_____________________________________

Parents for Democracy in Education Society

Len Remple, President; Marc Gravelle, Vice President

PARENT, WOULD IT ALARM YOU IF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS TRUE?

Well, it is true and it is alarming.

The British Columbia school curriculum from K to 12 has been revised to present a favourable portrayal of homosexuality and the homosexual life style.

First they wanted “tolerance”, then they wanted “acceptance”, now they want to teach “celebration” of that lifestyle.

This was the result of the B.C. government giving two homosexual activists a legal, binding agreement to oversee and critique the revision of the school curriculum. Can you imagine only two persons receiving such an agreement?  And it was all done in secret. No parents group or other organization was allowed to participate.  Efforts to include parents in the revision have been refused by the Liberal B.C. government.

Is this the “new democratic way” of governing?

Our organization is formed to oppose and resist this revision of the school curriculum.

Look us up on www.parents4democracyineducation.org. There is additional information at www.takebackourschools.org

Questions and requests for information are welcomed through either website, or e-mail: parents4democracyineducation@gmail.com.

Mike Heath was accused of “hate speech” for relating Jesus Christ’s warning in the Book of Matthew (18:6) of God’s punishment for those who cause innocent children to sin. Heath made his comment while opposing a middle school’s plan to dispense birth control pills without parental permission.

The following column ran Feb. 29 in the Portland [Maine] Press Herald. To read the entire column, click HERE. Mike Heath, in addition to being a truly Great American, is executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine and Chairman of the Board of Americans For Truth:

By M.D. Harmon, Portland Press Herald

— The head of the state’s least-known government office pushed the intercom button summoning his chief assistant.

“Raul, come to my office, would you?” he asked. “We’ve just been handed a very important case and I need your advice on it.”

“Be right there, chief,” came the reply, and a minute later the top aide to the director of the Maine Bureau of Public Censure stepped into his superior’s office.

“Close the door, Raul,” said the director. “I need your discretion on this one.”

“What’s up, boss? Usually you let me handle most things on my own.”

“True, but this is a very special case. It’s a 502-AS.”

Raul let out a low whistle. “Gee, a Committing Christianity in Public complaint, boss? And elevated to Aggravated Status, too! We don’t get very many of those these days.”

With a sigh, the director settled back in his chair.

“You’re right, Raul, but this came from the highest possible outside source, and it’s particularly egregious. It’s Designated Offender No. 1 again.”

A dark look came into the aide’s eyes, and between compressed lips he spat out the hissed name, “Heath!”

“Yes,” his boss confirmed. “He really stepped over the line on this one, and we’ve really got to make an example of him once and for all.”

“I assume we can dispense with the usual assumption-of-innocence-until-proven-guilty garbage with him again this time, right? Boy, I wish we were in Canada, where people like this can be fined, or forced to take re-education courses, or even tossed in jail.” Continued…

Click HERE to read the rest of the column

Dear Readers,

The preposterous and astonishingly bigoted rant above by Matt Foreman, head of the second largest homosexual organization in America, illustrates the dangerous potential of pro-homosexual, pro-transsexual “hate crimes” legislation, S. 1105, which reportedly could come up for a vote before the U.S. Senate TODAY.

TAKE ACTION : Call your U.S. Senators today at 202-224-3121, or write then via www.congress.org. Urge them to oppose the Kennedy-Smith-Reid Hate Crimes Bill, S. 1105. Pass this message on to your friends and contact list.

A strengthened federal “Hate crimes” law — which would include transsexuals (perceived “gender identity”) for the first time in federal law – would provide a powerful foundation for politically-motivated, pro-homosexual prosecutors to go after people of faith, based on their alleged ”anti-gay” speech.

Foreman is lying about the link between Christians and violent, despicable crimes, just as the homosexual lobby is lying about the supposedly pressing need for this legislation (see below). The last thing America needs is to put the power of the federal government behind a system of law that creates a politically correct hierarchy of victims — in a country where homosexual victims already receive far more media attention than religious victims like Mary Stachowicz.

S 1105 would also spend YOUR tax dollars on biased “anti-hate” programs that invariably discriminate against faith-based opposition to homosexuality.

No need for this bill

A thorough report on S 1105 by the Traditional Values Coalition states that S. 1105 “makes the following fraudulent and ridiculous claims in [its] Findings:

• Homosexuals are fleeing across state lines to avoid persecution;
• Perpetrators are crossing state lines to commit crimes against them;
   
• Homosexuals are so persecuted they have trouble purchasing goods and services or finding employment. [now that's a whopper--Editor]
   
• These false claims about homosexuals fleeing across state lines are being used as a hook to justify federal involvement in local law enforcement through the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
   
• No Epidemic Of Hate Crimes Exists! S. 1105 falsely claims in The Findings, without any evidence, that “the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.”
   
• FBI statistics from 2005 (the latest available) reveal that there is no national epidemic of hate against minority groups or against homosexuals:
   
• According to the FBI, in 2005 there were only 5,190 hate crimes directed against all persons. Of this figure, only 1,171 were sexual orientation bias crimes. Out of this 1,171:
   
• 301 were listed as “intimidation.”
   
• 333 were listed as “simple assault.”
   
• 177 were listed as aggravated assault! There was one forcible rape and no murders based on sexual orientation in 2005.
   
• 1 forcible rape; 30 robberies; 10 burglaries; 27 larceny-theft; 2 motor vehicle theft; 1 arson; 275 damage/vandalism; 3 other; 5 crimes against society.
   
• Nationwide there were 862,947 aggravated assaults against all persons. (Source: FBI Crime in the United States 2005, Aggravated Assault)
• Out of 862,947 cases of aggravated assault, only 177 were motivated by sexual orientation bias. This is 0.000205 percent of all aggravated assaults in 2005.
   
• In a nation of 300 million, this is no epidemic of hate against homosexuals that needs federal involvement in local law enforcement. (Source: Tables 2 and 4, FBI Hate Crime Stats, 2005)

My good friend Bob Knight lays out the basic problems with expanded, pro-homosexual federal “hate crimes”, arguing that legislation like S. 1105:

• violates the concept of equal protection under the law by designating special classes of victims, who get a higher level of government protection than others victimized by similar crimes.
• politicizes criminal law, leading to pressure on police and prosecutors to devote more of their limited resources to some cases, at the expense of other crime victims’ cases.
• vastly expands the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to intervene in local law enforcement matters, once a crime is called a “hate crime.”
• has a chilling effect on free speech by making unpopular ideas a basis for harsher treatment in criminal proceedings. More than half of the so-called “hate crimes” in the last U.S. Justice Department report were categorized as “intimidation” or “simple assault,” which do not necessarily involve anything more than words.2 In terms of the proposed national hate crimes bill, this makes name-calling literally a federal case.
• confuses law enforcers, because the definition of what constitutes a “hate crime” is clear in some instances but unclear in others. This burdens prosecutors and opens up endless opportunities for defense attorneys to invoke technicalities.
• is not necessary. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that “hate crime” victims are receiving less justice than other crime victims.

The last thing America needs is to expand federal power unnecessarily while creating the foundation for dubious federal ”rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion. Read the full TVC report on S. 1105 HERE. And call your Senators today at 202-224-3121, or e-mail them at http://www.congress.org/.

This “hate crimes” bill has already passed the House, so if it passes the Senate, we will be urging President Bush to wield his presidential veto: call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 or use the Contact Page on the presidential website.

Thank you for standing up for truth and freedom.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera

Americans For Truth

By WorldNetDaily.com, August 6, 2007

Motivated by Christian beliefs, a Canadian mayor refused to fly a rainbow “gay pride” flag at his town hall.

The decision by Bill Mills was backed by the town council of Truro, Nova Scotia, with a 6-1 vote Friday, reported the Canadian television network CTV.

“There are writings in the book of Romans chapter one, to name a few – basically I have to go with that conviction, and I know it’s not a popular one,” said Mills, who leads a town of about 12,000 people.

Mills contended he had a right to his opinion, but a local homosexual activist group called the decision a sign of homophobia in a government that should be secular.

Click HERE to read the rest of the article in WorldNetDaily

TAKE ACTION:  Read the C-FAM alert below and contact the White House using their comment page or call the White House comment line today (202-456-1111).  (You also can e-mail a comment to the U.S. State Department HERE or call their comment line at: 202-647-6575.) Respectfully urge the President to stop using the authority and goodwill of the United States of America to promote the normalization of homosexuality abroad. Tell the Administration that you oppose the USA voting to approve coveted United Nations consulting status for organizations whose mission is to push a pro-homosexuality agenda — including radically redefining marriage and promoting dangerous GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual) “identities” to vulnerable youth — on unsuspecting nations.

 

HATE CRIMES/ENDA ALERT:  While you’re at it, e-mail or call your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121) and urge them to oppose the “hate crimes” bill and the pro-homosexual/transsexual employment ENDA bill — which we’re calling the “Transgender Bathrooms for Businesses Bill” – which threaten to federalize “sexual orientation” law, thus curtailing your “freedom to be moral.”  Call 202-224-3121 or visit http://www.congress.org/.

Certainly, we as a nation can and should support true human rights without crusading for the acceptance of immoral lifestyles. Genuine human rights — and civil rights — are not based on sex, especially deviant sex. Countries should have the right to regulate homosexual sodomy — as we did in America from our inception until 2003, when the Supreme Court reversed a 17-year-old precedent in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy law case. We should be careful as the world’s most powerful nation not to push the American Secular Left’s decadent values — abortion, homosexuality, condom “sex ed” – on poor countries. Radicals used to call that cultural “imperialism.”

Having America become a leading promoter of immoral-sex-based rights masquerading as “human rights” is a far cry from President Reagan’s vision for this nation being a “shining city on a hill.” Write or call President Bush today: 202-456-1111.– Peter LaBarbera

________________________

Friday Fax, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM)

July 26, 2007 | Volume 10, Number 32
Dear Colleague,

Radical homosexual groups are flooding the UN accreditation process for non-governmental organizations and they seem poised to cause serious problems for traditionally minded countries.

Spread the word.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President, C-FAM
 
Controversial UN Procedures Lead to UN Status for Homosexual Groups

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK — C-FAM) Overturning a prior decision by the NGO accrediting committee, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) voted to grant official consultative status to the Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Quebec (CGLQ) and the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL) in Geneva last week.

The voting process was mired in confusion over unclear language. Several delegate requests for clarification interrupted the roll-call vote and led Pakistan to call for a point of order and ask for a re-vote. No re-vote was taken. The motion to grant ECOSOC status passed with 22 countries voting in favor, 13 against, 13 abstaining and 6 absent.

An attorney for one NGO at the Geneva meeting told the Friday Fax, “Increasingly in the past several months, at meetings such as the CSW [Commission on the Status of Women], the Human Rights Council and now the ECOSOC council, there have been serious issues regarding transparency in the voting process.  After witnessing several of these types of incidents, one has to wonder whether voting at the UN really matters or if the result is preordained.”

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) and ARC International launched intense lobbying campaigns preceding the ECOSOC vote to ensure that both groups’ applications would be approved. 

In January, the 19-member NGO accrediting committee, a subcommittee of the ECOSOC, rejected CGLQ’s application and deferred RFSL’s request. Despite the fact that there had been a thorough examination of the evidence, the representative of the United Kingdom charged that the rejection of the homosexual rights groups was “straightforward discrimination.”

Debates within the NGO accrediting committee meetings over applications from homosexual rights groups have become increasingly heated in the last few years. While the ECOSOC council almost always accepts subcommittee recommendations, it has made exceptions twice in the last year in order to accredit radical homosexual groups.

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), an NGO that was stripped of its ECOSOC status because of ties to pedophilia and whose repeated attempts to regain ECOSOC status have been denied, launched an international campaign in 2006 to encourage all of its 550 affiliate organizations to submit NGO applications for UN consultative status. Many have applied and been accepted.

ECOSOC members voting in favor of granting status to CGQL and RFSL included  the United States, the United Kingdom, Albania, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal and Romania.

Voting against were Algeria, Belarus, Benin, China, Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan.

Speaking to the press after the ECOSOC vote, CGLQ’s executive director and ILGA North America representative, Yvan Lapointe, said that his group now plans to use the UN as a platform for spreading “homosexual rights” to many of the same countries that voted against it.

For more news visit us at http://www.c-fam.org/; copyright 2007 – C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

For further resources on this issue, go to the Breakpoint website. We encourage you to sign up for these excellent daily commentaries by e-mail.

In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the government Thought Police constantly spies on citizens to make sure they are not thinking rebellious thoughts. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother.

1984 was intended as a warning against totalitarian governments that enslave and control their citizens. Never have we needed this warning more urgently than now, because America’s Thought Police are knocking on your door.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—far less than even 1 percent.

Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States.

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals.

Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.

The full Congress may vote on this bill as early as this week. Unless you want Big Brother telling you what to say, what to think, and what to believe, I urge you to contact your congressman immediately, urging him or her to vote against this bill. If you visit the BreakPoint website, you’ll find more information about this radical law.

If we do nothing, 1984 will no longer be fiction, and Big Brother will be watching you and me—ready to punish the “wrong” thoughts.

Bob Schwartz of the leftist Chicago homosexual group Gay Liberation Network responded to my e-note asking if he favored laws censoring pro-family group’s speech critical of homosexuality. The following is Schwartz’s response (we’ve put his response at the top rather than following my note, as it was in the original).

I certainly doubt the accuracy of Schwartz’s claim about the Nigerian bishop, as he and his group typically lop all Christians who stand for traditional morality in with those who committed indefensible acts (e.g., violence or death threats) against homosexuals. Schwartz also engages in hyperbole typical of many leftists when he claims that Christian groups are a threat to democracy. Schwartz’s flagrant name-calling of committed Christians as “fascists” is a callous and hurtful shibboleth that has no basis in reality and is deeply offensive to all people and groups, like Americans For Truth, that abhor the Nazis’ genocidal record.

As to Schwartz’s claim about “hate speech,” many on our side of the debate regard GLN’s standard rhetoric — e.g., calling the historic Moody Bible Church in Chicago a “house of hate” — as hateful in the extreme.

Finally, regarding his note about socieities in decline, we commend the work of  the (anti-Christian) Edward Gibbons (The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire), historian Will Durant, Pitirim Sorokin, and others who have documented the role of sexual immorality in the demise of great civilizations.

All this said, we are pleasantly surprised that the GLN leader is not an outright advocate of censorship. Here is Schwartz’s reply to my question:

Is The Big House Peter LaBarbera’s future home?
 

_______________________________________________
 
Sure, its tempting to want to enact laws like those in Canada and across parts of Europe that restrict the very kind of hate speech you and others dole out to gays, all under cover of “religious freedom.” But, I do not favor governmental restrictions on hate speech.
 
I reach this conclusion, not because I care one iota about speech rights for people who would like to push me back into the closet, restrict my rights or see me dead, but because governmental regulation of speech–particularly in the United States–would likely be turned against people of the left, not of the right.  I’m not about to cut my own throat.
 
What I will do is keep portraying right-wing outfits like IFI and Americans for Truth, along with more effective hate groups like Focus on the Family, the John Hagee “ministries,” and the Coral Ridge fascist James Kennedy as dangerous to democracy. Dangerous because they include extremists who want to substitute the bible for the US Constitution. Dangerous because they are hate mongers who go after vulnerable gays today, but have an agenda that includes rolling back gains won thru struggle by workers, immigrants, women, and African Americans, as well as support to American/Israeli wars for empire.*
 
This summer, Gay Liberation Network will host a Nigerian gay man who has had to flee his native land following death threats from thugs spurred on by Christian leaders such as the Anglican archbishop, Peter Akinola, a man held to be a hero by some American gay haters.
 
Finally, as you will recall, we are prepared to take our ideas into the street.
 
You and others of your ilk deserve to be isolated, and ousted from respectable society.  The fate of Don Imus hopefully awaits antigay bigots as well.
 
BOB SCHWARTZ
Gay Liberation Network
 
[* See the book by Kevin Phillips entitled "American Theocracy." Phillips points out that elites of societies in decline often appropriate religious fervor as they attempt to stabilize the sinking ship, branding policy opponents as enemies, demonizing religious and sexual minorities, scapegoating "foreigners," calling upon the deity to bless military adventures, etc.]

….
 
I got the following response from Peter LaBarbera after I copied him on the message I posted regarding the IFI campaign to defeat federal hate crime legislation.  My response to LaBarbera follows his message. 
LaBarbera posted my original message and his response on his website: http://americansfortruth.org/
He can be reached at americansfortruth@comcast.net
 
 
…. You’d love to censor groups like IFI and Americans for Truth, wouldn’t you? If you had the power, you’d want to shut us down or ban certain aspects of our speech and conduct? For example, would you favor a federal “anti-hate” law that would have made our last email (”Satan’s Talking Points”) illegal? Or am I wrong and you actually support freedom of speech in the USA on the homosexual issue (which does not include direct harassing threats or advocating violence)? Would you favor using anti-discrimination hate speech laws to curb anti-gay speech? Which speech if any would you censor? Do you support anti-”hate speech” laws in Canada and England that are rapidly criminalizing (”discriminatory”) speech critical of homosexuality and are resulting in Christians being sued for discrimination or being jailed because they publicly oppose homosexual behavior? Did you support the jailing of the pastor in Sweden, Ake Green (www.akegreen.org), or do you think he should not have been prosecuted and what the government did to him was an injustice?  Since you’re charging us with being fascists, don’t we have a right to know? Would you use state power to restrict anti-gay speech, or not, and if so, under what circumstances?
 
Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth

LETTER OF APOLOGY TO THE WORLD

April 11, 2007

 

To the world’s leaders and people,

 

We, the people of Canada who support marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, apologize to the people of the world for harm done through Canada’s legalization of homosexual marriage.

 

We are grieved and troubled as we consider the impact this is having in weakening the fundamental institution of marriage in countries and cultures around the world.  We understand that because Canada does not impose citizenship or residency requirements in order for same-sex individuals to be “married” here, couples are coming to Canada to seek legal sanction for their homosexual relationships with the intent of returning to their own countries to challenge those countries’ legal definition of marriage.

 

We understand that Canada is seen by people around the world as a country in which public policy is developed carefully and judiciously.  It would, therefore, be a natural assumption that in legalizing homosexual marriage our government and courts thoroughly considered the implications of this action through proper and extensive study of social sciences and facts.   But it is essential that the people of the world understand that this was not the case.  Our government and courts only considered adult “rights.” Among other things, the impact on children’s rights, children’s education, parental rights, religious rights, adoption, the economy and family law were never fully considered.  Changes were thrust upon us by court actions followed by a vote that did not allow for a free vote of every member of our federal parliament.

 

Our warning to you, the people of the world, is to learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them in your own countries.

  

Forewarned should be forearmed.

 

Signed,

 

Canada Family Action Coalition

REAL Women of Canada

United Families Canada

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life

Alberta REAL Women

Christian Heritage Party of Canada

Third Watch Ministries

United Mothers, Fathers & Friends

Sault Ste. Marie – CFAC

Dawn Stefanowicz – Author   

MY Canada Association

Father’s Resting Place

______________________________

Media Release:  REAL Women of Canada

REAL Women of Canada
“Women’s Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights” 

NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations

 Media Release

For immediate release, April 11, 2007

Apology for Canada’s Same-sex Marriage Legislation

It is necessary to apologize to the people of the world for the difficulties caused in other countries by the legislation in Canada which permits same-sex marriages. 

It is unfortunate that some foreign same-sex partners have come to Canada to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and subsequently applied to the courts in their own country to recognize this so-called Canadian marriage.  Canadian marriage law does not demand residency requirements and this is being used by activists to attempt to change the marriage laws in their own country. 

There are many Canadians who do not, and will not, accept the marriage of same-sex partners.  Such Canadians will continue to work to restore the traditional definition of marriage defined as being between a man and a woman only.  To do so is not to discriminate against same-sex partners, since their relationships are markedly different from those of opposite-sex relationships, regardless of what the law in Canada states.   

The unfortunate results of the change in the legal definition of marriage in Canada, which came about not by the will of the people, but rather through the manipulation of the vote by both the former Liberal governing party and some of the opposition parties, have now become apparent.  The insistence that children in public schools be provided with biased and inaccurate information on the homosexual issue, and the continuous attack, by way of the courts and by current provincial government policies, on those who oppose same-sex marriage are but two examples of the detrimental effects of same-sex marriage in Canada.   

Canadians who do not accept the same-sex marriage legislation, and who grasp the ramifications of this legislation, both here and abroad, wish to apologize to the world by way of correspondence with the world leaders and the UN as well as other avenues, for the same-sex marriage legislation passed in Canada, and to give warning to other nations of the problems that this legislation is creating. 

- 30 -

Contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt,  National Vice President, (905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425                              (613) 236-4001

Media Release:  Canada Family Action Coalition

Calgary – April 11, 2006

“In today’s global village it has become apparent that certain people will use or misuse one country’s legislation for their own purpose in another country,” said Canada Family Action Coalition’s Executive Director Brian Rushfeldt. This is not acceptable.

Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC) and a number of other organizations are issuing an apology to all countries of the world for the conflict and difficulties our Liberal instigated homosexual marriage law (misleadingly termed same-sex) has caused. 

“Redefining marriage has devalued all those marriages that were in place before C38 [the Canadian "Civil Marriage Act" for homosexuals]. And it has now has created a platform for activists from other countries to challenge their own laws,” said Charles McVety, CFAC’s President. 

Since Canadian marriage laws do not require residency, anyone can come from anywhere and receive Canadian documentation indicating they are married. Even though one country’s autonomy from other country’s laws is crucial, it is not being respected by some. 

Many Canadians have not and will not accept other forms of marriage apart from traditional heterosexual marriage. Canadians will continue to insist that marriage is a heterosexual institution exclusively. These Canadians will not give in to false arguments about equality and false accusations of discrimination, homophobia, and hate speech. Accusations that are typically used to defend this questionable law imposed by court actions and government manipulation. 

“The marriage law has laid a foundation to force educators to “indoctrinate“ children with false notions, to undermine most parents teaching on marriage, and to allow activists into schools to promote their own agendas,” says Rushfeldt. The rights and interests of children were never given consideration in the courts or parliament like it has been in France. “Long term results, will in our opinion, undermine the very essence of healthy sexual relations, strong family units, and common social good for the nation” said Rushfeldt. 

CFAC is issuing this formal warning to other countries against following Canada’s bad example of experimenting and re-engineering fundamental social structure without regard for its consequences. 

–30–

For interviews:

Dr. Brian Rushfeldt  – 403-295-2159  or Dr. Charles McVety  416-391-5000

From Quebec Readies All out Fight Against “Homophobia” with Pro-Gay Gov’t Ministry, Ads, Education, by John-Henry Westen, published Mar 16, 2007, by LifeSite News:

A report issued at the behest of the provincial government of Quebec directs the government to fight homopshobia and heterosexism in every sphere of public life and especially in schools.  Quebec’s Justice minister asked the Quebec Human Rights Commission to create a task force in 2005, and that group has published its report called “From legal equality to social equality: toward a national strategy to fight against homophobia.”

The report ascribes to homophobia negative consequences of what many acknowledge as problems associated with disordered sexuality.  The report says that homosexual, bisexual and transsexual persons are “a population at risk,” noting that they experience higher rates of psychological distress, depression, illegal drug use, alcoholism, and suicidal tendencies.  The report claims that these afflictions are the result of heterosexist “social stigmatization” and “homophobia.”

While psychologists who assist people to overcome disordered sexuality see many of the afflictions mentioned as symptoms of the homosexual disorder, the report uses the plight of the many people who find themselves in such heart-rending situations to urge for political action which will threaten freedom of religion and freedom of speech regarding the immorality and dangers of the homosexual lifestyle.  “The despair felt by too many young people of sexual minorities at the very significant stage of their coming out is alone enough to demand urgent action,” said Marc-Andre Dowd, vice-president of the Commission, in a press conference on the release of the document.

The report defines homophobia as “feelings of fear and aversion which certain people have toward homosexuality and people of homosexual orientation, or toward any person whose appearance or behavior does not conform to the stereotypes of the masculinity or of femininity.”

The report defines heterosexism as “the assertion that heterosexuality is the social norm or superior to other sexual orientations.”

The report calls for an all out assault on homophobia and herterosexism, going so far as to demand a separate government ministry be established to oversee the fight against homophobia.  It recommends that the new administration to fight homophobia be granted adequate resources to ensure development and implementation, and that the government engage in media campaigns to promote positive attitudes towards homosexuality and lesbianism.

“Let us take as a model the public awareness campaigns concerning drinking and driving, smoking and marital violence,” says the document.

In addition to calling for the institution of a “national day to fight homophobia” the report also calls on the government to maintain and increase funding to homosexual activist groups – or “LGBT community organizations” as the report refers to them.

A particular target of the report is schools.  “Until now not enough attention has been paid to homophobia in educational circles,” says the report.  The report lists “obstacles harming the fight against homophobia and the integration of the topic of homosexuality in the school curriculum.”  Among those “obstacles” are: “religion in families or schools”; “lack of openness by parents”;  “conservatism among school personnel”; “prejudice and ignorance”.

“It is of primary importance,” says the report that all school officials, administrators, councils and professional associations, and staff working within education, “offer unconditional support for the fight against the homophobia in schools.”

The government of Quebec has already demonstrated that it does not permit exceptions for religious schools from its curriculum mandates which contradict with religious beliefs.  Last October LifeSiteNews.com reported that the provincial government forced Evangelical Christian private schools to teach sex education and Darwinism in schools or be shut down.

Want provincial ministry of education to exert “more control” over curriculum and staff hiring

Ontario private schools are coming increasingly under the lens of homosexual activist groups for “homophobic” teaching stemming from the schools’ primarily religious foundations, a report in Ottawa’s homosexual news media indicated earlier this week.

[WARNING: The following link to the original story in a pro-homosexuality
publication is accompanied by extremely offensive advertising.]

In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the province, Ottawa’s Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children “only their own values.”

The article quotes Tony Lovink, a homosexual Christian teacher in the Ottawa public school system, as saying,

“All private schools tend to be at least implicitly homophobic. And I would say all religiously formed independent schools are definitely homophobic.”

[Note from AFTAH: Based on Scripture, we contend that it is not possible
to simultaneously engage in homosexual behavior and be a faithful Christian...
but change is possible in Jesus Christ.]

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario said they were concerned the provincial ministry of education wasn’t “exerting more control” over the curriculum used by private religious schools. Unless a school wants to grant students government-recognized Secondary School Diplomas, Ontario private schools are free to use their preferred curriculum. Even schools that do grant the government diplomas may teach any additional material they choose, so long as the required curriculum is covered.

As well, the CLGRO objected to provincial standards that permit private schools to hire teachers based on the school administration’s own qualification requirements.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

On July 17, 2006, REAL Women of Canada laid a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council about the conduct of Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry in the same-sex marriage case, which was handed down in June 2003. We stated in our complaint that his actions in that case gave rise to an apprehension of bias for a number of reasons, including the fact that Chief Justice McMurtry’s daughter was a lesbian living in a homosexual union at the time the case was argued…

Further, two weeks subsequent to the court’s decision, the Chief Justice partied with two of the litigants and a photograph of the Chief Justice and the litigants together is widely available on the internet.

In the Judicial Council’s letter to REAL Women dated December 19, 2006, the Council claimed:

… the sexual orientation of a judge’s children, and indeed the fact that a judge’s children are married or living in a common law relationship are not, in Chief Justice Scott’s view, indicative of any bias on the part of a judge.

The Council, however, was well aware that the issue before the Court was whether same-sex unions should be legally recognized, i.e., whether they should be recognized and acquire legal rights. That is, the case dealt specifically with the legal rights of same-sex unions – a matter which directly related to Judge McMurtry’s daughter’s own personal relationship…

The Council, however, concluded that there is no basis to support the view that Chief Justice McMurtry should have recused himself on the basis of the personal relationship of members of his family.

This conclusion, however, flies directly in the face of the guidelines of the Canadian Judicial Council set out in its document, “Ethical Principles for Judges,” (1998), Chapter 6:

Conflicts of Interest

• Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe they will be unable to judge impartially.
• Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe that a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would have a reasoned suspicion of conflict of interest between a judge’s personal interest (or that of a judge’s immediate family or close friends or associates) and a judge’s duty.
• The potential for conflict of interest arises when the personal interest of the judge (or of those close to him or her) conflicts with the judge’s duty to adjudicate impartially. Judicial impartiality is concerned both with impartiality in fact and impartiality in the perception of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person.
• … a judge … should disqualify him or herself if aware of any interest or relationship which, to a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would give rise to reasoned suspicion of lack of impartiality.
• …a judge should disclose on the record anything which might support a plausible argument in favour of disqualification ….

It seems clear that the Judicial Council chose to ignore its own guidelines in order to protect Chief Justice McMurtry.

Continue reading at REAL Women of Canada…

TAKE ACTION –
Send Councillor John DeCicco
a word of encouragement.

What Would YOU Do if America Started Censoring Moral Speech like Canada?

In America, we bristle at the idea of speech –– even unpopular speech –– being censored or officially condemned by the government. But in Canada, it’s happening, and the shocking thing is that speech defending age-old, Judeo-Christian morality is the target. Unlike Canada, the United States has a First Amendment, so it will be much more difficult for the Gay Thought Police to prosecute moral and pro-normalcy speech here than there. But they will try. (Click HERE to read the ex-“gay” group Exodus International’s press release opposing new attempts to pass a “Hate Crimes” law that includes “sexual orientation.”)

Already in America, Christian speech against homosexuality has been censored and restricted by the government. (Click HERE to read about the “Philly 11” losing their civil rights case against the City of Philadelphia.) With respect to the story below about a Canadian city councilman who was fined $1,000 for saying, in accordance with his Catholic beliefs, that homosexuality is not normal or natural, I pose these questions to our readers:

I. To the conservative American legislator or Bible-believing pastor — If we ever reached the point where laws were passed banning and fining “anti-gay” speech (it would be termed “homophobic”), would you: A) comply and stop discussing the issue or B) go on voicing and defending your beliefs in public? If you lived in Canada and faced Mr. DeCicco’s predicament, would you pay the fine? Would you apologize to homosexuals to avoid facing a “human rights” tribunal, even if you knew you said nothing wrong?

II. To what extent in American are we buying into the Left’s definition of “hate speech” in the face of relentless pro-homosexual organizing and political correctness? That is, do many of us who oppose homosexual practice as destructive or sinful opt for silence rather than defend our beliefs, because we fear being called a name? Why do we so easily allow defenders of falsehood and historically wrong behavior to dominate the debate? Are we ashamed of or confused about our moral heritage on this issue? Why?

Pro-lifers are bolder in defending life than pro-family advocates are in defending the principled position that homosexual conduct is always wrong, yet changeable. Why? What can each of us who agree with God do to change public discourse so that we who defend natural (biblical) sexuality (in marriage) are as bold as the defenders of perversion?

P.S. To the homosexual activists who read this email – Would you renounce all pro-“gay” “hate speech” prosecutions (like that against DeCicco)?

To all: be honest in your answers and we’ll publish some of them. Write us using our web contact form. God bless freedom. -– Peter LaBarbera

——————————

Excerpted from Canadian City Councillor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality “not Normal or Natural”, by John-Henry Westen and Gudrun Schultz, published Jan 19, 2007, by LifeSite News:

A Catholic city councillor [John DeCicco, pictured left] in Kamloops, British Columbia, who was himself the victim of the crime of vandalism due to his faith, has been forced to apologize and pay a homosexual activist couple $1000…

Strangely, it was councillor who was shown true discrimination worthy of a human rights complaint. In June, the councillor opposed a homosexual pride proclamation, after which his barber shop was vandalized with “Homophobia Die” scrawled on the door of his business…

In August, homosexual activist couple John Olynick and Greg Koll filed a complaint against DeCicco with the human rights commission over remarks he made at the council meeting and repeated in media interviews. In line with Catholic teaching on the matter, he described homosexual acts as “not normal and not natural.”

In the June interview with LifeSiteNews.com he explained, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.” He also said that people can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes, but, he said in reference to gay pride parades, they shouldn’t “go out and flaunt it, in front of people who don’t necessarily agree.”

While DeCicco already apologized for the incident once back in October, that apology was not considered part of the settlement. In addition to paying $1,000 to Olynick and Koll, DeCicco will provide a statement saying his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” The settlement will allow the councillor to avoid a Human Rights Tribunal hearing…

DeCicco has said the settlement will not change his opposition to gay pride week. “I’m not going to change my view of my stand,” he said. “My public comments have to be a little more refined.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

A newly released report says that the age of consent for vaginal sex in Canada – currently set at 14 – has made this country a favorite destination for child-sex “tourism”…

The report was issued by the Bangkok-based organization, End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, or ECPAT International. It gives Canada 17 recommendations, including raising the age of consent from 14 to 16…

A bill to raise the age of consent, one of the first to be put forward by Canada’s Conservative government, passed second reading in the House of Commons in October…

The federal government’s proposal to raise the age of consent in Canada from 14 to 16 was vocally opposed by homosexual advocacy groups who accused the government of attacking the sexual freedoms of young people…

The sides are clearly lined up in the war over child-protection and the age of consent. After the Conservatives tabled the bill, the Coalition For Lesbian And Gay Rights In Ontario and the Sex Laws Committee said raising the age would discriminate against the sexual choices of gay youth.

Planned Parenthood Ottawa and the Canadian AIDS Society also criticized the bill saying it would interfere with efforts to educate youth about pregnancy, disease prevention and sexual rights.

This February, the homosexual activist group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere), asked the government to lower the age of consent for anal sex to 16 from its current 18, saying that the difference only served to “stigmatize gay men.”

Following this, in November, a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, called for the lowering of the age of consent for anal sex.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

…Canada’s most prominent homosexual activist group has now demanded the lowering the age of consent for anal sex to 16 from 18. Surprisingly, Canada’s National Post, regarded by some as a ‘conservative’ paper has come out in favour of the proposal.

Reacting to the Conservative Government’s plan to raise the age of consent for normal sex from 14 to 16, EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) has commenced a campaign to have the age of consent for anal sex lowered to 16 from 18. Laurie Arron, the director of advocacy for EGALE remarked to the Ottawa Citizen, “There’s no reason to treat anal sex differently than other sexual acts except to stigmatize gay and bisexual men.”

However, that statement is categorically false, speaking strictly from a medical standpoint. Even those who support homosexual sex acts warn nonetheless that anal sex is a dangerous activity, regardless of genders involved. The sex info site of the University of California at Santa Barbara, which can in no way be described as opposed to homosexual activity, nonetheless points out that anal sex is a dangerous practice.

• …Anal sex is the most dangerous behaviour for transmission of HIV/AIDS and all other STDs since the anus is not designed for sexual activity…
• …The practice also leads to fecal incontinence – loss of normal control of the sphincter muscles which leads to stool leaking from the rectum at unexpected times… See the website http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/?article=faq&refid=125. WARNING: graphic sketches used to illustrate.

Nevertheless, the National Post backed the EGALE request in an unsigned editorial Saturday February 11. The editorial titled, “Equalize the age of consent” said

“Section 159 of the Criminal Code specifically bans anal intercourse between unmarried people under 18. This is plainly discriminatory, a prohibition intended to stigmatize homosexual or bisexual teenagers, suggesting that the nature of their sexual relationship requires special added protection. This is nonsense.” (Click HERE to read the editorial; paid subscription required.)

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

The First World Outgames, not to be confused with the Gay Games, is likely to be the last. The homosexual sporting event, held in Montreal this past summer and paid for with generous donations of funds from taxpayers, is bankrupt.

…Altogether, the games lost over $5 million.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from Conklin: Gay legislator’s marriage is about being a couple, by Melanie Conklin, published Dec 13, 2006, by Wisconsin State Journal:

Rep. Mark Pocan [78th Assembly District, WI - Democrat] just got back from Indonesia – but this two-week trip was more than just a vacation for the Madison legislator. It was his honeymoon.

On Nov. 24 in Toronto, Pocan and his partner of four-plus years, Philip Frank, got ["married"].

Of course, the couple couldn’t legally tie the knot in Wisconsin…

Frank and Pocan flew to Toronto on Thanksgiving and were married the next day at the wedding chamber in Toronto’s City Hall. Kyle Rae, an openly gay member of the Toronto City Council who got to know Pocan when Pocan was on the Dane County Board, helped with the arrangements.

Rae told Pocan they are glad to have ceremonies for gay couples at City Hall – no shotguns involved. “Often couples who get married at City Hall have to be there, so he said when gay couples come in they’re all happy they are getting married and it’s a nice change,” Pocan says…

It hit home for Pocan that he is a married man when he returned to the U.S. and the custom’s agent in Los Angeles asked if they needed one form or two. “We told her we only needed one, we came together as family, and that we’d gotten married in Toronto,” Pocan says. “She told us she thought it was nice that they allowed that in Canada.”

…Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk …[said] “It’s all about commitment and why it matters and the underlying truth that we all long for relationships and commitment.”

She was thrilled to hear his news. “It’s just such a joy.”

Continue reading on Wisconsin State Journal…

The Canadian political system does not serve the voters well, it only serves the interests of the politicians.

The vote today on same-sex marriage, with two of the political parties, the Bloc and the NDP requiring their members to vote along party lines on one of the most significant issues of this generation, is a disgrace and a blemish on democracy.

The Liberal leader Stéphane Dion was not much better.  Begrudgingly, he allowed a free vote for his MPs , but he gravely misled his MPs and the public on the issue by claiming same-sex marriage was a “fundamental” right under the Charter.  Either Mr. Dion was deliberately misrepresenting the situation or he is ignorant about the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has never at any time ruled that traditional marriage was unconstitutional and that same-sex marriage was a “fundamental” right.  Canadians and the Liberal party members deserve better leadership than that.

The debate is not over.

The egregious behaviour of politicians on the same-sex marriage issue necessitates that the public have a say on the issue, having been effectively ignored by the self-important politicians. There is no longer any doubt that a referendum on the issue must be called by the Conservative government.

A male prostitute turned gay priest has entered the Canadian Parliament after a shock by-election victory.

Raymond Gravel (pictured right)…beat Conservative candidate Stephane Bourgon, in what will be seen as a blow to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government.

Mr Gravel has been criticised by the Pope before over his support of gay priests, same sex marriage and abortion.

He became a priest after being beaten up as a rent boy.

Earlier this year, Mr Gravel joined a group of Canadian priests in a public criticism of the Vatican’s ban on gay clergy.

Continue reading at Pink News…

In what is likely a Canadian first for a major political party, the Liberal Party of Canada is proposing lowering the age of consent for “anal intercourse” in their publicly-released book of policy resolutions.

On Monday, the Liberal Party of Canada made available the text of the policy resolutions put forth by the Party’s Provincial and Territorial Associations, commissions, and National Caucus. The policy resolutions are to be debated and voted upon at the Liberal Leadership and Biennial Convention to be held from November 28 to December 2, 2006, in Montréal.

While still resolutions, the policies which have made it into the book have already been carefully considered by party faithful. “The policy resolutions represent the culmination of a nine-month grassroots policy process that began at the riding level and has worked its way up to the national Convention,” says a release on the resolutions.

Sexual health experts have warned that anal intercourse is a recklessly dangerous activity which is the “riskiest form of sexual activity when it comes to the transmission of HIV/AIDS.”

Nevertheless, a Liberal Party policy resolution, attributed to the British Columbia branch of the Party, calls for lowering the age of consent for such activity to 14-years of age. Policy no. 45 reads:

“WHEREAS the current law discriminates against unmarried same-sex couples by not permitting unmarried persons under 18 to legally engage in consensual anal intercourse; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urge the Federal Government of Canada to bring the age of consent for anal intercourse in equal pairing with other forms of sexual activity.”

The age of sexual consent for heterosexual intercourse in Canada is 14.

Resolution no. 46 calls for a review of the criminal code on prostitution with a view to legalizing the exploitive practice.

Another resolution seeks to make permanent ’safe houses’ in major citiies where heroin addicts can without fear of arrest inject themselves with the deadly drugs. Resolution no. 43 states: “BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada take all steps necessary to establish a National Safe Injection Site program for large cities.”

A proposal by the Young Liberals of Canada seeks not only to legalize marijuana, but also to have the criminal records of those convicted of illegal possession since 1923 expunged. Resolution no. 44 reads: BE IT RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urges the government of Canada to legalise and regulate Canada’s marijuana industry and trade; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Liberal Party of Canada urges the government of Canada to examine the social consequences of granting amnesty to Canadians convicted of simple marijuana possession since 1923, and destruction of all criminal records related thereto.”

See the Liberal Party of Canada Policy Resolutions online here:
http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/PolicyWorkbook-EN-web.pdf

See related LifeSiteNews reports:
Gay Activists Ask Canada to Lower Age of Consent for Anal Sex, National Post Agrees
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021403.html

Conservative Government Will Raise Age of Sexual Consent
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06020803.html

Bill to Raise Age of Consent for Sex from 14 to 16 Introduced, Gay Activists Opposed
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06062201.html

Excerpted from Toronto Maple Leafs Hockey Sponsors Gay Movie Featuring Homosexual 11 Year-Old, by Hilary White, published Nov 24, 2006, by Lifesite News:

The Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team announced today that they have lent the team’s name and logo to a film depicting a homosexual Leafs player. The film portrays a Leafs player who wants to “come out” as a public homosexual, his live-in partnership with the team’s lawyer and their adopted “son,” described as “a budding queen of an 11-year-old boy.”

The film is based on the book of the same title about an 11 year-old boy who is described in an Amazon.com book review as “mincing” and “swishy,” and who has to be prevented from wearing pantyhose, eyeliner and perfume to school.

“Breakfast with Scott”, now being shot on location in Toronto and Hamilton, will go ahead with the willing cooperation of the team’s management. The Toronto Star reports that actor Tom Cavanaugh who depicts the fictional player, Eric McNally, was “shocked” that the Leafs management agreed to allow the team to be depicted in a homosexual propaganda film.

Cavanaugh remarked to the Star on the significance of using the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team, one of the icons of Canadian culture as the background for a story about open homosexuals and endorsing child homosexuality. “There’s something instant to the viewer when you put on a Leafs jersey or any Original Six jersey.”

Olympic swim champion Mark Tewksbury, a board member of the Gay and Lesbian Athletics Foundation, said, “I think it’s really great that (the team management) are supporting it. I know it’s an iconic team, but I think it makes sense this is happening in Canada because we’ve been far ahead on these issues.”

As a work of homosexual propaganda, the film is clearly meant to target the last vestiges of resistance to normalized homosexuality among Canadians. In the book, the homosexual couple live in Cambridge, Massachusetts and are a chiropractor and magazine editor; hockey does not figure at all.

Publishers Weekly praises the book’s value as a pro-homosexual propaganda tool calling it a “heartwarming” and “noble” depiction of a “new configuration of contemporary American family values.”

Publisher’s Weekly review said, “Scot’s flamboyant, androgynous flair makes for some school yard and neighborhood crises, but the boy’s innate sweetness and open-mindedness endear him to several youngsters and most adults.”

The homosexualist ideology asserts that the condition is natural and unchangeable and therefore that children can be born with it and have it be part of their normal sexual development. The depiction of an eleven year-old boy as a homosexual might be more than audiences are willing to accept.

Leafs management, however, seemed sanguine. General manager John Ferguson told the Star, “On our end, we’re certainly not trying to make a statement. … We agreed to host them and we’re comfortable with it.”