|Dear Robert A.,An important motion is set for its first hour of debate in the House of Commons on March 28, 2013. Motion 408 calls on Parliament to condemn the practice of sex-selective pregnancy termination. MP Mark Warawa introduced this Motion in September, 2012. After a second hour of debate later this Spring, M408 will be up for a vote in the House of Commons.Here is the full text of the Motion:“That the House condemn discrimination against females, occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.”
«Que la Chambre condamne la discrimination envers les femmes, notamment l’interruption voluntaire de la grossesse selon le sexe.»
The Motion will not change the law regarding female fetuses or abortion, but it will raise the discussion on and off the Hill on the subject of gendercide.
Here’s how you can support Motion 408:
Canadian Physicians for Life has cooperated with a number of other organizations to look at sex-selective abortion beyond Motion 408. See the Defend Girls web site for more resources on this important issue, including an examination of gendercide in Canada. The articles and peer-reviewed studies will also be available on our own web site soon, for those of you who are pink-averse!
For more real-time news and articles, you can now follow CPL on Twitter: @CdnLifeDocs, and you can find us on Facebook.
RoadKill Radio News, November 28, 2012
What are the issues behind Bill C-279, the NDP’s “Bathroom Bill”?
Left-winger, anti-spank, sex activist Libby Davies, NDP member for Vancouver East, cites two reasons for supporting the bill:
• There is at present no specific protection for the rights of transsexuals; and
• Canada is already a signatory to the UN Declaration on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.
According to the “Summary” that appears on the government’s website, Bill C-279 states:
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression as prohibited grounds of discrimination.
It also amends the Criminal Code to include gender identity and gender expression as distinguishing characteristics protected under section 318 and as aggravating circumstances to be taken into consideration under section 718.2 at the time of sentencing.
This isn’t the first time “gender expression” has hit the parliamentary pavement. Previous versions of virtually the same bill have been grinding away according to Ms. Davies since 2005 and again in 2006 and then again in 2008 by NDP MP Bill Siksay, who managed to have it passed by the House of Commons, only to have it die on the Order Paper in the Senate when the last election was called.
Dean Allison, Conservative member for Niagara West—Glanbrook in Ontario, points out that existing protections under “sex” in the Canadian Human Rights Act can be interpreted by the courts to protect transsexuals.
But, he says, creating a legal right to gender identity and gender expression could result in men gaining access to girls’ bathrooms and showers in public places, such as schools, public pools or gymnasiums. The bill would give such special rights to those who simply consider themselves transgendered, giving sexual predators access to women’s facilities. “Imagine the trauma a young girl would face, going into a washroom, or a change room at a public pool, and finding a man there,” he says.
“The Canadian Human Rights Act does not require total blindness to the distinction between men and women, but already requires intervention when people experience discrimination on the grounds of sex.”
Nor, he says, should tribunals and courts be asked to reconstruct and re-interpret gender “norms”.
Of course our neighbours to the south are already grappling with this reality. A recent story in Lifesite News hit the public’s headlights when a community college gave the go ahead to a man named “Colleen” who took seriously his right to “express” (and expose) his gender in the women’s change room, a change room used often by children as young as 6 who participate in community activities.
There is good news and bad. The bad news is that this bill has passed 2nd reading. The current status of Bill C-279, according to the government’s website, is that “the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.” This link will take you to the record of the vote so you can see how YOUR MP voted.
The good news is that one MP is actively standing-up for common-sense. Rob Anders, Conservative MP for Calgary West, has drafted a petition that demands Parliament act in protecting the best interests of children by defeating Bill C-279. You can download a copy of the petition here, get you friends and family to sign it and make your voice count!
It’s time for Parliament to stop hiding behind the courts, and have the courage to stand up for and defend public norms based on civil decency and privacy concerns.
EDMONTON, Alberta, 23 November, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Alberta parents who support traditional values are breathing a sigh of relief after the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) rejected a proposal calling for policies to deal with an alleged “pervasive school-wide culture of homophobia, transphobia, and heterosexism”.
Sixty-two percent of the boards voted to reject the proposal at the ASBA fall meeting held on Monday.
The motion would have added language specifically singling out gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender students to an already existing anti-bullying policy.
Jacquie Hansen, president of the Alberta School Boards Association, said that the majority of trustees rejected the policy over concerns that it unnecessarily focused on a certain group of students.
“The feeling in the room was we’d rather have a policy for all kids and that bullying shouldn’t be tolerated no matter who you are or what you have to deal with in your world.”
She called media reaction to the motion’s rejection “unfortunate,” adding that “this is being seen as anti-gay and that’s not what this is about.”
“This is about policy and this is how to best protect our kids,” she said.
Hansen pointed out that trustees had voted earlier in the day to accept a motion that promotes “equality of opportunity, dignity and respect” for all.
Garnett Genuis, Executive Director of Parents for Choice in Education, said that while he supports “efforts to combat bullying of all individuals,” he felt that the motion “did not contain the appropriate safeguards to ensure that faith-based schools and programs would be able to continue to teach their teachings.”
Canada Family Action (CFA), which mobilized opposition to the motion, had stated that the educational bureaucracy’s constant focus on homosexual and other sexual “orientations” was creating division and conflict rather than the “safe schools” environment they envision.
Brian Rushfeldt, CFA’s Executive Director, had stressed that school policies that do not treat all children equal result in “divisive policies which set children up for discrimination.”
He noted that under such policies, children who “do not cater to or agree with homosexual behavior have become targets” for discrimination. “That defeats what education experts say they want to accomplish.
“The real purpose of such LBGT policy is to promote every sexual behavior except normal heterosexual behavior,” he said.
Kari Simpson recounts the tribulations of Dr. Steve Tourloukis and other concerned parents who are fighting to preserve their rights within the public education system. Why should we support Dr. Steve Tourloukis' legal fight? Because it is Our Battle as well.
Kari Simpson and Ron Gray speak with Dr. Steve Tourloukis of Hamilton, Ontario, who is suing the local school board to force them to reveal what they are teaching to his children in public school, and to let his children leave the classroom if it is contrary to the Tourloukis family's belief system. Will out-of-control public schools be allowed to discriminate against the Charter protected religious beliefs, philosophies, and values of a student's family?
If you don't want to know what's being taught to your children, YOU ARE A BAD PARENT – don't watch this show!
Kari Simpson and Ron Gray detail the new complaint filed with the BC Human Rights Tribunal against the Vancouver School Board’s calculated and deliberate agenda to cultivate an environment of hate, contempt and discrimination against staff and students who, for religious and cultural reasons, oppose “celebrating” homosexuality and other harmful sexual practices by allowing programs like Out In Schools to be incorporated into public schools. This is an important case and show! A must log on and watch!
Kari Simpson weighs in on the hateful prejudice and blatant discrimination against “jolly” people, and what can be done – must be done – to fix this wrongful thinking. This commentary is rated as 4BB+ (four bon bons plus!).
by Ron Gray
For Canada Day – which used to be (and should still be) called ‘Dominion Day’* – Vancouver Sun religion columnist Doug Todd listed his suggestions for ten “Canadian values”:
- Participatory democracy.
- Reasonable tolerance of diversity.
- The rule of law.
- Stewardship of the Earth.
- No discrimination, including on gender or sexual orientation.
- Mixed economics: Market enterprise tempered by regulation.
- Universal health care for core needs.
- Readiness to pay taxes.
- Willingness to learn from “The Other.”
- Commitment to the common good.
I’d like to respond with a list of my own; that way, perhaps we can get a discussion going. But first, I need to establish some principles – principles are more enduring and immutable than “values”; values are merely what we ascribe value to, at the moment, and can change in an eye-blink; principles, like the laws of physics, don’t change. Ever.
Here are some principles for public life (which is what governments and politics are all about). Personal values and principles are just as important – maybe more important – but we’re talking about nationhood, here. Ultimately, the nation will assume a shape determined by the interplay of individual principles.
First of all, however, I have to confess that I have an advantage over poor Doug: my position doesn’t compel me to treat all faiths as though they were equal. And, indeed, that’s not possible: Judaism and Christianity and Islam say there’s only one God; Hinduism says there’s millions; Buddhism has no god. One = millions = zero is a logical absurdity. Some other tome, I’ll deal with why I’ve staked my eternal future on the Biblical faith; but for now, let’s get on with the national list of
Behind the principles that govern a nation’s identity must be a concept of governance. Ultimately, any form of government ending in “archy” or “cracy” isn’t really reliable; they depend on the personal integrity of the ruling authority. A monarchy depends on the monarch; a democracy depends on the people; a republic depends on both the Constitution (is it a good one?) and the people (will the people obey it?) Remember that Hitler came to power through a populist democracy; in the Messianic Age we’ll be governed by an absolute Monarch.
But the first principles of government must always derive from the concept of authority: what authority does a government have? and where does it come from?
There is – and always has been – only one Law-Giver; governments are not instituted to make laws, but to administer the Laws that have been given (at Sinai). William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the English Law were for 200 years the primary textbook of every law school in the English-speaking world, wrote that “no enactment of man can be considered a law unless it accords with the Law of God.”
So, since we have passed statutes that are at variance with the Torah, those ideas cannot be considered part of our heritage. But other innovations, such as the idea that we will not allow anyone to perish for lack of medical care or funds, are consistent with that part of the Torah that commands us to, “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
So what are the guiding principles that should keep Canada on the right path?
- Obey the Law (that is, what is consistent with God’s Law).
- Be generous (personally; not with other people’s money).
- Be compassionate.
- Love people and use things (too much of modern life loves things, and therefore uses people).
- Work hard and joyfully – and for the future, more than for the present.
- Leave Canada and the world in a better state than we received it.
- Rejoice in what we have been given; do not make the ability to be happy conditional on things unattained or imagined.
- Respect the legitimate rights of others; defend your own legitimate rights (and know the difference between legitimate rights and indulgence).
- Speak the truth in love.
- Be honest in all your dealings; do not covet nor take what is not yours.
For comparison’s sake, let’s discuss Doug Todd’s Ten:
1. Participatory democracy.
But democracy must not be idolized; it is always in danger of degenerating into mob rule, if we put it on a pedestal. When I was in school, we were taught that democracy meant rule by the majority, but stressed that the first obligation of the majority is to protect the rights of the minorities.
The only reason to defend democracy, really, is the knowledge that no fallen man or woman can be trusted with absolute power; therefore everyone in authority must be accountable to those under his or her authority.
2. Reasonable tolerance of diversity.
The operative word here is “reasonable”; we have fallen into the worship of a special brand of “diversity”, the hall-mark of which is intolerance for anyone who disagrees with it. The modern brand of “diversity” has no room for people who agree with Blackstone.
3. The rule of law.
The importance in this dictum is that it supersedes rule by persons.
4. Stewardship of the Earth.
A principle with which all (except the rapacious) can agree – it’s consistent with our Point #6.
5. No discrimination, including on gender or sexual orientation.
This idea, so prevalent today, is rooted in a misunderstanding of the word “discrimination”. It was once though to be the hallmark of civility to be discriminating – to have cultivated the ability to distinguish between what is good and what is bad, and to choose the good, whether doing so is of immediate personal benefit or not. We must restore the proper meaning of, and respect for “discrimination”. The word acquired a bad connotation when “discrimination based on race” was recognized as a social evil. But many forms of discrimination are good, and should be honoured.
6. Mixed economics: Market enterprise tempered by regulation.
The use of the word “tempered” tells me that Doug recognizes the evil implicit in both unrestrained avarice and unconstrained regulatory power. We would surely all agree.
7. Universal health care for core needs.
This is an expression of our Point #3, and is dependent on the limiting words “core needs”; but the socialist principle that prevents anyone from spending their money on any kind of health care, if it is not also available to all others, is excessively bureaucratic. And it must be recognized that abortion is never a “need”; it is the abuse of one person for the benefit of another; in this, it is akin to slavery and to the sacrifice of children to Moloch.
8. Readiness to pay taxes.
It’s a pity that Doug didn’t see fit to insert a modifying word here – like “reasonable taxes”. Christian economist Gary North has pointed out that when the government demands more than the ten percent that is God’s tithe, it has straying into idolatry.
9. Willingness to learn from “The Other.”
Yes; but there must be a standard against which everything we would learn must be measured. That standard is the Torah.
10. Commitment to the common good.
No quarrel here at all; but again, there must be a standard for defining “good”; we cannot hope to make the world “better” until we know what is meant by “good”. And again, that has been defined for us by the Creator.
* – A word about the word “Dominion”, as in “Dominion of Canada” and “Dominion Day”: As a teenager, I though the term meant that Canadians were under the thumb of Britain. I learned from the study of history that the Fathers or Confederation chose the term from the eighth verse of the 72nd Psalm: “He (meaning the returned Messiah) shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the great river to the ends of the earth.” Respect for His Torah, the foundation of all legitimate law, is implied in calling our nation a Dominion; and the term deserves to be restored.
The proposed new Vancouver School Board ‘diversity’ policy, recognizes that “race” is an arbitrary social categorization—correctly, for the Human Genome Project has informed us that the physical characteristics which we have customarily called “racial characteristics” comprise only 0.012 per cent of the human genome. There is, in fact, only one “race”: the human race (GASP!: a position consistent with biblical ethics, which proclaims that “God has made all men on one blood.” (Acts 17:26) )
However, the Social Responsibility and Diversity (SR&D) team that drafted the proposed new policy then blithely proceeds to re-introduce “race” as a policy concept, adding “racial and” to the phrase “cultural diversity”. And the Aboriginal Educational Enhancement Agreement, to which the SR&D team says the VSB is committed, of course, defines the target beneficiaries by traditional concepts of “race”, which this paper correctly says are obsolete.
Of course, the distinctions implicit in the Aboriginal Educational Enhancement Agreement can be, and should be, understood to be rooted in culture, not race.
The prohibited grounds of discrimination under the BC Human Rights Code, which provided the basis for this draft, urgently need to be reviewed in light of three decades of study that now reveal that some of the protected categories and practices are in fact harmful to society and to the individuals who engage in them.
Some of the terms used in this report require definition – e.g., “ethnocentrism”. What, exactly does that mean? The roots of the word would seems to mean a focus on ethnicity—but the implication of its use here is that one ethnicity is given preference, and that’s bad. Well, if ethnicity means “race”, we have already demonstrated that such a focus would be wrong; but if it means culture, then the SR&D team has descended into the absurdity (very popular in some circles today) of declaring that “all cultures are equal.”
But clearly, they are not: some cultures embrace cannibalism, female genital mutilation, “honour” killings, child marriage, forced marriage, and slavery. Those cultures are demonstrably inferior to others which have transcended such savagery.
Again, the policy statement that “welcomes diversity” is not clear about what aspects of cultural or behavioural diversity are to be welcomed. Some behaviours are vectors for lethal diseases; others are rich artistic expressions. Some are barbaric; some add welcome dimensions to our own culture. In both parallels, the former should be discouraged, and the latter welcomed.
But the proposed VSB policy does not seem willing to make such distinctions, fearing to appear “Euro-centric”; but there are cultural divides according to which some cultural practices conform to or enhance Canadian society, and others are deleterious or even criminal.
The failure to make such distinctions is the result of a common and widespread misunderstanding of the word “discrimination” – a misunderstanding that is vividly apparent in this proposed policy statement.
Discrimination is, at its heart, the ability to tell good from bad, and better from best. In previous generations, discrimination was regarded as a good characteristic; we spoke of “a discriminating gentleman,” and it was meant in praise. Today both words are considered terms of opprobrium.
Prejudicial “discrimination”, of course, is wrong: to pre-judge without information, and then arbitrarily to classify people as “good” or “bad” is, in fact, the very obverse of true discrimination. True discrimination is beneficial, to both the individual and society. Prejudice, meaning pre-judging, or judging before the facts are known, is wrong; discrimination is good. This policy statement wrongly equates the two words. Such inability to use words correctly is one of the results of the deterioration of public education in recent decades, or a wilful attempt to deceive).
The policy draft falls into a similar trap when it mandates an “inclusive and multi-centric” curriculum.
But a primary goal of education is to transmit the national culture from one generation to the next, thus providing a moral framework from which other cultures can be evaluated when they are encountered later in life.
There’s a classic example in a story from the days of the British Raj in India. The Governor wanted to abolish the custom of suttee, by which, when a man of rank died, his widow was consigned, alive, to the flames of his ghat. When the British Governor sought to outlaw the practice, one of his Indian advisers cautioned him, “This is an established tradition in our culture.”
The British Governor replied, “It is an established tradition in our culture that whoever does such a thing is to be hanged.”
Suttee was eventually stopped.
The British Governor’s moral values were rooted in his culture, and he sought to guide India into governance that conformed to those values. He was also able to appreciate Indian art and cuisine; he was a discriminating gentleman.
Today’s “multi-culti” and post-modernist administrators – and the graduates of curricula such as the VSB is proposing – would not be able, with consistent cultural logic, to say that burning a widow alive was wrong; they would fear being considered “judgemental”. To them, suttee would be defensible because “all cultures are equal.” But they are not.
The SR&D team would probably excoriate the British Governor’s actions as “Euro-centric bias”, and would teach our children that he was wrong. But simple humanity screams that he was right.
This faulty perception of culture extends, in this policy statement, even to staff development: the proposed policy says, “All staff members need the knowledge, skills and attitudes to understand and accommodate diversity and difference.” That is fatuous, errant nonsense.
They need the knowledge, skills and attitudes to enable them to discern between diverse ideas and practices, to select the good and eschew the bad.
If the attitudes proposed in this policy proposal become the template of public education, there will be no people in the future equipped with the necessary discernment between good and bad cultural practices. If the Vancouver School Board wishes to destroy our society and culture, then let them campaign clearly on that theme rather than impose a regulatory agenda by bureaucratic deception.
~ Ron Gray