Beth - "Here I... 的个人资料His Dominion - Temporary...照片日志列表 工具 帮助

日志


7月28日

On the Table: Age of Protection and Anti-Spanking Bills

The following are two opinion pieces I wrote regarding two hot issues that were currently on the table in the Sentate when it adjourned for the summer.  Theses are serious issues that deserve some real thought as to their long-term consequences.
 
---------------
RE: Bill C-22 (Raising the Age of Sexual Protection) 

Is our government’s current legislation giving sexual freedom to Canadian youth, or taking away any chance they have for protection and justice? Bill C-22, a bill to raise the age of sexual protection from fourteen to sixteen, was passed by the House of Commons and was in the Senate before it adjourned. As a twenty-one-year-old Canadian, I would like to voice my concerns.


I have a sister who is fourteen. Tragically, because we live in Canada, this means that any man, whether twenty or fifty, could seduce, molest, and have sex with her without fear of legal consequences. The possibility that this could happen to a fourteen or fifteen-year-old boy or girl sickens and disturbs me. Doesn't it seem wrong for people to be able to have sex with our young teens and walk away unpunished?


The UN has declared anyone under eighteen to be a minor, therefore, the message our current legislation is sending is “it is perfectly acceptable for adults to have sex with children.” This message is being received loud and clear by those who would take advantage of our sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters. Canada has made itself a veritable haven for pedophiles and child molesters.


I must admit I do not understand the motivations of those who are fighting to keep the age of protection low. While they may be trying to bestow freedom on our youth, in reality they are leaving them vulnerable to sexual predators. Please… can’t we do everything in our power to protect the next generation of Canadians from sexual exploitation? I trust that the Senate will respect the decision of the House of Commons, as the public's representatives in our democracy, and pass Bill C-22 with expedience once it reconvenes in the fall.

-------------------

RE: Bill S-207 (Anti-Spanking Bill)

As a young Canadian who will likely be one of Canada's future parents, I would like to share my thoughts on Bill S-207, which would criminalize spanking in Canada. This bill was in committee before the Senate adjourned.


To be honest, I find the totalitarian slant to this bill rather disturbing. In a 2002 poll, 72% of Canadians said they wanted to retain the right to choose spanking as a form of discipline. This is not an issue regarding abuse, but rather whether parents will be allowed the option to use reasonable physical force as a tool to discipline their children, or whether the federal government will make this decision for them. Canadian children are already protected from abuse in the name of “punishment” by child welfare laws.


Bill S-207 raises valid concerns about the government's trust in its citizens to make choices for the well-being of their children. My parents used spanking responsibly. Far from being abuse, if anything I am better for it. I find I have a more positive attitude toward my parents and authorities in general than most of my peers, an attitude we need to foster in youth for the health of our society. A study in Sweden linked banning spanking with a rise in violence, and a New Zealand study concluded that spanking does not produce aggression or anti-social behaviour later in life.


Protection of children as vulnerable citizens is extremely important. However, since children are protected from physical abuse in the Criminal Code of Canada, I sincerely hope the government will uphold democracy by respecting the majority. It is in our country's best interest for the federal government to leave the decision of how to discipline where it belongs: with individual moms and dads, who know their children best. 

6月6日

News-Flashes of Hope

 

Victory in the House: Child protection bill passes 3rd reading; age of consent for sex to lower from 16 to 14

A historic victory has recently been won for the cause of morality in Canada. Our current legislation in Canada allows adults to have sex with 14 and 15 year olds without fear of legal repercussions. In what could arguably be one of the clearest and most successful piece of socially conservative legislation in the past decade, Bill C-22, introduced by pro-family MP’s of the new Conservative government, not only provides protection for Canada’s 14 and 15 year olds from sexual exploitation, it sets a precedent that will no doubt pave the way for future pro-morality legislation and demonstrates a shift from the kind of liberal legislation that has made Canada a haven for sexual predators and promiscuity.

However, the intent of this bill came very close to being distorted, when in its early stages an amendment was introduced by Liberal MP Joe Comartin, under the influence of homosexual activists, to use this bill to lower the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. Fortunately, MY Canada (www.4mycanada.ca), led by Faytene Kryskow, went on the offensive and not only testified in favour of this bill to protect young teens, but also vehemently opposed the anal sex amendment and encouraged their membership to contact their MP’s as well as Mr. Comartin and other members of the justice committee to voice their opinions. Their hard work paid off, as the anal sex amendment was dropped.

This bill passed in the House of Commons on May 27, 2007, and is now in the Senate. It must approved by the Senate before it will officially become law. Please call or email members of our Senate to encourage them to support this bill. You can get contact information for Senators at www.parl.gc.ca or by calling 1 (866) 599-4999.

Canada Apologizes to the World

An online initiative led by the Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC) seeks to apologize to the world for the negative example Canada has set by changing the definition of marriage. This apology, in the form of an online petition, was launched in April 2007 and is signed by a number of prominent pro-famiy organizations including: REAL Women of Canada; United Mothers, Fathers & Friends; Dawn Stefanowicz (author); and MY Canada. The letter of apology begins: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.” The letter goes on to discourage the assumption that Canada’s decision was made carefully and judiciously and to encourage other countries to take warning from Canada’s mistake.

To personally endorse this apology, visit www.restoremarriagecanada.ca.

World’s Pro-Family Leaders Meet in Poland

On May 22, 2007, several thousand pro-family delegates from around the world gathered in Warsaw, Poland, for the World Congress of Families. In the fourth historic gathering of its kind, the delegates shared strategies for promoting marriage and family in the face of disturbing moral and demographic decline in the developed world. There are problems within families and we have to really take a hard look at that and not just say ‘yeah rah rah, family!’ but we also have to fix those things,” says Paul Dilion of the World Development Coalition. They discussed everything from tax breaks for families to resisting pressure from myth-spreading population control groups. James Maina, a politician from Kenya, told the congress that his country is facing this kind of pressure due to aggressive campaigns by the United Nations and population control groups, which try to sell their anti-life/anti-family policies as “progressive”. “The stuff that is coming from the United Nations is meant to destroy the family - things like homosexuality and abortion. We are also getting a lot of that pressure to have to legalize these things,” said Maina. This kind of monumental gathering is an encouragement to us all that the cause of traditional marriage and family is alive and thriving, not only in Canada, but around the world, and that we have many allies in our fight.

3月23日

I'm Newly Calibrated

I'm absolutely pumped after the Conservative Party's Political Training Conference in Toronto and rally with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  They really seem to be taking their job seriously, to make a difference for Canada, and get the most bang for the taxpayer's buck.
 
Check out PM Harper's "theme song" from the rally: Better Now
 
I love it!  This song really represents well where the party's come from, where it's at now, and where it's going.  Such a sense of hope, excitement, and anticipation in its new popularity and position.
 
However, it remains true, espcially now in light of a potential majority Conservative government in the next federal election, that "absolute power corrupts absolutely".  We need moral people full of integrity to get involved in the party and "keep it honest."  We have to keep asking questions and not simply take everything at face value (which I'm tempted to do).
 
Check this out: Question Authority
12月23日

So You Thought You Knew Stephen Harper?

Is Prime Minister Stephen Harper really freaky?

Check this out: Rick Mercer Visits 24 Sussex


12月5日

MY Canada Newsflash: Curveball on the Marriage Issue

THE MARRIAGE VOTE:

Will likely be introduced Tuesday Dec. the 5th or 6th.

Please continue to keep this issue in covered in fervent prayer. The outcome will affect Canada for generations to come. If things progress quickly some analysts say the vote could happen as early as the 7th (Thurs.).

Curve Ball: New Liberal Leader (Stéphane Dion) may not allow a free vote for the Liberal Caucus on the marriage issue.

Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper explained in the question period that Stéphane Dion (who was won the Liberal leadership on Sat.) may not allow his caucus to have a free vote on the marriage issue scheduled to resurface this week. If this happens it will tie the hands of many Liberal MPs who may have voted in favour of revisiting the marriage legislation and would completely undermine the democratic process as far as the marriage issue is concerned. Along with this, it will practically guarantee (unless we see a miracle in the House) that the vote will fail.

What can we do?

Our greatest resource is in heaven & the bottom line is that we need to PRAY like we have never prayed before.

  • pray Mr. Dion will allow a free vote
  • pray undecided MPs from every party will consider the new information that has come to the table regarding the potential negative impacts of this legislation and that they will vote to re-open debate on it

What else can I do?

Recommended Site:

  • Dawn Stefanowicz shares first hand experience on what is was like to be raised in a same sex home.
  • Also visit our Get Informed page for links to other sites.
9月16日

The Little Black Book - Irresponsible Sex Ed.

Institute strongly condemns "irresponsible" sex education curriculum
Date: Sep 08, 2006
 

OTTAWA - The Institute for Canadian Values is condemning in the strongest possible terms what it calls an irresponsible and gratuitously obscene sex education curriculum reportedly being considered for use in Manitoba high schools.

"This book, entitled 'The Little Black Book – A Book on Healthy Sexuality Written by Grrrls (sic) for Grrrls', purports to be a guide to healthy emotional development and sexuality," said Joseph Ben-Ami, Executive Director of the Institute for Canadian Values. "In reality, it is a thinly veiled propaganda piece that undermines healthy parent-child relationships, substitutes voodoo myths for actual science, and provides advice that, if followed, will certainly result in real and serious harm to those who follow it."

"Here are a few examples of the content of this book:

"The guide claims that only 10% of the population is heterosexual – the rest being 'mixed' or bi-sexual. There is no authoritative research to support this contention, yet the guide allows the statement to pass as fact.

"The guide does not just endorse homosexual practice – it virtually promotes it, and portrays those who object to such practices, particularly parents, as being homophobes, stating that 'A lot of parents are homophobic, and so are their children until the get minds of their own.'

"One section devoted to lesbian sex is entitled 'My First Time F***ing a Girl.'

"The guide promotes the use of devices to reduce the risk of contracting disease and infection through sexual activity, referring to this as safe-sex. No meaningful attempt is made to warn the reader of the failure rate of these devices. The result is that young girls are being led to believe, wrongly, that they are not at risk of unwanted pregnancies and infection.

"In another section entitled 'How to use a Dental Dam' the guide actually includes the following option: 'for extra fun – cut out the crotch of your undies and sew on a dental dam.' This advice, if followed, could lead to the complete failure of the device and infection of its unsuspecting users.

"Finally, in a swipe at religious Canadians, the guide includes the gratuitous observation that '(i)f you need someone to represent God The Holiness, then for me, it's a fat black dyke.' What this statement has to do with healthy emotional and sexual development is beyond us.

"This is one of the most irresponsible and obscene school documents that we have ever seen," concluded Ben-Ami. "Using this as a guide to healthy sexuality for teenage girls would be one of the most potentially harmful decisions that any school could make."

Ben-Ami was also harshly critical of all three levels of government, each of which, he says, play a role in funding the development of material such as this.

"Our elected representatives must pay more attention to the projects and activities of the organizations they are supporting with our tax dollars," said Ben-Ami. "Canadians don’t pay some of the highest taxes in the world to fund material like this. I know I don’t."

8月12日

Israel vs. Lebanon - The Other Side of the Story 2

Wow!  A scorching expose... take a good look.

--------

Colonel's Corner: What "Cease-Fire" Means to Hezbollah

by Lt. Col. Bill Cowan

FNC
Lt. Col. Bill Cowan
August 3, 2006

Time is running out for Israel. Within days, a cease-fire will be called and the relentless pursuit of Hezbollah will cease. It's possible that the cease-fire will call for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces back across their border, but doing so would leave a vacuum they're rightfully not willing to accept — a vacuum which would quickly be filled by Hezbollah. So instead, the Israelis will remain in place until an international force moves into position in areas the Israelis have taken by force.

To be sure, a cease-fire will be welcome relief for all concerned. No one understands the tragedy of civilian casualties better than the Israelis, who have been the targets of endless, wanton terrorist attacks for decades now. And all should understand and believe them when they apologize for the civilian deaths that have occurred. That's not their way of doing business.

At the same time, the lengths to which they went to avoid civilian casualties were unprecedented. Using cell phone messages, dropping leaflets, and breaking into local radio transmissions to warn residents of areas about to be hit showed ample Israeli desire to minimize 'collateral damage' — the euphemism for civilian deaths. It must also be remembered that those warnings were used by Hezbollah also to avoid being in targeted areas. In essence, not only were civilians warned of what was coming, but so too were the very people the Israelis were fighting against!

When civilians in targeted areas were unable to get out and some became casualties, many members of the international community were quick to place all of the blame squarely on Israel. Instead, reasonable questions could have centered on what Hezbollah's 'social' arm was doing to aid local civilians. In fact, taxis and other drivers from the south were reportedly charging locals as much as $500 apiece for rides to safety in the north. Five hundred dollars! And there were no reports whatsoever of Hezbollah helping 'its own.'

With a cease-fire ultimately in place, we should expect Hezbollah to drag the international media in to show them the destruction. Schools and medical facilities will likely top the list of showpieces, followed closely by apartment buildings. And nowhere within the rubble will there be any telltale signs whatsoever of military supplies, command and control equipment, or ammunition. That will have surely been moved out before the photo ops begin.

Unless stringent 'gag orders' are in place, it's also likely that members of the international force will echo their own observations to the media about the destruction and loss of innocent life. And unless they're well trained and doggedly managed, their comments will come even as Hezbollah is moving new weaponry into the very areas the international force has control over. Just as drug dealers move tons of illegal narcotics into our own country every year despite the best efforts of law enforcement, Hezbollah will move tons of ammunition as close as they can to the border in preparation for their next offensive. And no one should be under the illusion that there won't be one. For Hezbollah, timing is everything.

Finally, I was in and out of Lebanon for almost half of its 15-year civil war — a war which pitted all factions against each other at one point or another. In fact, in 1990 the two main Muslim factions, Hezbollah and Amal, even fought each other as the predominantly Christian Lebanese Army fought the Christian militia Lebanese Forces. Tens of thousands of innocent Lebanese civilians were killed by other Lebanese during the course of the war, and major sections of Beirut and outlying areas were virtually destroyed. For much of it, the destruction was far beyond what the world is seeing in the current images of the ongoing conflict. Yet the international community was silent. There was no outrage about civilians dying, no wailing about the destruction, and no blame where blame could have clearly been assigned. In my judgment, Israel is doing to Hezbollah what must be done. And a cease-fire will preclude them from finishing the job. To believe it's all behind us once a cease-fire is in place is absolute folly.

Israel vs. Lebanon - The Other Side of the Story 1

What do you think?  Doesn't it seem to you like Israel is often made to look like the bad guy in Middle Eastern affairs?  Our media and other organizations seem to take a decidedly anti-Israel stance again and again.  Why?  Are we really being fiair, impartial, and unprejudiced here?  I'm sorry, but when you think it all through logically and consider all the facts... the long history of conflict and terrorism, what we know first hand of militant Islamic terrorists (9/11 and the plane bombings in the UK that were thwarted just days ago), not to mention the things that are actually taking place in Israel and Lebanon at this time, I find it hard to just condemn the Israelis for the course of action they have chosen to take.   They have a very difficult situation on their hands.  How do you fight a violent Lebanese terrorist group bent on destroying your country and sending hundreds of rockets into your country from theirs?  What would you do in that situation, honestly?  I'd like to know.  What can you do?  What options do you have?  You can't necessarily just reason or negotiate peacefully with these terrorists, although we'd like to think it would be just that easy, wouldn't we?  The death of innocent civilians is tragic, no matter which way you slice it, no matter which side they're on or who did it... I mean, would I be singing  different tune if those people getting killed were my family?  I don't know, on the other hand, there aren't militant religious Canadian terrorists attacking any other country right now (that I know of...).  So anyways, I just think this issue considers a little more thought and consideration, let's push beyond just the slant the media is giving us on this and make sure the opinions we are forming are taking into account both sides of the story, and that these opinions are actually our own versus something the media is feeding to us through a biased report.  Take a look at the two articles I've posted and judge for yourself. 

 



The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

                           

August 10, 2006

Where Israel still equals racism

By HILLEL NEUER

 

The convening Friday of a UN Human Rights Council emergency session to condemn "gross human rights violations by Israel in Lebanon" caps a month-long mad rush by the world body's human rights institutions to single out Israel for special censure.

The Muslim states that initiated the meeting dominate the large African and Asian blocs, guaranteeing the adoption of an anti-Israel motion that will become only the third country resolution of the new council—all of which have targeted the Jewish state to the exclusion of the UN's other 191 member states.

A typical example of how key UN human rights bodies are being subverted is the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

If you thought the UN's 1991 repeal of the "Zionism is Racism" resolution, achieved by the determined efforts of then assistant secretary of state John Bolton, marked an end to the world body's promotion of this canard, guess again. On the same day that Iran's President Ahmadinejad renewed his call for the destruction of the Jewish state, the UN's top racism committee supplied Teheran with renewed international moral justification for that goal.

Last Thursday, the CERD suspended its normal work to address "the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon."

Not only is this topic entirely outside CERD's mandate, but it was framed in a lopsided manner, so that the humanitarian suffering of Israeli civilians would be entirely ignored.

Since July 12, when Hizbullah ignited the crisis by crossing the international border to murder and kidnap Israeli soldiers, the Iran-sponsored terrorist organization has fired more than 3,000 rockets into Israel. A million Israelis are either displaced or living in and out of bomb shelters, dozens have been killed, while a further 2,000 have been injured or required hospital treatment. Yet one would not know any of this from the CERD's presentation of the issue.

CERD IS a body of supposedly independent, impartial experts mandated to oversee the implementation of the 1965 International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It reviews the periodic reports that the treaty requires every signatory state to submit, and issues "concluding observations" on the state's level of compliance. As we saw this week, however, some CERD members are neither independent, nor impartial—nor even very expert.

The special CERD session was the initiative of a few panel members led by Mahmoud Aboul-Nasr, a former Egyptian diplomat and Arab League official.

Aboul-Nasr is notorious for his 1998 support of convicted Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, which was roundly criticized at the time by his colleague (now CERD Chairman) Regis de Gouttes. Aboul-Nasr had stated before the panel that the Holocaust was "not sacrosanct" and that it was justified to question the number of Jews killed.

To his credit, Chairman de Gouttes began Thursday's debate by listing the other UN entities already dealing with the crisis, and by warning his colleagues that "the trust and legitimacy of the Committee is at stake."

In response, Aboul-Nasr objected to being "lectured on our competence and what we can't do," and demanded that the members "condemn Israel in the strongest terms."

Some of his colleagues were all too happy to oblige.

Brazilian expert Jos Augusto Lindgren Alves accused Israel of "blatant racism," which, he added, was "at the root of its disproportionality" in Lebanon. He asked if Israel "would react the same way to exterminate an entire population if Hizbullah launched the same attacks from a non-Arab country." Jos Francisco Cali Tzay of Guatemala suggested that Israel's actions were close to "mass genocide." The South African, Patricia January-Bardhill, said that Israel's response reflected "institutionalized racism." Pakistani member Agha Shahi justified Hizbullah's attacks on Israel as an exercise of "the right of resistance against occupation."

Aboul-Nasr similarly asserted that Hizbullah is not a terrorist group but "a resistance movement," like the French resistance in World War II. Never mind that the UN in 2000 certified Israel's complete withdrawal from southern Lebanon to the international border, or that, in the words of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, "Hizbullah's provocative attack on July 12 was the trigger of this particular crisis."

A FEW lonely voices disagreed with the decision to tackle the Israel-Lebanon issue and the utter disregard of Hizbullah's role in provoking the crisis and attacking Israeli civilians, but they had little impact.

The Danish and American experts both argued that the issue was beyond the panel's mandate, but to no avail. The American expert—Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., former Civil Rights Division chief at the US Department of Justice—also strongly criticized his colleagues for giving Hizbullah, and its Syrian and Iranian sponsors, a free pass. As Boyd spoke, Aboul-Nasr, in a shocking display of disrespect, kept laughing in response.

As the chairman had feared, the members who abused CERD's mandate—in service of a one-sided political agenda—seriously damaged the body's credibility, not to mention their own. With only incomplete and not necessarily reliable information about a distant and still ongoing conflict—the Brazilian even admitted his statements were based on what he saw on television and that he did not know exactly what was happening on the ground—they were quick to indict Israel on absurd charges of racism.

Yet they said nothing at all about a genuine concern: the longstanding, vicious incitement of racial and indeed genocidal anti-Semitism that Hizbullah spreads around the world, including via its Al Manar satellite TV network.

This does not speak well for their purported "expertise." Resolutions from the UN's vast archive of one-sided condemnations of Israel are frequently cited by Teheran to justify its goal of eliminating the Jewish state. Such denunciations are issued routinely by the U.N's political bodies, particularly the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, which are dominated by the Arab and Islamic blocs.

Unfortunately this week, the anti-Israel virus that has long plagued those bodies spread to infect a supposedly professional committee. Chalk this one up as a win for Ahmadinejad—and a loss for Israel, CERD, and the UN as a whole. It is also a loss for the genuine victims of race discrimination in the world, who deserve a truly expert and objective UN racism body.

Regrettably, tomorrow's session of the Human Rights Council will simply be more of the same.

The writer is executive director of UN Watch.


To make your voice heard now—and urge fairness at tomorrow’s vote—Take Action here.

To support the vital work of UN Watch, please donate here.

tel: (41-22) 734-1472 • fax: (41-22) 734-1613
www.unwatch.org

2月12日

Prime Minister Harper's Victory Speech

I watched Steven Harperhim deliver this speech on election night and I watched him get sworn in as our new Prime Minister.  Whether you voted for him or not, he needs our prayers.  How long has it been since we've had a Prime Minister who said "God bless Canada."  Canada is in a very sorry state if she doesn't need God's blessing anymore.

1Ti 2:1  I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2  For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.


STEPHEN HARPER'S ACCEPTANCE SPEECH, JAN 23RD, 2006

Ottawa Citizen
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
 
The following is the text of Stephen Harper’s victory speech from Monday night.
 
‘The moment is here’
 
Tonight our great country has voted for change, and Canadians have asked our party to take the lead in delivering that change. To Canadians I say this: we will honour your trust, and we will deliver on our commitments. There are no individual victories in politics. Politics is a team sport, and there are a number of people I would like to thank.
 
First and foremost, I would like to thank the people of Calgary Southwest for having given me the great privilege of serving another term in the House of Commons as your representative. Though I am not often in Calgary, or even Alberta, Laureen and I always take you with us. No matter where we go, this remains home. So to my local campaign team, I say thank you for a job so well done.
 
I would also like to thank our campaign team in Ottawa, which I know is celebrating at their own party right now, and to the thousands of Conservative candidates and volunteers across Canada. I thank you for your labours, your donations and your prayers. I congratulate you for working so hard to bring our great party together, and for running solid campaigns in every corner of our country. We came together as a party, and now we will govern for all Canadians.
 
On a personal note, I would like to thank my family. To my mother, my father, my brothers and so many other relatives and close friends, thank you for your unwavering support and encouragement over so many years. To Ben and Rachel, your dad’s heart aches when he does not get to spend as much time with you as he would like, and I love you very much. To Laureen, a day never goes by when I am not in awe of how you have managed the surprises of this marriage. Your love and support keeps me going.
 
Earlier this evening, I spoke with the prime minister. He offered both his congratulations and his co-operation as we begin this process of change. Since 1988, Mr. Martin has worked hard for the people of Canada as a member of Parliament, minister of Finance, and prime minister. I thank Mr. Martin for his service to Canada and to Canadians.
 
To Mr. Layton and Monsieur Duceppe, I congratulate you for running solid campaigns. All of our parties have different philosophies, but we are all democrats. We are all stronger because you, our opponents, have put yourselves on the line and advanced the policies and values you believe in.
 
I would also like to acknowledge and congratulate each and every Canadian who put his or her name forward for public office in this election. To those who were successful, I look forward to working with you in the House of Commons. To those who were not, I salute your efforts. Having run and lost in elections before, I know how difficult it is to pour your heart into a campaign and come up short. Thank you for putting yourselves forward in the service of your country.
 
During this campaign, we talked a lot about values. One of the oldest and enduring Canadian values is democracy  - the principle that we can change our government without risking our freedoms or our lives. Despite the divisions and discord of an election, the ability to peacefully change and renew our nation’s leadership remains one of our country’s great strengths.
 
This is a freedom for which our ancestors perished and our veterans fought - for which those in our Armed Forces today still sacrifice, for which too many in our world still yearn. It is a freedom which we must always - always - cherish as Canadians.
 
Today, for the 39th time in 139 years, Canadians have elected a new Parliament. And as we have done many times before, Canadians have selected a new government. Let me say here tonight, that through all of these different governments, with all their different priorities, in all their different eras, one constant binds us from (John A.) Macdonald’s coalition of Tories and Reformers to the modern Conservative Party. Canada - strong, united, independent, and free.
 
Those who did not vote for me, I pledge to lead a government that will work for all of us - we will move forward together.
 
Our national identity was not forged by government policy. It does not flow from any one program, any one leader or any one party. Our Canada is rooted in our shared history, and in the values, which have and will endure. Throughout this campaign, I have been inspired by the thousands of Canadians I met who embody those values. Individuals, families, workers, and business people trying to get ahead. Parents doing their best to teach their kids right from wrong. Immigrants discovering new opportunities in a new land, seniors seeking security, the young promoting their ideals, East and West, English and French, city and country, men and women, new Canadians and old. This is the Canada we know. In asking us to lead change, the Canadian people have asked us to pursue our priorities.
 
Throughout this campaign, we were crystal-clear about where we will lead. First and foremost, we will clean up Ottawa by proposing and passing the Federal Accountability Act. We will do this because shuffling the deck in Ottawa is not enough. We need to change the system. And we will change the system to strengthen our institutions and make them more accountable to you, the Canadian taxpayers.
 
We will reduce your tax burden, starting by cutting the GST from seven to six per cent immediately and to five per cent over our mandate. We will reform our justice system to make it stronger and to ensure that we turn back the growing plague of guns, gangs and drugs in our cities and communities. We will offer parents choice and results in child care. And we will work with our provinces to give Canadians the health care they’ve paid for by developing a patient wait times guarantee.
 
Perhaps most importantly, we will begin the task of rebuilding federalism in the province of Quebec. I am especially proud of the fact that both Anglophones and Francophones worked together to bring about real change in Quebec. Our government will build a new and dynamic voice for federalism in Quebec.
 
To the people of the West, let me say one thing and let me be clear: the West is now in. Canada will work for all of us. To people in Atlantic Canada - the very different provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia - we know that made-in-Ottawa solutions are not the answer. We will work to give you more control over your resources because I know that, for my ancestral home, the best is yet to come.
 
To the people of the North - including the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories - I say, we see your potential and we look forward to helping you achieve your dreams.
 
And finally, Ontario. Thank you for your increased support, and your confidence. A strong Canada requires a strong Ontario, and our government will keep our economic heartland moving forward. To those around the world who have followed the campaign, our message is the same - the result tonight signals a change of government, not a change of country. We will stay the course of balanced budgets, low inflation, debt repayment, and economic stability. We will continue to help defend our values and democratic ideals around the globe, as so courageously demonstrated by those young Canadian soldiers who are serving, and who have sacrificed, in Afghanistan.
 
While always charting a path in the best interests of Canada, we will seek to work co-operatively with our friends and allies, and constructively with all nations of the world. Tonight, although Canadians have voted for change, they have not given any one party a majority in the House of Commons. They have asked us to co-operate, to work together, and to get on with tackling the real issues that matter to ordinary working people and their families. I look forward to working with all of the parties and all members of Parliament to build consensus and move Canada forward.
 
Friends, I have never been so proud of our great country, and I am honoured and overwhelmed to be asked to lead it. We will govern as we campaigned - in a spirit of hope, not fear. We will do all we can. We will give it all we’ve got. From time to time, we will even make mistakes. But each and every day, I can assure you one thing - I will dedicate myself to making Canada a united, stronger, more prosperous and safer country. The time has come, the moment is here, and tomorrow we get down to work - for individuals, for families, and for communities, for all of us.
 
Thank you. Good night, and God bless Canada



2月4日

Martin, Harper, and Layton on Faith and Politics

You be the judge.
What do the statements of Canada's party leaders say about their view of Christianity and religion in general and how they will act, or refrain from acting, accordingly? Are they just making platitudes, trying to be diplomatic, tolerant, and "politically correct." Or, are they genuinely concerned with the moral religious state in Canada and respectful of the role of religious and moral conviction in the world of politics? What kind of a perspective are each of them coming from as both a politician and a person of faith?
Faith and Politics: Party Leaders Respond
Faith Today asked: "What role do you think faith should play in developing public policy, and what is the place of religious institutions in contemporary Canadian society?"

Politicians are rarely asked about their faith or how faith impacts their politics. Faith Today invited all party leaders registered with Elections Canada to answer the same question [see "Related articles" at the end of this article]. We agreed to print their answer unedited if they stayed within our word limit. These and the responses of other party leaders are posted an www.christianity.ca.

Responses of the party leaders elected to the House of Commons

The face of contemporary Canada is a mosaic of individuals from different linguistic, cultural and religious backgrounds—a tapestry of diversity and vibrancy. Indeed, Canada is known for being home to a wide mix of religions, and the political structure in our country proudly supports religious pluralism as it strives to promote individual liberties and freedom of expression. Religious institutions are therefore valuable components of Canadian modern society.

Those who choose to adopt Canada as their new home as well as those who have been established here for generations know they can be free to practice their religion, follow their faith and live as they want to live. The relationship between faith and public policy in Canada should therefore be a synergetic partnership—working together to improve our social tapestry for the greater good of all Canadians.

As Prime Minister and Canadian citizen, I am an ardent believer in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—the heartbeat of our Constitution—which recognizes the supremacy of God in the preamble and enshrines freedom of religion, among other basic freedoms, of our highest law.

Since becoming Prime Minister in December 2003, I have had the opportunity to participate in many unique ceremonies pertaining to various faiths, such as His Holiness Pope John II's funeral in April 2005, the Chanukah Menorah Lighting Ceremony and the annual Diwali Celebrations. I have also met with various religious and community leaders during my tenure, including a unique gathering on the occasion of a visit to Ottawa by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, a respected spiritual leader and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. During my meeting with the Dalai Lama at the home of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ottawa, we discussed the issue of human rights, both in Canada and abroad.

Canada is also among the most successful multicultural societies in the world. Indeed, our country's success is in large part due to our rich and diverse cultural, linguistic and religious communities. As we make our way in this new century, our country stands apart for its multiculturalism—a truly enriching social characteristic in the image of the world of today and tomorrow.

Paul Martin
Prime Minister of Canada
Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

Public policy is supposed to reflect democratic opinion, and public opinion is shaped by a wide variety of influences including personal philosophy, economic and social background, life experience and religious beliefs. It is perfectly legitimate for citizens and legislators to take into account their own deeply held faith convictions in developing public policy, provided that people remain open to the faith and philosophical perspectives of others.

In recent years, some politicians and commentators have asserted that in order to maintain the separation of church and state, legislators should not be influenced by religious belief. Leaving aside the fact that the separation of church and state is an American constitutional doctrine, not part of Canada's legal or political tradition, the notion of separation refers to the state not interfering in religious practice and treating all faith communities impartially. It does not mean that faith has no place in public life or the public square.

Canada is a multicultural and pluralistic society, but this does not mean that faith has to be excluded from public life, but rather that those of different faiths and no faith should seek areas of common agreement based on their different perspectives. On an issue like the definition of marriage, for example, citizens and legislators can certainly make reference to the fact that almost all faith communities—not only Catholic, Protestant and Jewish, but Sikh, Muslim, Hindu and native religions as well—consider marriage to be the union of a man and a woman, and to call for this moral consensus to be reflected in civil law.

The Conservative Party and caucus has people within it of many different faith backgrounds, and we welcome all of their contributions and their convictions in the development of public policy.

Religious institutions—churches, synagogues, temples and mosques, as well as parachurch organizations like faith-based charities—play a vital role in Canadian society. Churches and religious charities are active in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, welcoming strangers and visiting prisoners. Church and faith-based schools educate hundreds of thousands of Canadian children. And charities like World Vision, Samaritan's Purse, or the Mennonite Central Committee help Canadians share with the developing world. A Conservative government would recognize the vital work done by religious institutions and ensure that religious charities are eligible to participate in government programs on the same basis as other charities and non-governmental organizations.

These charitable endeavours in the name of faith benefit all of society. But churches and faith-based organizations are more than charities. They are animated by deep convictions about the nature of God and our moral obligations towards God and each other. Government must respect these convictions and not attempt to interfere in the free public expression of religious belief. Sadly, freedom of religion has come under attack in recent years in cases ranging from religious organizations being expected to rent facilities for same-sex marriages to pastors being threatened with human rights charges for expressing their religious beliefs. A Conservative government will be vigilant to ensure that freedom of religion is protected in Canada.

Stephen Harper
Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

The NDP has a long history of developing public policy on the basis of the faith-informed perspectives of those who actively support the NDP or who, out of their faith perspective, support certain policies put forward by the NDP. In a context where the public face of religion in the media tends to be focused on the religious right, it is important to remember that there has always been, and continues to be, a religious left in Canada, a religious left which has had a significant and beneficial formative influence on modern Canada. Medicare is a good example.

It is also important to remember that there is much common ground to be found and to be developed between the religious left and the religious right. A recent breakfast briefing for MPs, dealing with global poverty and sponsored by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, conveyed messages, analysis and policy positions that would not have sounded out of place at an event sponsored by the United Church of Canada, or for that matter the NDP.

The challenge for Canadians who want to practise a politics that is faithful to their understanding of God, of their Scriptures and of their own faith tradition, is how to do this appropriately in the secular, pluralistic and multi-faith society that Canada has become. For Christians this is particularly challenging, because this needs to be done in a way that preserves the right of Christians to bring their values into the public square while respecting the fact that in a post-Christendom context no policy can be officially adopted or rejected for explicitly Christian reasons, as might have been the case in a previous era.

Another challenge for people of faith is to learn how to talk to each other and about each other in a way that is respectful of the faithfulness and integrity of those with whom there is disagreement on certain issues. Respect for faith-informed perspectives in public discourse will be easier to attain from others if those informed by faith show respect for each other.

Tommy Douglas was fond of using Christ's teaching about the Sabbath, that man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man, as a starting point for making the analogous case that man was not made for the economy—the economy is, or should be, made for man.

This is still an instructive analogy. We live in a world that increasingly subordinates human well-being, and the integrity of creation, to the global profit strategies of multi-national corporations. This is done in the overall context of a world that worships the marketplace and its values. Uncritical materialism and selfishness are significantly exalted by the amoral competitiveness of a global capitalism that regards the peoples of the world as potential sources of cheap labour rather than as children of God. Furthermore, the market ethic eventually corrupts individual morals, as everything and everybody becomes a means to an end, and self-interest trumps solidarity.

There will always be a role for Christians, and for people of other faiths, to speak out of their prophetic traditions, challenging the rulers of their day to do justice, to love kindness and mercy, and to measure their political choices not in terms of how they help the rich and already powerful, but how they help the hungry, the poor, the vulnerable, the marginalized and the environment that future generations will have to live in.

The prophetic voice may not always be welcome in public policy debates, but it is essential that its role be defended as one of the important ways that the spirit speaks to us in human history.

Jack Layton
Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada
Bill Blaikie
Deputy Leader of the NDP

Au nom de monsieur Gilles Duceppe, député de Laurier–Sainte-Marie et chef du Bloc Québécois, nous accusons réception de votre courriel du 18 novembre dernier. Nous apprécions le fait que vous ayez pris le temps de communiquer avec nous. Par ailleurs, nous sommes persuadés que vous reconnaîtrez avec nous que la foi et la religion entrent dans le domaine des affaires privées et qu'il appartient à chaque personne de décider de sa conduite à cet égard. Vous comprendrez donc que nous ne répondrons pas à la question que vous nous avez soumise. Nous vous remercions à l'avance pour votre compréhension. Soyez assuré que le Bloc Québécois continuera d'adopter une attitude responsable et d'agir en toute situation dans le respect du peuple canadien. Nous vous prions de recevoir, Monsieur, nos salutations distinguées.

Marie Bourgeois
Coordonnatrice de la correspondence

On behalf of Mr. Gilles Duceppe, Member of Parliament for Laurier–Sainte-Marie and leader of the Bloc Québécois, we acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated November 18. We appreciate that you have taken the time to contact us. However, we believe you will concur that matters of faith and religion enter into the realm of private affairs and that consequently, decisions regarding them rest with the individual. You will understand, then, that we will not respond to the question you have submitted to us. We thank you in advance for your understanding. Rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will continue to adopt a responsible attitude and to act in every situation in the interests of the Canadian people.

Kind regards,

Marie Bourgeois
Correspondence Coordinator