged in an affair with Queensbury’s son, sued the Marquis but lost because what the Marquis had said was true.

Truth has always been the journalist’s best defence as they seek to expose the failings of politicians, governments or societies leaders. Against a torrent of highly paid lawyers, journalists have always been able to rest on truth. Truth, as the Good Book says, will set you free. Except in Canada.

Those complaining don’t ever have to prove that hatred and contempt actually occurred, just that it is likely to have happened or will happen in the future.

A quasi-judicial process few Canadians have paid attention to over the last few decades is generating much international coverage of late due to at least one high-profile name, Mark Steyn (pictured on home page). The man once called “the columnist to the world”, published everywhere from Oregon to Jerusalem, London to Sydney, is at the centre of a series of complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and two of their provincial counterparts over an excerpt published in Macleans magazine of Steyn’s book America Alone. Steyn is accused of promoting hatred and contempt towards Muslims and of spreading Islamaphobia.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/free_speech_on_the_ropes/?view