rootleweb

It's a girl!

2011-03-15T19:40:00.001-04:00

Timea Elizabeth vanHooydonk was born on Tuesday, March 2, 2011.
My smallest, she weighed 7lbs 15oz, and was 20" long.
God has greatly blessed our family.

Liberal/NDP merger?

2010-06-09T10:36:00.003-04:00

This just in from the CBC:

Senior insiders with the federal Liberals and New Democrats have been holding secret talks about the possibility of merging their parties to form a new entity to take on the Conservatives, CBC News has learned...
The new party would possibly be named the Liberal Democrats...

So, who thinks it will actually happen?
Not I, said the fly.
On the upside, the Liberals must be concerned about their ability to win the next election if they are trying to absorb the NDP's voters.

LabourAndRest.com

2010-04-27T13:53:00.003-04:00

LabourAndRest.com is a new internet directory serving the Christian community. Our goal is to bring Christians together where we can support each other, readily and cheerfully employing our gifts for the advantage of our fellow believers. Use this directory to hire a fellow Christian, or to find services that you require. We also have a section in the directory devoted to Christian education.
In addition to listing businesses, we also offer Books, Music and Movies.
Find us on Facebook!

Catching up... and the Boissoin case

2009-12-18T08:41:00.003-05:00

I am so far behind, it's almost laughable!
I have been having a fascinating conversation on Facebook about global warming. I hope to post it here sometime in the near future.

As most are aware by now, the ruling against Stephen Boissoin was over-turned a short time ago. Although this is something of a victory for free speech, I wasn't going to post about it due to time constraints.
We all know it was over-turned.
Great.
Life goes on.
And then I received the following letter in my email this morning.
Stephen Boissoin challenges Michael Coren to public debate
Really?
The text of the letter follows:

Michael Coren has crossed the line and I challenge him to a public debate on the many ways that Christians can and should interact with their post-modern post-church culture (both believer and non) without compromising the ethic as outlined within scripture.
CTSTV
Over the last year I have listened to Michael Coren subtly and now forthrightly discredit me on the air. His recent comments were over the top and outright disrespectful for one Christian to say about another, especially during such a sensitive time for practising Christians within our culture.
Throughout the last seven-plus years I have had amazing opportunities in both Canada and the United States to explain the context of my letter and God’s love for all, including homosexuals. Coren’s comments were attacking and outright arrogant and are a clear abuse of the fact that he has his own show.
I respectfully request an opportunity to defend myself and my opinion in front of Michael Coren perhaps on a show that discusses ways that a Christian can/should interact/communicate with our post-modern/post-church culture. I would love to do so with a respectful host such as Richard Landau. That is unless Coren is too cowardly to do so with the likes of us, and instead chooses to continue his cowardly shots a me while hiding behind his personal pulpit. If you are going to attack a person or their position, then have the integrity to do it face to face.
Listen to his recent comments and ask yourself how you would feel.
I am available for Calgary or Ontario (I am in Ontario from Dec 26 to Jan 4).
My email to Michael reads as follows:
Michael,
I too have analyzed many of the comments that you have made over the last year in regards to my case and, in general, on your opinion about how a Christian should communicate. Personally, I believe that you come across as an arrogant a** who has very little understanding of what does and does not damage Christianity. Your OVER (key word) intellectualization about how one is to communicate certain biblical truths is inconsistent with biblical teaching, the context of my letter and me as a Christian. I have bit my tongue until now because I had thought we were on the same team but I see now that your version of Christianity is border-lining on being so seeker-sensitive that is does a disservice to Christendom.
It is truly people like you within Christendom who assume they accomplish much for the Lord - strike that - for Christians, but actually contribute to keeping the masses stagnant. Like it or not, you do more to encourage secular humanism than the true faith and life we are called to, brother. Although causing offense is not our mandate, Jesus Himself said many would hate us because of Him (He and what he stood for - all inclusively.) Offense is at times what drives many to consider and investigate "The Why," even while in a state of rebellion. Offense is often the instigator that begins the process that leads to change and repentance. I have seen this over and over while evangelizing to thousands of youth and young adults.
Keeping my letter in context…it was partly in response to a teacher (the actual complainant) bringing a gay minister into my son’s school to teach the pro-homosexual interpretation of the Bible without inviting any other viewpoint for balance. Plus, the Alberta Human Rights Commission was funding an Alberta gay organization that had a youth-focused initiative that had the following as a foundational statement, "Homosexuality is normal, necessary, acceptable and productive and has been for thousands of years."
I have received thousands of emails from Christians (in tune with scripture and the Spirit) who understood the context of my letter and have shared how this situation has educated them and encouraged their faith. I have also had a chance to speak to hundreds of homosexuals who email or call me to discuss the letter. We have even met in person on more occassions than I can recall. In each instance, I have shared the immense love of God for them and His salvation wrought on their behalf. In every situation they have left considering me a new friend.
When one weighs the damage that the gay agenda has contributed to the demise of youth culture against the wording in my letter, only then can the true intent and perspective of my opinion be understood. When were you last involved with youth/young adult ministry in a hyper pro-gay culture Michael or have seen first-hand the damage it causes?
I request that you and I meet in person on a taped show where we can have a real (respectful) debate on this very issue. I think that you will discover that I am a little more in tune with what is going on than the average youth pastor (which I was not) and yourself. Not to do so proves one thing, that you choose to remain a coward behind your personal pulpit while taking shots at a brother in Christ who cannot defend himself.
Sincerely,
Stephen Boissoin

Interesting that he calls his request "respectful" while also calling Coren a coward.

I hope there is a debate.
Let me remind you of Boissoin's position on the use of Scripture:
My open letter and comments
The answer Ruth is that not in all cases does a Christian have to, or benefit from, quoting scripture. Though scripture is the basis of our lives as Christians, it is not in every case some magic ingredient that alone convicts or instructs the target audience when spoken or read. ... That letter intentionally did not include scripture.
That's right.
In his own words.
Intentionally
did NOT
include Scripture.

So, for all those who bend over backwards to argue that Boissoin faced some sort of horrible persecution on account of his beliefs as a Christian, I have a question.
How can that possibly be true if he DELIBERATELY excluded the very source and authority for our beliefs?

It's a Boy!

2009-07-21T19:35:00.000-04:00

Micah Joel vanHooydonk was born July 18, 2009 at 12:11am. Weighing 9lbs 1oz, measuring 21.5" long, his labour was equal to my previous two combined! Having spent a mere 6 hours in labour with Eden and about 4 hours in labour with Isaac, both I and the midwives expected another quick labour. In fact, we had even made back up plans for a home birth.
How wrong we were! It's almost laughable now!
Instead of a quick delivery, my labour was just over 10 hours long. Already hooked up to an IV full of antibiotics for GBS (my first time with GBS by the way), inefficient contractions produced almost no result after about 6 hours and I was hooked up to an oxytocin drip. At the advice of both the midwife and doctor, I was also given an epidural to help me manage the amplified contractions. Generally speaking, I am not in favour of an epidural. However, as the epidural started to wear off, I began to feel the contractions, and I am glad I followed the advice of the midwife and doctor.
Pushing still hurt.
On the upside, I pushed for less than 3 minutes.
It would seem once he was ready to come, out he flew.
As a result of everything, instead of going home after my usual three hours, I had to stay for a full 12 hours.
I have come to the conclusion that up until Saturday, I have obviously been spoiled.
On the upside, I had virtually no post-partum. Not even a little bit. Given all the stress leading up to the birth, I laughed with my midwife that I must have had my baby blues before Micah was born, instead of after.

Grieving for Saints

2009-02-23T15:34:00.000-05:00

Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
- Psalm 116:15

The past month or two has given me a great deal to think about. About a month ago, Oma Vyuk passed away. Then last week, a young lady named Katelyn Muir departed, after battling cancer for many years. Despite the great difference in their ages, both of these women were a testimony to the power of God in the lives of believers and I had enormous respect for them. Both left this world glorifying God, and even their funerals bore witness to God's never-ending love and grace.
As I said to my husband, as a Christian that is how you want to go. I long for my own funeral to be just as God-centered, that the words "Repent and believe for the Kingdom of God is at hand. (Mark 1:15)" may be heard by all, just as they have been in recent months. Like many others, "I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death." (Phil. 1:20) I long to stand before God and hear those words "Well done, good and faithful servant."(Matt. 25:21)
Still, what about those who are left behind?
Unlike the scene in Pilgrim's Progress, most Christians do not get to journey across the Jordan side by side with their good friend Hopeful. In fact, that experience is exceedingly rare. Instead, Hopeful must stand at the edge of the water, crying out to his friend "Be of good cheer.. the bottom is good... these troubles and distresses that you go through in these waters are no sign that God hath forsaken you but are sent to try you whether you will call to mind that which heretofore you have received of His goodness and live upon Him in your distresses." Furthermore, Hopeful is often the one left behind to comfort those who must also watch Christian depart, and this is not always an easy task. However, we are reminded of the words of Paul who says "...We do not want you to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. (1 Thess. 4:13)"
Notice he does not say we don't grieve at all. We do grieve. We just do it differently.
St. Augustine wrote the following words when he was reflecting on the death of his mother Monica, a woman he considered to be most Godly. I read this passage long before either funeral, and was immediately moved both by the beautiful language employed and by Augustine's frank description of his own sorrow and how he turned to the Lord in his grief. This passage is perhaps one of the most beautiful examples of a Christian grieving in hope that I have ever had the pleasure of reading.

I closed her eyes and an overwhelming grief welled into my heart and was about to flow forth in a flood of tears. But at the same time under a powerful act of mental control my eyes held back the flood and it dried up. The inward struggle put me into great agony. Then when she breathed her last [my son] cried out in sorrow... We did not think it right to celebrate the funeral with tearful dirges and lamentations... My mother's dying meant neither that her state was miserable, nor that she was suffering extinction. We were confident of this because of the evidence of her virtuous life, her faith unfeigned, and reasons of which we felt certain.
Why then did I suffer sharp pangs of inward grief? It must have been the fresh wound cause by the break in habit formed by our living together, a very affectionate and precious bond suddenly torn apart. I was glad indeed to have her testimony when in that last sickness she responded to my attentions... And yet, my God our Maker, what comparison can there be between the respect with which I deferred to her and the service she rendered me? Now that I had lost the immense support she gave, my soul was wounded, and my life as it were torn to pieces, since my life and hers had become a single thing.
After [my son's] tears had been checked [a friend] took up the Psalter and began to chant a Psalm. The entire household responded to him "I will sing of your mercy and judgment, Lord..."
I was glad to weep before You about her and for her, about myself and for myself. Now I let flow the tears which I had held back so they ran as freely as they wished. My heart rested upon them, and it reclined upon them because it was Your ears that were there..."

Rest in Peace Katelyn Muir

2009-02-23T12:16:00.001-05:00

MUIR, Katelyn - In the early hours of the morning of February 18th, 2009, Katelyn Joyce Jacqueline Muir was called from this life into the hands of her Father in heaven after a long struggle against cancer. She died peacefully surrounded by her family. She will be dearly missed by her loving mother Carolyn Muir (nee Smink) and her father Bill Muir. She leaves behind her devoted brother and sisters, Adam, Bethany and Janelle Muir and her grandparents William and Joyce Muir and Geurt and Florence Smink. She will be mourned by her extended family and many friends. The visitation is scheduled for Thursday, February 19th 2-4 and 7-9 pm at the Trinity Orthodox Reformed Church, 99 Scott St. St. Catharines, with the memorial service to be held at 11:00 am Friday, February 20th at the Trinity church. In lieu of flowers donations can be made to the Heritage Christian High School (cheques to be made out to the N.R.C.E.A.) and may be done through the offices of HULSE & ENGLISH FUNERAL HOME & CHAPEL

Federal Budget Passes

2009-02-03T21:10:00.002-05:00

From CTV:

The federal budget introduced late last month by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government passed in the House of Commons on Tuesday night, by a vote of 211 to 91.

Was there ever any doubt?

Rest in Peace Oma Vuyk

2009-02-02T17:12:00.005-05:00

On Friday morning, January 16, 2009, Neeltje Vuyk, aged 85 years, passed away peacefully at the St. Catharines General Hospital. The family takes comfort in knowing that she is with her Heavenly Father. Wife of the late Johannes Vuyk. The family received friends at Immanuel Orthodox Reformed Church in Jordan on Monday, January 19th at2-4 and 7-9 pm. Funeral Service was held at the same location on Tuesday, January 20th at 11 am. If desired memorial donations may be made to Heritage Christian School or the charity of choice.

The "Conservative" Budget

2009-01-27T16:43:00.005-05:00

Hmm.
Lots of spending.
Is such a massive deficit necessary? My feeling is no, but only time will tell. On the upside, we'll be getting a tax cut this year.
CTV has the full text of Flaherty's budget speech.
From the Globe & Mail
Canada.com
The National Post also has in depth coverage.

A few thoughts:
I expect the Liberals to support the budget. If they don't, then at the very least I expect them to race as far away from the coalition as they possibly can before election day.
I am not at all surprised that Layton vowed to vote against the budget regardless of what it contained.
According to the Globe, Ignatieff will formally announce his decision on whether or not to support the budget tomorrow morning. A media briefing has been scheduled for 5:15PM today in the House of Commons foyer. No doubt there will be much speculation as to what tomorrow will bring. But, as I have previously said, my money is on a support of the budget, or at least a total disavowal of the coalition.

The Prime Minister As First Servant

2008-12-08T21:34:00.001-05:00

Like most Canadians, this weekend I spent a great deal of time reflecting on what happened in Ottawa last week. Pick any poll you like. The result of the coalition has been nothing short of a disaster for the Liberals. The most forgiving poll I saw pegged them at 22% popularity, a 2% drop from election day. Others put them at only 20%. The NDP suffered even worse, showing between a 4-8% drop in support. The Conservatives are largely up, showing anywhere between 44% to a staggering 51% of the population supporting them.
But, truth be told, I have spent less time thinking about polls and more time reflecting on a comment my mom made. The Prime Minister of Canada is literally the "First Servant." He is a servant first to God, then to Queen, then to country, that is we the people.
How much of what has happened this past week really makes one think of servanthood?
Now, let me be clear. I do actually think Harper had the right idea when he proposed to cut the $1.95 per vote tax subsidy. But, in terms of the entire situation, is one really able to look at Parliament and say "Yes, these people serve us?"
I suspect most people would say no.
There are, of course, individual MP's who work very hard for their constituents. They are people of good, upstanding moral character who want to do what is right. But let's be honest, these people are few and far between. Certainly, as a whole, there is no party which truly puts the concept of servanthood into practice. There is no one who esteems all others better than themselves. There is no one who will give way, for the good of the whole.
Certainly, the concept of servanthood was nowhere to be found in Dion's disgraceful address to the nation, which was late, of poor quality and quite literally featured "Hot Air."
This week past, not one person offered a soft answer to turn away anger. (Proverbs 15:1) Instead, everyone preferred to quarrel, showing their love for sin (Proverbs 17:19). Not one person had the wits, or rather the Spirit, to recognize that it is a man's honour to avoid arguments and only fools stir up dissent. (Proverbs 20:3)
After his meeting with the Governor General, Harper invited the Opposition parties to meet with him and submit their suggestions for the upcoming budget. My hope is that this offer is sincere, and that the leaders of the Opposition Parties will take it as such. My hope is that they will drop their argument and get back to work for the good of those they govern.
There is no authority except that which God establishes (Romans 13:1). Those in authority must remember, however, that they are also under authority. Not only that, but they will one day be called to account for what they have done with what God has given them. Of anyone who has ever lived, Christ undoubtedly had the most authority of all.
And yet, look at how different His behaviour was.

Parliament Prorogued

2008-12-04T11:46:00.001-05:00

The Governor General has agreed to prorogue Parliament until January.
Let's see if the coalition can hold it together until then.
I have my doubts.

An Open Letter to Her Excellency, the Right Hon. Michaëlle Jean

2008-12-02T19:58:00.000-05:00

December 2, 2008

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General of Canada

Your Excellency:

I am writing to you today to express my concerns regarding the impending attempt by the Opposition parties to override the results of the 40th General Election, which occurred on October 14th.

In that election, I exercised my democratic right and elected a Conservative Member of Parliament, and in so doing, expressed my opinion that The Right Honourable Stephen Harper was the best person to lead this country. Over 5,000,000 of my fellow countrymen agreed, and on election day we said that Mr. Harper deserved a stronger mandate to govern. Granted, he was only given a minority, but it was a stronger minority nonetheless.

Since that election however, it has become clear that the Opposition Parties never had any intention of co-operating with the government, neither did they have any intention of respecting the will of the Canadian people. Despite the assertions of Mr. Layton today in Question Period, the Canadian people did not give the Opposition Parties a mandate to govern as a combined force. Indeed, the Canadian people gave the Opposition parties no mandate whatsoever. That is why they make up the Opposition.

If the Liberals and NDP combined had more seats then the Conservatives, then perhaps we could make an argument in favour of their coalition. As it stands, there is simply no historical precedent for any Commonwealth government to form a coalition with less seats than the standing government. Their coalition can only survive with the support of the Bloc on all confidence matters. While it is true that the Bloc have agreed to give them this support for the period of 18 months, it must be noted that the Bloc exists to facilitate the sovereigntist movement in Quebec. When making decisions, their sole consideration is what will benefit Quebec. Therefore they cannot be expected to make decisions that will benefit the entire country.

I respectfully ask you either to prorogue this session of Parliament or call an immediate election. It is not up to elected and non-elected individuals to make backroom deals. While the accord may be legal and constitutional, it is also completely anti-democractic. On a matter of this importance, the voice of the Canadian people must be heard.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Ruth vanHooydonk

(h/t to Sandy for giving me the idea. The only email addresses I have are info@gg.ca and smcook@gg.ca (the Governor General's assistant). If anyone is interested, there is also the option to call the Secretary to the Governor General (Shelia-Marie Cook): 613-993-0259, although I am sure their phones have been ringing off the hook.)

Canadians Against a Liberal/NDP Coalition Gov't

2008-12-02T16:24:00.000-05:00

There is a new group on Facebook dedicated to fighting the coalition: Canadians Against a Liberal/NDP Coalition Gov't. At the time of this post, there were about 16,000 members.
If you are a Canadian with strong feelings against this coalition, I invite you to join.

What Others are Saying

2008-12-02T10:36:00.002-05:00

Darryl Wolk has this excellent summary of the media reaction to the coalition. There are a lot of links here to a variety of articles, so I recommend checking it out.

Letter to Coalition Leaders from a Canadian

2008-12-01T17:42:00.001-05:00

My House

Monday, December 1, 2008

To those presuming to be my fellows, although admittedly you are citizens of my country,

Canada is doing very well in the midst of a global economic crisis. Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the Opposition Parties never had any intention of co-operating with the government that was legally elected by the Canadian people. Therefore, a select few erroneously believe they have the right to seize power, form a new Government and implement a plan that the majority of Canadians did not vote for.

The contrast between the behaviour of the Opposition party leaders and the common action practices of all other Western democracies is striking. I will not accept this.

A majority of Canadians did not vote for the Liberals. Neither did they vote for the NDP or the Bloc. Indeed, not a single Canadian voted for a coalition on October 14, 2008.

In light of the critical situation facing our citizens, and the Oppositions unwillingness to get back to work, and work towards the true interests of Canadians, I am resolved to protest this new coalition.

Today I respectfully request that the Governor General, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, should force the Opposition to get back to work and stop playing games.

Respectfully,

Mrs. R. vanHooydonk

Voter

Letter to Canadians from coalition leaders

2008-12-01T17:31:00.001-05:00

Liberal Party Press Office

New Democratic Party Press Office

Bloc Québécois Press Office

Monday, December 1, 2008

To our fellow citizens,

Canada is facing a global economic crisis. Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Stephen Harper has no plan, no competence and, no will to effectively address this crisis. Therefore, the majority of Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Harper's government, and believes that the formation of a new Government that will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times is necessary.

The contrast between the inaction of Mr. Harper's government and the common action taken by all other Western democracies is striking. We cannot accept this.

A majority of Canadians and Quebecers voted for our parties on October 14, 2008. Our Members of Parliament make up 55 per cent of the House of Commons.

In light of the critical situation facing our citizens, and the Harper government's unwillingness and inability to address the crisis, we are resolved to support a new government that will address the interests of the people.

Today we respectfully inform the Governor General that, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, she should call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government, supported as set out in the accompanying accords by all three of our parties.

Respectfully,

Hon. Stéphane Dion Leader,

the Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Jack Layton Leader,

the New Democratic Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe Leader,

the Bloc Québécois

Coalition of the Willing... to Take Power, that is...

2008-12-01T12:03:00.004-05:00

Some time ago, there was talk of a coalition government, should the Conservatives fail. I didn't really take those stories seriously. After all, the Canadian people returned the Conservatives to power with a strengthened mandate. It was still a minority, but it was a strengthened minority nonetheless. The Conservatives had successfully governed the smallest minority in history for the longest period of time, and since the Liberals will be electing a new leader in May, threats of a coalition didn't seem plausible.
At least not until last night.
A recently recorded conference call clearly shows the NDP never had any intention of respecting the will of the Canadian people. They never had any intention of working with the government to achieve what is best for the Canadian people. Everything Layton has ever said about the importance of "getting back to work" and working hard for the Canadian people is a lie. They have only ever been concerned with achieving power, even if it takes the separatist Bloc to do it.
No doubt Duceppe is laughing all the way to the bank.
Now it seems the Liberals are in bed with this sordid plan, though admittedly not everyone is comfortable with the idea of the separatists being the ones to sustain their bid for power. Let's face it; any Liberal-NDP coalition will be smaller than the current Conservative government which consists of 143 seats. Together, the Liberals and NDP will only have 114 seats. And yet, in their arrogance, they think they represent more of the Canadian people than the government we actually elected!
Any member of the Liberal or NDP parties ought to be ashamed of this latest development. As this article rightly points out, if this matter is so urgent, then call another election and let the voters decide. To simply seize power when you were not elected and can't even form a government larger than the current one is unacceptable.
If you are a Liberal or NDP MP and you do not approve of this plan, then may I suggest that now is the time for action. Cross the floor. Refuse to sit with these people who warp the meaning of democracy. Don't show up for the confidence vote on December 8th. Do whatever it takes to get the point across. Respect the wishes of Canadians. Do not participate in this plot.
If you are a part of this plan, shame on you! Govern by the mandate the people gave you... which is none... or get out! This is a democracy, and you are to respect the people who pay your salaries!

Conservative Policy Convention

2008-11-17T21:15:00.003-05:00

I haven't seen a copy of the new Conservative Party Policy. I suspect it will be a few days before it is released on their website.
Just a few notes on important policies that were passed:
Policy P-119, the resolution on Human Trafficking unanimously passed. It is now official Conservative Party policy to support legislation that would work to combat human trafficking. The proposal is worded as follows: The Conservative Party believes the government should take strong action to combat human trafficking and should take a lead in developing international agreements and protocols against human trafficking.
Policy P-203, on the Human Rights Commission passed. It is now official Conservative Party policy to support legislation that would remove authority from Human Rights Commissions to use Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act to persecute free speech. This is an excellent resolution. The HRC's have long over-stepped their bounds. We already have laws governing hate speech and the HRC's have a record of punishing individuals for expressing legitimate, albeit controversial and sometimes unpleasant, views. The proposal is worded as follows: The Conservative Party supports legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Policy P-207 the resolution on protecting pregnant women and their unborn children, passed. This resolution was hotly debated, as some wrongly feel it could open a debate on abortion. Nevertheless, it is now official Conservative Party policy to support legislation that would increase penalties against those that harm an unborn child while attacking its mother. The resolution is worded as: The Conservative Party supports legislation to ensure that individuals who commit violence against a pregnant woman would face additional charges if her unborn child was killed or injured during the commission of a crime against the mother.
Policy P-211, a policy regarding the rights of religious institutions with respect to marriage, passed. The policy is worded as follows: The Conservative Party believes that Parliament, through a free vote, and not the courts should determine the definition of marriage. The Conservative Party believes that religious organizations should not be forced to perform marriages which are against their beliefs. The Conservative Party opposes polygamy.
Policy P-305, a resolution promoting income splitting for families of children under seven, passed. This is an important step forward for single income families, where one parent chooses to stay at home. The proposal is worded as follows: The Conservative Party believes the government should amend the Income Tax Act to eliminate all tax disadvantages to families including those who care for children at home and to recognize the economic value of stay at home parents by introducing tax fairness measures such as income splitting for couples with children.
A number of policies on crime were also passed.

List of votes on policy resolutions (ht: Stephen Taylor)
Dr. Roy's thoughts on the Convention
View from the Right
The Trusty Tory
Canadian Press
CTV
Macleans
National Newswatch

Final Seat Count and Early Morning Thoughts

2008-10-15T07:19:00.001-04:00

Conservatives: 143
Liberals: 76
Bloc: 50
NDP: 37
Independent: 2

- Dion is finished as leader of the Liberals. The next leadership race will be interesting.
- May should be finished as leader of the Greens, but only time will tell.
- Harper will have a default majority for at least the next 18 months, if not two years. No party will want to drag voters back to the polls too quickly.
- I am disgusted that Justin Trudeau won his seat in Quebec. He essentially did so on the power of his name, and not on the basis of any personal qualifications.
- Our system needs fixing. It is appalling that the Bloc have more seats than the NDP, when the NDP have more of the popular vote. It is a shame that the Greens have no seats when their popular vote is only a few percentage points behind the Bloc.

The Globe & Mail grudgingly endorses Harper

2008-10-09T23:09:00.002-04:00

How to cheer for someone you hate.

Two anxieties, neither wholly irrational, have attached themselves to Stephen Harper in his years as a contender for and holder of the top political office in the land. The first is that he is a right-wing ideologue, badly out of sync with mainstream Canadian values and sentiments. The second is that he is possessed by a mean-spirited and controlling nature; that his emotional intelligence isn't up to his mental level.

No, you're not irrational, oh leftist Globe & Mail. You just don't want to get caught cheering for a team you know is going to lose.
This insult-ridden endorsement is hilarious to read. Although a moderate, competent governor, Harper is "savage," responsible for a dysfunctional Parliament, not trusting and therefore not trusted, tends toward pettiness and hyper-partisanship, and has a "firewall temperament." Still, the Globe manages to concede that he is smart, adaptable, both shrewd and deft with respect to Quebec, calm, decisive and has an ability to play a bad hand well... something the Globe notes is worth remembering in the face of the current economic crisis.
Dion's carbon tax is justly raked over the coals. Poor Layton is cast aside with barely a thought.

Mr. Harper and his Conservative party are only seriously challenged for government by Stéphane Dion's Liberals. (For all the flourish of his introductory line — "I'm Jack Layton and I'm running for Prime Minister" — history and political culture suggest otherwise.)

So sorry about that Mr. Layton.
The article is worth reading if only for a bit of a laugh. I really do think this has been written because the Liberals have no chance at power now, not with Dion's latest catastrophe and not because they actually support Harper or are happy about his potential win.

Dion on CTV

2008-10-09T22:39:00.001-04:00

Watch Dion crash and burn during an interview.
Dion was asked "If you were Prime Minister now, what would you have done that Mr. Harper has not done?"
(h/t Stephen Taylor)
CTV's website has more on the story.

Canadian Banks: We're #1

2008-10-09T14:49:00.001-04:00

This just in:

Canada has the world's soundest banking system, closely followed by Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia, a survey by the World Economic Forum has found as financial crisis and bank failures shake world markets...
The United States, where some of Wall Street's biggest financial names have collapsed in recent weeks, rated only 40...

In case anyone needs the implications of this spelled out for them, allow me to quote myself:

As Harper rightly pointed out, Canada is not in the same situation as the States and there are many reasons for this.

In other news, polls are stabilizing.

Statement by Jim Flaherty, and More on the Economy

2008-10-08T22:27:00.001-04:00

From the Conservative website:

"Last night, Mr. Dion was asked why his so-called 30-day plan – the plan he sprung during the French debate – was not in his platform, a document that was released just days earlier. Mr. Dion said: ‘It was difficult for us to write a chapter on a U.S. economic crisis when we were preparing our platform’ (Stéphane Dion, Le téléjournal, October 6, 2008).
This is an extraordinary admission.

No kidding.
Think of it. The issue of the election is the economy. The Liberals have spent the last few days claiming the Harper government is doing nothing, waving their arms about, claiming the economic sky is falling. Meanwhile, they actually have the unmitigated gall to ask the Canadian public to give them thirty days after the election is over to come up with a plan. He wants to get together with a bunch of economists so they can tell him what to do.
Is he serious?
Moreover, how can anyone take this seriously?? Harper has a Masters in economics, and has Jim Flaherty by his side. I understand that many on the left don't like him, but it's impossible to deny that, from a financial perspective, he is a highly competent man.
Quite frankly, the media ought to be all over this, exposing the hypocrisy of the Liberals. So far, I have only seen the National Post throw its support behind the Conservatives, specifically citing Dion's lack of plan and general attitude as their reason.
Continuing on...

The American credit crunch did not start two weeks ago. It started over a year ago and it has been issue number one for every person with any understanding of economics.
Yet, for the past year, Mr. Dion has been totally oblivious to what has been going on. And his carbon tax proves it. At a time of global economic uncertainty, no responsible economic manager would suggest experimenting with risky new tax schemes or massive increases in government spending.
Unlike Mr. Dion, the Harper Government got it. We took action.
We recognized the credit crunch for what it is: a threat to the global economy. In response, the Harper Government implemented a real plan, including keeping the budget balanced, lowering taxes, investing in Canadian jobs and keeping inflation low. We also tightened rules on mortgage lending, and strengthened the Bank of Canada’s powers to deal with a crisis.
We’re not asking Canadians for a mandate to spend 30 days figuring out what to do. We are asking for a mandate to continue with our real plan to protect the Canadian economy and the standard of living for workers and their families."

As I previously mentioned, banks are agreeing with Mr. Harper. We are not in the same economic crisis as the US. Furthermore, as reported at The Star, the Government has already taken action with respect to banking institutions to ensure that the crisis in the US does not greatly impact us. As reported at the Globe, banking institutions are also taking actions of their own.

With respect to Tuesday's vote, people need to stop panicking.
People need to get informed, read up on each party's policies, filter through the media bias and figure it out for themselves. I actually read a poll today that suggested a Liberal minority win was possible.
I can't stress enough how absurd such a win would be.
Imagine for a moment if the Liberals did win. We'd be back to the polls inside of a year!
The truth is that every poll is different, and pollsters report based on their own biases. As mentioned by Reuters:

An Ekos automated telephone poll released on Tuesday night, however, had the Conservative lead growing again to 9 percentage points from the 7 that Ekos had reported a day earlier.
Ekos showed the Conservatives at 34 percent, the Liberals at 25 percent and the NDP at 20 percent, and said voters seemed neither to want to give Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper a majority in Parliament nor to elect Liberal leader Stephane Dion...
"There is limited enthusiasm for a Tory majority, or even a Tory government. But the obvious alternative -- a Dion government -- hardly seems appetizing either for most Canadians."
A Nanos Research poll had the gap up slightly to 4 points from what had been the campaign's smallest margin of 3 points the day before. It had the Conservatives at 33 percent, the Liberals at 29 percent and the NDP at 20.

At the Ottawa Sun, Greg Weston makes a few interesting points on the effects of polls. He comments that:

Overnight polling by Nanos Research reported yesterday that the Conservatives dropped to just three points ahead of the Liberals.
Nanos also tracks how Canadians feel about the four federal leaders, and Harper's score on that front has been sinking like the stock markets in recent days.
All of which must have tempted the Conservatives to roll out the gravy train and buy their way into voters' hearts.
Thankfully, the emotionally challenged PM did not succumb.

I have to agree with Weston.
The easiest thing in the world would be to succumb to opinion polls and try to buy votes with expensive promises that are not intended to be kept. People complain all the time that politicians make promises they don't keep. Now, the Conservatives are actually not making promises, they are releasing a "stingy" platform, making minimal promises. The average voter ought to take this as a good sign. They ought to recognize Harper's honesty in the face of what can best be described as a difficult situation.
I still expect a Conservative minority, although I do agree with the National Post: a majority would offer the country more stability.

Conservative Ad

2008-10-08T12:32:00.001-04:00

This ad articulates my feelings on Dion perfectly. I definitely can't afford more taxes!

The Economic Reality

2008-10-08T10:49:00.000-04:00

In the face of all the Liberal "chicken-littling," I'd like to direct your attention to what the Royal Bank of Canada has to say.
As reported by the Star:

...the domestic economy "remains firm..."
For 2009, the report released Wednesday sees a modest revival in gross domestic product with a growth rate of 1.5 per cent...
"The continued weakness in the U.S. economy is expected to dampen growth in Canada," said Craig Wright, RBC's chief economist.
"However, this pressure on our growth will be tempered by strong commodity prices which are contributing to robust export revenues and providing support to Canadian domestic spending via a boost to incomes..."

But, their most notable comment of all?

"...any weakening is expected to be more moderate compared to the U.S. experience as Canadian mortgage markets did not see the excesses that afflicted the U.S. housing sector..."

I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that this is exactly what the PM said during the debates last week. The opposition leaders flogged him for it, and are continuing to do so, claiming that he "doesn't care."
Maybe he just has a firmer grasp on reality, and is actually paying close attention the the economic situation. It's a much smarter thing to do than running around, making massive tax-and-spend promises the country can't afford.

Platform Costs

2008-10-07T21:34:00.000-04:00

Conservative Platform. The costs are listed at the end.
Liberal Platform. Costs are listed here.
NDP Platform. Unless I missed it, they don't really have a costing section. They have a set of Explanatory tables instead.
Canada.com and Yahoo! News have similar lists of campaign spending promises.
Kitchener Conservative offers some costing numbers here and here.
By far, the Liberals are promising to spend the most. I actually expected the NDP to do that, but apparently not. The Conservatives are spending the least, but then, that's why we call them Conservatives.

The Conservative Party Platform (cont'd)

2008-10-07T21:10:00.001-04:00

The platform can be found here.
There were a few elements of the platform that were not mentioned in most of the news reports, but are interesting nonetheless.

Restricting Unfair Text Messaging Charges
A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will prevent telecommunications companies from charging fees to customers for receiving unsolicited commercial text messages. We will amend the Telecommunications Act to strengthen the power of the Commissioner of Complaints for Telecommunications Services, including the creation of a code of conduct for wireless services. We will also create a compliance and deterrent power that allows the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to block these and similar unfair charges in the future.

Admittedly, I don't have a cell phone. However, most of the people I know do. Nothing is more annoying than companies who send you text messages and then charge you for them, without your permission. As far as I am concerned, it is a type of theft. I will be interested to see what proposed legislation will look like.

Protecting Against Internet Spam
A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will introduce legislation to prohibit the use of spam (unsolicited commercial email) to collect personal information under false pretences and to engage in criminal conduct. The new law will reduce dangerous, destructive and deceptive email and web site practices, and will establish new fines for those who break the law.

I support this initiative. However, in my opinion, governments generally have to be careful when crafting laws with respect to technology. I will have to withhold any further judgment until I actually see their proposed law.

Protecting Creators and Consumers of New Ideas and Products
A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will reintroduce federal copyright legislation that strikes the appropriate balance among the rights of musicians, artists, programmers and other creators and brings Canada's intellectual property protection in line with that of other industrialized countries, but also protects consumers who want to access copyright works for their personal use.
We will also introduce tougher laws on counterfeiting and piracy and give our customs and law enforcement services the resources to enforce them. This will protect consumers from phoney and sometimes dangerous products that are passed off as reliable brand-name goods.

As I said above, governments have to be careful when crafting laws with respect to technology. In my opinion, the Canadian version of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act did not strike the appropriate balance between consumer protection, artist's right and corporate rights. Wiki has a brief description of some of the issues with the bill. This bill could have a potentially negative impact on open source software developers. but, this post is intended to deal with the Conservative Party platform and not the DMCA, so I will leave this thought for now.

Protecting Consumers with Stronger Competition Laws
A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will implement a strong consumer protection plan by modernizing Canada's outdated competition laws. New competition laws will:
- Make it easier to investigate and prosecute bid-rigging and hard-core cartel behaviour such as price fixing.
- Raise maximum penalties for bid-rigging and cartels to a $25-million fine and 14 years in prison.
- Introduce fines of up to $10 million – $15 million for repeat offenders – for companies that abuse their dominant market position.
- Provide for restitution for consumers who fall victim to deceptive marketing practices.

In light of the behaviour of gas and oil companies, such legislation can only be a good thing.

Reforming or Abolishing the Senate
The Conservatives and Stephen Harper believe that the current Senate must be either reformed or abolished. An unelected Senate should not be able to block the will of the elected House in the 21st century.
As a minimum, a re-elected Conservative Government will reintroduce legislation to allow for nominees to the Senate to be selected by voters, to provide for Senators to serve fixed terms of not longer than eight years, and for the Senate to be covered by the same ethics rules as the House of Commons.

This measure was briefly mentioned at the Globe & Mail, but I haven't seen it anywhere else. As I mentioned in a previous post, this issue more than any other, ought to secure the Conservatives a majority. Unfortunately, everyone is panicking about the economy, so it probably won't receive much attention. Still, Senate reform is a major step towards improving democracy in Canada. We simply have too many senators who don't take their jobs seriously enough.

Offering Fair Representation in the House of Commons
A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will introduce legislation to move closer towards representation by population in the House of Commons for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, while protecting the seat counts of other provinces.

I am curious to see what this sort of legislation would look like.

Reforming Public Appointments
We will establish a task force to report within one year on unnecessary federally appointed positions that can be eliminated, with a target of reducing federal appointments by 10 per cent overall.

Reducing the number of government appoints is also another important step towards improving democracy in Canada.

Making Government More Accountable for Taxpayers' Money
A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will require all federal departments and agencies to produce detailed quarterly financial statements.

Good. They should be doing this already.

Respecting the Provinces and Territories, Establishing a Charter of Open Federalism
A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories in the Constitution Act, 1867, and will enshrine our principles of federalism in a new Charter of Open Federalism.

I am also interested to see what such a Charter would look like. Certainly, a measure like this is intended to woo Quebec, but there would be benefits for the other provinces too. There is a lot to be said for being able to manage your own affairs without the interference of the Federal government. In a similar vein, the Conservatives are also offering:

Limiting the Federal Spending Power
A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will ensure that any new shared-cost program in an area of provincial or territorial responsibility has the consent of the majority of provinces to proceed, and that provinces should be given the right to opt out of the federal program with compensation, so long as the province offers a similar program with similar accountability structures.

By far, the most significant difference between the Conservatives and the other parties is the way crime is dealt with. Unless I missed it, there isn't anything in the Liberal platform about crime and I simply don't think the NDP approach is specific enough, nor do I think it would be effective. The Conservatives offer tougher sentences and protect victims first.
The cost of the Conservative plan is relatively modest and can be found at the end of the platform. Their total plan cost is about $8.6 billion. Their current projected budgetary balance is about $16.7 billion. This leaves them nearly half left over. This ought to be more than a sufficient buffer.

Conservative Party Platform

2008-10-07T13:17:00.000-04:00

So, the Conservatives released their party platform at lunch time today. I am looking around the web for a copy. I expect it will be available on their website soon, but for now I will have to be satisfied with perspectives from Canada.com, CTV and the Globe & Mail.
A few points of interest.
As previously noted, the Conservative platform looks like it's a lot of more of the same. As mentioned in the Canada.com article "That is the view that unless a plan is brand new, it's not a plan," Harper said in a prepared text of his speech. "But the truth is the opposite. If you are making it up in response to the latest news, or the latest change in the stock market, then it is obvious you really don't have a plan."
It's interesting that Harper has changed his plan with respect to arts funding. Personally, I agreed more with his original stance. However, it is clear that this stance could well cost the party the majority they are seeking, so I understand why they have opted to back track. This is not to say I agree with the move; only that I am understanding.
In that same vein, I am very interested by the fact they did not back away from their plan to make pregnancy an aggravating factor when sentencing if a woman is assaulted or killed. While this position does fall far short of what is actually needed, I do think it is definitely a step in the right direction. In time I hope people will be able to crawl out of their shells and have a sensible debate on the life of the unborn. To that end though, I must say that I think the responsibility falls more on the general public than it does on the government. If we want to talk about this issue, then we actually do have to start talking, rather than letting extremists speak for us.
I am pleased to see that the Conservatives plan to continue with their tougher sentencing on crime.
I also think that, given the economic crisis, their plan to spend meagerly and cut taxes is wise. People need to be able to use their money. As mentioned at the Globe, the Tories are spending less than half of the possible cash available to them over the next four years. The platform leaves $8-billion of surplus cash on the books. Average Canadians who are preparing to tighten up their own budgets will be pleased to see the government doing the same.
The move to abolish the chamber if the government is frustrated by Senators in their bid to bring in term limits and an election process for the Upper House is fantastic! These guys have had their opportunity to play nice. Tax payers have shelled out far too much for their cushy jobs and have gotten nothing in return. Too many Senators don't show up, don't do their job and waste our money, and average Canadians are sick of it. This sort of electoral reform ought to guarantee a majority for the Conservatives.
I plan to go through the platform as soon as I have a copy.
More to come...

More Thoughts on the Debates

2008-10-03T13:23:00.000-04:00

Undoubtedly, the worst question of the evening was the last one from the frustrated "voter," who admitted she hasn't actually voted in many years. Who do I trust? How do I sift through the rhetoric? Who should I vote for? According to Paikin, the question reflected a common theme among questions sent in.
I am tired of this sort of whining. Far too many Canadians have no idea how greatly blessed we are to live in a democracy, where we can exercise our freedom and choose our government. While it is not realistic to expect perfection from any government, we can certainly hold our politicians accountable through lobbying efforts, direct communication with our MP's, and ultimately by voting at the polls. Refusing to vote, especially when one has not even begun to make an effort, is sheer laziness. Didn't get the government you wanted? Saw a bill passed in the House that you were against? The government did something they said they wouldn't do?
Did you do anything about it? Did you contact your MP to express your outrage, or did you just sit on your couch and whine about it?
Political parties act in accordance with the wishes of their loudest and most influential voters. Want to see a change? Then you really have no choice except to get involved.
In order for a democracy to be effective, effort is required.

A fair amount of time was spent discussing economics, and in particular, the situation in the US. As Harper rightly pointed out, Canada is not in the same situation as the States and there are many reasons for this. I do have to agree with his sentiment that a government cannot guarantee a job to every Canadian, Layton's arm-flailing and cries of "incompetence" notwithstanding. Such a guarantee would be foolish, not to mention vain. There will always be some unemployed people and no government in the history of the world has been able to overcome this. Don't think me cold: I have friends who are affected by the John Deere layoffs. Also, as my father was self-employed, growing up my family went through many financial difficulties. In fact, we moved provinces on account of the Rae-initiated recession (just in case you bought Layton's line that the NDP is historically good for the economy, it isn't). It's true that the manufacturing sector is suffering a severe slow down right now, but jobs are being created in other areas. What would be helpful is to train those affected by the slow down; subsidize courses to help them improve their skills to match with the changing times. The country has to be prepared to change as needed.
Layton's plan to get rid of all corporate tax cuts would profoundly hurt all areas of industry in Canada. How does he propose to keep companies here if he will not offer corporate cuts? Does he not know that John Deere laid off so many employees because they are moving production to Mexico in order to save money? If companies leave because they can make more money elsewhere, this will result in more people out of work. Now, he says that he would reward companies who choose to remain in Canada, but how would he do this without offering a tax cut? He obviously means some sort of monetary incentive, so what is the fundamental difference between the NDP plan and a corporate tax cut offered by the Conservatives?
It is also important to note that in the face of the manufacturing sector slowdown, all parties except the Conservatives are planning on raising taxes. I don't understand how the other parties can't see that if economic difficulties are coming, Canadians will need to keep their money. That brings me to the Conservative idea of a tax free savings account. I love this idea and would like to know more about it. Currently, we pay tax on any earnings we make on our high interest account. Given that the earnings aren't much, I really don't feel taxes ought to be taken out of those earnings.

The sheer number of comparisons to George Bush and the US really bothered me after a while. You could have set your watch to it. Canada is not the US. Comparisons between our two political systems are inadequate. Although we are being affected by the slowdown in the US, this is because they are our greatest trading partner. This is not because we have followed their policies.
With respect to the US, the Iraq war was also brought up. This was a non-issue as far as I am concerned. Harper admitted that to go to Iraq would have been a mistake, but really, he wasn't Prime Minister at the time. Discussing hypotheticals as to what might have happened is irrelevant.

I take back what I said about May last night. I have given it a lot of thought and she wasn't that terrible. The problem is that she lacks experience and polish. In terms of her presentation, she ought to take a page out of Duceppe's book. He knows he will never be Prime Minister, and let's face it, the Green's are a long way off from ever achieving a government. A huge point in her favor is that she does not present herself with that annoying "I am woman, hear me roar" attitude. She also did have quite a few facts that she was able to spout off the top of her head. While I disagree with much of her interpretation of those facts, she really did have her dates and policies down. What she needs to do now is work on her presence. Learn to be dignified.
Dion was not as bad as I feared he might be, but still he was not good. The man lacks presence. Although likeable, he doesn't appear "manly" or very leader-like. It's very difficult to envision him as the leader of our country.
Layton was a disaster!! My opinion of him truly plummeted. Until last night, I could say I respected him or thought he was doing a good job. As leader of the opposition, he would be nothing short of a catastrophe. Instead of appearing as a "strong leader" he came off as arrogant and extremely rude.
Harper and Duceppe were clearly the most dignified of the debaters last night. As I have said before, Duceppe is good. It's just too bad he represents the Bloc. Harper was calm and collected. He knew that he would be up on the chopping block. He just had to make sure the axe didn't fall, and it didn't. With the exception of the comments on health care and exposing Layton's hypocrisy, I wouldn't say he delivered any knock out blows. But, in all truth, I am not sure he needed too. The one upside of all the pummeling Harper took last night was the fact that the Conservative plan received a great deal of exposure and attention. I realize the other parties tried to point out flaws, but given Harper's calm, collected demeanor, they ended up highlighting Conservative strengths. Harper was able to state concisely and clearly the Conservative stance on a wide range of issues and pointed to a litany of actions taken while in Parliament. No other party presented any of their own plans, with the exception of Dion who really could not explain his own carbon tax. He could not defend his new tax well at all or what it will cost the tax payer.

I am not quite sure why people think the Conservatives have no platform. Is it because there is no explicit platform link on their party site? To me, it seems obvious that their platform is "more of the same." Their current plan is working well, there is no real need for change, and they have mentioned what new tax cuts they are offering and what new funding they will provide. I really have no idea what else people are looking for.

In the end, I don't really think the debates will have as much of an impact on the election as I thought they might. The Conservatives will still win; it's still up in the air as to whether it will be a majority or not, and it's not certain as to who the Opposition will be.

Preliminary Debate Thoughts

2008-10-02T23:18:00.000-04:00

A few initial thoughts. Hopefully I'll get time to post more tomorrow.

- I take back what I said about the NDP as the Official Opposition. I was appalled by Layton's performance tonight. Definitely not as good as the debates last election!! He just could not get past corporate tax cuts and raising the spectre of George Bush.
- Speaking of which, I must have counted at least 13 references to George Bush. Including references to US policies, there were probably a lot more, but I don't have an official number. If anyone does, please post.
- All the other parties seemed genuinely afraid of a Conservative majority. It's the only thing I can think of to account for their behaviour. A lot of time was spent firing away at Harper. Still, given that he is the incumbent and likely to win again, I didn't really expect anything else.
- Elizabeth May was terrible. She just had to get the last word in. It became so annoying after a while, and I found it very unprofessional.
- Duceppe did well. He always does. It's too bad the Bloc is irrelevant.
- Good call on health care! It was awesome to hear Harper point out the fact he was the only politician at the table who had never been to a private clinic. I heard May say something about it, but couldn't really catch her comment so if anyone caught it, please post. Calling out Layton on his hypocrisy was fabulous!! Probably the only knock out punch of the evening. I wish more time had been focused on this.
- Only Harper actually understood the question about Afghanistan. Everyone else, Layton in particular, seemed to think the guy asking wanted Canadian troops to pull out. He clearly didn't. He was very obviously afraid of the Taliban undoing all the work achieved to date.
- There was far too much emotional appeal, especially from Layton and Dion. Debates should stick to facts, not feelings. That brings me to May. Single mom and building shed comments do not help her professional image.
- I didn't like how everyone just sat around the table. It was too board-roomish. Stand at a podium. It looks more professional. I realize it is more tiring, but you are earning our votes.
- Dion has no presence. He didn't do as bad as I feared he might, but he definitely was not good.

CBC: Sorry about Ms. Mallick

2008-09-29T13:02:00.002-04:00

Pardon me while I laugh.
CBC apologizes for column maligning Sarah Palin
CBC News publisher: I agree with our ombudsman, we're really biased
We erred in our judgment (You think??)
What Vince Carlin, the CBC Ombudsman, said
What Ms. Mallick said (Looks like the "Mighty Wind" still blows...)
Michael Coren's commentary (Scared witless)

I read Mallick's piece when it wsa first posted on the CBC website.
It was terrible. Typical of what the CBC chooses to call "objective."
And I quote:

It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. They're unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously...No, she isn't even female really. She's a type...

This sort of sexist garbage has no business being written, much less published by the CBC. Sexual inadequates? Unfamiliarity with women's "true" natures? Secret meetings? How is this rational thought?
I am out of patience for the likes of Mallick.
Finally, someone has told the CBC to get their act together. After many years of blatant Liberal (small- and big-L) bias, perhaps now we will finally see some true, objective, balanced journalism.
I agree with what the Ombudsman said.
Liberty is not the same as license.
And this is clearly a piece of truly licentious writing.

Liberals "Hemorrhaging" Votes

2008-09-27T19:21:00.000-04:00

Yes.
That was the CTV NewsNet comment on the Liberals just now.
On their right side, they are losing votes to the Conservatives. On their left, they are losing votes to the NDP. In fact, the pundits were predicting Conservative majority with an NDP opposition.
Also heard just now, the Liberals are pegging everything on the debates.
Excuse me while I laugh my head off. Yeah, right!!! I have seen Dion on TV. Slaughter is inevitable!
As much as I dislike the NDP, I actually think it would be better for the country if they formed the Official Opposition. This is not because I agree with any of their policies. In fact, I think the NDP are wrong on pretty much everything.
However, there is no question that if the Liberals were to lose even their status as the Official Opposition, they would have to completely rethink every aspect of the party. The Liberals have always been a sort of de facto government; even this past session they have viewed themselves as a sort of government-in-waiting. Despite touting themselves as the party of the little man, the Liberals have always received support from mighty corporations: that lack of support now is clearly hurting them.
The Liberal Party of Canada is out of touch with Canadians, has policies which will ruin this country both economically and morally and they need to realize this. I can think of no better wake up call than voter punishment.

The Conservatives on "Art"

2008-09-26T12:54:00.000-04:00

Today at Canada.com:

A day after Stephen Harper complained that the arts community is "a bunch of people at a rich gala..."

But is that exactly what he said?
Tuesday, also at Canada.com

Stephen Harper took a swipe... at members of the arts community...
"I think when ordinary working people come home, turn on the TV and see . . . a bunch of people at a rich gala . . . all subsidized by the taxpayers - claiming their subsidies aren't high enough when they know those subsidies have gone up - I'm not sure that's something that resonates with ordinary people," Harper told reporters.

There was a little more to it than just "rich people at a gala."
And by the way, Harper is right. Swanky, tax-payer funded galas do not impress the average Canadian citizen, especially when some of us have to work hard to get by. Tolerance for swanky government galas is even limited, even though most people would argue that those things are more important than arts' galas.

The arts are important. I would not suggest otherwise. There is definitely a place for sculpture, music, paintings, architecture, literature and the like. But, during economic hard times, is funding these art projects the best use of tax payer money? What about when the art is particularly controversial?
I would argue that the government's first duty is to its citizens. People need to have their basic needs taken care of first. Crime, health care, and employment ought to be priorities.

The NDP on Childcare

2008-09-19T12:59:00.001-04:00

By now, many of you will be well aware of the NDP's plan for a national daycare system. They call it an "investment."
(Before I begin, let me just say that such a view on children ought to immediately alarm every parent who can read. Our children are not commodities.)
A few notes from their site:

Healthy environments, nutrition and engagement are crucial.

True.

...learning-oriented child care is one choice that gives kids a valuable head-start.

Also true. In fact, in a child's first five years of life, it is almost impossible for them not to learn. Furthermore, roughly 50% of the information a child will need for the rest of its life is collected before age five.
With its stated goals of ending childhood poverty, providing a better world for Canadian children and helping parents, this sounds like a noble goal on the face of it.
But, closer examination reveals the following:

most families with preschoolers rely on outside child care

Really? Are you sure? And, incidentally, do the families that rely on outside child care want it to be that way? And what about those of us that don't rely on outside care?

With a shortage of 1.4-million quality spaces...

There is only one way to arrive at a number that large.
They are planning a space for every child in Canada.
Again, what about those of us who don't rely on outside care and never will? Do the NDP plan to over-tax the public to fund these daycare spaces anyway? Or do they honestly think that if daycare were available, everyone would use it?
Because, if they do think that, let me be the first to dispel that ridiculous notion and say my kids will be in daycare over my dead body.
I found the gross misrepresentation of the Conservative Childcare Benefit interesting.

[Harper's] "Universal Child Care Benefit" is a deceptive family allowance subject to unfair clawbacks — families that need childcare the most get the least, and nobody gets more than $100/month, which does little to offset the average family's child care costs.

Nobody gets more than $100 a month?
The amount is $100 per month per child under five.
So, no family in Canada has more than one child under five? Not one?
That's odd, because the last time I checked, I have two children under five. Lord willing, I could have another. I have a friend with three boys all under five. My two sister's-in-law have two kids under five (plus more over that age). There are several families in my church with two or three children under five, often plus more over that age. Funny how the NDP claim to represent the "working" family, when they cannot account for the many families who have multiple children and refuse outside care.
One wonders their true opinion of the "working" family.
Which brings me to Exhibit B.

Helen discussed in length with Ian Capstick the importance of the NDP acknowledging parental care in all of its form through childcare. At one point Helen Ward stated "every mother is a working mother." Ian Capstick, who is the press secretary to Jack Layton leader of the NDP, slammed back at Helen with a sharp tone "THAT IS POPPY COCK AND YOU KNOW IT!"

Poppycock.
In other words, not every mother is a working mother.
So, which of us don't work?
Hmm.
Bet I know.
According to the NDP site:

When Europeans countries invested to ensure child care for most of their citizens, they found that each dollar spent returned two more to the economy.

Again we see a view of the family that proceeds from the position of the dollar.
Did anyone bother to ask why two dollars are returned to the economy?
Because free day care means more people out in the workforce, working to pay their taxes, which, newsflash Mr. Layton is not why we work. But the NDP never seem to get that.
So, translated another way, stay-at-home-mom's don't work. If they did, they'd be "contributing" to the economy.
Why is the economy an acceptable prism through which to view the family?
Are people not more important than money?

When I first read Ian Capstick's comment, I was wave-my-fists-in-the-air, smash-my-face-on-the-desk angry. It is an outrage to suggest that stay-at-home-mom's don't work. It is even more of an outrage to suggest the idea that "every mother is a working mother" is "poppycock."
And yes, that is exactly what he was suggesting. Don't even bother trying to defend him.
Poppycock.
Does this guy have any idea what is involved in raising children?
Does he care that children abandoned to daycare don't bond properly with their parents in the critical first years of their lives? As a direct result, these kids have greater emotional, social and developmental problems, are more prone to inappropriate aggression and these things do affect them later on in life.
I'd also like to know at what age this daycare is expected to start caring for our children.
Birth?
A year?
I wonder how many people reading this are aware that children are not born self-aware? Do you understand how an child's brain develops?
Quick science lesson!
The human brain has not finished developing when we are born. Neural pathways are still forming, and continue forming well into adulthood. However, the majority of brain growth and half of all information collection required for life happens before age five. There used to be a commercial "The years before five last the rest of their lives." That's actually true. Furthermore, a baby's experiences develop their brain. Sensory experience teaches the brain its job. Without enough sensory experiences, brain cells will start to die off. It's possible to increase a child's intellectual potential through the correct environment, stimulation and discipline.
Just as a positive environment can increase a child's potential, a stressful environment can have detrimental effects on infants and toddlers. Young children exposed to continual stress do not build their neural pathways correctly due to high levels of stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline. These abnormal pathways cause the child to learn inappropriate and often violent responses, setting their brain up for "fight or flight." In other words, if your child is continually afraid, they will learn to continually react out of that fear. It is easily shown that one of the most stressful environments a parent can place their child in is one where they feel abandoned. Abandonment leads to fear. This brings me to separation anxiety. When a child is born, it identifies itself as a part of the mother. It takes as much as a year post partum for a child to understand that they are their own person. This new understanding is the underlying reason for separation anxiety, a genuinely stressful time in your child's life. Since all children do experience this to some degree, it must be noted that the effects of separation anxiety can be mitigated through proper parental interaction and discipline. In fact, proper parental interaction can make separation anxiety appear to not exist in a particular child. This only serves to underscore the critical importance a parent plays in the life of their child in the first years of their life.
And yet, how many daycare centers have children under a year in their care?
How many have children only a few weeks old?
I know of an instance where a child was placed in daycare at a mere six weeks of age! Six weeks! That child has barely learned to smile!
And this is what the NDP wants to fund?
Why not give parents real choices?
Like, not taxing the snot out of us to fund your ill-conceived, nanny-statist plots!
Don't think for a moment that families with a stay-at-home parent will be exempt from the taxes needed to fund this national daycare system. We won't. If anything, we'll will have to struggle more to fight for the right to raise our own children. The role of mother will be all the more disparaged as the state tries to take a place within the family that it has no business taking.
Two closing notes:
Someone sent me an excellent quote on motherhood by G.K. Chesterton.

"To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labors and holidays; to be Whiteley within a certain area, providing toys, boots, sheets cakes. and books, to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it coul... Read Mored narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute."

In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada had this to say:

"...Our society is far from having repudiated the privileged role parents exercise in the upbringing of their children. This role translates into a protected sphere of parental decision making which is coated in the presumption that parents should make important decisions affecting their children both because parents are more likely to appreciate the best interests of their children and because the state is ill equipped to make such decisions itself. Moreover, individuals have a deep personal interest as parents in fostering the growth of their children.

Ill-equipped.
The government can barely run itself. How could it ever run your home or raise your children?

Conservatives on Maternity Benefits

2008-09-16T08:39:00.000-04:00

I was pleased to see this as a part of the Conservative plan.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that a re-elected Conservative Government will give self-employed Canadians the opportunity to access maternity and parental benefits...
Currently self-employed Canadians do not pay into the Employment Insurance program and are not eligible for benefits, including maternity and parental benefits...
The system will be voluntary. Self-employed Canadians will be able to opt in to EI premiums and, in return, will be able to receive maternity and parental benefits...
Self-employed Canadians will have access to the same type of maternity and parental benefits available to regular EI participants...
Self-employed entrepreneurs will be required to opt-in to EI premiums at least six months prior to making a claim...
Exact premium amounts and required payments post-claim will be set upon implementation, following a review by the newly created Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board...

I know a number of self-employed families who will benefit from this. In particular, if you are one of the many stay-at-home mom's who sell products such as Avon, Close to My Heart or Tupperware in order to make up that little bit extra your family needs, you will have the option to pay into the system in order to receive maternity benefits later.
Should the Conservatives form the next government, and I think they will, I will be paying close attention to see when this is passed.
Now all we need is income splitting for families.

Sarah Palin: Pro-Family?

2008-09-10T12:17:00.001-04:00

When I first read of McCain's pick for vice president, I laughed. It's struck me as ironic that the Republican's would nominate a woman for vice president when the Democrats, self-proclaimed advocates for woman's rights, treated Hilary Clinton with such severity. I did some light reading on her. You would think that feminists would be thrilled at the prospect of a woman vice president. Instead, the articles I read dripped with vitriol. Apparently, her pro-life position means that she isn't truly representative of women. Aside from an obvious lack of experience on the international scene, her politics seemed to be in order. Pro-life, pro-family, an apparently average woman, just what the Republicans need to give Obama a run for his money... or at least make the American election a little more interesting.
Then I had a chat with my brother. He mentioned the fact that her teenage daughter was pregnant and she had a six-month old baby with Down's Syndrome. (She also has an older son and a 7 year old daughter.) I am loathe to say anything about the situation with her daughter, since not only do I not know the entire situation, the girl is 17 and even the best mother cannot prevent rebellion completely.
But, I did start thinking about her young baby.
He's six months.
He has Down's Syndrome.
I just have to ask: why isn't she at home? Isn't she pro-family?
More reading revealed that Palin has been a career politician since about 1992. (If Wiki is wrong, please send me the correct information.) In other words, she's never been a stay at home, at least not for any length of time. She's always had a career, mostly in politics.
How can she claim to be pro-family when she hasn't spent the proper amount of time looking after her own?
Some will ask: "Well, what is the proper amount of time and who are you to judge?" and so on.
The proper amount of time maybe debatable, but the minimum is certainly until they are in school. A career ought to come second to the needs of one's family.
About half of all the information a child will need for the rest of its life is collected before age five. This has huge implications for things like the environment we choose to place our children in and discipline. Only parents can truly parent their kids properly. Outside help and/or daycare is not a substitute for proper parenting. Nearly all early childhood research that I have looked at shows that children placed in daycare do not bond properly with their parents during the critical first five years of their life and as a direct result develop poor social skills, have disciplinary problems, are more inclined to inappropriate aggression. These things, like it or not, do affect them later on in life. In fact, I can honestly say that I haven't found a single work so far extolling the benefits of daycare for children. All are negative. (But, should anyone know of anything, by all means send it to me.)
This brings me to the fact Palin claims to be a devout Christian. Since I don't know her, I can't question the sincerity of her walk. However, I would certainly ask whether or not she has thought through some of the implications of being a Christian when it comes to raising one's family. We confess that "children are a gift of the LORD, and the fruit of the womb is a reward." (Psalm 127:3) If this is true, then as parents, both mothers and fathers, we ought to make our families a priority over a career. The Bible does give us certain directives on how we are to raise our children, especially as regards teaching them the things of God. (Deut.4: 9,10, Deut. 11: 19, Ps. 34:11, Pr. 1: 8, Pr 3:1) If at least one parent is not at home then someone else is teaching your children. You need a way to guarantee that the primary caregiver is teaching your kids what God would have them learn. Even if your kids are with your parents this may not be possible. Even if your parents are Christians, you may have differences in opinion over theology or more practical applications of the Christian walk. It definitely will not happen if your child is out in daycare or under the care of unbelievers.
I would also argue that if a woman cannot properly care for her family, which is relatively small, can we be assured that she will be competent in caring for the country? Scripture indicates that the ability to lead one's family well is a prerequisite for leadership in the church (see 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1). I think Christians can fairly extend this test of fitness to government as well. If you can't parent, can you properly govern? Should you govern? Perhaps your time is wiser spent dealing with your family problems first. Govern the country when your affairs are in order.
It must be noted that I do not take issue with women who must work in order to feed their families. I recognize that in a few cases, if both parents do not work, the family will not eat. However, not only are these cases relatively rare in this country (generally if both parents work, it is to sustain a lifestyle) it is definitely not the case for Sarah Palin.

It has bothered me to no end the uncritical support I see conservatives throwing Ms. Palin's way. Generally, people are over-joyed at her strong pro-life stance. Being pro-life is all well and good, but I am sorry to say it is not the only relevant issue. You cannot gloss over her many defects just because she champions a cause you feel strongly about. Yes, she is pro-life. But is she truly worthy of the title pro-family?
I would argue not.

Blogging Panel on Michael Coren

2008-09-10T08:03:00.000-04:00

Interesting show last night.
Steve Janke aka Angry, Andrew Prescott aka Christian Conservative, Jason Cherniak and James Curran aka What Do I know Grit discussed the role of blogging in politics.
It was bizarre in the extreme for me to see Cherniak and Curran actually trying to accuse Steve Janke of getting talking points straight from the Conservatives and/or not doing his own research. Janke's blog is consistently excellent. I can't say the same of Cherniak. (C'mon, the guy predicted a Liberal minority last night. How well can such a talking head possibly write?) Admittedly, I've never read Curran's blog before, but I definitely plan to look. I just thought the comments lacked class. It's obvious that Janke does great work, and you should be able to admit this even if you don't agree with his politics.

My Election Predictions

2008-09-08T08:52:00.001-04:00

Canadians will head to the polls on October 14th of this year.
I predict more of the same, although there is a possibility of a Tory majority. Dion will make it as far as the debates; after that, he's finished.
I've seen some of the new Conservative ads with the tag-line "We're better off with Harper." Typically, elections tend to be more about the party than the leader. I do not expect this particular election to follow that pattern. This election will focus on the leaders. The Conservatives have hit the nail on the head with their new ads. Because Dion is so unelectable, they are smart to focus on Harper. This will force Canadians to look at the alternative: Dion. How does he compare?
A few notes of interest: According to Wiki, the Harper government not only managed to hold the second longest minority government in Canadian history so far, but they have done so with the smallest minority government in Canadian history, with the smallest percentage of government seats ever and the largest number of seats short of a majority. (If Wiki is wrong, please send me the correct info.) This is significant for a few reasons. While there has been a considerable amount of political play, on the whole Parliament has worked. The Conservatives managed to introduce a fair amount of anti-crime legislation, and they dealt with the accountability problems left over from the previous Liberal government. The average Canadian has more money in their pocket as a result of lower taxes and higher income tax returns.
Going into the election, I expect the key issues to be taxes and the environment. The Tories would be smart to focus on the Liberal's poor record on the environment and their proposed tax increase to fund a plan that no one really understands. If the issue of a Conservative "hidden agenda" comes up, they should not even respond to it. Canadian life has gone on as before and if anyone brings up that red herring, no one will buy it. The Conservatives ought to treat that line of thinking exactly as it is: ridiculous fear-mongering intended to quell actual political discussion.

A Test Post

2008-09-05T19:11:00.000-04:00

I could write about McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin.
Or, I could write about the impending Canadian election.
Instead, all I really want to do is test how imported blog feeds look on the redesigned Facebook Wall.
To be frank, I am not a huge fan of Facebook's new look. So far, it is more of a hassle than anything. I get what they are trying to do with moving apps into their own "box" section. However, what about those apps that I, the humble user, want displayed on my profile and now can't?
Hopefully, improvements will be made.

On Bill C-484

2008-08-28T14:08:00.000-04:00

Earlier in the week I called my MP's office (Dean Allison) for clarification regarding the apparent Conservative abandonment of Bill C-484.
This morning, someone called me back.
It was an interesting conversation, to say the least. Suffice it to say, the media has played this story into something it's not.
The Conservatives are not abandoning or distancing themselves from Bill C-484 or abortion. In fact, it is a mistake to view Nicholson's recently proposed alternative as such. The guy I spoke to over the phone suggested that the Conservatives do not think that Epp's bill will pass in the house, given the fact they only have a minority and the recent inappropriate focus on abortion by a small group of extremists who have totally misrepresented the bill. He said that both the Bloc and the NDP will be voting against the bill and most Liberals are likely to either do the same or simply not show up to vote. If that is the case, then it's hard to see how Epp's bill could pass.
Nicholson's bill is intended to provide the same protection to pregnant women, should Epp's bill not pass.
If Epp's bill does pass, and both I and the guy on the phone hope it does, then great.
My MP will be voting in support of Epp's bill.

As an aside, until I have seen Nicholson's bill I am not going to comment on what protection it does or does not provide to pregnant women and their unborn children. It's probably better for me to withhold judgment for now until I have more information.

The Conservatives and the Unborn

2008-08-26T12:10:00.001-04:00

I received an email this morning that suggested Bill C-484 could be on its deathbed. Stories in the news this morning also suggest this could be the case. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has announced that the Conservative Government will introduce legislation to bolster penalties for those who assault pregnant women effectively killing Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act. Nicholson's bill would make pregnancy an aggravating factor for judges to take into account when sentencing those who assault pregnant women.
The suggested reason for this shift is a potential election this fall. Some fear that reopening the abortion debate could alienate voters, cost the Conservatives seats and perhaps even result in a Liberal government.
This is ridiculous.
The Liberals simply cannot win an election right now. Dion is not leadership material. The party is in debt and cannot afford to run a campaign.
The idea that protecting a pregnant woman and her unborn child might somehow alienate voters considering the Conservative party is even more ridiculous!! Despite our lack of law, many polls have already shown that most Canadians do favour some protection for the unborn. The type of people who are against any and all forms of protection for the unborn would not consider voting for the Conservatives under any circumstances because they are extremists in their view. There is simply no reason to play to them!
The Conservatives would be much, much wiser to stress yet again that the bill does not impact current abortion laws. The party ought to hold a free vote. If it passes, then that is the will of the people. Extremist groups are going to have to live with it. That is democracy! The government shouldn't play to the will of special interest groups who care more about themselves rather than the will of the masses.

Stephane Dion on the Michael Coren Show

2008-08-26T11:56:00.001-04:00

When my husband and I watched the show last Thursday, my husband was certain Coren would write an article about Dion's references to God.
Sure enough, he was right.
What can I say? Dion referring to God was nearly blasphemous, as he is hardly what one would call a believer. It is no surprise to me that he did this based on advice he was given. He and others in his party figured to buy the religious vote with a few well-placed Christianese comments.
Unfortunately for Dion, it doesn't work that way for most of us.

My overall impression of Dion was that he gives the appearance of being a likeable fellow. He also seems to genuinely believe in the Liberal cause. He honestly thinks that the Liberal party is the best political solution for Canada. For him, it probably isn't all about power. This cannot be said of all Liberal politicians.
The problem is the Liberal plan, especially as it pertains to the carbon tax, simply isn't the best plan for Canada. As evidenced by his answers regarding childcare, he simply does not respect or understand the role of parents over their children. He would over-tax us into economic ruin all the while genuinely believing he was doing the best thing for the country.
And then there is his presence... or rather, lack thereof. I just don't see this guy sitting in a room full of international leaders, protecting our national interests. I simply don't see him with spine enough to do what is best for our country.
Whenever the next election is, the Conservatives ought to be a shoo in.
Which brings me to my next post...

A Good Day for Free Speech

2008-07-11T08:11:00.001-04:00

This is now old news, but I thought I should highlight it anyway.
It appears that the human rights complaint against Fr. de Valk has been dismissed.

Canada Day: A Day for Human Rights Complaints

2008-07-01T12:28:00.000-04:00

Amendments to the Ontario Human Rights Code come into effect today.
This can't be good.
As this article from the Globe & Mail points out:

The [Ontario Human Rights Commission] only dismissed about 7 per cent of complaints, referring 93 per cent on for a hearing. That was a rather low bar to jump, but somehow this arrangement caused delays. With the processing of cases through the commission bureaucracy and a shortage of adjudicators, a large backlog accumulated. A typical case took about five years to be heard and decided.

So, rather than improve the system, Ontario residents may now bring their complaints directly to the Tribunal itself. There will be no review of the case to see if it is even legitimate. If you file a complaint, you are guaranteed to get a hearing.
It gets better.

The legislation also removes a $10,000 cap on awards for "mental anguish" caused by discrimination...
"In Canada, we protect a lot of things, but traditionally we have given out small awards."
The law also outlines that individuals can now be compensated for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

Emphasis mine.
But please read that again.
It is now a hate crime to injure someone's feelings.
Fabulous.

Other changes to the law include an extension of the window to file a complaint to one year from six months.

So, someone can take an entire year to file a complaint on account of their poor, hurt little feelings.

"There was an almost universal call for change," Bentley said.

Yes.
There was.
But, Mr. Bentley, this is not the sort of change people were hoping for. In fact, these recent amendments are now guaranteed to make the situation worse.
Here are a few more pertinent facts, and the Star also has a story.
O, Canada.
Is anyone really standing on guard for thee? Or are we all just sitting around, watching our free speech go swirling down the toilet?

Gomery "Biased"

2008-06-27T11:52:00.001-04:00

I first heard this on the radio yesterday. Apparently, Judge Max Teitelbaum has ruled that Judge Gomery was "seduced by the media" and showed an apparent bias before the proceedings had even begun.

[Gomery] became preoccupied with ensuring that the spotlight remained on the commission's inquiry and he went to great lengths to ensure the public's interest in the commission did not wane,"

As though public interest in where their tax dollars went was a bad thing.
What can I say? I think Teitelbaum is wrong and I am very disappointed with this ruling. It exonerates Chretian and the Liberals, as though they never did anything wrong.
What happened to all our tax money then?
Did it just grow legs and walk away?

The United Church: In Trouble

2008-06-19T21:48:00.001-04:00

When I woke up this morning to the radio, I thought I heard the broadcaster talking about the United Church of Canada.
Sure enough, I did.

Reverend Connie denBok says to sum up what is wrong with the United Church of Canada, one need look no further than the name of the panel discussion being held tonight in Toronto.
"Shouldn't the United Church Just Throw in the Towel?" is the opening event of a four-day Church-sponsored conference that will look at the future of the country's largest Protestant denomination.

I don't agree with women minister's generally speaking. However, denBok is right on the money.

[denBok] points to Gretta Vosper, a fellow minister who recently wrote a book called With Or Without God, as a prime example of what is wrong. Ms. Vosper, who disdains the title Reverend, said she does not believe in anything remotely Christian, let alone anything religious: not God, not the divinity of Jesus, nor the sacraments or the centrality of the Bible in Church life.
"I cannot really fathom with integrity why she works within the broad spectrum of United Church theology and practice," Rev. denBok said. "But I think Gretta is simply the visible symptom of much deeper malaise."
Rev. denBok said the leadership sets the tone for the kind of theological training that is taught in seminaries, and the result has been a disaster.

Some time ago I sent an email to the local radio station about this very thing. The discussion was on religion and the fact that three United Church congregations in my area have shrunk to such a degree that they are now being amalgamated into one. Here is the letter I wrote at the time:

I am an ardent church-goer and have been my entire life. Both my family and my husband's family are regular attenders. My parents attend a Pentecostal church, his parents attend a Free Reformed church and we attend a United Reformed church (similar to the Free Reform). However, your question regarding the role of church in one's life misses the point. It's not about church attendance but about God and our obedience to Him. We don't just "do church." Our walk encompasses our entire life. We desire to do His will... no easy thing in an age where religion (especially Christianity) is scorned. We aren't just Christians on Sundays, Easter and Christmas. We are to live our lives in a godly way throughout the week. Church attendance provides no benefit whatsoever if one's religion is not put into practice throughout the week. It doesn't make you a better person or less of a sinner. It just becomes something to fill a Sunday.
It's not a social group for peer support.
We attend out of obedience and love for God. We desire to hear His Word (which comes through preaching). We desire to meet and fellowship with our fellow Christians and we are spiritually fed so that we are strong (again, spiritually) for the coming week.
It is no surprise to me that membership of the United Church is in decline. The United Church abandoned preaching the truth a long time ago. As such, God does not bless their efforts. Only churches that preach the truth and are faithful to the Bible experience growth.

(You should have heard the guy read it. I nearly died! He had "that tone." You know, the one that says "I can't believe you said that." He prefaced my comment with "And listen to what she says at the end..." followed by a few seconds of silence after he finished.)
Anyway...
Note what denBok says:

Rev. denBok... said the United Church has moved from being a Christ-centred body to become a "government-sponsored social club" in which all classic Christian doctrines are open to question...
"If we had a medical school that kept turning out graduates who consistently killed their patients, would we not ask some questions about the education?"...
[She] is not expecting a warm reception tonight but feels it is important that someone raise the question on which she believes the entire future of the Church turns.
"We have a huge number of deeply demoralized clergy, congregations dwindling and dying, and either we say, 'Gosh, we've hit a dead end and should consider changing direction,' or we say, 'Our direction has been a good and righteous one and we're not getting anywhere with it and we should shut the whole organization down."

I almost wish I was attending.
It ought to be a fiery night.

Parenting Outlawed! Also coming to a Country near You!

2008-06-19T14:55:00.001-04:00

It's not law yet, but what a disaster for the parents in this country if it ever becomes law.

A bill that would expose parents to criminal prosecution for spanking their children has cleared the Senate, bound to reopen wounds still sore from a Supreme Court ruling four years ago.
Sponsored by Liberal Senator Celine Hervieux-Payette, the bill passed final reading in the Senate on Tuesday night.
Approval in the upper house followed debate and three days' of committee hearings at which criminal defence lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association argued against the criminalizing impact it could have on parents, as well as teachers and caregivers.
Hervieux-Payette, however, was backed by the children's-rights group that lost the Supreme Court challenge against a provision allowing parents and teachers to strike children for "corrective discipline.'' She said that if the Commons does not pass the bill she will continue to reintroduce it until it becomes law.

In other words, Hervieux-Payette has no regard for democratic process. She doesn't care what parents in this country feel is best for their families. She believes she knows best, and we should all abide by her judgement.
How very Liberal.
And, by the way, Senators are not elected. This woman was appointed at some point. She doesn't speak for anyone but herself, yet she feels she can impose her views of family and parenting onto the entire country.
Again, how very Liberal.
If there was ever an argument for electing Senator's, this is it.

"What I'm saying is every citizen in this country will have their physical integrity preserved," she said in an interview Wednesday, adding she believes she will get the support of party Leader Stephane Dion to pass the bill if the Liberals form a majority government after the next federal election.

Which they won't.
Don't even bother hoping. Dion will never win, especially not a majority.

But even Hervieux-Payette's own caucus is divided over the legislation, which the Liberal Senate majority passed over Conservative objections with no recorded vote.

Read that again.
No
recorded
vote.
How does a bill "pass" when there is no vote, but some people still have objections? Pardon my thinking this was a democracy.

The bill proposes to eliminate Section 43 of the Criminal Code, which says any parent, schoolteacher or a person standing in the place of a parent "is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child'' over age two and under age 13 "if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances."
In a split decision, the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that the provision "adversely affects" security of the person for children who would be protected by the Charter of Rights, but only to a limited extent that does not offend fundamental principles of justice.
The majority judgment also rejected arguments that spanking and striking children was "cruel and unusual punishment" and cited safeguards in other Criminal Code sections against abusive or harmful conduct against children.
In response to concerns from the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Hervieux-Payette modified the bill before final reading to allow "reasonable force other than corporal punishment" to prevent children from harming themselves or other children and from engaging in conduct that would be criminal or "excessively" offensive or disruptive.
That would allow parents and caregivers "to interfere, but they cannot hit them or spank them," Hervieux-Payette said.

So that allows a parent what?
"No, Johnny. We don't do that."

Even before the bill reached the Commons, set to adjourn for the summer, MPs were split.
"I'm a traditionalist," said Conservative MP Daryl Kramp, once an Ontario Provincial Police officer. "I believe that parents should be able to make the decision best for their own family."

And Kramp is right.
The government can barely run itself. It has no business whatsoever dictating how a parent may or may not run their home, how a parent may or may not discipline their child.

Calgary Conservative MP Art Hanger, another former police officer agreed, saying "I believe the status quo is very acceptable."
Liberal whip Karen Redman was conflicted, saying she understood the need to protect children from physical abuse, but also that she believes physical force is sometimes necessary.

And she is totally right.
There is a huge difference between spanking and abuse.

"When I think back, when my children were little, there were times when you smacked them on the bum, but it was a diapered bum and it was as much to get their attention," she said.
Both Kramp and Hervieux-Payette recalled being spanked when they were children, each now staking out a different position on the value of the experience.
"I think it was only once, but I remember it very well,'' said Kramp, who added he could not recall why his father disciplined him but "I learned that when my father said no, he meant no."
Hervieux-Payette, who acknowledged having struck her own daughter once on the arm...

So, in other words, thsi woman is a total hypocrite!
Don't miss that folks! What's good for us was not good for her. She feels the need to impose a mode of behaviour that she did not even adhere to herself.

...said her father spanked her when she was just over the age of two for following a church band for two kilometres in the family's small Quebec village.
"You build a certain fear, in that case it was my father, and certainly it's breaking something between you, even if they tell you that they love you.

Grow up!
You are obviously doing very well in life, Senator. Your father kept you in line and out of trouble. You were well-educated, cared for and taught how to be a relatively upstanding citizen. Maybe you ought to be grateful that your parents did discipline you. Maybe the reason you are doing so well is, dare I say it, because you were disciplined.

The head of the Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, which mounted the Supreme Court challenge against Section 43, argued children should have the same right to protection from physical violence as parents.
"There is a simple, fundamental dignity issue that would say children should be treated as people who are entitled to be free from assault, the same as anyone else,'' said Martha Mackinnon, the foundation's executive director.

Children are already protected from physical violence under the law.
Child abuse is, already, a crime under the law.
Spanking is not violence, neither is it a criminal act (nor should it become one) and it is not child abuse. It is also not assault.
Beating your kid? Now that's a crime! Breaking bones, leaving bruises, neglecting them, starving them, those are all crimes. They are not disciplinary or punitive in nature. Parents who do genuinely beat their kids have something wrong with them. They are not concerned about their kids well-being, and they don't do it as a method of behaviour modification. They do it because they can.
Parents who spank their children have an entirely different motivation, however. Parents who spank their kids are concerned about teaching their kids right from wrong. They are concerned about protecting them from either immediate or future harm. Small children simply do not have the capability to rationalize or think about the potential impact of their actions. As such, logical arguments and repetitive "no's" don't work. A parent must be able to take immediate action. Furthermore, children who are not given proper boundaries simply do not develop properly, be it socially or mentally. Children have to be taught, at a very young age when their brains can absorb the most, how they must behave.
But let's give a practical example, just to highlight what this law means for the common person.
If your child is about to touch the hot stove, such a law would make it illegal to smack their hand.
If your child is about to grab a glass jam jar off the shelf in the grocery store, sending it shattering into a thousand sticky pieces, such a law would make it illegal to smack their hand.
If your child is about to run across the road into oncoming traffic, such a law would make it illegal to smack their bum. But hey, death is ok, right?
If your small child is about to put a stone in their mouth, run off a dock into the lake, grab a nail (rusty or otherwise), walk on a balcony rail, eat a fish hook, climb a tractor, shove a pencil up their nose, hurl a teacup, pick up dog poop or a dead animal, stick their finger in a socket, attempt to drink bleach, grab a set mousetrap, bite their sibling, steal someone's toys, toboggan down flight of stairs holding their baby brother on their lap, you, their parent, will not be allowed to smack either their hand or their bum under this law, which was proposed by one Liberal Senator and not voted on.
And if you are reading that list thinking "But kids don't do those things," it's because you aren't a parent.
Those of you who are parents, are probably laughing, thinking "So it's not just mine!"
If this law is introduce to Parliament, and I will be watching for it, I would strongly urge all parents to immediately contact their MP.

Parental Concern Outlawed! Coming to a Country near You!

2008-06-19T13:02:00.002-04:00

What is wrong with people, specifically judges in this country?!?

...A judge in Gatineau, Que., sided with a 12-year-old girl who challenged her father after he refused to let her go on a school trip for disobeying his orders to stay off the Internet.

First of all, what is a judge doing even hearing a complaint like this? The girl is 12 years old. Her father punished her for disobedience. That is a perfectly normal thing in this country.
But get a load of what the girl actually did!

The father... cut off her Internet access after she chatted on websites he had tried to block. She then used a friend's Internet connection to post inappropriate pictures of herself...

She post inappropriate pictures of herself.
In other words, this girl is a twelve year old tramp, placing herself in harms way where she is likely to lure predators.
Instead of recognizing that the father in question was trying to protect his daughter from potential harm this moron of a judge decides:

...that denying the trip was unduly severe punishment.

What in the world?!??!!?
This girl could be attracting pedophiles.
She is willfully placing herself in harms way by posting sexual pictures of herself... to say nothing at all of her immodesty and general bad behaviour.
Instead of doing what a judge is supposed to do, that is rule in such a way that the weak and vulnerable are protected, he actually takes her side, says "Daddy is a big meanie. Go ahead and be a tramp. Go ahead and lure those pedophiles."
I feel very sorry for this father.
He has obviously tried to do the right thing and has had a tough time of it.

Good for the Red Deer Advocate!!

2008-06-18T09:47:00.001-04:00

Part of Lori Andreachuk's "remedy" for Boissoin was

- That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.
- That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall request the Red Deer Advocate publish a copy this Order in the Red Deer Advocate and that they request their written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.

This order was undoubtedly a colossal mistake, and a mistake I neglected to comment on in my first review of the judgement. Essentially, Andreachuk wants the Red Deer Advocate to publish Boissoin's "apology," which he won't be making in any case.
The Red Deer Advocate is insulted... and rightfully so, I might add.
Behold! the response from their managing editor.

A lot of folks in Alberta and beyond are feeling bruised and abused by the Alberta human rights commission’s conduct in dealing with a letter to the editor that was published on this page six years ago today.
We at the Advocate are among them.
We have had our eyes opened to some state-sanctioned ugliness.
The letter, by a local pastor, expressed love and compassion for some homosexuals, while decrying the activist homosexual agenda of some educators, MPs, judges (and possibly, though not specifically mentioned, Advocate editorialists who have long supported gay rights.)
Stephen Boissoin’s letter promoted a flurry of responses, pro and con, in our pages and two complaints to the Alberta human rights commission against the Advocate.
Both complaints were successfully resolved with no finding of fault, no Advocate admission of wrongdoing, no promise to act any differently in the future.
Darren Lund, a former Red Deer high school teacher now at the University of Calgary, also lodged a complaint against Boissoin. That led to a lengthy, dispiriting process that culminated at the end of May with the rights commission ordering Boissoin:

- to pay two people whom the commission acknowledges were not direct victims of his words — $5,000 to Lund for ridicule and harassment and up to $2,000 to a witness;
- to apologize in writing to Lund;
- to ask that the Advocate publish his letter of apology and the commission’s seven-page Decision on Remedy.

Boissoin has no intention of apologizing, as he makes clear in a letter on this page.
The galling presumption of the rights commission to subvert a newspaper’s own judgments over whether, when or where it should publish coerced opinions offers a window into its dangerous thinking. [emphasis mine]
The commission has its own website where it can readily publish any and all of its documents. Curiously though, more than two weeks after its Decision on Remedy was handed down, that ruling was not posted.
The more fundamental and serious defects of the rights commission surround its flawed processes that can lead to repressive and dangerous fallout.
Canada has criminal laws against libel and expressing hatred. Those laws are applied in courts, after police investigations and careful review by skilled prosecutors.
They are argued by lawyers before a judge, in a legal framework with rules of evidence that protect all sides.
The Alberta human rights commission, and others like it across the country, lack these tested and protective structures.
But their findings have the force of law.
The effects of how their processes are applied and findings are enforced endanger free speech and liberty.
The rights commission judged that Boissoin’s words "likely" exposed homosexuals to hatred or contempt. That’s a judgment based on scant evidence and a warped reading of Boissoin’s comments. It was arrived at by ignoring some of Boissoin’s phrases and misinterpreting others.
Lund suggested and the rights commission agreed that "militaristic language" was an invitation to physically assault gays.
But Boissoin used the kind of language that’s an everyday occurrence in political and sporting discourse, and in every time parishioners sing "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war."
It is precisely the kind of language that the saintly Nelson Mandela used in trying to rally Africans to fight the scourge of AIDS.
"There is a need for us to be focused, to be strategic and to sustain the effort until the war is won," Mandala said. "We need... African resolve to fight this war."
Any reasonably sophisticated reader can understand the difference between literal and figurative language. Based on the evidence before us, however, that distinction was lost on the rights commission.
Now, the rights of Albertans to publicly express views that they honestly believe are being constrained not by criminal law, but by fear of being hauled before a rights commission and the certainty of accumulating massive legal bills to defend themselves.
More egregiously, the rights commission not only wants to censure hateful speech (a laudable goal), but to pre-emptively deny some Albertans the right to express their legitimate views on certain topics.
The commission forbids Boissoin from writing "disparaging remarks" about gays — a phrase that has dubious legal weight — and forbids him, in advance, from writing critically about Lund’s involvement in this case.
This is called prior restraint. It’s an abomination in any free and democratic society.
But it’s what Lund sought and what the misguided rights commission has agreed to order.

Joe McLaughlin is Advocate managing editor.

Joe McLaughlin, I salute you!
Consider what would happen if any state body were able to force a newspaper to print something. Consider what would happen if any state body could force a citizen to apologize (and don't miss this! That's exactly what Andreachuk has done). Now combine the two together, a state body which can not only force someone to apologize, but can force any newspaper, radio show, television program, a media outlet of any variety, to aired said forced apology.
What would happen to individuals who refuse to apologize or media outlets who refuse to comply?
Would we still recognize Canada at the end of the day?

A Response to my Letter

2008-06-16T13:12:00.004-04:00

Click

When a Christian steps in the public and political arena, the last thing we want to do is to sound like evangelists all of the time spouting scripture in every sentence...

The last thing?
Then how does one explain the responses of people like Peter, Stephen and Paul, whose primary weapon was Scripture?

When David was swinging his sword he wasn't evangelizing at the same time.

This is simply wrong.
When David went out to fight Goliath, the first thing he said was "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the LORD will hand you over to me" (1 Samuel 17, 45,46)
Scriptural declarations of judgment are still evangelical. They just happen to be on the flip side. As Paul says, we are the aroma of life to one but the stench of death to another. (2 Cor. 2:16)

Just to protect myself, let me clarify that the only sword that I will be swinging in regards to the soci-political battle against the gay agenda is my tongue.

Wrong sword. Ephesians 6:17
As Christians, we really need to understand that this issue is not socio-political. True, there are societal and political aspects to homosexual activism. I could never deny this; it's obvious. How else could EGALE exist? But these are symptoms, not the cause. The issue, as with any sin, is primarily spiritual. As such, we have only one weapon and only one set of armor and neither are of man's design.
Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. (Eph. 6: 14-19)

There are seasons for everything.....

Which is why it's a good thing Paul said to Timothy "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season..." (2 Tim 4:2) Otherwise, we'd wait for a "relaxing" moment or the perfect season to share Christ's message of salvation, and the Word would never be preached.

To Rev. Boisson

2008-06-13T20:46:00.001-04:00

Today I read your letter to the Red Deer Advocate for the first time.
I have to say, I was actually disappointed. I was expecting something completely different, especially given that you are a minister and you work with troubled kids.
Where is God in this letter? You say He stands with you, but the only person you quoted is Edmund Burke! Big deal that is!
Where's the call to true holiness? (And no, moral living is not the same as holiness. Anyone can be moral. Only the regenerate can be holy.) Freedom from sin in Christ? The pronouncement of grace? Scripture? As a minister, you ought to know well that a Christian's first line of defense is not mere words, but the Word! He has given us wisdom that no adversary can resist (Luke 21:15) and yet it does not appear anywhere in your letter.
The Christian's responsibility is to first preach the law which convicts of sin, and then preach the gospel, which is the grace offered us in Christ. You did not provide your readers with a spiritual context. You simply talked about an agenda. Many Christians like to talk about a homosexual agenda. What they neglect to mention is that, according to Scripture, homosexuality is a sin. If they do call it a sin, they don't explain what that actually means. Sin is not just those things we do. It is something fundamentally wrong with us that causes separation from God. Sin stains our entire character and ruins every relationship. A clear recognition of this fact seems to be generally lacking in your letter.
Allow me to explain.
You call on the average individual to "take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness." You ask for the impossible. Surely you must know that such a reversal can only be done by God and not by the average individual, who is utterly incapable of such a thing. Where is the recognition that the average individual is just as lost in their sin as any homosexual and will by no means pray unless God revives their hearts? (Rom 1:18-31, Eph 2:8,9) Heterosexuals who don't know Christ are not more holy just because they aren't gay. Far from it! They just happen to be sinning in other ways. Furthermore, God only heals our land when we humble ourselves, repent and pray (2 Chron 7: 14). Yet where is the call to prayer? Repentance features nowhere in your letter!
Odd thing that, since you are speaking out against a sin.
As you rightly mention in your letter, there are some ministers who say that sexual sin (of any stripe) is fully compatible with God's Word. It is incumbent on us, the good seed (Gen 3:15, Matt 13), to expose this lie. The only way to do that is with Scripture. You cannot simply stack up your word against someone else's and hope everyone buys it. You have to prove it Scripturally (which you didn't do) and wait for God to do the rest through His Holy Spirit.
Having said all this, however, please note that I still think the Alberta Human Rights Commission is wrong. I hope the decision is appealed and over-turned. It is also my prayer that God can use this situation to bring in more of His elect, to His greater glory.

Boisson's Letter to the Red Deer Advocate

2008-06-13T20:03:00.003-04:00

Thank you Ezra Levant (again).
I have been trying to find a copy of the letter that started the whole business with Boisson. Here is what he wrote:

Homosexual Agenda Wicked

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.
Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.
My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the "Moral Majority." Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term "morality."
The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, "I'm just not sure where the truth lies," or "If they don't affect me then I don't care what they do," abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.
Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.
Edmund Burke's observation that, "All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.
Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.
Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.
Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?
Come on people, wake up! It's time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.
Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn't rooted in protecting homosexuals from "gay bashing." The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.
Don't allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.
The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.
If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It's time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin

I have to be totally honest.
This is not what I was expecting at all... especially from a minister. I was expecting something more like a letter Pure Life would put together.

Income Splitting

2008-06-11T12:28:00.001-04:00

YES!!!
Finally!
This just in from Sara:

Tim Hudak Ontario MPP has introduced Bill 88!...
Bill 88 will be debated on Thursday June 12th at Queens Park....

The text of the bill is available at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario website.

Bill 88 2008
An Act to provide fairness for families by amending the Taxation Act, 2007 to allow income splitting for taxation between cohabiting spouses and common-law partners
Note: This Act amends the Taxation Act, 2007 . For the legislative history of the Act, see the Table of Consolidated Public Statutes - Detailed Legislative History on www.e-Laws.gov.on.ca.

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

1. Subsection 1 (1) of the Taxation Act, 2007 is amended by adding the following definitions:

"cohabiting spouse or common-law partner" has the same meaning as in section 122.6 of the Federal Act; ("conjoint ou conjoint de fait visé")

"individual taxpayer ratio" means, in respect of an individual who has filed a joint election described in section 4.1 for any part of a taxation year, the ratio of the part of the year during which the individual was not a cohabiting spouse or common-law partner to the whole of the year; ("coefficient de déclaration individuelle")

"joint taxpayer ratio" means, in respect of an individual who has filed a joint election described in section 4.1 for any part of a taxation year, the ratio of the part of the year for which the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner filed the election to the whole of the year; ("coefficient de déclaration conjointe")

2. Subsection 4 (3) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

Tax payable

(3) The tax payable under this Part for a taxation year by an individual who has not filed a joint election described in section 4.1 for any part of the year is the sum of,

(a) the individual's tax payable under Division B for the year; and

(b) the individual's tax payable under Division C for the year.

Same, joint return

(4) The tax payable under this Part for a taxation year by an individual who has filed a joint election described in section 4.1 for any part of the year is the sum of,

(a) the individual's tax payable under Divisions B and C for the year multiplied by the individual taxpayer ratio; and

(b) the tax payable under Divisions B and C for the year on a joint return described in section 4.1 multiplied by the joint taxpayer ratio.

3. Division A of Part II of the Act is amended by adding the following section:

Election for joint return

4.1 (1) An individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner who are both resident in Canada for the whole of a taxation year may jointly elect to file a joint return under section 111 for the part of the year during which they were cohabiting spouses or common-law partners of each other, instead of each being required to file an individual return under that section.

Joint election

(2) To make the election described in subsection (1), the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner shall file a joint election in the form prescribed by the Minister of Finance in the joint return, providing details about the number of days during the year during which the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner were cohabiting spouses or common-law partners of each other.

False declaration

(3) A joint election filed under subsection (2) is invalid if the Minister establishes that any individual has knowingly or under circumstances amounting to gross negligence made a false declaration in the election.

Tax payable

(4) The tax payable under Divisions B and C for the year on a joint return described in subsection (1) shall be the tax payable under those Divisions by reading,

(a) references to an individual as references to both the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner;

(b) references to the individual's tax base and taxable income for the taxation year as references to one-half of the aggregate of the taxable income of the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner for the year; and

(c) references to the individual's income for the taxation year as references to one-half of the aggregate of the income of the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner for the year.

4. Subsection 9 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out the portion before the formula and substituting the following:

Tax credit for spouse or common-law partner

(3) If an individual is entitled to a deduction under paragraph 118 (1) (a) of the Federal Act for a taxation year and if the individual and the individual's spouse or common-law partner have not filed a joint election described in section 4.1 for the year, the individual is entitled to a tax credit for the year for a spouse or common-law partner calculated using the formula,

. . . . .

Commencement

5. This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

Short title

6. The short title of this Act is the Fairness for Families Act, 2008 .

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Bill amends the Taxation Act, 2007 to allow individuals who are married or who have a common-law partner in a taxation year that ends on or after December 31, 2009 to file a joint income tax return with their spouse or common-law partner for the part of the year during which they cohabit with their spouse or common-law partner. To file a joint income tax return in that way, both individuals are required to file a joint election to that effect in the joint income tax return.

If you support this bill, contact your MPP right away. It will be debated tomorrow.

Rights Tribunal "Unfairly" Criticized

2008-06-11T09:48:00.000-04:00

Thus spake Donald Crane of the Vancouver Sun.

A few facts are in order.

Or so he tells us.

First, the tribunal does not seek out victims on which to impose its view of moral rectitude...

Then how does one explain the ongoing criminal investigation by the RCMP which involves allegations of entrapment and Internet identity theft? As a lawyer, Mr. Crane ought to know well that entrapment does involve a certain level of "seeking out."

It simply does what the legislature has required it to do which is to receive and adjudicate complaints under the Human Rights Code.

What a spin this is!
The CHRC was never intended to deal with the type of complaints it currently handles. The CHRC was intended to deal with low level complaints in order to free up the court system. It was not intended to deal with "hate crimes" or "exposure to hate" or "thought crimes" or "hateful intentions" as it now does.

Anyone who doubts the need for such restrictions should review the large body of human rights cases

Indeed, they should.
Unfortunately, intelligent individuals will come to the very opposite conclusion of our good Mr. Crane. A thorough review of recent human "rights" cases will reveal that due process of law is frequently ignored, complainants do not even have to show up in order to win their case, there need be no victim in order for there to even be a case, the CHRC frequently far over-steps the boundaries laid out for it, and there is now, apparently, such a thing as a thought crime in Canada. Furthermore, an intelligent individual will find that not only is truth not a defense, but neither is freedom of conscience or religious expression. Such things are merely a "guise" for intended hate.

Under our code, and under the circumstances of this complaint, the tribunal had no choice but to give all parties a fair opportunity to be heard...

A fair opportunity? Then why was council for the defense forbidden to ask about the complainants political views? Said views are highly relevant to the case at hand, especially since certain elements within the CIC have called for the annihilation of Israel and have declared any Israeli adult a viable target for terrorist attacks.

There is, however, nothing in the process that warrants the vitriolic attacks against the tribunal which have appeared in the press.

The Human Rights Tribunal, in every province, is not only worthy of so-called "vitriolic attack," but of severe scrutiny down to the very last bureaucratic detail.
Mr. Crane, if you are so certain that the HRC operates within its mandate and has never done anything worthy of criticism, then why don't you go and dig up every case ever examined? I would like to know their conviction rate... and don't tell me they don't convict. That they view their sentences as remedial and not punitive is of no account. The HRC punishes the wallets of hard working, middle class Canadians who do no more than stand up for their religious views. How many cases are dismissed? How many people are found not guilty? How many people are forced to pay out, and to what amount?
Ironically, I found the above piece when I was looking for a story on the RCMP investigation of the CHRC. Such a piece has yet to appear.
And Crane complaints about media vitriol against the tribunal.
Sigh.

Harm no one? That'll be $7000 please

2008-06-09T13:57:00.000-04:00

I found this interesting tidbit on the case of Rev. Boisson. Here are the relevant ruling and remedy.
Pay close attention to what you read.
Paragraph 10 of the "remedy" states:

In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward seeking redress by the contravention of the Act by Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

Read that again.
There is no victim in this case.
I would like to know how there is even a case without a victim.
Now, flip over to the ruling, paragraph 357.

Having considered the Charter and the balancing of the freedoms set out in the Charter, I have interpreted the Act in a manner which respected the broad protection granted to religious freedom.

Really? Then how is the very next statement even possible?

However, I have found that this protection does not trump the protection afforded under the Alberta human rights legislation in s. 3. to protection against hatred and contempt. I also take the view that s.3(2) required a balancing of these freedoms afforded to individuals under the Charter, with the prohibitions in s. 3(1) of the Act. In this case, the publication’s exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter. It cannot be the case that any speech wrapped in the 'guise' of politics or religion is beyond reproach by any legislation but the Criminal Code.

So, religious motivation for a comment is merely a "guise" for hate. Potential "exposure" to hate (note that this means that the comment does not have to be hateful itself) trumps freedom of religious expression.
Now, I ask you, how does this provide a "broad" protection for religious freedom?
Andreachuk finds, for herself, in paragraph 355 of her ruling that

I do not find that the province, through this legislation, is attempting to reach beyond its mandate.

This is a curious thing, to find oneself not reaching beyond one's mandate. Surely this ought to be done by an outside, objective observer. In any case, if she is not reaching beyond her mandate, how was the finding of paragraph 354 possible?

While the evidence of the beating of the gay man two weeks after the publication of the letter was indirect, I find in addition, that there was sufficient nexus to conclude circumstantially, that the two matters may be connected.

So, any connection was merely circumstantial. Furthermore, as I already commented, Andreachuk admits in her "remedy" that there is no victim. So, how is she not reaching beyond her mandate if there is, technically speaking, no case? How can you have a case without a victim? Better yet, look at the "evidence" she accepts (also in paragraph 354):

I also accept the evidence of Dr. Alderson, who reported that in reading Mr. Boissoin’s letter, it caused a surge of personal fear in himself and that he had talked to hundreds of people in the gay community about Mr. Boissoin’s letter and all were horrified and fearful...

Where these "hundreds" of gays subpoenaed to appear before the commission? Did she hear the testimony of "hundreds" of gays who felt fearful as the result of a letter to an editor?
I also like this "finding" in paragraph 351:

Mr. Boissoin’s letter is, on the face of it, a critique of the homosexual agenda which he alleged existed in the school system in Red Deer, Alberta. His statement that "our children are being victimized by repugnant and pre-mediated strategies," his statement that "our children are being recruited, subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system, under the fraudulent guise of equal rights" is, in fact, a criticism of the school system in Alberta in Red Deer, which, in my view, is within the provincial domain...

Why use a phrase like "on the face of it?" Is his letter to the editor not what he says it is? Andreachuk finds Rev. Boisson criticizes the Alberta public school system. So what? We have the right to criticize our government, our school systems, the police, the court systems and a host of other publicly funded institutions. Why should this be a "finding" of hers?
In paragraph 350, Andreachuk "establishes" the commissions jurisdiction.

The article of Mr. Boissoin is, in fact, a matter of local and private nature related to, albeit perhaps somewhat indirectly, the educational system in Alberta.

So, his letter to the editor, criticizing the public school system, which he has a right to do, makes this her problem.

Secondly, I find that there is a circumstantial connection between the hate speech of Mr. Boissoin and the CCC and the beating of a gay teenager...

Secondly, she finds an unprovable connection between a letter to the editor criticizing the school system and the beating of a teen. Apparently, this also makes it her problem to deal with.

Without evidence of a crime as captured in the Criminal Code, after finding this letter is likely to expose people to hate and or contempt, there is a void in jurisdiction...

Now, as soon as Andreachuk made this "finding" she ought to have come to the realization that there was, in fact, no problem for her to deal with. Instead, she makes this bizarre conclusion:

Not taking jurisdiction would mean that inciting hatred would be acceptable up to the point that a crime occurs as a result of it.

Not taking jurisdiction would mean absolutely no such thing. There was no connection at all between the beating of the teen and the letter criticizing the school system. To call the letter what it was: an angry letter, was the only appropriate course of action. In any case, if the beaten teen was the implied victim of the letter (the only possible conclusion if we are going to say that the letter resulted in a crime), why was he or his family not compensated? Why did Lund receive the funds instead?
Ms. Andreachuk not only reached well beyond her mandate, she denied Rev. Boisson benefit of law and due process. But, given that she works for a Human Right's Commission, this ought to surprise no one.
The faster these commissions are brought low, the better for all of us.

Mainstream Media: Unreporting Itself into Total Irrelevancy

2008-06-09T12:51:00.000-04:00

Check your morning news. Pick your favorite source. CBC, Globe & Mail. National Post. Whatever.
See anything about the CHRC investigation by the RCMP? No? Neither do I.
Meanwhile, this is going on:

Key testimony from the March 25th Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing in the Warman v. Lemire case has been redacted from the official Canadian Human Rights Commission transcript...the official transcript produced by the CHRC omits embarrassing testimony about the CHRC's conduct... The deletion was discovered by the respondent in the case, Marc Lemire, who painstakingly compared an audio recording of the hearing with the CHRC's written transcript.

(You can check Levant's post on the matter for more info.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you consider this newsworthy? I do.
In the first place, the CHRC banned all media from attending the hearing. Then, they refused to release a public transcript. When they were finally forced to commission a transcript (which was leaked), it was edited in order to protect certain individuals.
One of the most powerful organizations in Canada, and one that is supposed to be for our benefit, is lying to the public about its behaviour at every turn. When they aren't lying outright, they lie by way of omission.
And where is the media, the great shapers of societal though, the defenders of free speech, truth, justice and the Canadian way?
Nowhere to be seen at all.
By the time this story finally hits the news, everyone will already know all about it. The media will not have so much as a single interesting, original or new point to add to the matter. They will just be repeating yesterday's news... and probably not very well at that.

The CHRC

2008-06-06T12:55:00.001-04:00

If anything shows just how badly the CHRC needs to be completely overhauled, it is their recent handling of the Mark Steyn case as compared with their handling of a case against a Catholic friar.
Apparently, Julian Porter, counsel for Maclean's, was not permitted to question the B.C. director of the Canadian Islamic Congress about the organization's conduct. His questions were "inappropriate" according to tribunal judges yesterday.
I would like to know why such a cross examination should be deemed inappropriate, when the views and behaviours of certain CIC members is well known.
Meanwhile, Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a Basilian priest, is under investigation by the CHRC on account of his expression of the Catholic Church's official teaching on marriage during a marriage debate. Through the course of the debate, de Valk stated that homosexual marriage is a sin.
So, if I understand correctly, it is acceptable for the CHRC to punish a priest for his religious convictions, but the political sentiments of an extremist may not even be questioned.
The Conservative government would do well to completely restructure the CHRC. Something has gone horribly awry with their understanding of free speech. Why is it ok to charge a priest who teaches his faith but utterly ignore the views of those who have actively called for the death of an entire nation? Which one is actually hateful, or do they even know anymore? The CHRC is so wrapped up in its own ideological bias that it utterly ignores what the law does and does not say!
And by the way, where is the media on the criminal investigation of the CHRC?

The Globe & Mail vs. Religion

2008-06-02T13:31:00.001-04:00

Quarter of Canadians don't believe in any god, poll says!! Or does it?
Actually, it does not.
The poll says:

72 per cent of respondents said they believed in a god, while 23 per cent said they did not believe in any god. Six per cent did not offer an opinion.

A quarter would be 25%.
Nice spin though. Very secular. Very atheistic. Not the least bit subtle about any bias with respect to religion. Down with those fundy Christians who make us feel bad about our sin and offer us the healing balm of God's grace.
Just what I expect from the G&M.
But, I'd like to point out that "god" (small "g" with good reason) refers to pretty much any benevolent spiritual being that may or may not be in control of the universe at any given time. The reality is that significantly fewer actually do believe in God.
If you have time, take a look at the lengthy discussion going on in the comments section. It's pretty much what one expects. Atheists a plenty, not an independent or unique thought among them. All Christian bashing. Multiple Flying Spaghetti Monster references.
Boring.
Ten thousand years, and not much changes.
The fool says in his heart "there is no God." Psalm 14:1

CHRC under Criminal Investigation: Canadian Media mum?

2008-06-01T19:57:00.001-04:00

I mentioned yesterday the fact that the CHRC is under criminal investigation. When I read it, it struck me odd that I hadn't heard anything about it as yet. Then I looked around online to see what I could find and I only found one article.
One article only, and it's from the Washington Times.
The criminal investigation of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is probably the biggest story of the day, and only an American paper cares enough to write about it. How is this possible? The CHRC has been stamping out free speech left and right, and not a single Canadian media outlet is writing anything this investigation.
The details:

The complaint comes in response to accusations that investigators with the commission had hijacked the Internet account of an unsuspecting third party in order to post Internet messages to neo-Nazi Web sites...

Entrapment, anyone?

While the tribunal upheld the commission's initial refusal to discuss its investigation tactics, a higher court forced the disclosure upon appeal...
An employee with Bell Canada... was subsequently subpoenaed. The employee then connected the "Jadewarr" pseudonym to the personal Internet account of Nelly Hechme — a 26-year-old woman living near the commission's main office in Ottawa.

So, basically, the CHRC uses other people's Internet lives to do their dirty work. But it gets better.

Miss Hechme's Internet access had been encrypted and could not have been easily hacked, she said.

So, in other words, they didn't do this easily. Someone took very deliberate steps to steal her Internet life.

Ironically, the investigation comes at a time when the Mounties are appealing a Tribunal decision against them.
The Tribunal recently ordered the Mounties to pay $500,000 to Ali Tahmourpour, a police cadet who accused the Mounties of discrimination after being expelled from their training program. The Tribunal also ordered the Mounties to give Mr. Tahmourpour another chance to join.

Sigh.
The world we live in.

Go Rick Dykstra!!

2008-05-31T20:44:00.000-04:00

He's not my MP, but I applaud his recently tabled motion to have the CHRC investigated. This just in from Ezra Levant:

The Conservative government has introduced a motion to Parliament's Justice Committee proposing an investigation into the abusive, corrupt practises of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The motion specifically refers to public "concerns" about the CHRC's "investigative techniques" and their "interpretation and application" of the section 13 thought crimes provision.

It's about time! There are so many problems with the way the CHRC conducts itself, not to mention some of the rulings they have handed down.

The government's proposed inquiry comes on top of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada's announcement last month that she is investigating the corrupt and abusive conduct of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. And earlier this month, Ottawa police referred a criminal complaint about the CHRC to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who are now conducting a criminal investigation.

The CHRC under criminal investigation? Really? It will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up. But back to the proposal at hand. MP Rick Dykstra tabled the following motion.

Whereas concerns have been raised regarding the investigative techniques of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "Commission") and the interpretation and application of section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act (the "Act"); and
Whereas the Commission operates independently and reports to Parliament;
Be it resolved that the Justice and Human Rights Committee examine and make recommendations with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in particular:
a) review the mandate and operations of the Commission;
b) review the Commission's application and interpretation of section 13 of the Act;
c) Solicit and consider oral submissions from the Chief Commissioner and oral or written submissions from other interested persons or organizations;
d) Submit a report, including any proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act arising out of the results of the Committee's inquiry.

More of What Luther Said

2008-05-30T17:50:00.000-04:00

In light of the conversation below:

But concerning the inability of our adversaries to resist, (as that particular falls in here,) I would, by the way, observe that it is thus:—It does not mean, that they are forced to yield with the heart, or to confess, or be silent. For who can compel men against their will to yield, confess their error, and be silent? 'What (saith Augustine), is more loquacious than vanity?' But what is meant by their mouths being stopped, their not having a word to gainsay, and their saying many things, and yet, in the judgment of common sense, saying nothing, will be best illustrated by examples....
For I know well, by experience, how unwilling every one is to be overcome; and (as Quintillian says,) 'that there is no one, who would not rather appear to know, than to be taught.' Although, now-a-days all men, in all places, have this proverb on their tongue, but more from use, or rather abuse, than from heart-reality—'I am willing to learn, and I am ready to follow what is better, when I am taught it by admonition: I am man, and liable to err.' Because, under this mask, this fair semblance of humility, they can with plausible confidence say; 'I am not fully satisfied of it.' 'I do not comprehend it...' 'He asserts so obstinately.' And they nestle under this confidence, taking it for granted, that no one would ever suspect, that souls of so much humility could, ever pertinaciously resist and determinately impugn the known truth. Hence their not yielding in heart, is not to be imputed to their malice, but to the obscurity and duplicity of their arguments.
In the same manner did the philosophers of the Greeks, act; who, that the one might not appear to give up to the other, though evidently confuted, began, as Aristotle records, to deny first principles. In the same way we would mildly persuade ourselves and others, that there are in the world many good men, who would willingly embrace the truth, if there were but one who could plainly shew which it is; and that, it is not to be supposed, that so many learned men, in such a course of ages, were all in error, and did not know that truth...
But if there be any who do not see this clearness, and are blind, or offend under this sun, they, if they be wicked, manifest how great that dominion and power of Satan is over the sons of men, when they can neither hear nor comprehend the all-clear words of God, but are as one cheated by a juggler, who is made to think that the sun is a cold cinder, or to believe that a stone is gold.

Judge Must be "On Crack"

2008-05-30T13:06:00.000-04:00

I recently received an email commenting on the decision handed down by British Columbia Supreme Court judge Mr. Justice Pitfield three days ago. Justice Pitfield decided that to deny addicts the use of the safe-injection site Insite contravenes section 7 of the Charter which provides for "the right to life, liberty and security of persons."
Admittedly, I have not been paying close enough attention to the news as of late. Sure that this must be some sort of error, I did some looking around and sure enough, it wasn't an error.
You wonder what this judge was thinking... or if he even was thinking. How does providing a legal crackhouse reduce harm? How does forcing it to close violate the "rights" of addicts to life, liberty and security of person?
Drugs kill, Mr. Justice. Or didn't you know that? You would think that the fact a doctor with strong views against the site was harassed by druggie protesters would have had some impact on the judges decision.
The government rightly disagrees with the ruling and is seeking an appeal. Media coverage , on the other hand, is typically nauseating. (Careful, Gloria, your bias is is showing.)

In what might seem like a non sequitor, I feel the need to point out that I have been reading Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will. I read a portion last night which seems ironically appropriate.

Wherefore, it is no wonder in divine things, that through so many ages, men renowned for talent remained blind. It might have been a wonder in human things, but in divine things, it would rather have been a wonder if there had been one here and there that did not remain blind: that they all remained utterly blind alike, is no wonder at all. For what is the whole human race together, without the Spirit, but the kingdom of the devil (as I have said) and a confused chaos of darkness? And therefore it is, that Paul, (Ephes. vi. 12,) calls the devils, "the rulers of this darkness." And, (1 Cor. ii. 8,) he saith, that none of the princes of this world knew the wisdom of God. What then must he think of the rest, who asserts that the princes of this world are the slaves of darkness? For by princes, he means those greatest and highest ones, whom you call 'men renowned for talent.' And why were all the Arians blind? Were there not among them men renowned for talent? Why was Christ foolishness to the nations? Are there not among the nations men renowned for talent? "God (saith Paul) knoweth the thoughts of the wise that they are vain," (1 Cor. iii. 20.) He chose not to say "of men," as the text to which he refers has it, but would point to the first and greatest among men, that from them we might form a judgment of the rest.

And does not Justice Pitfield, and his lamentable decision, so accurately represent what is wrong with Canadian society? Judges are often considered among the first and best of our country, and yet how utterly blind is this man to the potential effects of his decision? As any former drug addict, or family member of a former addict can tell you, giving people a place to "safely" do their drugs does not help them move away from their addiction. Detoxification, abstinence and counseling is the only solution. One wonders how many addicts this judge has actually known. Furthermore, one wonders how exactly a judge can come up with a ruling that permits illegal behaviour.
It's a sad day for Canada.
Not only does this ruling show our society doesn't care to help our addicts, we prefer they remain addicts.
It's their "right" to be addicted and our "right" not to give a rat.

Communication Happens at Home

2008-05-07T16:45:00.000-04:00

Sara has an interesting post on the recent comments of Clarissa Williams, the new president of the National Association of Head Teachers in the UK.
Among other things, Williams said that "real communication" takes place "at home" around the dinner table, without the distractions of television and video games. I have to say, I totally agree with her and I wish more people in the public sector had her wisdom.
More can be read at the BBC.

Global Warming Stopped? Say it Ain't So!

2008-05-05T12:20:00.000-04:00

Interesting editorial by Lorie Goldstein.

German climate scientists have just published a study in the respected science journal Nature suggesting global warming has stopped and will not resume until at least 2015.

Stopped? Say it Ain't So!

Based on new, computer-generated climate models that factor in natural ocean currents, the researchers conclude: "Our results suggest that global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic (man-made) warming."

But, it gets better.

Since there has actually been no global warming since 1998...

What? 1998? No global warming at all in the past ten years? I seem to recall pointing out a similar fact once before.
What does this newfound lack of global warming mean for our dear old planet?

that means there would be an almost two-decade span where concentrations of GHG emissions, most notably carbon dioxide, continued to intensify in the atmosphere, without global temperatures following suit.

So, basically, if there is any global warming, climate change scientists don't actually know whether or not it is caused by emissions, much less whether or not it is the fault of mankind.
It figures.
Looks like Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth (which never forced him to make any changes in is own lifestyle, by the way) is more like a Convenient Lie. No idea why he actually bothered to tell it, but I would put my money on money and the fact he makes quite a bit buying energy "credits" from himself.

"Not long ago, anyone who looked at the global annual temperature data and disrespectfully pointed out that it might actually be significant that the world hasn't become warmer since 1998, was dismissed as foolish and accused of seeing what they wanted to see . . . Then, if they had the effrontery to point out that even the U.K.'s MET (British Meteorological Office) agreed that the annual data between 2001-7 was an impeccable flat line, they were told they were completely wrong as such things were obviously only year-on-year variability...

Read that again.
An impeccable flat line.
Meanwhile, we've had not one but two Earth Hours and there are people out there who want to have Earth Hour at the beginning of every month in order to save the planet. (Note: You'll need a Facebook account to see that group.)
Speaking of which...
And this is just an aside, did you know that Earth Hour has a website?
Are they serious?
In case you are wondering why I am pointing this out, let me make it abundantly clear that web servers are by no mean energy efficient. One machine is not a big deal. An entire farm running 24/7 is a different story. Furthermore, a server room should always be air conditioned and well-ventilated, as large numbers of computers tend to generate a lot of heat... and that's not good for them.
The Earth Hour site is hosted by Segment Publishing. Check out their Facilities description:

The power systems are designed to be able to run uninterrupted, even in the unlikely event of a total power failure. Our servers are fed via conditioned UPS power, that will run should power fail. The UPS features maximum redundancy (N+1) with instant failover should the primary UPS fail. In the event of an extended power failure, the on-site diesel generator can run indefinitely. The generator is constantly tested to ensure it will function when most needed.
The datacentre is meticulously tidy. All the air within is circulated and filtered every 90 seconds to remove dust particles and any contaminants. The Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning system features N+1 redundancy with a duplicate system ready to take over should the primary system fail.

So, in other words, the servers hosting the Earth Hour website are almost definitely NOT solar powered. They are paying good money for state of the art equipment that uses plenty of electricity.
Now, I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but if these people were REALLY concerned about the planet, they'd live like the Amish and would shun technology. After all, emissions are causing global warming, right?
I'd like to ask the Earth Hour guys what they are being paid and whether or not they bother to keep up with the latest research on climate change. My guess is probably not. A hole in the great global warming scam would put these people out of a job.
Or maybe not.
The lack of global warming over the past ten years hasn't really put a damper on their efforts.

Earth Hour

2008-04-02T13:55:00.003-04:00

Earth Hour was like some sort of surreal early April Fool's joke come early. The idea was for everyone to turn out their lights for one hour on March 29th in order to show "support for action on climate change."
(Note for the slow: climate change is not the same as global warming. In fact, it cannot even be shown that climate change is bad.)
Meanwhile, the city of Toronto held a free concert to celebrate their efforts.
Yes. That's right.
A concert.
Because really, the point of Earth Hour wasn't actually to DO anything, but rather to promote feeling good about saving the planet, and to raise environmental awareness.
I really hate that word.
Awareness has probably become one of the most over-used, cliched words in the common person's dictionary. No one actually does anything useful. They just raise "awareness."
As though knowing about a problem is the same as doing something about it.
Does anyone genuinely believe that sitting in the dark for one hour actually impacted the planet? Some people must. How else did the event even happen?
Really, if you want to be energy efficient, you have to make total lifestyle changes. Turn out the lights in unused rooms throughout the entire house throughout the entire day. Buy less "stuff." Buy second hand. Recycle. Stop needing every latest gadget and gizmo. If "everyone" wants to make a difference, then "stuff" needs to come in less packaging (especially children's toys and electronics), there needs to be less waste collectively and someone needs to tell the government of Ontario that forcing people to throw away perfectly good car seats after only 5 years of use is NOT helping anyone.
I was curious as to what the news coverage on Earth Hour might be. It was the usual of course: mindless, typically nauseating, uninformative. Most of the Canadian media patted themselves on the back. I can't help but wonder, how many of the people writing these saccharine articles still drove to work alone in their SUV? But then I came across this gloriously refreshing article.

Global warming advocates frequently claim that the way for society to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is for individuals to make sacrifices to their lifestyle in the name of reducing their carbon footprint.
Thus people are encouraged to feel guilty about everyday components of their life, such as holiday air travel, driving cars to work, using electrical appliances and so on.
Judging by prominent global warming advocate Al Gore's power bill, (20 times that of the average American), one may be forgiven for thinking such activists are perhaps more interested in reducing your consumption rather than their own...
Symbolic, feel-good policies such as badgering ordinary people to buy energy efficient lightbulbs do not appear to be the answer to anything.

How true.
Would you like to see the math to back up Solomon's claim that Earth Hour was a big fat waste of time?
Here you go.
Read it and weep.
Waste of time!
I feel the need to point out that the paper was written last year after Sydney held its first Earth Hour. One wonders how, in the face of mathematical fact, Earth Hour not only happened a second time, but actually spread to countries beyond Australia.
But then, who needs truth, fact or even action when they have awareness?

Sticking it to the RIAA

2008-04-02T13:11:00.004-04:00

This from Slashdot:

"Remember those pesky student attorneys from the University of Maine School of Law's Cumberland Legal Aid Clinic, who inspired the Magistrate Judge to suggest monetary fines against the RIAA lawyers? Well they're in the RIAA's face once again, and this time they're trying to shut down the RIAA's whole 'discovery' machine: the lawsuits it files against 'John Does' in order to find out their names and addresses. They've gone and filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions (PDF), seeking — among other things — an injunction against all such 'John Doe' cases, arguing that the cases seek to circumvent the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which protects student privacy rights, are brought for improper purposes of obtaining discovery, getting publicity, and intimidation, and are in flagrant violation of the joinder rules and numerous court orders. If the injunction is granted, the RIAA will have to go back to the drawing board to find another way of finding out the identities of college students, and the ruling — depending on its reasoning — might even be applicable to the non-college cases involving commercial ISPs."

I wish them the best of luck in their endeavours.
I could rant for hours against the RIAA but let me just sum up and say they ought to be shut down altogether.

Unborn Victims of Crime Act passes Second Reading in the House of Commons

2008-03-06T11:59:00.001-05:00

Ken Epp, MP
Edmonton-Sherwood Park

For Immediate Release
March 5, 2008

Unborn Victims of Crime Act passes Second Reading in the House of Commons

(OTTAWA) – "This is a victory for Canadian women and children, for victims’ families, and indeed for all Canadians," said MP Ken Epp, reacting to today’s vote in the House of Commons on his Private Members Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.
Members of Parliament voted 147 to 132 in support of allowing the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage. "Since 72% of Canadians support this legislation, I will continue to work hard to persuade my Parliamentary Colleagues that I have no sinister motives, and that they should support the Bill at further stages," Mr. Epp said. "Canadian women who choose to give birth when they are pregnant should not have to stand alone to protect the child within that they are eagerly awaiting."
"I want to thank my Colleagues in the House today for doing the right thing, for standing up for pregnant women and the babies they want to protect from violence," said Mr. Epp. "It is so encouraging to see the outpouring of support from thousands of Canadians right across the country who have urged their MPs to support this legislation, who have signed petitions, and who have spoken out in defense of pregnant women who have chosen life for their children."
Mr. Epp continued, "In the midst of their grief, I hope Mary Talbot and Aydin Cocelli and others who have lost loved ones to this type of crime, can experience some measure of consolation today, knowing that many, many Canadians are united with them in the quest for justice for unborn victims of crime. Although justice will never be served for the crimes committed against their own family members, there is real hope today that other families in future will be spared the injustice of being told that the child they loved and wanted to live never even existed in the eyes of the law.”
Mr. Epp concluded, "I look forward to continuing to work with these families, with my Colleagues in the House from all parties, and with Canadians to move this cause forward in the weeks and months ahead."

My MiniCity

2008-03-04T12:06:00.001-05:00

I discovered MiniCity today.
Visit Haypile.
I am not quite sure how this works. I think the idea is that every time someone looks at your town, it grows.

The Songwriters Association of Canada wants a Settlement

2008-02-23T17:41:00.005-05:00

This is an outrage!

The [SAC] which is funded by the government of Canada though the Canada music fund and Canadian Heritage would have the government raise the money by applying a $5 a month tax on every internet and wireless account in Canada...
At five dollars per month, the proposed tax could conceivably raise over $125 million dollars a month or $1.5 billion dollars annually...
The amount being demanded is staggering when you consider that $1.5 billion annually dwarfs the actual financial impact of music downloading. According to the CRIA, total Canadian CD sales fell from about $700 in 1999 to $560 million in 2004. If we make the assumption that all of that decline is attributable to music downloading (which many critics dispute) the total economic damage is under $150 million annually or less than 10% of what SAC is asking!

But here is the kicker.

...the group is also proposing the federal government make an amendment to the Copyright Act that would make it legal for Canadians to download and share any music file regardless of its origin.
In simple terms the group is lobbying the government to abolish illegal file sharing in exchange for its members receiving $1.5 billion dollars in tax revenues.

What this means is that the Songwriters Association of Canada wants to settle. They want the government to give them $1.5billion a year in order to not prosecute anyone who downloads music. Essentially what they are saying is "Give us enough money and we will agree that downloading music ought to be legal."
The SAC, the CRIA and the RIAA are nothing short of thugs. The recording industry produces mountains of garbage every year that they pretend is music. Hollywood and all its relevant unions are just as bad. Significantly more bad movies are made than good. Instead of recognizing the staggering lack of talent in the entertainment "industry," these people have the unmitigated gall to demand monetary compensation from the average individual. They arm wrestle governments into passing punitive laws against copyright infringement, all the while pretending that they do so for the benefit of their artists rather than for their own monetary gain. They pump out commercials which erroneously declare "Piracy is stealing" in order to befuddle the general population who have absolutely no idea that copyright infringement is not stealing and is treated very differently under then law than theft is.
Carefully consider what the SAC's logic must be in order to arrive at their $5 per month levy.
1. Illegal downloading caused a drop in profits.
2. "Everyone" downloads illegally.
3. Therefore, force everyone to compensate us for our losses times 10 regardless of whether or not number 1 or 2 is true, which by the way they aren't. In fact, both are demonstrably false!
If, like me, you are appalled by the notion ought to be able to demand such a levy, then I recommend you contact Canadian Heritage at 1 866-811-0055 or by email at cmf-music@pch.gc.ca. These people already get enough of our tax money. They don't deserve so much as another dime! If they are in any way broke (and they aren't) then they can start producing higher quality material!
And while you're at it, contact your MP and protest the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Bill C-303: Taxpayer Funded Universal Childcare

2008-02-03T22:23:00.000-05:00

I was recently sent the following in an email.

Within the next 10 days a Private Members’ Bill which would enshrine universal, not-for-profit (government controlled) childcare in Canada at taxpayers’ expense is expected to have 3rd reading and final vote. Cost estimates range from $10 - $15 billion annually.
The bill is expected to pass unless some of the MPs who currently support the bill can be persuaded to change their vote, or "miss" the vote.
Victoria MP Denise Savoie’s (NDP) Bill C-303 provides no support for other caregiving options such as parents who choose to stay home to care for their children, relative care, neighbour care, or private licenced childcare (only grandfathering existing ones).
According to Statistics Canada only 13.1 % of children are in the form of institutional childcare that Ms. Savoie advocates.
The bill disregards both parental rights and what most parents want for their children. It infringes on provincial jurisdiction and shows a profound disrespect for Canadian taxpayers.
Most troubling, C-303 fails to consider fully what is in the best interest of children. The preamble implies that one of the goals of quality "child care" is to ensure that parents can be away from their children earning money! How does increasing the level of parental absence serve the best interests of children?
MPs voted 138 – 112 in favour of this bill, at 2nd Reading on November 21, 2007, with NDP, Liberal and BLOC support. Only the Conservatives oppose the bill.

Parents are the primary caregivers of their children, NOT the government. The family, that is the fundamental unit of society, must be empowered. Government-run daycare is not the answer.
If you are against this bill, as I am, contact your MP right away. Make yourself heard!

Ezra vs. The HRC

2008-01-28T14:46:00.000-05:00

Hah hah!
What were they thinking?
Ezra Levant's ordeal with the Alberta Human Rights Commission is up on YouTube. If you haven't watched it yet, I highly recommend that you do.
He has all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.
I love it!!

Muslims Against Sharia

2008-01-15T12:22:00.000-05:00

This interesting site was posted in a comment with regards to the Levant situation. Clearly, some Muslims desire reform. They do not hold to the beliefs espoused by Islamists and they do not feel that the current situation between Islam and the West is either acceptable or the sole fault of the West.
Initiatives like this are important. While I don't believe that attempts to reform the Koran will ever be successful, I do think that it is important for moderate Muslims to speak out. Not every Muslim is an extremist. Not every Muslim wants to conquer the world and rid it of infidels. On this matter, silence is acceptance. If one does not speak out, then that silence must be construed as agreement. If one does not speak out against an aggressor, conquest is inevitable. Those who oppose sharia must voice their concerns. This is what free speech is all about.
Sharia law is an abomination. Anyone living here who thinks it's acceptable can go and live in any of the countries where it is practiced. Sharia law is in no way compatible with western democratic values. If one wishes to enjoy the freedoms of Canadian society, they one must adhere to the laws this society sets down and not try to import foreign values (or lack thereof).

Go Ezra

2008-01-12T11:13:00.000-05:00

Apparently, Ezra Levant is also before the Human Rights Commission. Dragging people before the commission seems to be quite the fashion. The case has to do with his choice to print the infamous Mohammed cartoons.
Levant makes some excellent points in his opening comments.

I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state...
I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas....
I have read the past few years’ worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon student complained that he was called a "loser" by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900...
It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply... Even this interrogation today – at which I appear under duress – saw the commission tell me who I could or could not bring with me as my counsel and advisors...

I hope Levant wins. Sadly, however, he is right. The process has become the punishment. The HRC either needs to be overhauled or completely disbanded. These complaints can start being handled by the regular courts.

"Breeding" and the Environment

2008-01-08T12:52:00.000-05:00

I was recently emailed an article on environmentalists. Sadly, I can't find it online. It was an opinion piece by Kathleen Parker regarding this piece about some environmentalists who refuse to breed out of fear they are harming the planet. Parker's opinion was that these people are fundamentally selfish and worthy of the Darwin Award for "Those too Narcissistic to Breed."
I concur with her opinion.
Consider the position of one Toni Vernelli. She has worked for such organizations as PETA and Greenpeace. Not mentioned in the article is the fact that according to a PETA Europe news release, Vernelli believes that "Serving a burger to your family today, knowing what we know, constitutes child abuse. You might as well give them weed killer." One wonders how she was able to arrive at this position since she has never had children to feed burgers to and wouldn't know what child abuse actually looks like.
Anyways, Vernelli sincerely believes that children are a "burden" on the environment, since they must necessarily grow up to be polluters. Her claim is that "every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." Despite this belief, she takes regular long trip flights and vacations and recently returned from a vacation to South Africa.
Yet we "breeders" are the selfish ones.
Need I point out I haven't been on a plane since my honeymoon?
Sarah Irving and Mark Hudson share a similar opinion. Irving feels that mother's who have large families "haven't thought through the implications." Hudson believes it is "morally wrong" to have children and therefor had a vasectomy.
That's right.
Morally wrong.
I would like to ask him if he believes his parents sinned by bringing him into the world, since that would be the logical conclusion of his position.

These two cases illustrate the total depravity and fundamentally warped thinking of some people. In their view, parenting is a selfish activity but vacations are not. The parent awake at 1am cleaning up their two-year-old's vomit is a self-centered individual. The person on safari or lounging on the beach drinking a margarita is doing so for the betterment of the planet. Children are expendable; vacations are necessary.
In the opinion piece by Parker, she comments that parenting is perhaps one of the most fundamentally unselfish activities there is. I wholeheartedly agree. In order to properly care for their children, parents are frequently forced to do without. This is especially true when children are small. Nights are often sleepless. Meals are hurried. Vacations are infrequent. Often, they don't feel like vacations at all. Hobbies are put on hold as hours are spent properly teaching and training the children. Homes are almost never picture-perfect because as soon as one area is clean and tidy, another is messy. Walls are speckled with fingerprints, dents, scuffs, scratches and general wear-and-tear. Laundry load after laundry load piles up, to say nothing of the numerous diaper changings.
At this point I am forced to pause.
If anyone out there thinks that cleaning up the poop of another human being is a selfish activity, then they need more than a reality check. They need a straight-jacket.
It saddens me that anyone would view parenting as a selfish activity. It is a sad commentary on our world that children, the most helpless members of society, are viewed as a burden, or worse, destructive to the planet. People such as Vernelli, Irving and Hudson despise their parents simply because they are that: parents. No doubt if you were to question them they would all protest this and loudly proclaim their love for their parents.
They are all lying.
Despising anyone simply for being a parent is to despise one's own parents. Whatever the relativists might say, morality is an absolute. The standards one holds oneself to, one implicitly holds others to. If it is immoral for someone to breed, then it is also immoral for others to breed. The conclusion must be that their parents are evil for not conforming to the moral standard these children have invented. No one stops to consider that if their parents had shared the view that parenting was an ultimately selfish endeavour that should not be undertaken, these people would never even have been born.
So much for activism.

While I don't believe that children are the primary end of marriage, I do believe they are a significant perk. With good reason the Bible declares in Psalm 127:3 that "Children are a heritage from the Lord and the fruit of the womb is His reward." Notice it does not say burden. Regardless of what anyone might say, God gives us children as a gift.
We should treat them as such.
Children should never, ever take second place to a lifestyle or an ungrounded philosophical argument. If you aren't trying to save the planet for your children, for whom are you saving it? The fountain of youth has yet to be discovered and eventually we will all die. What then of activism? Did it really have a purpose?
Children are not produced in order to fill a biological need, although that does happen. They are not produced to fill an emotional need although that certainly happens too. They are not accessories to be dolled up and shown off, although most of us do that to some extent.
Children are a gift.
They are their own end, just as marriage is its own end.
God gives them to us and through them He furthers His kingdom, although He really doesn't need them in order to do so.
But, to be frank, I don't really expect the likes of Vernelli, Irving and Hudson to understand that.

Bhutto Slain

2007-12-27T10:48:00.000-05:00

Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was killed today.

Bhutto, 54, died in hospital in Rawalpindi. Ary-One Television said she had been shot in the head.
Police said a suicide bomber fired shots at Bhutto as she was leaving the rally venue in a park before blowing himself up.
"The man first fired at Bhutto's vehicle. She ducked and then he blew himself up," said police officer Mohammad Shahid.
Police said 16 people had been killed in the blast.

Merry Christmas

2007-12-25T08:00:00.000-05:00

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."
-Luke 2: 13,14

Free Speech, Human Rights, Religion and the Like

2007-12-23T22:58:00.000-05:00

Interesting article at Canada.com.

Free speech in Alberta has suffered a serious, and unexpected reversal, in the guilty judgment handed down by an Alberta Human Rights Panel on Stephen Boissoin.
His critique of homosexuality in letters published by the Red Deer Advocate had been the subject of a human rights complaint and was declared "hate speech" by panelist, Lori G. Andreachuk.

Boisson is apparently a youth pastor at a church somewhere in Red Deer, Alberta. Back in 2002, he wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate. According to this article, the Alberta Human Rights Commission was funding an initiative to place text-books in schools which teach that homosexuality is "normal, necessary, acceptable and productive."
According to this article, commission panel chairwoman Lori Andreachuk found that there was a circumstantial connection between Boisson's "hate speech" and the beating of a gay teenager. This teenager, while I am sorry for his pain, is entirely unrelated to the matter at hand. There is no measurable connection whatsoever between Boisson's letter to the editor and his beating. Boisson knew neither the teenager nor his attackers.
In any case, how has the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal been allowed to find Boisson guilty of anything at all, let alone hate speech? How is this not a conflict of interest? How can the Commission with which Boisson has an issue be allowed to find him guilty of anything? Is there no third party mediator available? Don't we have a better process in this country for dealing with this sort of an issue?
As the article at Canada.com rightly points out

The decision has an absurd effect. If to even challenge government spending to promote homosexuality as desirable or productive is considered to be holding gays in contempt, how can political debate take place, never mind free expression for those who see it in religious terms? This is just to prefer one view over another, give it the force of law, and effectively reinvent seditious libel.

In a similar vein, the Canadian ISlamic Congress has filed a human rights complaint against Maclean's magazine.By now, this is old news. Maclean's published an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn. This has outraged the likes of Mohammed Elmasry.
I can't even begin to express how badly I hope this complaint is thrown out of court. Anyone who can publicly state all Israelis are valid targets has no right to cry foul over anything.
Ever.

There are days I feel like I live in a country full of five year olds.

Return from Facebook Death

2007-12-21T10:31:00.000-05:00

So I got my account back.
What a strange experience. Their customer service drastically needs improvement, especially if they want to go up against someone like Google.

And my Facebook Saga Continues

2007-12-19T15:38:00.000-05:00

So, apparently the reason my account was disabled is due to the fact it is tied to an email account that both my husband and I use. Furthermore, both my name and the name of my husband is on the account. Somehow, this violates their Terms of Use.
I decided to Google for Facebook disabled accounts. I was really surprised at what I found. Apparently, random disabling of an account without warning is common practice with Facebook. The best example I came across whas that of British politician Steve Webb who found himself banned when someone at Facebook erroneously believed him to be an impostor. In fact, Get Satisfaction has an entire section devoted to Facebook complaints.
My account was disabled late Monday night. As I said earlier, it is a matter of cosmic irony that this should be done in response to a scam alert. So far I have received only two emails regarding the situation, one yesterday and one Monday night. Both were sent around 10pm. I have emailed every available channel trying to resolve the situation.
It strikes me as odd, not to mention inconsistent, that genuine violations such as the distribution of porn (and there are many such cases) should receive either no attention at all or at most get a warning while a non-violation should result in an immediate banning without warning. Furthermore, the lack of attention I have received is just bad customer service. I am only a lone individual. What about the many companies who hope to use Facebook as a marketing platform? It would be a colossal mistake to assume that they would put up with such poor treatment. If Facebook wants to position itself as the social networking tool, then they are going to have to reexamine how they do customer support.

Best News Ever

2007-12-18T14:12:00.000-05:00

They, that is Peter Jackson, will be working on The Hobbit.
Yes!!
And, sure enough, TORn is hopping with excitement.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

2007-12-18T14:11:00.000-05:00

In case anyone is wondering, my Facebook account has been disabled. I hope to have the matter resolved shortly. Meanwhile, I am going through withdrawal.
Ironically, the account was disabled after I alerted customer support about a particular scam. Someone is passing along a forward claiming Facebook is running out of room. A forwarded message will save your account, etc.
It figures.

CHP Under Investigation

2007-12-13T20:10:00.000-05:00

I was recently sent this disturbing story. It is not being covered elsewhere, unfortunately.

The Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHP) and its Leader Ron Gray are being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission after a homosexual activist complained of material published on the Party's website he claims is offensive to homosexuals.

This deeply concerns me.
I don't vote for the CHP. My reasons for this are many, but mostly they center around their collective lack of experience. However, I have lots of friends and family who do vote for them. Furthermore, I heartily affirm their right to exist. The underlying motivation of any political party is to direct this country in the manner it sees best. The CHP feels it has a vision and they have every right to try and enact their vision.
Individuals do not have the right to launch human rights complaints against political parties. They do not have the right to stand in the way of the democratic process. They do not have the right to dictate to the rest of the country who they may or may not vote for. Individuals get to decide who leads them by voting. That is what democracy is. If you disagree with a parties stance, don't vote for them.

The CHP Leader believes that the case is of highest importance also for the Conservative Government in Canada. "I really think this is a crucial case because if an agency of the government, which the CHRC is, can tell a political party what it may and may not include in its political statements we have gone way down the road to totalitarianism," he said.

Gray is totally right.
A lone individual does not have the right to expect an entire party to change their platform just for them. True, our system is not perfect. However, it will be significantly worse if individuals circumvent the democratic process in order to shape the country in their own image.
If you don't like the CHP and have a competing vision for this country, start your own party. Call it the Anti-CHP Party for all I care.
And may the best man win.

Unborn Victims of Crime

2007-12-07T08:22:00.000-05:00

Good news! Excellent news, in fact. The Unborn Victims of Crime Act will be voted on.
I first read about it here. The government source is here.
I will be keeping an eye open for details regarding when the bill will be voted on, if it passes, etc.

Unborn Victims of Crime Act

2007-11-24T08:02:00.000-05:00

This past week I read that Conservative MP Ken Epp had put forward legislation to protect unborn victims of crime. Bill C-484 is similar to a bill put forward last session by Conservative MP Leon Benoit. Unfortunately, bill C-291 was deemed unconstitutional and therefore unvotable. Now it seems the bill has at least tacit support from the government. According to the article at LifeSite, the government will be allowing a free vote on the matter.
This is excellent news. The bill is intended to protect both unborn children and pregnant mothers. Finally, a gross deficiency of our law will be addressed. Better yet, if the bill passes, we will at last be able to have a proper discussion on the state of abortion in this country.
Contact your MP. If you want this bill to pass, let him or her know.

The text of the bill is as follows.

BILL C-484
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

SHORT TITLE
1. This Act may be cited as the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.
R.S., c. C-46

CRIMINAL CODE

2. Section 238 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

Saving
(3) This section does not apply to a person to whom section 238.1 applies.

3. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 238:
Causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence

238.1 (1) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother of the child, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 10 years if the person
(i) means to cause the child's death, or
(ii) means to cause injury to the child or mother that the person knows is likely to cause the child's death, and is reckless as to whether death ensues or not;

(b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life if paragraph (a) does not apply but the person shows wanton or reckless disregard for the life or safety of the child; or

(c) is, in any other case,
(i) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or
(ii) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to impris- onment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

Reduced offence

(2) An offence that would otherwise be an offence under paragraph (1)(a) may be reduced to an offence under paragraph (1)(b) if the person who committed the offence did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation within the meaning of section 232.

Attempt to cause the death of an unborn child while committing an offence

(3) Every person who attempts by any means to commit an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

Injuring an unborn child while committing an offence

(4) Every person who, directly or indirectly, causes injury to a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother, who the person knows or ought to know is pregnant,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

Exclusion of defence

(5) It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being.

Separate offence

(6) An offence referred to in this section committed against a child is not included in any offence committed against the mother of the child.

Termination of pregnancy and acts in good faith excluded

(7) For greater certainty, this section does not apply in respect of

(a) conduct relating to the lawful termination of the pregnancy of the mother of the child to which the mother has consented;

(b) an act or omission that a person acting in good faith considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of the child or the life of the child; or

(c) any act or omission by the mother of the child.

4. Section 743.6 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1.2):

Power of court to delay parole

743.6 (1.3) Notwithstanding section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, where an offender receives a sentence of imprisonment, including a sentence of impris- onment for life, on conviction for an offence under paragraph 238.1(1)(a), the court shall order that the portion of the sentence that must be served before the offender may be released on full parole is one half of the sentence or ten years, whichever is less, unless the court is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence and the character and circumstances of the offender, that the expression of society's denunciation of the offence and the objectives of specific and general deterrence would be adequately served by a period of parole ineligibility determined in accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Hollywood Writers on Strike

2007-11-05T09:32:00.000-05:00

It baffles me that writers in Hollywood feel the need to go on strike. These guys make more money than I will ever see in my lifetime. Half the movies made in the last few years have been total garbage. Most of what's on TV is unwatchable.
But is there any gratitude?
Are this lot of no-talent hacks thankful for what they get?
No. Of course not.
At the heart of the issue is revenue generated from the Web and also DVD royalties. Writers feel they are not properly compensated. Networks and studios feel they are. As far as I am concerned, neither party is in the right. They are all wrong. The Hollywood industry is so utterly fuelled by greed that is impossible to respect it. The lavish lifestyle of the Hollywood collective is borderline obscene. If that entire industry were to suffer a collapse from which it could not recover, I would not care at all.

God and Sin: Team Truth vs. Team Lie

2007-10-26T13:07:00.000-04:00

About a month ago, I had the misfortune of encountering something commonly referred to as "hyper-Calvinism." It was my first experience. If you are unfamiliar with it, the definition of "hyper-Calvinism" given at Monergism is the belief that:

- God is the author of sin and of evil
- men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect
- the number of the elect at any time may be known by men
- it is wrong to evangelize
- assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith
- men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do
- God has chosen some races of men and has rejected others
- the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned
- God does not command everyone to repent
- the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.
- the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church
- the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.
- no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority
- the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
- saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination
- only Calvinists are Christians

(As an aside, as a result of the debate I had, I have a bunch of heavy duty reading to do. My Christmas list this year will have a lot of books on it. Anyway...)
The discussion in question began on a certain Facebook group. Someone asked whether or not it was possible to be a non-determinist and a Calvinist. The definition of determinism used for the discussion was rather boiled down. Essentially, we agreed that "a strict view of determinism means that there is no real concept of decision." My response to this was "...If there is no concept of a decision at all and everything is pre-determined, then God would have to be the author of sin. And we all know that's not true.
What was I thinking?
Well, I was thinking God is holy, just, true, righteous, loving and perfect.
The response I got? And I quote:
"I am a strict determinist, Ruth. I do believe there is a real concept of decision, simply not free decision. And I believe God to be the author of sin, in that he caused it. He is not sinful in creating sin. But he still is its author. He is the author of absolutely every thing that comes to pass."
My eyes nearly popped out of my head.
I responded, in true Ruth fashion "The notion that God is the author of sin is so wrong that it's barely worth debating. Do you have a Scripture to back that idea up? Because I cannot find one. While there are verses to suggest that God creates calamity or disaster (2 Samuel 12:11, Jeremiah 32:42) that is not the same as saying God is the author of sin. Sending an evil spirit (such as He did to Saul) isn't even the same thing.
--Ruth
PS: By the way, I am not interested in a philosophical reasoning on this one. Scripture only please."
Sure enough, the response I received said:
"There is no scripture that states that God is the author of sin."
So, why are you arguing it then? This speaks to my earlier point about knowing Scripture. The reply continued.
" Similarly, there is also no scripture that states that God is not the author of sin."
Wanna make a bet? In fact, I will bet you my husbands salary for ten years that I can prove from Scripture God is not the author of sin. (I advise not taking that bet, by the way).
Anyway, the poster went on to argue that God could create sin without sinning. Then came the whining.
"I resent the fact that you blindly claim that "the notion that God is the author of sin is so wrong that it's barely worth debating." Why? I understand that in the traditions of man, this has been a large claim, but why? What is your scripture?"
My response? Scripture, Scripture, Scripture.
James 1: 13-15 states
"When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."
Evil desires give birth to sin. This verse explicitly states that God is not the author of either our temptations nor our evil desires. By extension, He therefore is also not the author of our sins. In every single Scriptural reference to sin, it is described either as "ours" or that of a particular person or people (ie: the sin of the Israelites). This implies ownership. Furthermore, God is Holy and perfect. As I John 1: 5 clearly says "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all."
All means all.
In any case, all things which are created must necessarily be IN God, as indicated in Colossians 1: "16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
If God had created sin, it would necessarily be a part of Himself. He is not the author of something but also separate from it. So, unless you are actually willing to argue that sin is a part of God (and you had better not), God cannot be the author or creator of sin...
Resent away. You are still wrong and I am not blind.
Sin is error and imperfection. It is moral evil and an absence of good. Sin was introduce to the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed. It was a disruption of perfection... "
A wise man would have chosen to stop. But then, who said this guy was wise? He went on to argue that our sinful desires come from God (did he not read the verses from James I just posted??), since God created all things He must have created sin and that all is well with the world. He even stated that "Everything created, every person, every event, every thought, every desire, every choice is created, controlled and planned by God for the purpose of His ultimate glory. Amen." That's right. This guy genuinely believes God is ultimately glorified by our sin.
I could not believe it.
He went on to argue that the verse from Colossians should actually be used to support the argument that God created sin, since all means all. Now, please note that the verse I supplied from Colossians states that all things must cohere within God. If sin finds its coherence in God, then God cannot be perfect, righteous, holy, just, or true. In any case, as I pointed out, Galatians 5:17 states that the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit. The two are in conflict. God is not some great yin-and-yang type being in the sky who supports both good and evil. There is what is of Him and what is not of Him. Sin falls into the "not" category. The debate continued for a bit, two other people joined in... on Team Lie I might add, and eventually I pointed that fact out.
"Sin is an absence of something, not a presence. It is evil, a moral vacuum. How many ways can I describe the hole that sin is? As I already said, "Sin is godlessness. So, how can God be the inventor of the lack of Himself? You can't have A and not A at the same time." It's like asking the question "Is there anything God can't do?" You are trying to change the definitions of who God is and what sin is in order to somehow tie them together. Can I be any clearer except to say that sin is where and what God is not?... Sin is that which is contrary to the will of God.
If God does anything, it is His will, and therefore not sin."
Now, before I move on to the debate that this statement sparked, I'd like to point out a pertinent question someone else asked. Someone (who was a part of Team Truth) asked whether or not those on Team Lie believed that God actively intervened to keep people in their sin, or whether He merely passed over them, not extracting them from their sinful state. The answer came that these people believed God actively intervened to keep sinners sinning.
This is not what the Bible teaches of course, but you knew that.
Back to the first debate.
Someone, who was way out of his depth, tried to enter the conversation. He commented that there was no place God could not be, since that defies the definition of omnipresence. On the face of it, this is true. However, the individual would later go on to argue that God cannot be absent from something. If that is so, why did Jesus call out "My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?" The inevitable answer was that forsake doesn't actually mean forsake.
Sigh.
You can't have A and not A at the same time. Sin is a hole. The sin state is an absence of God's grace. It is a state separating us from God. It holds us captive and keeps us in bondage. The sin action is what happens in that state. The sin action is a transgression against God's Divine will, something we do against Him or someone else. It is to do evil in the sight of God. It is to do what God forbids.
A member of Team Lie then tried to argue that sin is not contrary to the will of God. If anything is contrary to God's will then it will never be. They also tried to argue that sinner's are not slaves to their sin nature and that sin preceded the fall. All of these are wrong. Sin is lawlessness, not God's will and without God we are slaves to sin, as per Romans 6. Sin did not precede the fall. The first sin was the fall, resulting in the state which was then propagated throughout mankind resulting in more sin actions.
Then came the insults. It was inevitable. Apparently, my life is sad, I must be the sort of person that pushes everyone away, clearly I have no friends and blah blah blah blah blah. What are my credentials that make me feel I am so qualified to interpret the Bible? What makes me think I am a scholar? Don't I know the Scriptures cannot actually be known? I am desperately in need of a hermenuetics course, don't I know that? I really should be more careful in my choice of words.
Blah.
Blah blah.
Blah blah blah.
Etc...
Booooooooooring.
Why does everyone reach for the nearest possible insult when they are losing an argument and can't support their position anymore? And why are insults from these sorts of people never original? And why do Christians do this? If their position is the Scriptural one, then they should be able to support it easily. Instead, the individual who was out of his depth and wanted my "credentials" argued that "if you don't know how to interpret the Bible then every one of those verses is moot. And please don't give me some hoopla about the bible speaks for itself or something. Yeah, it does, but you don't have the tools to see how it does that." Later he stated that you interpret scripture by what how you think scripture interprets scripture. 21st century Christians don't have a clue how to interpret scripture.
Scripture.
Moot.
No, I am not kidding.
That is a direct quote in response to the verses I posted about God and sin. I must have found over a hundred. Not one indicated God has anything to do with it. Similarly, there is nothing to even remotely suggest He created it. I also dug up Calvin's position on sin, as well as the position of the Westminster Confession. Not surprisingly, they agree with Team Truth.
God did not create sin.
Sin entered the world through the fall of Adam.
The original poster decided it was time to feign spirituality again and say "But I'm sure you're well aware that the main point isn't when he became the author of sin, but the fact that he is the author of sin. The point is that everything, including sin (in general, and each historical sin of our lives individually) was planned by, purposed by, caused by, desired by, and for the glory of the one and only Creator, the Lord God Almighty. Amen."
By this time I was shaking my fist at the computer screen. Blasphemy!! I think these bursts of spiritualese were what bothered me the most. Not only was this individual impugning the character of God, he was trying to make himself sound holy at the same time. He went on to argue that it pleases God to create sin. I actually left the conversation for a little while, because I began to feel that this person was being disruptive for the sake of it. He argued, and I quote, "I have no ability to not commit whatever sin I commit today, because God wants it to happen."
No, that's not a joke.
The debate spilled over into another thread. The same people tried to argue that man is not responsible for his own actions, since God plans and ordains everything. If sin is man's choice, God cannot be sovereign. They continued to argue that the origin of sin cannot be known. The debate has been going on for over 2,000 years.
At this point, I feel I need to point out that just because a debate has been going on for a long time in no way implies that the subject of the debate has not been solved. There are many, many people out there arguing about whether we can know if God exists, where evil comes from, how the universe came to be and so on. However, all of these things have answers. Just because someone ignores that answer doesn't mean it doesn't exist. People ignore right answers all the time; it's a fact of life. I pointed this out but was told by the individual who was put of his depth that I was making a false dilemma. This individual eventually presented me with a cut-and-paste list of ten things he hates about me. The last point was that I should "be ashamed of [myself] to cause a brother in Christ to be so fed up with [me] that he has to copy and paste just to avoid [me]."
The butterfly effect was also discussed. I learned that part of the reason some feel God must ordain sin is that any decision made by man would necessarily run the risk of derailing God's plan. This is a synergistic position, only applied in the reverse. Man's actions can never derail the plan of God. In fact, nothing that we do, be it sin or righteousness, affects God's Will. Job 35:6-8 speaks to this point. God's Will is so far above us. What can He possibly receive from us? How can we possibly affect Him?
The conversation finally turned when someone posted this sermon by John MacArthur. Wouldn't you know it? MacArthur agrees with Team Truth. He says, and I quote

""Let me put it to you simply: God is not responsible for evil. His creatures are. God is not responsible for evil. His creatures are. Everything -- listen to this carefully -- that God created was "very" what? "Good." Everything. This is affirmed throughout the scripture....
The source of evil, the source of sin, is outside God....
To disobey God was to initiate evil. Evil is not the presence of something. Evil is the absence of righteousness. You can't create evil, because evil doesn't exist as a created entity. It doesn't exist as a created reality. Evil is a negative. Evil is the absence of perfection. It's the absence of holiness. It's the absence of goodness. It's the absence of righteousness....
Evil is not a created thing. Evil is not a substance. Evil is not an entity. Evil is not a being. Evil is not a force. Evil is not some floating spirit. Evil is a lack of moral perfection. God created absolute perfection. Wherever a lack of that exists, sin exists. And that cannot exist in the nature of God or in anything that God makes. Evil comes into existence when God's creatures fall short of the standard of moral perfection..."

All of a sudden, the members if Team Truth came crawling out of the woodworks. Within a short amount of time there were people posting "No, God did not create sin."
Then came the worst post of all. The original poster stated "I PRAISE God for my sin and yours. You cannot understand my position until you are willing to understand this. I THANK Him for my sin." Conveniently, he later chose to edit this blasphemy. However, I quoted him and retained his statement so that no one would miss it. Yes, this person actually said he was thankful to God for His sin. He later tried to argue that he was repentant in his thanks.
In case you were wondering, I am not thankful for my sin. I hate it. I have glaring faults I wish I didn't have. This goes for most of the Christians I know. In fact, I have never met a single Christians who is happy that they sin. Most people eagerly desire change.
Anyway, he also stated, I missed it at the time, that "I am far younger than you, but have been blessed with great wisdom by God. It's one of the very few strong skills he's given me." Despite the copious amount of Scripture now provided by myself and others, he wanted an explanation why his interpretation was not a good one.
I ended up saying that it was because according to the Bible, he was wrong.
What more could I say?
He began to argue that To arrive at the best interpretation, we should explain why we interpret it the way we do. That is, you explain why you interpret it the way you do, and I explain why I interpret it the way I do. Apparently, the best explanation would win out. The problem with this is that if an explanation or philosophical position leads one to a position that is contrary to Scripture, then it cannot be right. One must start with Scripture first and then arrive at a conclusion. One cannot begin with a conclusion and twist Scripture to fit it.
More people began to argue that God did not create sin. Some explanations were simple; others quite verbose. Someone found a blog entry by Phil Johnson on the subject.
Suddenly, the argument stopped. Those arguing for the divine creation of sin disappeared. They gave up without warning. I don't know if their minds were changed. In the case of the original poster, I am certain the answer is no.
I was deeply saddened by my experience. At least some of the members of Team Lie were students. This leads me to believe that some of this teaching is happening at the seminary level. This does not bode well for the future generation of ministers.
If you ever come in contact with this belief, and the individual tells you they are a Calvinist, tell them they aren't. They aren't even a Christian. The entire line of argument is not only heresy, but blasphemy as well.
And, if you ever want that list of Scriptures, just ask. I have heaps on the subject. Incidentally, I was never provided with a verse supporting the notion that God creates sin.
Surprise, surprise.

Scripture: The Defense Against Heresy

2007-10-25T21:49:00.000-04:00

The word heresy needs to be reintroduced into the vernacular of the common Christian. There are some who will find that to be a shocking statement. Nevertheless, in recent weeks I have come to feel that it is true. There are a great many false doctrines out there masquerading as Biblical teaching. If Christians do not learn how to identify a heresy and label it as such with boldness, they put themselves at great spiritual peril.
There are those who teach Jesus is not the Son of God. He was just a good man. This is a heresy. If Jesus is not Divine, then we are lost. If Jesus is not Divine, then John 1 is a lie.
There are those who teach that God requires man. They teach the will of man can thwart the plan of God. They teach that without the cooperation of man, God's will cannot come to fruition. This is a heresy. If God depends on us, then He is not omnipotent. If God requires us, then Job 35: 6-8 is a lie.
A variation on this teaching is that God never forces anyone to do anything they don't want to. My assumption is that these people have not read Jonah.
Some teach that Christ did not die to atone for our sins. Such a death would be indicative of a vindictive, bloodthirsty God. Instead they teach that Christ's death merely shows us God's willingness to forgive. They teach that man has the ability within himself to follow the whole law, never sin and as a result is ultimately responsible for his own salvation. They also teach that we did not inherit Adam's sin. One wonders if they have ever read the book of Romans.
A variation on this teaching is that salvation can be lost one day but regained the next.
Others teach that salvation is merely intellectual assent to the fact that Christ died for salvation from sin. They teach that spiritual fruits are not a necessary aspect of the Christian walk. They also teach that repentance is unnecessary. Clearly, they have never read Mark 1:15. Incidentally, part of this teaching includes the notion that Jesus can be your Saviour, but not your Lord. One does not have to make Him Lord of their life, as though that is what actually happens.
There are those that teach God created and ordains evil. This is not only heresy, but blasphemy. To suggest that God has anything to do with evil is to impugn the character of God. All of Scripture speaks to the contrary. In fact, there is no Scripture that suggests God created evil or has anything to do with it. I came across this belief a few weeks ago, much to my dismay. I was saddened by the fact that anyone claiming to be a Christian could ever suggest such a thing. Sadness eventually gave way to anger and then sheer outrage.
There are those that teach Scripture cannot be understood by the common man. It can never really be known. One cannot know for sure that their interpretation is correct. Furthermore, they teach that Scripture does not stand alone. It can only be understood if one has the correct tool. This heresy is perhaps the most subtle of them all. It is the least obvious to detect and in someways the most dangerous. This particular heresy allows all the others to go unchallenged, thereby allowing them to spread. The words "that's what you believe" or "that's what you were taught" or "that verse doesn't really mean that" (when really it does) not only shut down useful conversation and debate, but they prohibit anyone from pointing out a heretical belief.
If no one can understand and interpret Scripture, then no one can be right. If no one can be right, then no one can be wrong either. Our sword is suddenly very blunt. How can we combat something unscriptural if we can't know what is Scriptural?
We can't.
In fact, we must be able to know and discern what Scripture says. If we cannot, then the Bible cannot be God's revelation to us. It cannot be His inspired Word. Paul wrote to Timothy that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16,17) How could he say this if Timothy could not expect to know what the Scriptures mean? Of course he could expect to know!
The Bible is one of the few books in the world that interprets itself, perhaps the only book. If one does not immediately understand a particular concept, simply search for it elsewhere in Scripture. Want proof that God didn't create sin? Search for sin and God. There are probably hundred of verses that indicate God has no part of sin. Want to know if the Bible permits illicit lifestyles? Look it up. Can't find the exact word? Search for a related concept. I guarantee you'll find it. In fact, I am prepared to say that almost any behaviour can be argued for or against with Scripture.
How do we learn what Scripture says?
One first begins with prayer. Then, study, study, study.
You can know what the Bible says. You can understand the meaning of Scripture.
That's why it exists.
Anton Bosch Ministries has an excellent series on discernment, by the way. I found it through Herescope, another excellent site.

Faith Based Schools in Sweden

2007-10-23T09:06:00.000-04:00

In the fight against fundamentalist Islam, Sweden has made a near fatal misstep.

STOCKHOLM (AFP) — The Swedish government on Monday presented a series of proposals banning public and independent schools from introducing religious elements into their classes except during religion lessons. Religious elements "can take place ... but only outside of coursework. Teaching should not be influenced" by religious beliefs, Swedish Education Minister Jan Bjoerklund told reporters. He said religion could still be studied at school as a separate subject but other classes could in no way be influenced by religious convictions.

One has to ask what the point of faith based education is if one cannot teach their faith.

For example, the origin of human life would have to be explained from a scientific point of view and not a religious one, he said. The Swedish government also plans to allocate additional funds to carry out controls on schools, sometimes unannounced.

Unannounced?
So they can what? Check up on the school to ensure religion isn't being taught? Yikes! Did the draftees of this piece of legislation not see the slippery slope they put themselves on?

The measures presented Monday would be included in new education legislation which is to be presented to parliament for a vote. They would apply to public schools as well as independent schools, which also receive funding from the state. Private schools are exempt.

And therein lies the rub.
Recall my chief concern about Tory's proposed funding plan for faith based schools. Here it is in action. The government offers faith based schools money. However, in order to obtain this money, a few small conditions must be accepted. These conditions always appear harmless at first; what people forget is that a small amount of interference eventually leads to control. If a government gives you money, they always retain the right to tell you what to do with it. What happens when the governments wishes contradict the will of God?
One must always be exceedingly careful when accepting money from the government. Sometimes there are strings attached. Strings wind themselves into ropes and eventually become nooses.

Sweden has some 800 independent schools, both primary and secondary. According to the Dagens Nyheter newspaper, about 10 percent of these schools have a religious profile. Bjoerklund said the initiative would help improve transparency about the financing of these schools. He cited the case of an independent Muslim school that had received financial aid from a fundamentalist Islamic organisation in Saudi Arabia.

This is the problem with our age of "tolerance." In the interests of "fairness" The Swedish government has proposed tight measures limiting all government funded religious education. However, only one religion (and not even all of it) is a problem.
This legislation still needs to be voted on. It is my sincere hope that it will not pass.

Crime: A Matter of Confidence

2007-10-19T10:30:00.000-04:00

Media take on crime legislation: Canada.com , CTV, Globe & Mail, PoliticsWatch

Bill C-2, also known as the Tackling Violent Crime Act, is a combination of five crime bills from last Parliament. Three of the five bills had already passed the Commons and were in the Senate. One had finished the Commons committee stage and the fifth was midway through it. As all five bills died on the order paper with the prorogation of Parliament, they have been bundled together into one massive piece of legislation. Since dealing with crime is one of the five key priorities of the Throne Speech, the Conservatives have made this piece of legislation a matter of confidence. It's defeat would mean an election.
It's fairly unlikely that this piece of legislation will be voted down. Most of it has already been agreed upon by the government and opposition parties. Indeed, four of the revived bills included all of the compromises already made with the opposition. There may only be some small amount of wrangling over the dangerous offenders portion.
In other words, right now there is much ado about nothing.
However, upon reflection, I would suggest that crime legislation should always be a matter of confidence. How a government chooses to deal with criminals is perhaps one of the most significant indications of its ability to govern. It is even more important than its ability to manage a budget. What should a government choose to punish? How harsh should punishments be? The key end of a government is to facilitate the peaceful life of its citizens. While there may many ways to achieve this end, there can be no doubt that criminals are an obstruction to that end and as such must be dealt with accordingly. How a government deals with criminals has a direct impact on the ability of its citizens to live in peace.
And, for the record, I am thrilled to hear that the age of sexual consent will be raised back to 16. It should never have been lowered in the first place.

Dion: Worst Liberal Leader Ever

2007-10-17T16:46:00.000-04:00

Bring on the tax cuts. If Dion's speech is any indication, we will not be heading to the polls anytime soon.
And what a disgraceful speech it was. First of all, the man can barely talk. If you want to run for office, then fluency in both official languages is a must. Secondly, if you are going to trash the throne speech, then you should be willing to stand on your convictions and vote it down.
Instead, the Liberals have decided to blame the Canadian population. Apparently, we don't want an election. As such, they will propose amendments to the throne speech. If the Conservatives do not accept the amendments, the plan is to abstain from voting. This way, the government will not be brought down over any of the more "controversial" issues (such as Kyoto or Afghanistan) and Parliament can continue as normal.
So, what was the point of Dion's speech?
If he isn't going to do anything, why even bother speaking?
If the plan is more Liberal inaction, people really don't want to hear about it. And did anyone in the Liberal caucus actually think this lack of plan would make them look brave or worthy of leading our country? All the posturing in the world is not going to impress the Canadian public if there is no substance behind it, especially in light of the fact that Dion's speech was full of accusations that the government was "playing politics."
The Liberals could be engineering their own demise. If they do not step up to the plate and stand for something, they could find themselves on the Opposition for some time to come.

Throne Speech Transcript

2007-10-16T20:09:00.000-04:00

Full text here

Strong Leadership. A Better Canada.
16 October 2007
Honourable Senators,
Members of the House of Commons,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to address the first words in this chamber to the members of the Canadian Forces, some of whom are present here today. Their commitment and courage in the name of justice, equality and freedom—whose benefits are not accorded to all peoples in the world—are worthy of our utmost respect.

The Speech from the Throne is an important moment in our country’s democratic life. Through the Speech from the Throne, the Government shares its vision with Canadians. And it is thus that we open the Second Session of the Thirty Ninth Parliament today.

Fifty years ago, on October 14, 1957, during her first visit to Canada as its Sovereign, and for the first time in Canadian history, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II opened the First Session of the Twenty-Third Parliament.

This room is filled with history, and we mark history again this year as we celebrate a number of anniversaries. I think, in particular, of the bicentenary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in the British Empire. I also think of the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Citizenship Act on January 1, 1947. And I think of the 40th anniversary of the Order of Canada, whose one hundredth investiture ceremony we will soon be celebrating at Rideau Hall.

And although Canada is a young country, its history is marked by our unwavering willingness—which I was touched to see all across Canada—to be and to continue to be a generous society. A society that is concerned about the well being of others. A society that is protective of the spirit of this bountiful land, a deep respect learned from Aboriginal peoples. A society that is committed to finding solutions to today’s challenges. A society that is open to creation and quick to innovate. A society that is filled with young people who have an unprecedented openness to the world.

Strong Leadership. A Better Canada.

Canada is the greatest country in the world, a nation of enormous potential built through the imagination and dedication of ordinary Canadians. Canadians who have worked hard to build a better life for their families. Canadians who have joined with their neighbours to create a society founded on peace and prosperity.

Canada is their legacy to us.

Canadians expect their government to help them build on this legacy. They want a government that sets clear goals and delivers concrete results. A government that is accountable. A government that puts Canadians and their families first.

Our Government has worked hard to meet these expectations. Canadians now have more money in their pockets because taxes have been cut. Families now have real choice in child care through the Universal Child Care Benefit. Canadians now have a government committed to helping them get the medical care they need more quickly. A government that is tackling crime and making neighbourhoods safer.

The results are clear: the economy is strong, the government is clean and the country is united.

Now is the time to continue building a better Canada. In the next session, our Government will focus on five clear priorities: strengthening Canada’s sovereignty and place in the world; building a stronger federation; providing effective economic leadership; continuing to tackle crime; and improving our environment.

Strengthening Canada’s Sovereignty and Place in the World

Canada is built on a common heritage of values, which Canadians have fought and died to defend. It is a country that continues to attract newcomers seeking refuge and opportunity, who see Canada as a place where they can work hard, raise families and live in freedom. Our Government is resolved to uphold this heritage by protecting our sovereignty at home and living by our values abroad.

The Arctic is an essential part of Canada’s history. One of our Fathers of Confederation, D’Arcy McGee, spoke of Canada as a northern nation, bounded by the blue rim of the ocean. Canadians see in our North an expression of our deepest aspirations: our sense of exploration, the beauty and the bounty of our land, and our limitless potential.

But the North needs new attention. New opportunities are emerging across the Arctic, and new challenges from other shores. Our Government will bring forward an integrated northern strategy focused on strengthening Canada’s sovereignty, protecting our environmental heritage, promoting economic and social development, and improving and devolving governance, so that northerners have greater control over their destinies.

To take advantage of the North’s vast opportunities, northerners must be able to meet their basic needs. Our Government will work to continue to improve living conditions in the North for First Nations and Inuit through better housing.

Our Government will build a world-class arctic research station that will be on the cutting edge of arctic issues, including environmental science and resource development. This station will be built by Canadians, in Canada’s Arctic, and it will be there to serve the world.

As part of asserting sovereignty in the Arctic, our Government will complete comprehensive mapping of Canada’s Arctic seabed. Never before has this part of Canada’s ocean floor been fully mapped.

Defending our sovereignty in the North also demands that we maintain the capacity to act. New arctic patrol ships and expanded aerial surveillance will guard Canada’s Far North and the Northwest Passage. As well, the size and capabilities of the Arctic Rangers will be expanded to better patrol our vast Arctic territory.

Ensuring our capacity to defend Canada’s sovereignty is at the heart of the Government’s efforts to rebuild the Canadian Forces. Canada’s men and women in uniform risk their lives for their country, and deserve the equipment and training required for a first-class, modern military. Our Government will modernize Canada’s military to provide effective surveillance and protection for all of our country, cooperate in the defence of North America, and meet our responsibilities abroad to the United Nations and our allies. Further, recognizing the important role that the Reserves play in this modernization, our Government will work with the provinces and territories to bring forward a comprehensive plan to modernize reservist reinstatement policies.

At the same time as our Government rebuilds to meet our future needs, it will continue to improve support for our veterans who have contributed so much to defending Canada in the past.

Rebuilding our capabilities and standing up for our sovereignty have sent a clear message to the world: Canada is back as a credible player on the international stage. Our Government believes that focus and action, rather than rhetoric and posturing, are restoring our influence in global affairs. Guided by our shared values of democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law, our Government will continue Canada’s international leadership through concrete actions that bring results.

A commitment to action means that Canada must make common cause with those fighting for the values we uphold. Our Government will immediately call upon Parliament to confer honorary citizenship on Aung San Suu Kyi. Her long struggle to bring freedom and democracy to the people of Burma has made her the embodiment of these ideals and an inspiration to all of us.

Nowhere is Canada making a difference more clearly than in Afghanistan. Canada has joined the United Nations-sanctioned mission in Afghanistan because it is noble and necessary. Canadians understand that development and security go hand in hand. Without security, there can be no humanitarian aid, no reconstruction and no democratic development. Progress will be slow, but our efforts are bearing fruit. There is no better measure of this progress than the four million Afghan boys and two million girls who can dream of a better future because they now go to school.

The Canadian Forces mission has been approved by Parliament until February 2009, and our Government has made clear to Canadians and our allies that any future military deployments must also be supported by a majority of parliamentarians. In the coming session, members will be asked to vote on the future of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. This decision should honour the dedication and sacrifice of Canada’s development workers, diplomats and men and women in uniform. It should ensure that progress in Afghanistan is not lost and that our international commitments and reputation are upheld.

Our Government does not believe that Canada should simply abandon the people of Afghanistan after February 2009. Canada should build on its accomplishments and shift to accelerate the training of the Afghan army and police so that the Afghan government can defend its own sovereignty. This will not be completed by February 2009, but our Government believes this objective should be achievable by 2011, the end of the period covered by the Afghanistan Compact. Our Government has appointed an independent panel to advise Canadians on how best to proceed given these considerations.

In our own neighbourhood, the Americas, Canada is back playing an active role. The Canadian model of constitutional democracy and economic openness combined with social safety nets, equitable wealth creation and sharing across regions has much to offer those countries struggling to build a better future.

Canada’s efforts in Haiti are a compelling example of how we can work with our neighbours to ensure security and development. Canadians understand that our country has a responsibility to help countries struggling to make a better life for their people—particularly in promoting democratic governance in fragile states. In Haiti and elsewhere, our Government will bring greater focus and effectiveness to Canada’s international assistance to ensure that Canadians’ money is well spent.

The best hope for fostering development and our common security in the hemisphere and beyond is through bolstering international trade. Through renewed focus on trade and investment arrangements, Canada has already secured a deal with the European Free Trade Association, the first new agreement in more than half a decade. Our Government will keep advancing Canada’s trade interests in the Americas and around the world to open up new markets for Canada’s innovators.

Strengthening the Federation and our Democratic Institutions

Next year we mark important anniversaries spanning our country and its history. We will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City. Canada was born in French, reflected in the presence of francophones throughout Canada, and in Parliament’s recognition that the Québécois form a nation within our united country. We will also celebrate the 250th anniversary of the establishment of Nova Scotia’s representative assembly, which marks the birth of Canadian parliamentary democracy, and the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Crown Colony of British Columbia.

John A. Macdonald, George-Étienne Cartier and the other Fathers of Confederation brought many peoples and regions together to create a federation that has served Canadians well for 140 years. Our Government is committed to strengthening that union: it has concentrated on its national role by reinvesting in neglected federal responsibilities, such as trade, defence, public safety and security. It has put fiscal relations with provinces and territories on a principled basis and increased the level of transfers to support quality health care and social services.

Our Government believes that the constitutional jurisdiction of each order of government should be respected. To this end, guided by our federalism of openness, our Government will introduce legislation to place formal limits on the use of the federal spending power for new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This legislation will allow provinces and territories to opt out with reasonable compensation if they offer compatible programs.

Our Government will also pursue the federal government’s rightful leadership in strengthening Canada’s economic union. Despite the globalization of markets, Canada still has a long way to go to establish free trade among our provinces. It is often harder to move goods and services across provincial boundaries than across our international borders. This hurts our competitive position but, more importantly, it is just not the way a country should work. Our Government will consider how to use the federal trade and commerce power to make our economic union work better for Canadians.

Canadians understand that the federation is only as strong as the democratic institutions that underpin it. Our Government believes that Canada is not well served by the Senate in its current form. To ensure that our institutions reflect our shared commitment to democracy, our Government will continue its agenda of democratic reform by reintroducing important pieces of legislation from the last session, including direct consultations with voters on the selection of Senators and limitations on their tenure. In addition, the integrity of our federal voting system will be further strengthened through measures to confirm the visual identification of voters.

Our Government supports Canada’s linguistic duality. It will renew its commitment to official languages in Canada by developing a strategy for the next phase of the Action Plan for Official Languages.

Our Government remains committed to improving the lives of Canada’s Aboriginal people. The Government will reintroduce legislation to guarantee to people living on reserve the same protections other Canadians enjoy under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Our Government will also present legislation on specific claims, which will finally bring fairness and timely resolution to the claims process.

Our Government recently concluded a final settlement on Indian Residential Schools and will launch a commission for truth and reconciliation. The Prime Minister, on behalf of our Government, will use this occasion to make a statement of apology to close this sad chapter in our history.

Providing Effective Economic Leadership for a Prosperous Future

This is a time of economic uncertainty and volatility in the wider world. While the economic fundamentals of our country are strong, Canada is not immune from this turbulence. Canadians understand these challenges and want a government that is a competent and effective manager of the economy.

With Advantage Canada, our Government has laid out a sensible economic plan to secure better-paying jobs and solid growth for Canadians. The Minister of Finance will soon provide a Fall Economic and Fiscal Update, which will outline the next steps in that plan to ensure that Canada has a modern infrastructure, an innovative and entrepreneurial business environment, and a tax system that rewards hard work—all based on a foundation of sound fiscal management.

As part of ensuring economic security for Canadians, our Government will bring forward a long-term plan of broad-based tax relief for individuals, businesses and families—including following through on its commitment to a further cut to the GST. To complement this, our Government will support Canadian researchers and innovators in developing new ideas and bringing them to the marketplace through Canada’s Science and Technology Strategy. Our Government will improve the protection of cultural and intellectual property rights in Canada, including copyright reform. Our Government will also take measures to improve the governance and management of the Employment Insurance Account.

The bedrock of our workforce is middle-class Canadians and their families. These families worry about the rising costs of higher education and the expense of caring for elderly parents. They worry about affordable housing and the number of homeless people on our streets. Our Government is committed to helping Canadian families meet their needs. The Working Income Tax Benefit will help Canadians get back into the workforce, and the registered disability savings plan will help families care for children with severe disabilities. Our Government will continue to invest in our families and our future, and will help those seeking to break free from the cycles of homelessness and poverty.

Our Government will announce an infrastructure program, the Building Canada Plan, to support our long-term growth. By investing in our transport and trade hubs, including the Windsor–Detroit corridor and the Atlantic and Pacific gateways, our Government will help rebuild our fundamentals for continued growth.

The result will be safer roads and bridges, shorter commutes, more competitive business, improved cultural infrastructure and a better quality of life for all Canadians.

Our Government will stand up for Canada’s traditional industries. Key sectors including forestry, fisheries, manufacturing and tourism are facing challenges. Our Government has taken action to support workers as these industries adjust to global conditions and will continue to do so in the next session.

The agricultural sector will benefit from our Government’s promotion of biofuels and the new Growing Forward agricultural framework. Our Government will recognize the views of farmers, as expressed in the recent plebiscite on barley, by enacting marketing choice. Together with our Government’s strong support for Canada’s supply-managed system, these approaches will deliver stable, predictable and bankable support for farm families.

Our mining and resource sectors present extraordinary opportunities across Canada, and our Government will help move forward by providing a single window for major project approvals. With these increased opportunities for employment, our Government will continue to foster partnerships that help Aboriginal people get the skills and training to take advantage of these job prospects in the North and across Canada.

Tackling Crime and Strengthening the Security of Canadians

Canada was founded on the principles of peace, order and good government. This is the birthright of all Canadians; yet Canadians feel less safe today and rightly worry about the security of their neighbourhoods and the country. There is no greater responsibility for a government than to protect this right to safety and security.

In the last session, our Government introduced important and timely legislation to tackle violent crime. Unfortunately much of this legislation did not pass. That is not good enough to maintain the confidence of Canadians. Our Government will immediately reintroduce these measures with a single, comprehensive Tackling Violent Crime bill to protect Canadians and their communities from violent criminals and predators. This will include measures on the age of protection, impaired driving, dangerous offenders and stricter bail and mandatory prison sentences for those who commit gun crimes. Canadians expect prompt passage of this crucial legislation.

Our Government will go further with a Safer Communities strategy to deal with the critical intersection of drug, youth and property crime. Our Government will strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act to ensure that young offenders who commit serious crimes are held accountable to victims and their communities. Our Government will introduce tough new laws to tackle property crime, including the serious problem of auto theft. New measures to address elder abuse and to curb identity theft will also be introduced. Our Government will implement the National Anti-Drug Strategy giving law enforcement agencies powers to take on those who produce and push drugs on our streets.

In addition to tougher laws, our Government will provide targeted support to communities and victims. It will help families and local communities in steering vulnerable youth away from a life of drugs and crime, and the Anti-Drug Strategy will help to treat those suffering from drug addiction. It will again ask Parliament to repeal the wasteful long-gun registry. Our Government will also ensure effective law enforcement—starting with resources to recruit 2,500 more officers to police our streets.

The concern of Canadians in protecting our communities extends naturally to protecting our country against threats to our national security: those who would attack the peaceful pluralism of our society through acts of terrorism. Canada has experienced the tragedy of terrorism before. The report from the public inquiry into the Air India bombing will be an important contribution to safeguarding the lives of Canadians in the future.

Our Government will address Canadians directly on the challenge of protecting our free and open society with a statement on national security. The Government will introduce legislation to make sure that Canada has the tools it needs to stop those who would threaten our cities, communities and families, including measures to strengthen the Anti-Terrorism Act and to respond to the Supreme Court decision on security certificates.

Improving the Environment and Health of Canadians

Threats to our environment are a clear and present danger that now confronts governments around the world. This is nowhere more evident than in the growing challenge of climate change.

Our Government believes that action is needed now to ensure our quality of life, particularly for those most vulnerable to health threats from the environment—our children and seniors.

Climate change is a global issue and requires a global solution. Our Government believes strongly that an effective global approach to greenhouse gas emissions must have binding targets that apply to all major emitters, including Canada. Canada has already engaged the international community at APEC, the G8 and the United Nations and will continue to press for a new international agreement that cuts global emissions in half by 2050.

As we pursue a global consensus, Canada is acting even more aggressively at home. Our Government will implement our national strategy to reduce Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions 60 to 70 percent by 2050. There will be a 20 percent reduction by 2020. Our Government will bring forward the elements from Canada’s Clean Air Act, which had all-party consensus, for parliamentary consideration.

This strategy will institute binding national regulations on greenhouse gas emissions across all major industrial sectors—with requirements for emissions reductions starting this year. Our Government will also bring forward the first ever national air pollution regulations. In so doing, our Government will put Canada at the forefront of clean technologies to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Our Government will also establish a carbon emissions trading market that will give business the incentive to run cleaner, greener operations.

At the end of 2005, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions were 33 percent above the Kyoto commitment. It is now widely understood that, because of inaction on greenhouse gases over the last decade, Canada’s emissions cannot be brought to the level required under the Kyoto Protocol within the compliance period, which begins on January 1, 2008, just 77 days from now.

The world is moving on to address climate change and the environment, and Canada intends to help lead the effort at home and abroad.

Beyond regulating greenhouse gases and air pollution, our Government has also acted to protect sensitive areas, including a massive expansion of Nahanni National Park, and preserving the Great Bear Rainforest, Point Pleasant Park and Stanley Park. Through our new infrastructure plan, our Government will promote a cleaner environment by investing in public transport and water treatment, and by cleaning up contaminated sites. A new water strategy will be implemented to help clean up our major lakes and oceans and to improve access to safe drinking water for First Nations.

In the past, environmental legislation and regulation have had little impact because they have lacked an effective enforcement regime. In the coming session, our Government will bolster the protection of our water and land through tougher environmental enforcement that will make polluters accountable.

Environmental protection is not just about protecting nature. It is about the health of Canadians. Recent events have called into question the safety of basic products such as food for our families and toys for our children.

Our Government shares the concern of parents about the safety of consumer products and food. Canadians should expect the same standards of quality from imported goods as they do from products made at home. The Government will introduce measures on food and product safety to ensure that families have confidence in the quality and safety of what they buy.

Conclusion: The North Star

Canadians can be proud of their country and its achievements. Working together we have built a nation that is prosperous and safe; a land where merit trumps privilege; a place where people from around the world live in harmony; a federation that is united at home and respected abroad.

Like the North Star, Canada has been a guide to other nations; through difficult times, Canada has shone as an example of what a people joined in common purpose can achieve. Yet Canada’s greatest strength lies in its energy and determination to move forward and build a better future.

Our Government is committed to strong leadership to realize that future. A Canada proud of its leadership in the world and confident in its economic future. A Canada built on a strong federation and a robust democracy. A Canada that is safe for our families and healthy for our children.

Canadians, standing on a proud history, look onto a horizon as limitless as the promise of our country. It is up to us to build on the legacy we have inherited, to seize the opportunities of the future, and to bring about an even better Canada for our children.

May your deliberations be guided by Divine Providence, may your wisdom and patriotism enlarge the prosperity of the country and promote in every way the well-being of its people.

Throne Speech

2007-10-16T19:09:00.000-04:00

The official opening of the second session of the 39th Parliament is on CPAC now. It is the 142nd Throne Speech. I will try to find the transcript later.

Elected Senator

2007-10-16T19:02:00.000-04:00

According to this story at PoliticsWatch, Canada's second elected senator was sworn in today. Bert Brown, a Conservative, won two elections in 1998 and in 2004 to be the province of Alberta's Senate appointment. These elections were ignored by the Liberals, and Brown did not receive his seat until today.
I am in support of Senate reform, and am very happy with Harper's choice. Appointing elected members is an excellent first step. All Senators should be elected, and their terms should be limited. As it stands, Senators are generally paid too much to do too little. They are accountable to no one, and this must change.

Throne Speech Today

2007-10-16T08:39:00.000-04:00

Governor General Michaelle Jean will deliver the Conservative Party's throne speech tonight. There can be up to six days of debate on the throne speech, during which time the government will face up to three confidence votes. Not surprisingly, speculation abounds as to whether or not we are headed to the polls.
The throne speech is expected to describe the Kyoto targets as irrelevant and unattainable. Tax cuts are also expected to be introduced, though it is unclear what type. While the Bloc and the NDP are sure to oppose the throne speech, it is uncertain whether the Liberals will support it and embarrass themselves, or oppose it and trigger an election they are not ready for. Typically, the Official Opposition is supposed to oppose the throne speech. However, the Liberals know they cannot afford or win another election. It would be against Liberal pragmatism to force themselves into such a bad situation; they would assuredly be the biggest losers in another election.
Dion is unelectable. Harper is nearing majority territory. As I see it, this is a win-win situation for Harper and the Conservatives. If the throne speech passes and the Conservatives are given a new mandate to govern, then that can only be a good thing for both them and the Canadian population. If the throne speech fails, then they really have no opposition and could find themselves with a majority government.
As an aside, if anything can be said of Harper, it is that he must be one of the most astute Prime Ministers this country has ever had. His Conservative government is a perfect example of how a minority government can be made to work. There just needs to be someone of strong temperament at the helm.

A Crushing Defeat

2007-10-11T21:50:00.000-04:00

I can't say that I am overly surprised the PC's lost the election. I am disappointed that the Liberals were handed another majority. The referendum didn't pass either. Of the 52% of the voting population that turned out, nearly 2/3 voted the idea of multi-member proportional representation down.
I didn't even vote for the MPP in my riding. It's not that I don't like Tim Hudak. I do. I think he's very competent. However, neither my husband or I could bring ourselves to vote for Tory. He just isn't our idea of what a Conservative should be. What is such a liberal doing in the PC party anyway?
His campaign was truly inept. While it's true that the media chose to focus on funding for religious education, McGuinty did so many things wrong as premier that Tory should have had an easy ride. Does everyone forget that Caledonia has still not properly been resolved? Is the collective attention span of our population that short? Instead, Tory couldn't even get elected in the riding he was running in.
My hope is that his days are numbered.
Hopefully next time the PC's will pick a truly Conservative leader.

Faith-Based Funding: Good or Bad?

2007-09-25T20:31:00.000-04:00

I was recently sent a few snippets from an article about faith-based funding. Lest we all leap at the promise of funding for Christian education, the article serves as a warning as to what can happen when that funding comes with strings attached.

In 1988 Eden Christian College in Niagara On-The-Lake was facing very serious issues due to declining enrollment. The solution they pursued was to join the Lincoln County Public School Board as an alternative religious school within the public board (as per the current Conservative proposal). Teachers' salaries almost doubled immediately and they were given a new computer lab. They eventually moved into part of a public high school building in nearby St. Catharines. There were no obvious detrimental 'strings' at the time, at least for the first year.
But within a few years things began to change. The public school board told them that they could no longer require students to attend chapel or take religious courses. Those would become optional before or after school programs. They could not hire teachers or principals on the basis of their beliefs, only that they were sympathetic to Christian beliefs.
This year the public school board hired a non-Christian to be the school Principal. Within the first 3 years of becoming part of the public system they were ordered to remove the word "Christian" from the school's name. They became Eden College. Last school year someone found out that teachers actually prayed in their staff meetings. That was outlawed too. In my opinion it would be extremely unwise to ignore this precedent when considering the Conservative plan.

There is a big difference between a government handout and a tax exemption. Whereas a tax exemption would allow you to opt out of paying for the public system, a government handout must be applied for. If you have to apply for anything, there will always be a set of conditions. Conditions mean unwanted interference and the possibility of curtailing the practices that make religious schools what they are.

Liberals: Getting What They Deserve

2007-09-20T10:06:00.000-04:00

With the recent political catastrophe in Quebec, the Liberals are no doubt silently kicking themselves. With four more by-elections coming up, the view for the future of the party looks grim. I do not expect them to make up for their recent losses. Even if they do manage to take one or two of the four empty seats, nothing can make up for the fact that they were utterly routed in Quebec, losing a long-time stronghold to the NDP of all parties.
Dion: the Liberal leader that just couldn't. Why was he ever elected? I just have to ask how could anyone not have predicted that Dion would be nothing short of a total disaster for the Liberal party? As much as I dislike Quebec, they are probably the most politically savvy province in Canada. The idea that they would embrace the Liberal Party just because they selected a native of the province to lead it was always laughable. Furthermore, with his tenuous grasp of the English language, he never had a hope of wooing the rest of Canada. So what were they thinking?
I'll tell you what they were thinking.
They were thinking Bob Rae was still "too NDP" and Ignatieff was "too American." They wanted a compromise, something everyone could agree on. What everyone ended up agreeing on was political suicide. That is what happens when you don't stand for anything specific and try to please everyone.
To be honest, I never really considered Rae to be much of a threat. He has too much baggage from his days as Premier of Ontario. It does not surprise me that he has fallen into line, and really, we don't hear that much about him.
Ignatieff, on the other hand, was always a power player and was the one person who could have unseated the Conservatives. That there is even so much as a hint of political in-fighting between himself and the Liberal non-leader is proof of this. This isn't the first time it has been suggested that there is some level of rivalry between Ignatieff and Dion, and to be frank I don't think it will be the last.
The title of "Leader" does not actually make on a leader. Ignatieff has personal strength. Dion does not. Dion cannot keep him in line because he is not particularly manly. Dion has no presence. He has no charisma. He cannot command.
I almost feel sorry for the Liberals. True to party form, they have to band together and try to present a unified front. As a side note, if they ever find the guy who told the press about their party problems, they will roast him alive and eat him for breakfast. No, the Liberals will not get rid of Dion until they lose the next election, a sure thing at this point.
Hopefully this will mean a majority for the Conservatives next term.

Tory's No Tory

2007-09-12T20:53:00.000-04:00

For the first time in many years, I may not vote PC in the upcoming election. In fact, I may not vote at all.
There's no one to vote for in my riding.
John Tory is not a suitable leader for the Ontario PC party. There is nothing at all in the PC party platform that resembles conservative policy, either fiscal or social.
The party's new plan can be found here It's a whole lot of promises for a whole lot of interference. That means more taxes, in case you were wondering.
As a part of his "plan" for education," Tory wants to "Limit the homework burden on young children to the recommended ten minutes per grade level. Children need a life outside of school – time with family and friends, not an extra two hours of stress at the end of the day." Yeah. That will prepare them for university. That will prepare them for the real world. That will empower teachers to do their job of TEACHING.
That's strike one.
Tory thinks he can buy the religious, social conservative vote by offering funding for faith based education. However, this funding has strings attached and will mean unwanted provincial interference. In the end, serious schools are more likely to reject the promised funds.
That's strike two.
Tory showed up to the Gay Pride Parade.
Strike three.
No vote for you.
Maybe I will vote no confidence.
I am as conservative as the next gal. More, in most cases. Not voting for Tory could mean a Liberal win. That would be bad, I admit it. McGuinty is a disaster. But let's face it; Tory would be worse. If I vote for him, I send a message to the PC's that I am ok with the party's new direction.
And I am not.

Funding and Religious Education

2007-09-11T08:34:00.000-04:00

There has been much discussion regarding John Tory's recent funding announcement for private religious schools. McGuinty has been quick to denounce the move, raising the spectre of "segregation." Tory, however, claims it will produce a more inclusive education model. Schools who submit to standardized testing, accept teachers certified by the province and follow the Ontario curriculum would receive some measure of funding from the province. In reality, neither leader understands the mindset that drives a parent to enroll their child in a private, religious school.
For starters, McGuinty's claim of segregation is utter nonsense. Private religious schools have existed for many years in this province. Their attendants are fully integrated, functioning members of society. There is no evidence of segregation anywhere and there never has been.
John Tory's understanding isn't much better. At least part of the reason religious educational institutions are founded is because people do not want the interference of the government. The provincial curriculum is felt to be inadequate. Children emerging from the public system are not properly trained. Furthermore, the provincial curriculum will never center around a set of religious beliefs. It cannot. It is secular by nature. Religious educational institutions are founded because parents feel this is a significant flaw and wish to correct it. If funding is contingent on accepting the province's poor standard, then private religious schools will not apply for the funding. The promise is a waste of everyone's time.
If Tory were serious and actually wanted to further religious education, he would allow parents to opt out of paying for the public system. Instead, he has decided to make everyone pay twice.