
Issues Area Home
Issues Summaries Abortion Veto for Dads ACTA = Anti-Counterfeiting Surveilance Adoption Veto for Dads Adopted Children Disallowed NPs Affirmative Action Age Of Consent BC Vital Statistics Act Misandry BC Legislature MUST Big Brother, Micro-Management Bill C-22 Best interests of the Child Birth Registration - Paternity Fraud Birth Registration - Paternity Denied Breach of Trust "Case Law" is NOT Law CCA Wood and Playgrounds Child Support Tables / SOW Fraud Child Trafficking by Public Officers Corren Agreement Court Ordered Sexism Custody Orders not Enforced Debtor's Prison Reinstituted Day Care Universal Deadbeat Dads Disabled parents Domestic Violence Propaganda Division of Assets Drugging of Children, State Enticement Seduction Ex Parte Orders Fabian Socialism False Accusations Father Hatred Propaganda Fatherlessness, State Imposed Federal Reserve / Fiat Currency Feminism = Socialism = Nazism Fitness Test for Natural Parents in Divorce Fitness Test for Students: "Transitions" FMEP = Family Maintenance Enforcement Forgiveness is NOT Compulsory Freedom of Speech Friendly Parent Rule, Max. Contact Fundamental Justice Globalism is Treason Grandparents Raising Children Habeus Corpus Abandoned Homofacism Homosexual Activism Homosexual Marriage Human Trafficking Imputed Income Inheritance Theft: Grey & Black Widow Judicial Activism is Breach of Trust Judicial Falsification of Court Transcripts Judicial Freemasonry is Racketeering Judicial Globalization is Treason Judicial Interpretation Law Societies' Self Regulation, Corruption Lawyers Lying in Court Letters to MP Legislative Changes Letters to MLA Letters to Editor Malicious Mother Syndrome Malicious Prosecution MCF = Ministry Children & Families Misandry, Hatred of Males Money as Debt / Money Masters Move Aways Narcissism Natiional Sovreignity Natural Parents Rights Eliminated, SSM NAU - North American Union Parliament MUST Parental Alienation Parental Kidnapping Parenting Time Presumption Passport & DL Removal Pedophiles Fear Dads!! Pedophiles Fear Dads New Petitions Poofy Judges Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Protestant Revolution, BBC Sexual Abuse by a Public Officer Shadow Government Sole Custody is Child Abuse Special Prosecutors for Homosexuals, Judges Status of Women's Father Hatred Star Chamber's Secret Overlords Stockholm Syndrome Paradigm Shift Supremacy of Parliament Target Legislation Teachers displacing Parents Teachers Seducing Students Tracts and Flyers "Women's Shelters" Lesbian Gulags |
|






Albrecht, Katherine : RFID Spychips Annett, Kevin: Canadian Holocost Baskerville, Stephen: "Taken .. Custody Baxter, Dorian: Canada Courtwatch Beck, Glenn Beck: World Government Bennett, Richard: Purpose Driven & Catholicism Blick, Edward: Global Warming & Marxism Blumner,Court Ordered Sexism Boys of St. Vincent <Mount Cashel>, NL Burrows, Lynette: Homo Adoption Carley, Dr. Rebecca: Vaccinations Carr, William Guy: Pawns in the Game Chopra, Dr. Shiv: Health Canada Cools, Senator Anne: Lying Lawyers Coffman, Dr. Michael: Global Warming Coleman, John: Global Warming Fraud Cromwell, Oliver: Supremacy / Parliament Cuddy, Dennis L. Cumbey, Constance : New Age Nazism Dodd, Norman: NWO Fabian Socialists EP-Australia Federer, Bill: Endang'd Speeches, Quran Farrell, Warren: Why Men Earn More FTSOTC 48 Recom's Forseth, MP Paul: FTSOTC Panelist Gage, Richard: Architects & Engineers 9/11 Gairdner William Galloway, Roger: FTSOTC Panelist Geldof, Sir Bob: The Love.. Griffin, G. Edward: Fed Reserve Grignon, Paul: "Money As Debt" Gunderson, Ted: FBI Haeck, Lisa: Sexual Abuse Haines, Bruce, QC: Justice Review Hein, Arnie: Cross My Heart Hill, MP Jay: EP Legislation Iserbyt, Charlotte: Dumbing Down Jones, Alex Kay, Barbara, National Post Kernberg, Dr. Otto: Personality Disorder Kruk, Edward: Child Custody LInde, Carey Lively, Scott: "Pink Swastika" Luther, Martin: "Sola Scriptura" Macdonald, Peter: TAXCAP Martin, Malachi: Globalization, Occult McManus, John: Stopping NAU McKay, Dr. Marty Millar, David Monckton, Lord Christopher Monteith, Dr. Stanley: Tax Exempt Foundations Nash, Dave: Cross Canada Run Neufeld, Gordon: Hold - Kids Nicolosi, Joseph: Treatment of Homosexuality O'Connor, Matt: Original F4J-UK Pellman, Adrian, LLB: Judicial Activism Paul, Ron: Sound Money Perloff, James: Shadows of Power Phenomenon: The Lost Archives Pizzey, Erin: Women's Shelter Scam Plywood Man, NWT Quigley, Carroll: Banking, Globalization Rhodes, Carol: "Freind..Court, Enemy Riplinger, Gail: Luciferian Bibles Roberts, Carey Roberts, Elise Roscoe, Peter: Judicial Bigotry Russo, Aaron: NAU, CFR, Rockefellers Ruppert, Michael C Saburido, Jacqueline: Don't Drink Sacks. Glenn Secret Files of the Inquisition Schlafly, Phyllis: Global Governance Simons, Frank: Courts From Hell Schafer, Nancy: Child Trafficking at CPS Simpson, Kari: Road Kill Radio Sodhi, Eeva Somerville, Margaret:“Same-Sex Marriage” Stormer, John: Betrayed .. Bench Story, Christopher: "Perestroika Dec. Sutton, Anhony: Wall Street & Hitler Trociuk Darrell, BC Birth Registration Tyndale, William, "God's Outlaw", RIP 1536 V for Vendetta / Guy Fawkes the Hero Vellacott, MP Maurice Veon, Joan: "Central Banks Rule... Ventura, Jesse: Conspiracy Theory Vieira, Dr. Edwin: Fiat Empire Wagener, William Warren, Elizabeth: Collapse Middle Class Watson, Paul: EU's Nazi Origins Wiebe, Ken: Kill Status of Women Wooldridge, Nancy: Canadian Grans Zepezauer, Frank: Feminist Crusades |
|
Let Ex Husbands Be Fathers Perception vs Reality Some Facts... Both Parents Vital Broken Homes, Bleak Future Justice Review Fatherneed Rights of fathers Ignored? |
|
Support one of over 50 class-actions against
unconstitutional 'sole custody' by Indiana Civl Rights
Council
thetruthandjusticefoundation.org
BC Statutory Amendments |
|
The Canadian Parliament might also
consider eliminating the threat to the matrimonial bond
inherent in "No Fault" Divorce. Permitting one
marriage partner to unilaterally end a joint relationship
with impunity is very destabilizing to Canadian families,
and creates too much business in Family Law . We think
Canadians still get married for more reasons than just
establishing a temporary monogamy within which to
share spousal benefits and to establish paternity claims.
We think Canadians still think of marriage as a
relationship of Trust and security, in the tradition of the
oft spoken vow of "For Better or Worse".
With "No Fault
Divorce", there is no remedy when the Trust
placed in a "Spouse" is breached. There is
therefore no deterrent for matrimonial predators who by
becoming a "spouse" have free license 24/7 to take children,
inheritance and family assets, and hold these hostage from
the distraught father. There is no fund
established with the "saved" litigation costs to insure the
victim of Divorce as there is in other "no-fault"
schemes. Since ~1972 Canadian legislation
has been gutted of such dearly held values by "No Fault
Divorce" and has been devolved into a division of assets
and other financial obligations. Only the
lawyers gain by putting so much more within their grasp.
We think there is substantial merit in:
-
Reestablishing the "Fault" in
Divorce legislation. If couples prefer to live
under a cohabitation agreement there is nothing to
prevent them. But if a couple wishes to live as a
"married" couple, why should legislation preclude them
from living as "married" in the historic sense?
-
Reestablishing the Enticement laws,
providing the injured spouse with claims against third
parties who entice their spouse to end their marriage.
This one change will make the ubiquitous father-hatred
groups unprofitable to run, and leave families to
succeed or fail of their own accord. It also gives
children a chance at recouping their inheritance from
these professional Misandrists
-
Reestablishing the Seduction laws,
providing the injured spouse with claims against third
parties who seduce their spouse into adulterous
relationships.
More...
Issues |


















 |
|
We apologize that the
following figures have not been developed for the Province of BC
specifically. We hope to do this over time. We do know,
however that women often move to BC from Alberta and the rest of Canada
to have their divorces done here in BC where the
misandry of the Family Courts will
maximize their powers to destroy their husbands.
Children from fatherless homes account
for:
-
63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept.
of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census).
-
71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US
Dept. of Health & Human Services)
-
90% of all homeless and runaway
children.
-
70% of juveniles in state-operated
institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of
Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
-
85% of all children that exhibit
behavioral disorders. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
-
80% of rapists motivated with displaced
anger. (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26,
1978).
-
71% of all high school dropouts.
(Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High
Schools).
-
75% of all adolescent patients in
chemical abuse centers. (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children).
-
85% of all youths sitting in prisons.
(Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of
Corrections 1992).
Children from fatherless
homes are:
-
11 times more likely to exhibit violent
behavior than children from intact "married" homes.
-
5 times more likely to commit suicide.
-
32 times more likely to runaway.
-
20 times more likely to have behavioral
disorders.
-
14 times more likely to commit rape.
-
9 times more likely to drop out of high
school.
-
10 times more likely to abuse chemical
substances.
-
9 times more likely to end up in
state-operated institutions.
-
20 times more likely to end up in
prison.
"37.9% of
fathers have no access/visitation rights."
(Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau
P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)
"40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the
non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish
the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing
Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in
Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of
Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)
"Overall,
approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father's continued
contact with his children...."
(Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith
Wallerstein, p. 125) Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input
when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors
rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK
Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November
1994, p. 36)
"The former
spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent
contact with the children." (Source:
Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with
their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July
1991.)
"A clear
majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their
children." (Source: Visitation and the
Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce,
Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)
"Very few of
the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their
fathers, after divorce." (Source:
Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of
Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)
"Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective
involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes
sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source:
Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July
1993.)
"Mothers may
prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their
marital or post-marital relationship."
(Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family,
Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)
In a study: "Visitational
Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and
Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers
are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a
result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent.
In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three
times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and
impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept.
1992
Child Support
Information from multiple
sources show that only 10% of all non-custodial fathers fit the
"deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the
support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of
those with NO visitation rights still financially support their
children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173).
Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because
they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report:
GAO/HRD-92-39 FS).
The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security
Policy, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.
-
Custodial mothers who receive a support
award: 79.6%
-
Custodial fathers who receive a support
award: 29.9%
-
Non-custodial mothers who totally
default on support: 46.9%
-
Non-custodial fathers who totally
default on support: 26.9%
source:
http://njlaw924.com/id39.html |
|
Judges and their elite
Star
Chamber entrench their power and status to rule over Canadians with
impunity and unbridled
narcissism.
Feminist and Homosexual Activists as Judges effect
their political agenda without the consent of the Canadian demographic.
They with full knowledge and intent (scripted in the sixties & seventies
by their Activist writers) circumvent due democratic process and
knowingly contravene the founding legal constructs of Canada in the BNA
& in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Activist Judges happily
and routinely breach the Trust placed in them by their employer, the
Canadian Taxpayer.
Lawyers routinely Entice into self-destruction and
financial rape vast numbers of families entering their doors.
Because of the Statutory self-regulation of the BC Law Society, we know
of no limiting factor to cap the Activism of the Judiciary other than
prosecuting Judges and Lawyers who exceed the powers granted them by
Statute.
The BC Law Society pimps BC women, and use them as
their hookers. With others (also conspicuously funded by the
Taxpayer), Law Society members instruct women to hook fathers and
families into the Courts and the financial ruin a "Legal Marriage"
entails. Children NEED this threat to their security to be
EXTERMINATED.
Faced with the entrenched Father Hatred and
Affirmative Action of the burgeoning civil service, boys and young men
despair. Having no vision for a Future or a university education,
they become prone to fulfill the Father Hatred prophecies of BC
university's Women's Studies faculties and Feminist Activists. |
|
2005-xx-xx Third
National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect
"Children of single parents were at
higher risk of physical abuse and of all types of neglect and were
overrepresented among seriously injured, moderately injured, and
endangered children. Compared with their counterparts living with both
parents, children in single parent families had:
-
a 77% greater risk of being
harmed by physical abuse (using the stringent Harm Standard) and a
63% greater risk of experiencing any countable physical abuse (using
the Endangerment Standard);
-
an 87% greater risk of being
harmed by physical neglect and a 165% greater risk of experiencing
any countable physical neglect;
-
a 74% greater risk of being
harmed by emotional neglect and a 64% greater risk of experiencing
any countable emotional neglect;
-
a 220% (or more than three
times) greater risk of being educationally neglected;
-
an approximately 80% greater
risk of suffering serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect;
-
an approximately 90% greater
risk of receiving moderate injury or harm as a result of child
maltreatment; and
-
a 120% (or more than two times)
greater risk of being endangered by some type of child abuse or
neglect."
|
|
2006-11-10
Top judges rebuke Tories Federal plan would allow police to help
appoint judiciary - workopolis.com; "Beverley
McLachlin, Canada's Chief Justice, along with a powerful council of
the country's top judges issued an unprecedented rebuke yesterday to
Justice Minister Vic Toews for hatching a plan to arbitrarily change
the way judges are chosen. The Canadian Judicial Council
expressed dismay that Mr. Toews is planning to introduce
"significant
changes to the composition and functioning of the Judicial Advisory
Committees," secret groups which are set up in each region to vet
candidates for the 1,100 federal judgeships across the country.
Chief Justice McLachlin, who chairs the council, urged Mr. Toews to
include the judiciary and key legal bodies in any discussion of
changes to the committee vetting process."
We
need in the very least some kind of JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
which will look something like::
-
Divide the Law Society into two groups of
Judges and Practicing Lawyers to protect the Lawyers who would
make Cases against Judges. There would be some Law Society
Members who may practice as Barristers, and some as Solicitors,
but a Judge must RETIRE from the Practice of Law and
become unable to affect the Law Society while they act as a
Judge. On removal of a Judge for
Judicial Activism,
the Law Society may deny their return to Practice from
Retirement for specified cause, such as the case made during
an unsuccessful Criminal Charge of
Breach of Trust or Treason.
-
The Judges naturally divide into two bodies,
the Provincial and Federal Judicial Societies to parallel the
Provincial and Federal Courts. Membership in both Judicial
Societies must be precluded. Federal Judges would be tried
by Provincial Judges according to the
JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, and the Provincial Judges would
be tried by the Federal Judges. They could be tried both
in Tort and in Criminal Court for
Breach of Trust and for
Treason.
-
Make Judicial Appointments for a FIXED TERM
of no more than five years (Jimmy Pattison where are you when we
need you?)
-
Judicial Re-Appointment must meet a Test for
Judicial Re-Appointment which demonstrates the prescribed
Impartiality (that is an Activism Free record.) and Non-Infamy
with the Electorate.
-
Automatic Temporary Suspension Without Pay
for a Judge who is going to Trial in Tort or in Criminal
Court, pending its outcome.
-
Eradication
of
Freemasonry from the Judiciary and Law Societies. Both
are granted special privileges by Parliamentary Statute which
they receive In Trust.. Judicial Candidates and sitting
Judges must be vetted for
Occult
practices resulting in Public Safety concerns such as
Pedophilia.
Pedophilia is an established part of Occult worship
(See
Malachi Martin among others) and is reported to be a
tolerated practice of some high ranking Judges.
-
Trial by Jury of Judges before non-allied and
non-associated Judges, e.g.. Federal
Judges
tried before Provincial Judges, visa versa..
-
NO SPECIAL
PROSECUTORS for Judges or other Public Servants being
tried.
Under the "federal" division of powers in the BNA
(Constitution Act, 1867)) Education falls into the Provincial
domain. A parallel Provincial Statute to amend the licensing
and Suspension of
Teachers
would be necessary to stop the present use of our Schools for
Political Indoctrination by Activists. See also
Four Missions |
|

Natural
Grandparents Rights Proposals; Social Works
& Foster Parents get funding for raising other people's
children, Grandparents don't because they're a "Kinship Family".
See Saskatoon G I F T (Grandparents Involved Full Time)
Dorothy Bird: (306) 382-3650
We
say that's WRONG, and Grans should not be jeopardizing their
financial stability to raise an unexpected New Arrival.
2008-01-09_Documentary to focus on kinship families
"Tammy Brockhaus, with her grandson, Alex, is one of thousands
raising a grandchild in Canada. W-5 is airing a documentary on the
issue of grandparents raising grandchildren on Feb. 9 ..
Brockhaus
is a 58-year-old widow who has been raising her six-year-old
grandson, Alex, since he was 30 days old. While the last six years
have proved to be a challenge for her,
Brockhaus,
who also has three grown children, has found fulfillment raising a
child the second time around."
|
|
Do we have any such provision? Who executes
the required actions in the event a Judge has to be removed?
Submit new info on Removal of Judges
Removal of judges from office, Oklahoma
Constitution
(a) In addition to other
methods and causes prescribed by the Constitution and laws,
the judges of any court, exercising judicial power under the
provisions of Article VII, or under any other provision, of
the Constitution of Oklahoma, shall be subject to removal
from office, or to compulsory retirement from office, for
causes herein specified, by proceedings in the Court on the
Judiciary.
(b) Cause for removal from
office shall be: Gross neglect of duty; corruption in
office; habitual drunkenness; commission while in office of
any offense involving moral turpitude;
gross partiality in office;
oppression in office; or other grounds as may be
specified hereafter by the legislature.
(c) Cause for compulsory
retirement from office, with or without compensation, shall
be mental or physical disability preventing the proper
performance of official duty, or incompetence to perform the
duties of the office" |
|
Habeas
Corpus : "literally, "you
may have the body". A Habeas
Corpus is a legal writ that protects an individual against arbitrary
imprisonment by requiring that any person arrested be brought before
a court for formal charge. If the charge is considered to be valid,
the person must submit to trial; if not, the person goes free. When
the law is suspended, then individuals can be imprisoned
indefinitely and without charge."
.....
More,
Glossary of
terms |
|
2006-03-10 The right to abandon your child by Mona Charen;
"This
is one of those moments when you want to grab liberals by the lapels
and demand, "Well, what did you expect?" ... A group called the
National Center for Men has filed a lawsuit they are calling "Roe v.
Wade for Men." ... More than three decades
ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but
nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual
intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the
freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced
procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an
unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up
control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women
are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as
the price of intimacy."
COMMENT: Roe
V. Wade was a "Femi-Narcissistic" decision, looking after the
interests of the Mother only. The principal established there
established was extrapolated into a Mother's "murder rights"
expressed in minimal sentences when murdering their children.
Equal Parenting eliminates much of this. |
Father dealt difficult hand by the system
"Even last week, when the family court file of
Elaine and Leo Campione was released to the press -- in
significant measure because Mr. Campione didn't oppose the
media's bid to see it .. There is, to be frank, an
underlying perspective of feminist oppression from which all
else springs. .. Women are seen first as victims --
generally of male power and particularly of husband power -- and
presumed to be truth-tellers and good mothers until proven
otherwise. The starting point for men is that they are abusers
and deadbeat dads in the making unless they can prove the
contrary, and if it takes years for them to demonstrate that, oh
well."
|
| |
Freedom of Speech, Bill C250
Bill C250:
http://www.freedominion.ca/libertyday.htm
The End of Religious Liberty in Canada,
R. Albert Mohler
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=5/24/2004#1264412
It's all over but the funeral. Free speech and religious liberty
are now effectively dead in Canada, and recent developments across
our northern border should awaken Americans to the peril of
political correctness and its restrictions on freedom.
On April 28, the Canadian Senate passed bill C-250 by a vote of 59
to 11. In passing this legislation, the Canadian Parliament added
"sexual orientation" to the nation's laws criminalizing "hate
speech." The end result is that the Bible may now be considered a
form of criminalized hate literature and Christians who teach that
homosexuality is sinful may face criminal charges.
Even before the passage of C-250, Canadian legislators had been
moving to restrict free speech and religious liberty. The concept of
"hate speech" implies that certain forms of speech are to be
criminalized for being out of step with the government's ideological
positions. Canada's extensive hate speech laws already criminalized
any statements considered to be disparaging to ethnic and minority
groups. By adding sexual orientation to the list of protected
classes, the Canadian Parliament has not only shut down free speech;
it has opened a legal can of worms that will be most difficult to
handle. Since "sexual
orientation" is undefined in the law, lesbians and homosexual men
are unlikely to be the only persons demanding coverage under the
law. As the statute now stands, criticism of pedophilia or
polygamy--or any sexual act or relationship for that matter--could
well be cause for criminal action.
The law was promoted by Svend Robinson, the Member of
Parliament [MP] for Burnaby-Douglas. Robinson is a
notoriously liberal and flamboyant legislator, who also promotes
himself as something of a symbolic leader for Canada's gay
community. Robinson's animus toward Christianity has been evident
for some time, and he has described Christian leaders as
"ecclesiastical dictators." Responding to one critic, Robinson
showed his true colors: "You people are sick. God should strike you
dead."
In a bizarre twist to this tale, Robinson missed the critical vote
in favor of his bill, because he had just taken an extensive medical
leave from his political responsibilities after admitting to the
theft of a ring he had intended to give to his male partner. His
theft was caught on camera and, in the aftermath of the scandal,
Robinson released a statement which may or may not have constituted
a resignation from office. No one seems to be exactly sure about
exactly what Robinson meant by what one Canadian newspaper called
his "non-resignation resignation letter."
Robinson aside, the Senate's passage of this bill represents an
immediate threat to free speech and Christian conviction in the
nation of Canada.
Editorial opinion in Canadian newspapers has been mixed, but the
threat to religious liberty is immediately clear when one listens to
the arguments made by C-250's proponents. Writing in The Toronto
Star, Carol Lowes explained that C-250 is necessary because, "Some
Christian charities, priests and pastors attempt to convince people
of their wrongs and cultivate guilt or shame about perceived sins in
their target audiences." Really? The obvious implication of Ms.
Lowes' argument is that pastors must never tell anyone that they are
sinners. How convenient.
A challenge to Christian publications was offered by Lois Sweet, a
journalism professor at Carleton University in Ottawa. "Ways in
which gays and lesbians have been portrayed in the religious media
can lead people to believe that they are not human and [are] totally
defined by their sexuality," she said. "To present them as people
who threaten society in some way is hate mongering."
Marianne Meed Ward, writing in The Toronto Sun, warned preachers
that they will have to be careful in addressing any issue of
sexuality. "Expressing views on alternative expressions of sex is
not a crime," she said. Nevertheless, she presented a blatant
warning about "expressing" such views: "But preachers (and everybody
else) will have to exercise caution in how they express their views.
And that's not a bad thing. We don't need ads showing a slash
through a gay couple. We don't need placards saying 'God hates
fags.' We don't need people quoting Leviticus out of context...."
So, preachers in Canada have now been warned that their
interpretation of Leviticus could now become a matter of hate
speech. Ms. Ward gets to decide what Leviticus means in its context?
Hermeneutics is now translated into a potential crime.
When preachers are told that they will "have to exercise caution in
how they express their views," religious liberty is effectively
dead. This is especially clear when comments made by the bill's
proponents identify any criticism of homosexuality--whatever its
motivation and form--as criminalized hate speech.
Christian groups in Canada have responded with understandable alarm.
"Today the Senate sounded the final death knell in legislation that
will severely limit free speech and freedom of religion and even
freedom of the press in Canada," said Brian Rushfeldt, executive
director of the Canada Family Action Coalition. Rushfeldt described
C-250 as "a draconian piece of legislation that will criminalize
people who express an opinion contrary to homosexual behavior,
including views based on religion, conscience, morality, and even
medical or humanitarian concerns." He continued: "Given the
undefined, ambiguous wording in this severely flawed piece of
legislation, Christians and other faith groups are worried that
expressing their religious or moral views, or even quoting from the
Bible or another religious text, may become a criminal act."
Indeed, some Canadian legal experts argue that adding "sexual
behaviour" to the hate speech legislation now makes it a crime to
teach that sex outside of marriage--whatever its form--is wrong.
Anne Cools, a senator from Ontario, described the bill as
"an intent to create . . . a section which would be used to cleanse
many people of their moral opinions." Canada's first black
senator, Cools expressed concern that the law will be used to
criminalize churches opposed to homosexuality. "Once you put a power
before [authorities], and then try to rely on goodness for the power
not to be exercised, you're indeed naive."
"All sexual acts are not equal," Cools asserted. "I believe in
justice for all...but I also understand that the essential
requirement of life itself is that men mate with women." Better
watch it Senator Cools, you may have just committed a hate crime.
University of Western Ontario professor Robert Martin has described
Canada as "a totalitarian theocracy." He went on to argue that
Canada is "ruled today by what I would described as a secular state
religion (of political correctness). Anything that is regarded as
heresy or blasphemy is not tolerated."
Svend Robinson and other promoters of C-250 played a crude game of
doublespeak in arguing for the legislation. Their explanations are
reducible to the claim that C-250 will never be used to criminalize
Christian speech--except when such speech needs to be criminalized.
Some have described Christians as "paranoid" in responding to the
bill. That's not the way Jason Kenney, a Roman Catholic MP from
Calgary sees the situation. "This isn't at all a hysterical
reaction. It's a completely reasonable fear, given the trends in the
courts and human rights commissions. In Owens, a Saskatchewan judge
ruled that parts of the Bible can constitute hate speech against
gays. In the Surrey School Board case, they were ordered to put gay
material into a Grade 1 class."
Alan Borovoy, general counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties
Association, once described Canada as "a pleasantly authoritarian
country." Columnist John Leo of U.S. News and World Report, agrees
with Borovoy's description.
As Leo explains, "Since
Canada has no First Amendment, anti-bias laws generally trump free
speech and freedom of religion. A recent flurry of cases has mostly
gone against free expression." Leo went on to suggest that
parents might be held legally liable for a child who says something
irritating about homosexuals to a classmate in school. Religious
groups could quickly get in trouble for teaching certain biblical
passages or defending historic church doctrines.
The pattern of criminalizing speech about homosexuals is spreading
across liberal societies. In Sweden, pastors are explicitly warned
that any sermons critical of homosexuality can lead to criminal
charges. The same logic is spreading through the courts and
legislatures of many European countries--and now has jumped the
Atlantic to Canada.
The truly threatening character of the Canadian legislation is
further demonstrated in the fact that police do not have to charge
persons with breaking a law. Any Canadian citizen can file a
complaint against any other citizen, resulting in charges. At that
point, the defendant is simply left to the dangerous whims of the
liberal judiciary and governmental human rights commissions. The
potential legal costs would alone intimidate some persons from
talking about homosexuality.
The most important part of the newly-revised criminal code reads:
"Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private
conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable
group is guilty of . . . an indictable offense and is liable to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."
During a recent debate, the Canadian attorney general refused to
comment on whether or not the Bible is, in itself, hate speech. That
matter, we are now warned, will be left for the courts to
determined.
We are fooling ourselves if we believe this threat to religious
liberty will stay on the Canadian side of the border. This same
logic is already accepted by many law professors and judges in the
United States. The passage of C-250 is a warning to us all. When
free speech is denied and the preachers are told what they can and
cannot say, religious liberty is effectively dead.
___________________________
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and
resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler
Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio
Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to
mail@albertmohler.com.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=5/24/2004#1264412
|
|
|
|