SocialConservatives.ca

Special Features

2007-11-15T07:13:00.000-08:00

The intention of adding this "Special Feature" section to this website is to have at the beginning of the website an essay or a news item or other feature which will stimulate thought and discussion about a current issue or about one which needs to be considered more deeply than it is. Those submitting comments on this section of the website should mention the title of the particular feature they are commenting on, since the special feature may be expected to be changed from time to time.

Links to News and Comments of Interest on External sites:
(Inclusion of these news items and comments does not indicate approval or disapproval.)
"Martin Amis Calls for Euthanasia Booths on Streetcorners" (See essay in response to this below: "English Novelist Proposes Euthanasia Booths for the Old.")
"Bulletin of Christian Persecution, Dec. 13, 2009-Jan. 14, 2010"
"Video Friday Five: Former Planned Parenthood Director Abby Johnson"
"Was Maurice Vellacott Right About Abortion?"
"Catholic group reports death of Chinese underground bishop Leon Yao Liang at 87"
"US 'Sold its Birthright' by Ignoring China Human Rights Abuses for Economic Gain: Report"
"Barbara Kay: The end of the gender wars"
"The Status of Women Must be Abandoned: An Egregious Use of Taxpayers' Money"
"Biological Explanation: How Abortion Causes Breast Cancer"

Opposition to Obama’s Health-Care Plan: Appropriate or Misdirected?

Conservatives in the United States are generally opposed to what they believe are Obama’s health-care plans. It seems to this observer (who, admittedly has not had time to examine the matter in as much detail as he would like), that some of the opposition is definitely misdirected. As a result, from a socially-conservative point of view, the real dangers are in danger of being ignored, and an opporunity has been give to besmirch legitimate opposition to health-care measures that are objectionable.

Equating Obama’s administration to a Nazi regime and the like adds more heat than light to what should be a sharp but logical debate. Disseminating rumors which appear to be of dubious validity and treating those rumors as established facts does not help the debate either.

It seems to me that a nation with the wealth of resources of the United States should be able to ensure a reasonable level of health-care for all citizens. What is needed to achieve that level is a matter for debate: a debate that should take into account the negative tendencies of government beaurocracies to be wasteful and to accumulate inordinate power.

Whatever health-care plan the citizens of our neighbours to the south choose should take into consideration the shortfalls of national systems already in place in other countries, including the sometimes unconscionable wait-times that some Canadians with painful conditions such as broken hips have had to endure.

One of the things that pro-life groups in the United States need to do is to make sure that abortion is not one of the procedures paid for by the nation. Another thing to insist on is that absolutely no health-care money go to counselling for or providing euthanasia.

A coalition of a very large number of groups in the U.S. is concentrating on ensuring that abortion is not promoted by any new health-care plan. The coalition has taken the name “Stop the Abortion Mandate.”

Credit Where Credit is Due
If we have been critical of the apparent dismissal of certain concerns, it is only right and fair that we draw attention to evidence we see of the present Conservative government's attention to other concerns of socially-conservative Canadians.

Of course, the emphasis on allowing parents a freer choice as to the care of their children is one policy which was evident from the beginning of this government's mandate, and contrasts favourably to other parties' advocacy of a one-size-fits all take-it-or-leave it day-care plan.

The raising of the age of sexual consent, a long-overdue measure to make it more difficult to exploit the young, is one accomplishment that is a great credit to this government.

The measures I have mentioned point to one hopeful fact: The present Conservative government in Canada is more favourable to socially conservative issues than is any other party represented in the House of Commons (though we recognize that some individual non-Conservative members deserve credit also).

Latest Action of BC College of Teachers Against Chris Kempling Highlights the Perilous State of Freedom in Canada

February, 2008

The British Columbia College of Teachers, in its latest act of harassment, has again cited Dr. Chris Kempling for conduct unbecoming a teacher. Their list of complaints is a revelation, not of Chris's wrongdoing, but of the totalitarian attitude this body, which like the human rights commissions and tribunals which have lately come into prominence, functions as a kind of court without having the limitations placed on it which a "real" court would have.
Chris writes: They have cited me for participating in a CBC radio interview where I quoted the Bible saying that homosexual behaviour is a barrier to salvation, for contributing an essay discussing the philosophical differences between social liberals and social conservatives (published in the Calgary Herald on December 29, 2003), for publishing a scholarly article in a German family journal on the topic of homosexuality, for offering orientation change therapy as part of my private counselling practice and mentioning this in a radio interview, and, incredibly, for "knowing" that an article written by Christian Heritage Party leader Ron Gray in support of me was posted on the party's website. They also cited me for being "the local representative of the Christian Heritage Party.
As we have said before, the action taken against Chris Kempling is significant because it represents a threat to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, political freedom, and the freedom of the educational system. It should be a warning to Canadians of all stripes who value our national heritage.

Please read Chris Kempling's letter on the BC Parents and Teachers for Life webpage entitled "Standing Up for the Threatened Rights of a Free Society. Then consider what you can do to help. Right now, we can think of at least two things we can all do. Write on behalf of Chris and talk up his case with friends and acquaintances likely to be supportive of him when they know his story. And, to the extent that you are able, donate to the fund which has been set up primarily to help him. To encourage this, we reproduce immediately below the directions for sending him financial help:

I Don't Have to Respect Your Viewpoint
By Ted Hewlett
More mischief is wrought by the inaccurate use of words than we can easily imagine. Take, for example, the little phrase "I respect you viewpoint, but . . . ," when the speaker or writer goes on to make it clear that he actually disagrees with the viewpoint because it is founded on false premises or results from false reasoning. How is it possible to respect such a viewpoint? What most rationally-thinking people really mean when they use that phrase is that they respect the person apart from his viewpoint.

The words "I respect your viewpoint, but. . ." have become so common that they have almost become an obligatory means of expressing goodwill towards an opponent in an argument. Yet the careless use of the phrase probably reflects one of the most basic flaws in today's thinking. Those who want to repress all moral judgments are wont to accuse those making such judgements of not respecting those who differ from them, and they can make this accusation plausibly because of society's habit of equating respect for a person with respecting his viewpoint.

The sloppy thinking implied in the phrase in question is responsible for the fact that those engaging in homosexual behaviour are so easly able to get away with accusing those who disagree with such behaviour with hating them. The perhaps unstated argument goes, "You do not respect my viewpoint, therefore you do not respect me. Therefore you hate me." The thinking is about as logical as saying that because one disapproves of behaviour associated with alcoholism one hates alcoholics.

One way to clarify discussions in our society is to clarify our words and therefore to clarify thinking. Since clear thinking helps the thinker to arrive at truth, those who value truth should, of all people, be champions of clear expression.

Orville the Outcast
By Stephen J. Gray
[

The Myth of Trade Union Democracy
[

Welcome and Introduction

2007-04-20T21:34:00.000-07:00

Welcome

Welcome to "SocialConservatives.ca," a site that has as its purpose defining and finding ways to defend, conserve, and restore the best of Canada's social heritage.

This site has a number of essays, which we hope you will find of interest. Preceding the essays are topics for general comments. We hope you will respond with thoughtful remarks on these comments, and feel free to comment on the essays also.

Comments may be edited for brevity or good taste, or removed, as seems necessary to the editor. Lively but civil discussion and varying viewpoints are encouraged.

Introduction

What is a social conservative? Surely in the Canadian context it means one who regards as still valuable the ideals that have traditionally been regarded as central to the welfare of our society. Those who are socially conservative in Canada might be regarded as radical were they to promote their ideas in another society, such as Saudi Arabia. It makes no sense to commit to social conservatism out of a belief that whatever is past is best. It makes a great deal of sense to commit to it out of conviction that we have had in our heritage traditional ideals which are still valuable and which can be implemented in our present-day society. Social conservatism needs to be distinguished from mere fiscal conservatism. Social converatism will deplore the waste of public financial resources, but it will not make the achievement of national wealth an aim to be divorced from the goal of enabling that wealth to benefit the people as a whole. The term "social conservative" might be used for one who holds to particular ideals but has no concept of promoting them in society at large. But on this website we are concerned primarily with those who see social conservatism as something which needs to be supported for the benefit of society as a whole. Thus we are concerned with the role of government, which is capable of either supporting or undermining the foundations on which society has been built.

Unfortunately, those who have wished to eliminate certain foundational concepts which are part of our heritage have sought to change them, often, not so much by argument as by manipulative propaganda. This propaganda has persuaded many people that those traditional ideals are no longer of value to our nation. The success of these propagandists has had a lot to do with the fact that Canada has become a place where many politicians see as suicidal the public defence of the most basic principles of morality.Politics, it has been said, is the art of the possible. Politicians are basically concerned with how much it is possible for them to accomplish. Some politicians, once elected, do little more than test the current winds of public opinion and cast their votes in parliament accordingly. Others act as leaders, and help to form public opinion. But in any case, the success of the elected member of parliament is limited by the state of the public mind. The state of public opinion is determined by a host of factors, such as the messages received from the news media and from a variety of influencers. In fact, we all function to a greater or lesser degree as formers of public opinion.Those of us who are social conservatives have been inclined, often with some justification, to blame the politicians for the erosion of our societal foundations. But of course we cannot blame only the politicians, who, in a democracy, are limited in what they can achieve by the climate of public opinion that we all contribute to.If Canada is to be saved from its current plight where one after another its moral foundations are eroded and swept away, those who are capable of inflencing public opinion must make the most of the means at hand to do so on behalf of the ideals of our social heritage. This brings us to the purpose of this website. We hope that this site may be part of the beginning of a campaign to promote social conservatism in Canada. If the public can be brought to see that the welfare of our country depends on the restoration of basic moral principles, then our political leaders will have the ability to restore the health of our nation. We do not seek to establish some sort of theocracy, where an elite group of people dictate the details of personal lives. Rather we would like to see established a country which will honor principles that have been recognized over the centuries by people of many faiths. A nation whose people have that respect for those basic principles can be expected to choose leaders who will exercise the power of government in a way that supports those principles. May that be so in our nation of Canada! --Ted Hewlett, editor of SocialConservatives.caPermission to republish the above essay, or a portion thereof with adequate context, with credit to the source, is given.Essays posted on this website are freely contributed by the authors. Permission to republish an essay must be obtained from the author, unless an author's note already gives permission. At any rate, any conditions laid down by the author should be respected. We will endeavour to pass on to authors any requests to republish sent to us in readers' posts. Opinions stated in essays posted on this website do not necessarily coincide in every particular with those of the website editor. (If any two human beings agree on everything, that is a good sign at least one of them is not thinking.)

Discussion of Current Issues and News and Articles from the BC Parents and Teachers for Life Website and Other BCPTL Publications

2007-01-20T20:00:00.000-08:00

The purpose of this page is to comment on current issues raised in the public scphere as well as to provide a place for active discussion of issues raised and news given on www.BCPTL.org --the website of British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life. Please indicate in your title which issue or which piece of news you are responding to, for example by using a title such as "Comment on the article "[Give the title of the article.] In responding to another person's comment, use a title such as "Response to [name or pseudonymn of person you are responding to] on "[title given by that person]"

Mr. Harper and Social Conservatism

2006-12-09T15:13:00.000-08:00

One thing that both Stephen Harper’s supporters and opponents probably agree on is that he is a very intelligent prime minister. He is clever, and repeatedly he has surprised the media with his political savvy.

His very cleverness, though, makes it impossible to write off the failure of his government’s marriage motion as some kind mistake due to lack of political acumen. In fact, his already demonstrated political acumen is leading an important segment of what were his supporters to suspect that the motion’s failure was actually planned, or at least welcomed by the Prime Minister.

A great many social conservatives, who were already looking askance at his stand on social questions, now feel they have been taken for a ride. Technically, he can claim he has fulfilled a promise by putting before parliament the motion worded "That this house call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions, and while respecting existing same sex marriages.” But the fact that the motion dragged in the matter of civil unions and affirmed existing same-sex marriages gave an out to those Liberals who claimed to support traditional marriage but did not wish to vote against their party.

The fact that Conservative members failed to turn out in decent numbers for the debate on the motion, and the fact that discussion was ended so soon, suggests that the government was anything but enthusiastic about reversing the Liberals’ endorsement of same-sex unions as “marriages.”

Mr. Harper’s statement that the marriage-definition matter is now resolved permanently as far as he is concerned reminds us of his statement that the matter of abortion is not a live issue (or words to that effect).* Where has Mr. Harper been? Does he really underestimate to that extent the determination of those who would defend marriage? Perhaps he also underestimates their intelligence and thinks that they will still regard him as an ally.

The immediate political effect of failing to present and back a viable motion for the restoration of the traditional definition of marriage may be to Mr. Harper’s benefit. He can now carry on with measures of fiscal conservatism and not have to defend any highly controversial and politically-incorrect socially-conservative measure. But the long-term effects may not be so favourable to Stephen Harper. It is true that many social conservatives may feel they have nowhere else to go but the Conservative Party. But, as a Conservative Party worker remarked to me, Mr. Harper may not always be the leader of the party; and he is not the whole party. One strategy that socially-conservative members of the Party may adopt is to cut off as much as possible their financial support for the national party and direct that support towards the re-election of those Members of Parliament who have stood up for social-conservative principles. Then too, there is the option in the future of working for the nomination of Conservative-Party candidates who will support those principles which have been foundational to our society, enabling them to replace those who have ignored or undermined those principles.

Then there is the other—unfortunate—effect of people dropping out of the process altogether. This would be unfortunate for Canada, but the result may also be unfortunate for Mr. Harper. He may see a large segment of his party lose their enthusiasm for supporting a government which fails to support much of what they stand for.

There are those who will work actively for other options: for example, joining the Christian Heritage Party, which they may never have seen as a viable alternative, but which has always supported moral principles. In the long run, there may even be a split in the Conservative Party, bringing the situation full-circle to one where we have two “conservative” parties, as when we had the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform and then the Alliance.

Mr. Harper and others who have ignored the social conservatives in the party may think they have been clever, but in the end they may find that this kind of transparent cleverness has negative consequences. Those too often taken for granted may well decide that they do have options, and options which may not be to the taste of Mr. Harper and those who are supporting him in his present course.

Ted Hewlett, December 8, 2006

Endnote:

* See “Conservative Leader Harper Vows to Shut Down Abortion Debate in Canada's Parliament,” LifeSite, January 17, 2006, at
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06011707.html

General: Share Your Thoughts on Abortion and Euthanasia

2006-03-30T18:35:00.000-08:00

How do you think the pro-life movement can awaken the conscience of Canadians to the evil of induced abortion? In what ways have pro-lifers succeeded in Canada and how have we failed?

Share your thoughts with other pro-lifers on these and other topics related to abortion.

So-called mercy-killing without punishment has taken place in Canada. It may be only a matter of time before the next attempt to legislate the legalization of euthanasia. We have an opportunity to alert Canada to the true nature of euthanasia. How can we best do this?

Contribute your thoughts. You may help to shape a strategy to deal with the threat of euthanasia

English Novelist Proposes Euthanasia Booths for the Old

2006-03-25T22:50:00.000-08:00

“The novelist Martin Amis has called for euthanasia booths on street corners, where elderly people can end their lives with “a martini and a medal.” “How is society going to support this silver tsunami?” he asked in an interview in The Sunday Times Magazine. “There’ll be a population of demented very old people, like an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops.”

The sixty-two-year-old Amis may have been deliberately causing a sensation in an effort to call attention to his latest book, but the attitude his remarks express is not unique to the novelist. More blatantly than in the recent past, we are confronted with numerous suggestions that the lives of the disabled and elderly are not worthy to be lived. Along with this, we hear numerous expressions of the attitude that the ideas of the elderly are not worthy of being expressed.

Disagree with someone considerably older than oneself? Don’t bother seeking to counter his arguments. All you have to do is suggest that his ideas are the product of senility. Or, more subtly, you can resort to chronological snobbery and suggest that his ideas belong in the trash-can of discarded ideology.

Such concepts are not new, but their recent resurgence suggests more than one peril. Besides the obvious one that pressure may be put on the old to end their lives, there are dangers to society in general: Not only do such attitudes lead to a lack of compassion in society, but writing off the ideas of the past as not worthy of examination may prevent us from benefiting from the collective experience of those who have come on the scene before us.

There is a lesson or two here for teachers, for those planning curriculum, and for parents who entrust their children to the schools. Education can lead the young to value the lives of the elderly and to esteem the wisdom of the past. Or it can lead them to take a cavalier attitude towards those lives (and the lives of the disabled or disadvantaged) and towards the collective experience of the past. The result of those negative attitudes can be the repetition of the mistakes of past history, justifying the unfortunate saying that the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.

E.S.H., January 30, 2010
(This essay has previously been published as an editorial on the

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life site

. . . on Marriage

2006-03-18T18:46:00.000-08:00

The effects of the redefinition of marriage are even now being felt. What do you think should and could be done about this?

Share your views on this important subject.

The following essay was moved from a separate section of this website and added to this section on November 15, 2007. Since it is related to the marriage question, it seems to belong here, and in its new position may stimulate some comment.

A Proposal for Solving a Contentious Problem

The following essay was written prior to the Canadian government’s law changing the definition of marriage. It is presented here, with minor changes, because the change in marriage definition in the offending legislation must be revisited. I realize that the solution presented here is not one that all social conservatives will agree on, but I present it as a topic worth discussing.

The sound and the fury has echoed and reechoed across Canada. Homosexuals demand that they should be officially granted the right to the word “marriage.” Defenders of traditional marriage object to the misuse of a word, which for time immemorial has been used to designate a particular union between a man and a woman. The sound and fury is not without substance. Real issues are at stake. Pro-homosexuality activists demand rights which they say are associated with marriage. Defenders of traditional marriage say the state should not, by changing the legal definition of marriage, proclaim that same-sex unions are to be affirmed or put its stamp of approval on such unions.

All the while there has been a possible solution to the problem which would grant all the rights which can legitimately claimed without proclaiming same-sex unions as marriages. That solution has been called “domestic partnerships.” Such partnerships would grant every legitimate claim of non-married people living together while answering the objections of those who contend for the exclusive nature of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. A legally recognized “domestic partnership” would acknowledge that two people had decided to set up a legal partnership with differing roles. This legal relationship would be available to a variety of people. Two people raising children together, where one partner withdrew from the general work force for a number of years in order to better provide for the nurturing of children—that could be designated a domestic partnership. Or a son or daughter might stay home to care for an aged parent, and could have the relationship designated a “domestic partnership.” Domestic partners such as this might be granted special pension rights in view of the valuable service they provide.

It will be noted from the two examples given that a “domestic partnership” as such has nothing to do with sexual relationship. This should please liberal followers of Pierre Trudeau, who declared that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation. It should also please the defenders of traditional marriage, who will note that it does not touch the time-honoured definition of marriage.

Pro-homosexuality activists have demanded that members of same-sex unions should have the same rights as members of opposite-sex unions. Social conservatives could agree if basic rights were recognized as belonging to the individual. Why should married couples have special rights anyway? The only special rights that the state needs to grant are those which can be vested in those who are “domestic partners.”

All legitimate rights required for the relationship of couples may be granted either by the designating domestic partnerships or by the creation of simple contracts or legal declarations. Inheritance rights can be stipulated by private agreements and wills. Pension rights, provided they did not involve subsidization by outside parties or the state, could be granted in view of individual legal declarations.

The present writer has simply sought to explain the outworkings of a solution. The solution I cannot claim as my own, and the term “domestic partnership” is not my invention. It is a term and a concept that I first knew as the proposal of a conservative Roman Catholic Bishop.. At this present juncture it seems important to point out that there is a just solution to the marriage problem which now rends the nation. In a spirit of goodwill and with a common concern for justice, should we not give fair consideration to such a solution?

--Ted Hewlett

. . .on Education

2006-03-15T18:50:00.000-08:00

What position should public schools take on traditional morals? Should they actively promote them; and, if so, to what extent? Should they take a neutral stand?
Does the stand they should take vary depending on what moral values we are considering? Is the real solution a voucher system allowing parents to choose among public schools and among independent schools?

There are complex issues involved. Please give your considered opinion as a social conservative to these and related issues.

. . .on Compassionate Conservatism

2006-03-10T18:56:00.000-08:00

We take compassion to be one of the characteristics of social conservatism. In this respect it differs from mere financial conservatism. At the same time, social conservatism, while recognizing the need to help those who cannot help themselves, also recognizes the danger that the state in seeking to help the unfortunate may trample on the rights of the individual or sap his initiative.

What are your reactions to the above statement? Please share them or any other thoughts you have on compassionate conservatism.

Note: In error, two sections for "Compassionate Conservatism" were added to this website. I have deleted the first section. Below I have added the last omment from that section.

Last comment from deleted (superfluous) section:

ZGraham said...
I am a strong Christian therefor I believe in compassion however there is a place where we must draw the line. Many unemployed people abuse the welfare system. Is it fair that an individual can choose not to work for his money; rather live off the government, while others choose to struggle to survive. God bless the men who struggle, and God help those who choose to be pigs and steal from the taxpayers.

List of Essays on This Website

2006-02-20T20:47:00.000-08:00

The following is a list of essays currently to be found on this website. We encourage you to post your comments regarding these essays. If you have an essay topic to suggest, or wish to offer your own essay, use the comments following this "List of Essays" to tell us about that. Do not write your essay in the "Comment," though. We can contact you with a way to send us the essay.

List of Essays Currently Posted on This Website:
1. English Novelist Proposes Euthanasia Booths for the Old
2. An Assessment of the Settlement Agreement Between the BC Ministry of Education and the Correns
3. How Changing the Definition of Marriage Threatens Our Youth
4. Regarding the State, Traditional Marriage, and Same-Sex Unions
5. A Proposal for Solving a Contentious Problem
6. The Revenge of the Aborted?
7. The Power of Canadian Courts
8. The Supreme Court's Swingers Decision Strips Away Community Values

Essays: 1. An Assessment of the Settlement Agreement between the Ministry of Education of British Columbia and Murray and Peter Corren

2006-02-15T00:18:00.000-08:00

(an essay published on the BC Parents and Teachers for Life website at www.BCPTL.org)

Parents and others concerned about education should be alerted to danger on reading the news that the Province of British Columbia has signed an agreement giving an unprecedented role to two private citizens in the review of courses--these citizens being pro-homosexuality activists who have made it clear that they seek a thorough revision of curriculum to ensure that homosexuality is given a favourable treatment.

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life was alerted years ago to the plans disclosed by one of the two activists, and ever since has been warning of the agenda of the proponents of homosexual propaganda for the schools. Unfortunately, our warnings and the warnings of that unusually courageous teacher Chris Kempling have been largely ignored by many of those who, one would think, would be most concerned.
We predict that not only students in public schools but also those in Independent schools and those taking British Columbia Ministry of Education courses in home settings will be affected by the Province's agreement with the Correns. It seems highly unlikely that any exemption will be allowed, or at least allowed to stand, that permits alteration of the curriculum to respect the wishes of parents or of independent institutions to which parents might entrust their children.

We have now had a chance to read a copy of the “Settlement Agreement” between Murray Corren and Peter Corren on the one hand (“complainants”) and the British Columbia Ministry of Education (“Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Education”). In the paragraphs immediately following we will give our analysis of that agreement.

The first point in the Settlement Agreement is an agreement regarding the “Alternative Delivery Policy.” This part of the settlement ensures that parents who might have objections to the revisions of curriculum envisioned will not, for most subjects, be able to opt for the “Alternative Delivery Policy” which may exist for Health and Career Education K-7, Health and Career Education 8 and 9, and Planning 10. The agreement with the Correns guarantees that the option of an “Alternative Delivery” will not be available except in those subjects.
What is meant by an “Alternative Delivery Policy”? For an explanation we may turn to something called Policy Document: Opting for Alternative Delivery -- Health and Career Education 8 and 9 and Planning 10 [Reference: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/ ] . This document says, under the sub-heading “Policy”:

“The health component of Health and Career Education 8 and 9 and Planning 10 addresses topics which some students and their parents or guardians may feel more comfortable addressing at home. In some cases, students, with their parents' or guardians' consent and in consultation with their school, may choose not to participate in classes when these topics are discussed and, instead, address the topics in an agreed upon alternative manner.
“It is expected that students will complete the related learning outcomes and demonstrate their knowledge of the health topic(s) they have chosen to learn in an alternative manner.
“This option is only available for topics that are part of the health component of Health and Career Education 8 and 9 or Planning 10. This option is not intended for any other curriculum.”
Under “Procedures” the Ministry document explains:

”School boards are expected to have policies for alternative delivery of these topics in place.
“School boards are encouraged to develop a variety of ways for topics that students and their parents or guardians may feel more comfortable addressing at home to be covered through alternative delivery. They may also invite parents or guardians to propose alternatives for delivery of content, which are suitable to their needs.
“There are several options that school boards can provide for students who request the opportunity to complete topics that they may feel more comfortable addressing at home outside of regular classroom instruction. Examples include:
· home instruction using a school-determined package of materials or other agreed upon materials

· Distributed Learning (formerly distance education/distance electronic learning)

· self-directed studies”
It should be noted that even under “Alternative Delivery” the options of the parents might be limited, depending on the exact policy developed by a local school board. However, had the “Alternative Delivery Policy” been extended to the many subjects other than those named which will be affected by the revisions referred to in the “Settlement Agreement” with the Correns, there might have been some acceptable ‘out’ provided for parents who objected to the proposed revisions. This door has been locked before it could be opened. For every other subject, when the course is revised, the following statement will be added to its “Integrated Resource Package” (which is equivalent to a “Program of Studies”): “The Opting for Alternative Delivery Policy does not apply to this IRP.”
It is worth noting that a letter regarding the agreed “Opting for Delivery Policy,” to be sent out to School Board Chairs and school district superintendents, with copies to various bodies, will first be provided in draft form to the Correns for their review. Only then will the finalized letter be sent out: this to be done before September 15, 2006.
The extraordinary role given to the Correns also appears in the terms of the “Settlement Agreement” regarding the “Internal Review Process.” The Ministry will draft internal review guidelines to use in reviewing draft IRPs to ensure, ostensibly, “ . . . every draft IRP incorporates consideration of equality and respect for all learners. “To that end [the Settlement Agreement says], the Guidelines will provide a framework for the Ministry to review each draft IRP from the perspective of inclusion and respect for diversity with respect to sexual orientation and other grounds of discrimination, and an over-arching concern for social justice.” Not only will the Ministry consult with the Complainants (the Correns) in preparing the Guidelines, but also it will provide them with a draft of the Guidelines for their comment before finalizing the Guidelines for implementation on or before September 30, 2006.
Not only are the Correns given an extraordinary role, so are any organizations and groups which they name as having “ . . .expertise in sexual orientation, homophobia and other issues of inclusion and diversity in the curriculum.” The Ministry promises to “ . . .solicit feedback directly from these organizations and groups regarding the IRP Response Draft(s), when each Response Draft is posted on the Ministry’s website.” The Complainants are also given a special role in reviewing the schedule for revision of the IRPs.

At this point it is worthwhile to pause and consider what sort of revisions to the curriculum the Correns and their allies will likely be demanding. “Demanding” is the right word, because later on in the Settlement Agreement it is made clear that anything the Correns consider noncompliance with the Settlement may be appealed to a mediator appointed by the Human Rights Tribunal and in the event of that mediation being unsuccessful, to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The extent of the revisions the Correns will be demanding was indicated years ago in a presentation one of the activists made to the Coquitlam School Trustees. In asking for a program to address the supposed needs of “sexual minority” students, he complained, “Nowhere in the curriculum are the many and significant contributions of lesbian and gay people, living and dead, acknowledged. Our school libraries are devoid of resources that positively affirm the achievements of gay and lesbian people in the arts, in literature, science, medicine, social sciences, politics, and in every other sphere of endeavor.”

What the Correns are seeking in the school curriculum, we may conclude, is a positive affirmation of the achievements of homosexuals in every area of human endeavour. Hence the proposed revisions will affect every course in the curriculum.

A second part of the settlement with the Correns promises a new Grade Twelve course on social justice issues (a “Social Justice IRP”). “The purpose of this IRP [the Settlement states] will be to explore, from legal, political, ethical and economic perspectives, the concept of a just and equitable society in which there is full participation of all peoples. One topic of study within the Social Justice IRP will address issues of sexual orientation/gender identity.” Again, the Complainants are given a special consultative role. It is also agreed that “Prior to release of the Social Justice 12 Response Draft for public review and response, the Respondent [the Ministry] will provide the Complainants with a draft of the sexual orientation/gender identity portion for their review, and will make revisions as appropriate in light of the comments received. The Complainants may consult experts, on a confidential basis, to assist them in providing such comment.”
We should note the fact that this consultation with the Correns is to take place before the draft course is released to the general public. A pilot version of the new course is to be completed on or before June 30, 2007, and full implementation is to take place in September, 2008.

It is true that Social Justice 12 is to be an elective course, and so perhaps only a small minority of students is likely to take it, and presumably Independent Schools will not have to offer it. Surely, though, we should be concerned about the propagandizing of any sector of the student body. And, judging by what pro-homosexuality activists have produced so far, a course produced to conform to these activists’ desires is indeed likely to be propagandizing in nature.

The main concern of parents, surely, is the proposed revision of all courses to conform to the demands of the pro-homosexuality lobby. There is something seriously wrong if parents do not respond in a body to register their protests with the British Columbia Ministry of Education over the unprecedented step it has taken in allowing an unprecedented role for two activists in shaping the educational environment of all British Columbia students in public schools, and—we believe—in all schools using the provincial curriculum.

Some years ago I gave the following picture during a talk to a pro-life, pro-family group. Unfortunately, the imaginary journey through a school seems to be coming true in an all-too-literal fashion. The imaginary journey went as follows:
“Please allow me to walk you through a day in an imaginary school. . . . . Imagine for a moment, John and Jane, two high-school students who attend school in the future brave new world of social engineering . . . . . .A day at Margaret Sangers High School might start out with English class, where the class is introduced to Earl Birney’s poem “David,” in which an injured mountain climber is ‘mercifully’ pushed over a cliff by his companion. The lesson is the perfect setting for a representative of the local right-to-die association to come in and give ‘relevance’ to the poem. The next period might be Career and Personal Planning, where students look at the options for reproductive or non-reproductive choices. Abstinence may be mentioned, but in a very cursory manner. The main emphasis will be on the avoidance of the results of pre-marital sex: the condom, the pill, and—in this land of free choice—abortion. The third period of the morning is science. Here the student is exposed to the marvels that have resulted from experiments on human embryos, and the hope for the bettering of the human race: the hope, in effect, of creating a Superman—or rather Superperson.
“After lunch, our students of the future attend a mathematics class. Here the familiar lesson in pure mathematics is preceded by a short introduction telling of the brilliant work done by a homosexual mathematician. (Teachers had not thought it necessary to mention his sexual orientation prior to the introduction of the new, humanistically inclusive mathematics program.) Finally, we may imagine John and Jane in social studies class, at the end of the day, where the students are in their second week of a unit on the history of homosexual rights. Today the lesson is on the right to adoption, and the splendid environment that may be provided by homosexual couples for their adopted children.
“A little far-fetched, you may say [remember this talk was given some years ago]; and it may be unlikely that a single day would see students encounter so many radical topics. But it is entirely likely that, in the not-so-distant future, in the course of part of a year, all the above topics and more of the same may be encountered.”
So much for an imagined future for education. The point is that education is threatened by the attempts of activists on many fronts to shape the education of the young. The present apparently successful coup by Corren and Corren has to have been one of the boldest of such actions. It is one that, if allowed to stand, will, we may confidently predict, affect the education of practically all students in the province, and set an unfortunate, even tragic, example for the rest of Canada.
We urge all those who care about the children and youth of British Columbia to write to the Premier, the Minister of Education, the Attorney General, and your local Member of the Legislature. British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life would appreciate your letting us know that you have taken action. If you don’t mind, please send them a copy of your letter (to executive@BCPTL.org); and if you receive an answer, send a copy of the reply you receive.
Ted Hewlett
June, 2006

Essays: 2. How Changing the Definition of Marriage Threatens Our Youth

2006-02-09T12:37:00.000-08:00

Thousands in Canada rallied in defence of marriage, sensing that we had come to some sort of crossroads over this issue. Canadians had reason to be concerned. The debate over the definition of marriage is more than academic. It is virtually certain that those who have lobbied for same-sex “marriage” will insist that schools be compelled to portray such homosexual unions as marriages, equal in every way to traditional marriages. Already, prior to Parliament's changing the legal definition of marriage, the Supreme Court of Canada had in effect, in the case of Chamberlain versus the Surrey School Board, ordered the favourable portrayal of families headed by same-sex couples.
If the highest court in the land could find a mandate for such a favourable portrayal when there was not a sentence in law giving them actual approval, how much easier it will be to justify ordering that teachers present those unions as actual marriage when by the authority of the state same-sex couples have been declared to be married.
When on May 1st of 2003 the Appeals Court of British Columbia ruled that same-sex couples could be married, the reactions of homosexual couples to that ruling revealed a good deal about the reason for the big push for same-sex “marriage.” 1 For example, one couple (according to The Globe and Mail*) said they were “. . . pleased that the court recognized the equality of heterosexual and homosexual relationships.” One of the partners said, “Hopefully, having equality will give the message to society that this is okay, that this is not something wrong, deviant, scary or evil. These are just loving relationships, with all their flaws and imperfections . . . that any other relationship has.” 2 In other words, this couple hailed the decision of the BC Appeals Court endorsing same-sex “marriage” because the law is a teacher, and they wanted it to teach approval of their particular type of relationship. That approval was given by courts in Ontario and British Columbia, and was given by the parliament of Canada when it passed a law stating that same-sex couples can be married.
Of course the Canadian public should realize that Canada is a country where there has been no bar to homosexual relationships. And those in such relationships who wanted to, had nothing to stop them from staging their own ceremonies and proclaiming that their unions were marriages without getting a certificate from the government. Anyone can say an apple is an orange or that a sow’s ear is a silk purse. But they should not be able to force others to applaud. What the pro-homosexuality activists wanted was to have the government on behalf of all of us put its stamp of approval on their unions. And that is something government should not have done.
There is a frightening spirit of totalitarianism evident in the pro-homosexuality movement. This spirit would lead them to force upon the children of objecting parents a program of propaganda that presents homosexual behaviour as just another alternative life-style—even an attractive alternative lifestyle. Parents whose morality forbids homosexuality and parents who are concerned about the medical consequences of homosexual behaviour, and citizens who care about parental rights have a responsibility to say “No” to this totalitarian movement before it is too late.
We should realize that a very predictable result of the recognition of same-sex marriage will be further pressure for the indoctrination of the young in the schools of our land. We have no right to stand idly by as this happens. One good reason for opposing the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage was the fact that we have a responsibility to the children and youth of this country. That is a good reason for continuing to oppose it and for taking steps to guard the youth of Canada against the consequences of that recognition now that it has come about. 
--Ted Hewlett
____________
1 This and the next paragraph are adapted from the essay entitled “Activists for Same-Sex Marriage Want Not Tolerance` But a Stamp of Approval.” The essay has been published on the BCPTL website “Marriage” page.
2 Quoted in The Globe and Mail, May 2, 2003, Section A, P. 4, "We know it does make a difference.”

3. Regarding the State, Traditional Marriage, and Same-Sex Unions

2006-02-08T22:08:00.000-08:00

A number of questions regarding the legitimate role of government have been raised by both advocates of particular rights for homosexuals and defenders of traditional marriage. In this brief essay I am attempting to address several of the most urgent of these questions.

The matter of pension rights is one that, as we have said previously, could be addressed by simple contracts and legal declarations, provided no subsidizing by outside parties is involved. It cannot be legitimately argued, in the view of this writer, that those in either traditional marriages or homosexual unions, simply because of their relationship, should have the right to special subsidization by other participants in a pension scheme or by government or as a result of a government mandate. The only apparently legitimate argument that can be made for any government-mandated subsidizing is in the case of partners with children. Any legislation regarding this is a matter for detailed and special laws, not a matter for basic human rights.

What about the right to adopt? Who should have that right? Well, adoption surely is not a basic right, but a special right which is granted not primarily for the welfare of a couple but for the welfare of children. It can surely be legitimately argued that the optimum welfare of children is served by their being raised in a stable relationship in a family headed by an opposite-sex couple, and opposite-sex couples in such stable relationships should be granted special status when deciding questions of adoption.

What role should the school system play in the matter of portraying traditional marriage and homosexual unions? Pro-homosexuality activists demand that the latter should be given at least equal status in education to that of the former. Pro-homosexuality activists would demand that literature classes study the portrayal in novels of homosexual romance in the same way that heterosexual romances are now portrayed. In fact, these activists would call into service much of the school curriculum for the favourable portrayal of homosexual relationships.
Should education be subjected to such a revolutionary treatment on behalf of the homosexual minority? The medical evidence would shout a loud and clear warning which we ignore at our peril. The brevity of the average homosexual’s life-span, the prevalence of disease among the practitioners of homosexuality, the rarity of permanent commitment to relationships: all are clear warnings against the use of the schools as instruments to give youth a favourable view of homosexual behaviour. Public schooling must not be used as an instrument of pro-homosexuality propaganda.

The matter of parental rights must come into play in any consideration of the proposals to alter public education on behalf of a homosexual minority. The state should not subvert in the public schools the teachings of those parents who espouse traditional morality.

Those of us who are social conservatives are not, for the most part, expecting--and in my opinion should not expect, the state to enforce our private standards of behaviour. But to the extent that government should be involved in the marriage question at all, it should be involved on the side of recognizing the unique and beneficent nature of the justly time-honoured institution of marriage as a relationship involving the commitment of one man and one woman.
--Ted Hewlett

4. A Proposal for Solving a Contentious Problem

2006-02-07T22:32:00.000-08:00

The following essay was written prior to the Canadian government’s law changing the definition of marriage. It is presented here, with minor changes, because the change in marriage definition in the offending legislation must be revisited. I realize that the solution presented here is not one that all social conservatives will agree on, but I present it as a topic worth discussing.

The sound and the fury has echoed and reechoed across Canada. Homosexuals demand that they should be officially granted the right to the word “marriage.” Defenders of traditional marriage object to the misuse of a word, which for time immemorial has been used to designate a particular union between a man and a woman. The sound and fury is not without substance. Real issues are at stake. Pro-homosexuality activists demand rights which they say are associated with marriage. Defenders of traditional marriage say the state should not, by changing the legal definition of marriage, proclaim that same-sex unions are to be affirmed or put its stamp of approval on such unions.

All the while there has been a possible solution to the problem which would grant all the rights which can legitimately claimed without proclaiming same-sex unions as marriages. That solution has been called “domestic partnerships.” Such partnerships would grant every legitimate claim of non-married people living together while answering the objections of those who contend for the exclusive nature of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. A legally recognized “domestic partnership” would acknowledge that two people had decided to set up a legal partnership with differing roles. This legal relationship would be available to a variety of people. Two people raising children together, where one partner withdrew from the general work force for a number of years in order to better provide for the nurturing of children—that could be designated a domestic partnership. Or a son or daughter might stay home to care for an aged parent, and could have the relationship designated a “domestic partnership.” Domestic partners such as this might be granted special pension rights in view of the valuable service they provide.

It will be noted from the two examples given that a “domestic partnership” as such has nothing to do with sexual relationship. This should please liberal followers of Pierre Trudeau, who declared that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation. It should also please the defenders of traditional marriage, who will note that it does not touch the time-honoured definition of marriage.

Pro-homosexuality activists have demanded that members of same-sex unions should have the same rights as members of opposite-sex unions. Social conservatives could agree if basic rights were recognized as belonging to the individual. Why should married couples have special rights anyway? The only special rights that the state needs to grant are those which can be vested in those who are “domestic partners.”

All legitimate rights required for the relationship of couples may be granted either by the designating domestic partnerships or by the creation of simple contracts or legal declarations. Inheritance rights can be stipulated by private agreements and wills. Pension rights, provided they did not involve subsidization by outside parties or the state, could be granted in view of individual legal declarations.

The present writer has simply sought to explain the outworkings of a solution. The solution I cannot claim as my own, and the term “domestic partnership” is not my invention. It is a term and a concept that I first knew as the proposal of a conservative Roman Catholic Bishop.. At this present juncture it seems important to point out that there is a just solution to the marriage problem which now rends the nation. In a spirit of goodwill and with a common concern for justice, should we not give fair consideration to such a solution?

--Ted Hewlett

5. The Revenge of the Aborted?

2006-02-06T11:29:00.000-08:00

By Stephen Gray

“Canadian families do not make babies like they used to. A dramatic decline in fertility in recent decades, combined with an aging population, has the potential to transform every aspect of Canadian society, from schools and housing to social attitudes toward family.”1

Recently in The National Post there were four articles over four days examining the dearth of a younger generation in Canada. Nowhere in these articles was the issue of abortion raised as a factor in this issue of a “childless culture.” Instead we saw the words “low fertility” used to describe the lack of a younger generation. Abortion in Canada surely has had a role in the cause of “low fertility” and less children going to school.

“With Canadian families producing fewer babies than ever, school officials in every province have to figure out what to do with thousands of empty classrooms built for Baby Boomers and their children but left vacant by the generation that is following in much smaller numbers.”2

The issue of schools closing in some places was raised because of declining enrollment. Yet, the teachers unions are on record as favoring abortion. We are also told there is a scarcity of skilled workers, and the Canadian Labor Congress (CLC), which claims to speak for all its members, is on record as supporting “choice” on abortion. One could argue that trade unions which depend on a constant supply of new members are in fact cutting their own throats by supporting the killing of the child in the womb under the banner of “choice.” Are they in fact supporting the killing off of future members?

There are over 100,000 abortions a year in Canada. If one goes back to the year 1992 where there were 102,085 [3] abortions and this number has been increasing yearly ever since, one could say on average from 1992 until 2005 we have killed off at least 1.3 million innocent lives that would have gone to school, perhaps been future union members and future taxpayers in society.

Now governments at the provincial and federal levels are raising the alarm about having an imbalance of elderly people and more retirees, which will put more strain on our healthcare system. “In less than a decade, seniors will outnumber children in Canada; in just 15 years, deaths may outnumber births.”4 So what will the solution be if “deaths outnumber births”? How will society deal with the “problem” of too many seniors many of whom could be retired and in poor health? We have seen the issue of euthanasia being raised recently in parliament, but of course that is only for people who want to die. And of course euthanasia could never be “acceptable.” Could it? Well, at one time abortion was considered a heinous crime, and those who practiced it were considered pariahs. Now the abortionists are hailed as “practitioners” of “choice.” And the killing of the child in the womb is sacrificed on the altar of political expediency as a “right.” So will it be “expedient” to exercise “choice” on our burgeoning elderly population and call it “death with dignity”? After all, when the killing of the child in the womb is now “normal” who is to say that killing people out of the womb and in the “golden years” of their lives could not also become “normal.”

There is an old and wise saying, “We reap what we sow.” Over the last number of years we have sown death in Canada through abortion. Society’s acceptance of abortion has given credence to the idea that parents can kill their unborn children if they are deemed to be unwanted. Now, some born children may start killing their parents if they believe them to be unwanted. Could this be called the revenge of the aborted?

Stephen Gray
[Stephen Gray is a writer on social issues who for eleven years had a website which exposed the misuse of union time and money.]
February 25, 2006.
graysinfo@yahoo.ca Website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo

Note: To see the truth about abortion go to http://www.AbortionNO.org

Endnotes:
1 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=13e220f0-b53a-4a38-bca9-66481d9b8f89

2 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=aefa5ecf-227e-4f38-8f06-6f77cd4eb99f

3 http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/971105/d971105.htm#ART2

4 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=13e220f0-b53a-4a38-bca9-66481d9b8f89

6.The Power of Canadian Courts

2006-02-05T21:50:00.000-08:00

The Power of Canadian Courts
By C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
REAL Women of Canada

In no other country in the western world do judges have power comparable to
that now held by Canadian judges. The latters’ appointments to the courts are made solely by the Prime Minister, without being either screened or scrutinized.

Contrary to popular belief, most of this remarkable power now held by our

appointed, unaccountable judges was not given to them under the Charter of

Rights, but rather has been greatly expanded by the judges themselves in a series

of cases which have enabled them to determine public policy issues, which was

formerly a matter for Parliament only.

The Charter does provide in S.24 that the courts may provide “such remedies as the courts consider appropriate and just in the circumstances.” This provision does not provide, however, that judges may take legislation and ‘write in’ or ‘write out’ words at will. Rather, the courts have assumed this prerogative for themselves, frequently, in doing so, ignoring the purpose and intent of the legislation passed by the elected legislators.

The Canadian courts have broadened their powers to such an extent that they now have become a second legislature, reducing the elected Parliament to a mere secondary role in the political process.

Perhaps the most important Charter decision to expand the courts’ power to interpret the Charter at will was the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1986 decision, in Regina v. Oakes. In that case, the court set out the parameters by which it could determine whether laws were “justified” in our democratic society. Unfortunately, the effect of the Oakes decision was to give the court a free hand to second-guess government policies.

The courts’ powers were further widened in Reference re Provincial and Electoral Boundaries (Saskatchewan, 1991), in which the Supreme Court of Canada pronounced a new doctrine which provided that our Constitution was not static, but was rather a “living tree.” With this metaphor, the courts accorded to themselves the right to broadly change the wording and meaning of Charter provisions, and to change laws according to judges’ own philosophical and ideological views.

The most recent application of the “living tree” doctrine was made by Madam Justice Louise Arbour in her minority decision in December 2002 in Attorney General, Quebec v. Gosselin, in which using the “living tree” argument, she put forward the astonishing proposition that judges know better than legislators regarding the allocation of the scarce resources of the public purse. This decision, dealing with welfare payments by the Quebec government, was a narrow one (4-3) and if just one other judge had moved over to Madam Justice Arbour’s line of reasoning, it would have resulted in the Quebec government having to pay hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars in compensation to welfare recipients. It is worrisome that the Supreme Court has promised to revisit this issue at a later time!

The Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of “equality rights” under S.15 of the Charter, is just as bizarre. In Law v. Canada (1999), the Supreme Court held that equality rights were threatened if an individual’s “human dignity” is undermined. In that case, the courts held that “human dignity” exists only if an individual or group feels that self-respect and self worth are present. That is, according to the Law case, an individual or group’s human dignity can be undermined if they feel marginalized, ignored and devalued. This means that equality rights under S.15 of the Charter now rest on the claims of a person’s feelings. This is an extraordinary criterion for courts to use and has given courts a wide opportunity to protect their favourite groups, regardless of the intent of Parliament, the plain wording of the legislation, or the views of the public.

The truth is that judges do not have special or secret knowledge with which to interpret the general and ill‑defined words in the Charter of Rights. Instead, judges come to the bench with their own political and ideological axes to grind, and are now eagerly shaping public policy issues, with impunity, without the slightest deference to Parliament.

The courts, however, should not determine public policy because they are not set up to carry out this important function. Unlike Parliament, courts do not have access to the social facts of the issues before them; they do not have the luxury of time to adequately reflect on the issue; they do not have access to research facilities as do Parliamentarians; and they do not have access to the practical experiences of the public on issues which are growing increasingly complex, economically, socially and scientifically. Nor are the courts equipped to evaluate the full range of policy alternatives which are available to the government. As a consequence, it is not possible for the courts to entirely grasp the long-range implications and ramifications of the arguments placed before them by the litigants.

This extraordinary power grab by the Canadian courts has occurred because there are no checks and balances on them, and the courts rightly reason that they can do whatever they please, no matter how spurious their reasoning, or how unhealthy their decisions are to democracy.

We do not have a strong tradition of criticism of the judiciary in Canada, but in the interests of democracy, perhaps it is time we developed one.

7. The Supreme Court's Swingers Decision Strips Away Community Values

2006-02-04T22:00:00.000-08:00

The decision clearly establishes the courts as the new arbiters of public morality. They have cut out Canadian society and the concerns of ordinary Canadians.
By Janet Epp Buckingham

Recently the Supreme Court of Canada released two decisions concluding that so-called swingers clubs are not illegal. The court decided that what goes on in these establishments is not "indecent," nor is it "harmful." This is one of those watershed cases that changes the way courts deal with the regulation of sex for commercial purposes.

Why would Canadians possibly care what sex acts consenting adults engage in? In this postmodern era, some people argue that anything goes. But that is only true if you assume that what you do has no impact on anyone else. Swingers clubs, and what goes on in them, does have an impact far beyond the four walls of the club.

Up to this point, the courts have applied a test of the Canadian community standard of decency when deciding whether a particular act or business is indecent. This standard was applied to strip clubs, lap dancing and even when considering obscenity in terms of allowable pornography. This standard recognized that Canadian society has a legitimate concern with public treatment of sex acts.

In the cases decided on December 21, 2005, however, the court has developed a new standard. Under this new interpretation, swingers clubs are legal because there is no real "harm" caused by consenting adults engaging in group sex acts in a commercial business. And the court sets the barrier for "harm" at an incredibly high level. The harm must be to the "proper functioning of Canadian society."

This decision clearly establishes the courts as the new arbiters of public morality. They have cut out Canadian society and the concerns of ordinary Canadians.

Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache and Mr. Justice Louis LeBel dissented. They point out, "This new, harm-based approach also strips of all relevance the social values that the Canadian community as a whole believe should be protected."

And these decisions will have ripple effects on other sex-related businesses.

Swingers clubs will now be able to advertise publicly and encourage more couples to consider consensual adultery. Some marriages and relationships will likely not survive this sexual experimentation.

Strip clubs will now be able to feature public sex acts unless there is "harm" shown. And only the courts can determine what is "harmful."

Bath houses and massage parlours will be able to operate as legitimate businesses, publicly offering sexual services, unless someone can prove "harm." And only the courts can determine what is "harmful."

The liberalization of public sexuality, which also includes pornography, objectifies sex. It is no longer an act of emotional intimacy, but simply physical gratification. Over the last year, I have noticed an increasing number of news articles and commentaries expressing concern over sexual activities of young teens, including anti-social and inappropriate sexual activities. There are worrying trends that can be linked to increased exposure to public sexuality.

And this brings us to the harm that all this causes: hurt to family relationships; hurt from psychological problems arising from unfaithfulness; hurt to families shattered; hurt by children left without full parental support.

Many Canadians care about public morality. In fact, the whole Criminal Code is based on setting out a common public morality. It sets out what is not acceptable in society. These standards change over time, and so the Criminal Code is amended. But the Supreme Court decision has not resulted from a change to the Criminal Code.

Some people believe that there is no longer a need for public morality. They are, in fact, offended that anyone would presume to pass judgment on their lifestyle. They are especially offended that a religious group would comment on public morality.

But one of the roles of churches and other religious institutions is to comment on moral issues. Of course, not everyone will agree with a particular religious commentary, or any other moral commentary. But that does not take away the religious organizations' role, or indeed responsibility, to speak to these issues.

Public morality is formulated by all Canadians. Religious communities are part of the larger Canadian society. If we are to live together as a society, we need to have ways of publicly debating issues to come to consensus. One of those ways is called Parliament. It is there that there can be broad, public input. No doubt, this will be one of the issues debated by Parliament, when it resumes after the election.

Janet Epp Buckingham is director of law and public policy at the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, in Ottawa.

Originally published in the Globe and Mail, December 27, 2005.