The Interim
By Rory Leishman
The enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 has led to a national calamity, but the fault lies not so much with the plain words of the Charter as with the arrogance of judicial activists who invoke the Charter as a pretext for arbitrarily imposing their perverse values on the laws and the Constitution of Canada.
Consider, for example, the abuse of the Charter by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Morgentaler, 1988 SCC. In this disastrous case, a majority of the Court led by Chief Justice Brian Dickson struck down even the minimal restrictions on abortion that then remained in section 251 of the Criminal Code on the ground that they allegedly violated the “right to life, liberty and security of the person” as guaranteed in section 7 of the Charter.
Mr. Justice William McIntyre vigorously disagreed with this manifestly absurd judgment. In a powerful dissent joined by Mr. Justice Gerard La Forest, he wrote: “I wish to make it clear that I express no opinion on the question of whether, or upon what conditions, there should be a right for a pregnant woman to have an abortion free of legal sanction.
“Questions of public policy touching on this controversial and divisive matter must be resolved by the elected Parliament. It does not fall within the proper jurisdiction of the courts. In my view, nothing in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives the Court the power or duty to displace Parliament in this matter involving, as it does, general matters of public policy.”
In taking this principled stance, McIntyre and La Forest exercised judicial restraint. They upheld the separation of legislative and judicial powers under the Constitution. They acknowledged that there is nothing in the Charter that gives unelected judges the power or the duty to displace the elected Parliament in deciding upon an appropriate law on abortion or any other general matter of public policy.
Up to the mid-1970s, almost all Canadian judges habitually practised such restraint. But since then, many of Canada’s top jurists, including Dickson, have taken to following the example set by judicial activists in the United States who have no compunction about changing the laws and the Constitution to conform with their personal preferences.
Today, there is not a single practitioner of judicial restraint among the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada. They are all judicial activists. They have collectively overturned the rule of law, by showing scant regard for their own precedents let alone legislative enactments.
Restrained judges like McIntyre understand that judges have a duty to set their personal policy preferences aside for the purpose of upholding the laws and the Constitution as enacted and originally understood. In contrast, judicial activists pretend that the Charter has given the courts a mandate to treat the laws and the Constitution as a “living tree” that judges have a right to change as they see fit.
This pretence is entirely false. Robert Hawkins, President of the University of Regina, is an authority on the history of the Charter. In an article published in the McGill Law Journal that was jointly written with Robert Martin, emeritus professor of law at the University of Western Ontario, he maintains that “the legislators who entrenched the Charter in the Constitution had no intention of abandoning the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy in favour of a doctrine of aggressive judicial review. They never intended to pass the legislative torch.
“Instead, the Charter was a typically Canadian compromise, a deal struck after a very politicized negotiation in which it was decided that rights would be protected by the Constitution, but in such a way as to respect, to the greatest degree possible, the supremacy of Parliament.”
While restrained judges like McIntyre have continued to respect the supremacy of Parliament in the Charter era, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and other like-minded judicial activists habitually purport that the Charter gives them authority to presume on their own to change the laws and dictate public policies on everything from abortion to same-sex marriage and national security.
Yet neither Prime Minister Stephen Harper nor any provincial premier shows any disposition to resist this gross judicial usurpation of the legislative authority of Parliament and the provincial legislatures. What a pity.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Impending schism in the Anglican church
The London Free Press
By Rory Leishman
Tomorrow is Palm Sunday, the prelude to Holy Week when Christians commemorate the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
For many faithful Anglicans, this is an especially anxious Easter season as they contemplate an impending schism within their church. At issue is the vexed question of same-sex marriage.
Earlier this month, the Council of General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada overwhelmingly approved the submission of two resolutions to the upcoming meeting of the church’s full General Synod in June, one relating to the blessing of same-sex unions and the other to revising the doctrine of the church to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples. By adopting either resolution, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada would make a definitive break with the position of the global Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops which voted decisively at its last meeting in 1998 to reaffirm the church’s traditional doctrinal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Episcopal Church in the United States is also embroiled in an intense controversy over revision of the doctrine of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is profoundly perturbed. He has warned that Anglican bishops who sanction the blessing of same-sex unions in defiance of church doctrine might well be deprived of their status as full voting members of the Lambeth Conference at its next meeting in 2008.
Andrew Hutchison, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, has acknowledged the danger. He concedes that the possibility of an Anglican schism will be a “real risk,” if General Synod endorses the blessing of same sex unions.
Underlying this dispute is a central teaching of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; namely, the primacy of Sacred Scripture as the ultimate authority on all questions of faith and morality. The majority of liberal Anglican bishops in Canada and the United States seem to have persuaded themselves to adopt the intellectually untenable position that the blessing of same-sex unions can somehow be squared with the plain teachings of the Bible that forbid sexual intercourse outside the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman.
Diarmaid MacCulloch, a professor of church history at Oxford University, is a candid proponent of blessing same-sex unions. In discussing the legitimacy of homosexual activity in his book, Reformation: Europe's House Divided, he persuasively argues:
“This is an issue of biblical authority. Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity. The only alternatives are to try to cleave to patterns of life and assumptions set out in the Bible, or to say that in this, as in much else, the Bible is simply wrong.”
Quite so. The Bible makes clear that faithful Christians must not only sincerely care for the well being of homosexuals, but also uphold the precepts of sexual morality that God has ordained for the happiness and benefit of all people, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.
Granted, the church’s understanding of the moral law has evolved over time. But any authentic development of doctrine must occur under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in conformity with Sacred Scripture. Thus, the church’s condemnation of slavery in the 19th century conformed with the admonition of St. Paul: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Over the centuries, countless numbers of heretical sects have broken with the injunctions of Holy Scripture as expounded in the universal and constant teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. These sects have disappeared. Like a number of other liberal denominations, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church of the United States are now poised also to lapse into heresy and wither away.
Regardless, Christians can be certain about the ultimate survival of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the words of a classic hymn: “Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane, but the church of Jesus constant will remain. Gates of hell can never ‘gainst that church prevail; we have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail.”
By Rory Leishman
Tomorrow is Palm Sunday, the prelude to Holy Week when Christians commemorate the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
For many faithful Anglicans, this is an especially anxious Easter season as they contemplate an impending schism within their church. At issue is the vexed question of same-sex marriage.
Earlier this month, the Council of General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada overwhelmingly approved the submission of two resolutions to the upcoming meeting of the church’s full General Synod in June, one relating to the blessing of same-sex unions and the other to revising the doctrine of the church to allow for the marriage of same-sex couples. By adopting either resolution, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada would make a definitive break with the position of the global Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops which voted decisively at its last meeting in 1998 to reaffirm the church’s traditional doctrinal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
The Episcopal Church in the United States is also embroiled in an intense controversy over revision of the doctrine of marriage to accommodate same-sex couples. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is profoundly perturbed. He has warned that Anglican bishops who sanction the blessing of same-sex unions in defiance of church doctrine might well be deprived of their status as full voting members of the Lambeth Conference at its next meeting in 2008.
Andrew Hutchison, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, has acknowledged the danger. He concedes that the possibility of an Anglican schism will be a “real risk,” if General Synod endorses the blessing of same sex unions.
Underlying this dispute is a central teaching of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church; namely, the primacy of Sacred Scripture as the ultimate authority on all questions of faith and morality. The majority of liberal Anglican bishops in Canada and the United States seem to have persuaded themselves to adopt the intellectually untenable position that the blessing of same-sex unions can somehow be squared with the plain teachings of the Bible that forbid sexual intercourse outside the sacred bond of marriage between a man and a woman.
Diarmaid MacCulloch, a professor of church history at Oxford University, is a candid proponent of blessing same-sex unions. In discussing the legitimacy of homosexual activity in his book, Reformation: Europe's House Divided, he persuasively argues:
“This is an issue of biblical authority. Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity. The only alternatives are to try to cleave to patterns of life and assumptions set out in the Bible, or to say that in this, as in much else, the Bible is simply wrong.”
Quite so. The Bible makes clear that faithful Christians must not only sincerely care for the well being of homosexuals, but also uphold the precepts of sexual morality that God has ordained for the happiness and benefit of all people, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.
Granted, the church’s understanding of the moral law has evolved over time. But any authentic development of doctrine must occur under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in conformity with Sacred Scripture. Thus, the church’s condemnation of slavery in the 19th century conformed with the admonition of St. Paul: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Over the centuries, countless numbers of heretical sects have broken with the injunctions of Holy Scripture as expounded in the universal and constant teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. These sects have disappeared. Like a number of other liberal denominations, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church of the United States are now poised also to lapse into heresy and wither away.
Regardless, Christians can be certain about the ultimate survival of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the words of a classic hymn: “Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane, but the church of Jesus constant will remain. Gates of hell can never ‘gainst that church prevail; we have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail.”
Saturday, March 10, 2007
A political marriage of convenience
The London Free Press
By Rory Leishman
In a rare display of intergovernmental and bipartisan harmony on Tuesday, Canada’s Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario’s Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty jointly announced more than $1.5 billion in additional federal spending for projects in Ontario.
A substantial chunk of the federal tax money -- $586.2 million – will be funnelled to Ontario through “Canada ecoTrust,” a new agency that the Harper government has established to support provincial projects for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. Among the several environmental initiatives jointly approved by the Harper and McGuinty governments is the expedited construction of a new East-West transmission line for the importation of clean hydroelectric power from Manitoba.
McGuinty has a special interest in this transmission line. Once it is completed, the Ontario government should finally be able to fulfil the abortive promise he made in the last provincial election to shut down Ontario’s biggest polluter – the gigantic, coal-fired Nanticoke generating station.
Most of the new federal money for Ontario -- $962 million –- is designated for expansion of the Toronto subway system as well as the construction of other transit facilities and commuter highways in the Greater Toronto Area. The projects are intended to speed up traffic flow on commuter highways and persuade more people to use mass transit, thereby reducing air pollution and making life more comfortable for commuters in the Toronto suburbs where the Conservatives hope to gain seats in the next federal election.
Ontario, of course, is not the only province designated to benefit from new federal spending. Just last month, Harper announced plans to allocate $349.9 million out of the Canada ecoTrust to Quebec. Like McGuinty, Quebec Premier Jean Charest is also enthused about these promises of more federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
In contrast, Toronto Mayor David Miller is not altogether happy with federal grants to the provinces for municipal projects. He is trying to browbeat the Harper government into transferring all the revenue from one percentage point of the GST directly to the nation’s cities.
Miller’s proposal would cost the federal treasury more than $5 billion a year. He estimates that Toronto alone would get $470 million a year. In this way, he and other municipal politicians would get credit for spending hundreds of millions of dollars out of revenues that the federal government would retain responsibility for raising.
No federal prime minister is likely to go along with such a one-sided proposal. Miller and other city mayors should count themselves lucky that the Harper government has promised to transfer two cents of the federal gas tax to the municipalities for spending on urban transit.
McGuinty, Charest and the other provincial premiers are no less loath than Harper to make unconditional grants out of their tax revenue to municipal politicians. As a general rule, politicians on one level of government can see little advantage to raising tax revenues for transfer to politicians on another level, if the latter will have complete control over how the money is spent.
In the past, the federal government incurred the wrath of the provinces by imposing conditional grants for spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction that did not accord with provincial spending priorities. Harper has been careful to avoid such antagonism, by working in close coordination with the provinces on joint spending plans.
Consequently, both Ontario and federal officials were all smiles on Tuesday as Harper announced plans for increased federal spending on environmental, transit and highway projects approved by the government of Ontario. McGuinty’s only reference to the separation of federal and provincial powers under the Constitution was to jest that Parliament bears entire responsibility for excessively cold weather.
There is a catch in Harper’s new spending proposals: He cannot actually hand over the money that he has promised to Ontario and Quebec, until Parliament approves the spending in the upcoming federal budget. Will the opposition parties dare to combine to vote down that budget?
Probably not. It would be a rash Liberal or New Democrat in Ontario who would want to go into an election campaign with the Conservatives blaming them for depriving the province of hundreds of millions of federal dollars for curbing air pollution and improving mass transit in Toronto.
By Rory Leishman
In a rare display of intergovernmental and bipartisan harmony on Tuesday, Canada’s Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario’s Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty jointly announced more than $1.5 billion in additional federal spending for projects in Ontario.
A substantial chunk of the federal tax money -- $586.2 million – will be funnelled to Ontario through “Canada ecoTrust,” a new agency that the Harper government has established to support provincial projects for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. Among the several environmental initiatives jointly approved by the Harper and McGuinty governments is the expedited construction of a new East-West transmission line for the importation of clean hydroelectric power from Manitoba.
McGuinty has a special interest in this transmission line. Once it is completed, the Ontario government should finally be able to fulfil the abortive promise he made in the last provincial election to shut down Ontario’s biggest polluter – the gigantic, coal-fired Nanticoke generating station.
Most of the new federal money for Ontario -- $962 million –- is designated for expansion of the Toronto subway system as well as the construction of other transit facilities and commuter highways in the Greater Toronto Area. The projects are intended to speed up traffic flow on commuter highways and persuade more people to use mass transit, thereby reducing air pollution and making life more comfortable for commuters in the Toronto suburbs where the Conservatives hope to gain seats in the next federal election.
Ontario, of course, is not the only province designated to benefit from new federal spending. Just last month, Harper announced plans to allocate $349.9 million out of the Canada ecoTrust to Quebec. Like McGuinty, Quebec Premier Jean Charest is also enthused about these promises of more federal spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
In contrast, Toronto Mayor David Miller is not altogether happy with federal grants to the provinces for municipal projects. He is trying to browbeat the Harper government into transferring all the revenue from one percentage point of the GST directly to the nation’s cities.
Miller’s proposal would cost the federal treasury more than $5 billion a year. He estimates that Toronto alone would get $470 million a year. In this way, he and other municipal politicians would get credit for spending hundreds of millions of dollars out of revenues that the federal government would retain responsibility for raising.
No federal prime minister is likely to go along with such a one-sided proposal. Miller and other city mayors should count themselves lucky that the Harper government has promised to transfer two cents of the federal gas tax to the municipalities for spending on urban transit.
McGuinty, Charest and the other provincial premiers are no less loath than Harper to make unconditional grants out of their tax revenue to municipal politicians. As a general rule, politicians on one level of government can see little advantage to raising tax revenues for transfer to politicians on another level, if the latter will have complete control over how the money is spent.
In the past, the federal government incurred the wrath of the provinces by imposing conditional grants for spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction that did not accord with provincial spending priorities. Harper has been careful to avoid such antagonism, by working in close coordination with the provinces on joint spending plans.
Consequently, both Ontario and federal officials were all smiles on Tuesday as Harper announced plans for increased federal spending on environmental, transit and highway projects approved by the government of Ontario. McGuinty’s only reference to the separation of federal and provincial powers under the Constitution was to jest that Parliament bears entire responsibility for excessively cold weather.
There is a catch in Harper’s new spending proposals: He cannot actually hand over the money that he has promised to Ontario and Quebec, until Parliament approves the spending in the upcoming federal budget. Will the opposition parties dare to combine to vote down that budget?
Probably not. It would be a rash Liberal or New Democrat in Ontario who would want to go into an election campaign with the Conservatives blaming them for depriving the province of hundreds of millions of federal dollars for curbing air pollution and improving mass transit in Toronto.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Harper is at least better than Dion
Catholic Insight
By Rory Leishman
In politics, as in so many other endeavours, the best is often the enemy of the good: Consider, in this respect, the 1860 presidential election in the United States.
For most voters, the predominant concern was slavery. At the time, Christians in the United States were hardly less divided over this issue than they are now over abortion.
Many in the South embraced the viewpoint expressed by the United States Supreme Court in the notorious Dred Scott decision that blacks have no rights because they are not citizens within the meaning of the Constitution. Most in the North were no less adamantly opposed to slavery. They recognized that the evil institution could not be squared with the plain teaching of the Bible that there is neither slave nor free, but all are one in Christ Jesus.
In retrospect, the opponents of slavery in 1860 might seem to have had an obvious presidential choice in Abraham Lincoln. Yet at the time, many preferred New York Senator William H. Seward, a prominent opponent of slavery who had voted against the Compromise of 1850 that had postponed the inevitable showdown over slavery between North and South.
Lincoln was also implacably opposed to slavery. He famously declared: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” But in 1860, Lincoln was not an abolitionist. In campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, he promised only to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, while leaving it alone in the South.
On the first ballot at the 1860 Republican convention, Seward took the lead. In the end, the majority of delegates nominated Lincoln, then a comparatively unknown moderate on the slavery question, because they judged him to have a better chance of winning the presidential election.
The rest of the story we all know: Lincoln won the election, bided his time and eventually on January 1, 1863, issued his bold Emancipation Proclamation that forever abolished the evil of slavery from the United States.
What lessons might faithful Canadian Christians draw from this experience as they contemplate the next federal election? Only Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Stephane Dion stand a chance of emerging as prime minister. Neither bears much resemblance to Lincoln.
While Dion is an unabashed exponent of the evil of abortion on demand, Harper refuses to be pinned down on this most vital of all issues. Pressed last year by CTV’s Lloyd Robertson to state his personal position on abortion, Harper would say only: “Well, on my views, as I said, I’m not on either extreme on that issue.”
How can that be? Harper is intelligent. He belongs to the Christian and Missionary Alliance, a denomination that unequivocally opposes abortion. If Harper were a statesman in the Lincoln mould, he might dodge an inopportune commitment to curb abortion, but he would not shrink from affirming that if abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong.
As it is, Harper has made no such statement. He has in no way encouraged the pro-life movement. To the contrary, he has vowed time and again that his government will not introduce any legislation on abortion.
At least, Harper has not pledged that his government will also oppose all private member’s bills on abortion. Indeed, he is obligated not to do so. The policy declaration of the Conservative Party of Canada states: “On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the right of Members of Parliament to vote freely.”
In this respect, the Conservative Party stands alone among all the parties in Parliament. It also has more pro-life MPs than all the others combined. And Harper has appointed Jason Kenney, Vic Toews and a number of other outspoken and committed pro-life MPs and political operatives to key positions in his cabinet and personal staff.
For these reasons, pro-life voters should do whatever they can to help get as many pro-life Conservatives nominated and elected in the next federal election. A Conservative majority government is much the best conceivable outcome. And Harper, despite his deplorable equivocation on life and family issues, is a much better choice for prime minister than a shameless apologist for abortion like Dion.
By Rory Leishman
In politics, as in so many other endeavours, the best is often the enemy of the good: Consider, in this respect, the 1860 presidential election in the United States.
For most voters, the predominant concern was slavery. At the time, Christians in the United States were hardly less divided over this issue than they are now over abortion.
Many in the South embraced the viewpoint expressed by the United States Supreme Court in the notorious Dred Scott decision that blacks have no rights because they are not citizens within the meaning of the Constitution. Most in the North were no less adamantly opposed to slavery. They recognized that the evil institution could not be squared with the plain teaching of the Bible that there is neither slave nor free, but all are one in Christ Jesus.
In retrospect, the opponents of slavery in 1860 might seem to have had an obvious presidential choice in Abraham Lincoln. Yet at the time, many preferred New York Senator William H. Seward, a prominent opponent of slavery who had voted against the Compromise of 1850 that had postponed the inevitable showdown over slavery between North and South.
Lincoln was also implacably opposed to slavery. He famously declared: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” But in 1860, Lincoln was not an abolitionist. In campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, he promised only to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories, while leaving it alone in the South.
On the first ballot at the 1860 Republican convention, Seward took the lead. In the end, the majority of delegates nominated Lincoln, then a comparatively unknown moderate on the slavery question, because they judged him to have a better chance of winning the presidential election.
The rest of the story we all know: Lincoln won the election, bided his time and eventually on January 1, 1863, issued his bold Emancipation Proclamation that forever abolished the evil of slavery from the United States.
What lessons might faithful Canadian Christians draw from this experience as they contemplate the next federal election? Only Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper and Liberal leader Stephane Dion stand a chance of emerging as prime minister. Neither bears much resemblance to Lincoln.
While Dion is an unabashed exponent of the evil of abortion on demand, Harper refuses to be pinned down on this most vital of all issues. Pressed last year by CTV’s Lloyd Robertson to state his personal position on abortion, Harper would say only: “Well, on my views, as I said, I’m not on either extreme on that issue.”
How can that be? Harper is intelligent. He belongs to the Christian and Missionary Alliance, a denomination that unequivocally opposes abortion. If Harper were a statesman in the Lincoln mould, he might dodge an inopportune commitment to curb abortion, but he would not shrink from affirming that if abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong.
As it is, Harper has made no such statement. He has in no way encouraged the pro-life movement. To the contrary, he has vowed time and again that his government will not introduce any legislation on abortion.
At least, Harper has not pledged that his government will also oppose all private member’s bills on abortion. Indeed, he is obligated not to do so. The policy declaration of the Conservative Party of Canada states: “On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the right of Members of Parliament to vote freely.”
In this respect, the Conservative Party stands alone among all the parties in Parliament. It also has more pro-life MPs than all the others combined. And Harper has appointed Jason Kenney, Vic Toews and a number of other outspoken and committed pro-life MPs and political operatives to key positions in his cabinet and personal staff.
For these reasons, pro-life voters should do whatever they can to help get as many pro-life Conservatives nominated and elected in the next federal election. A Conservative majority government is much the best conceivable outcome. And Harper, despite his deplorable equivocation on life and family issues, is a much better choice for prime minister than a shameless apologist for abortion like Dion.
Mounting oppression of British Christians
The Interim
By Rory Leishman
Thanks to a draconian new Equality Act which comes into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, faithful British Christians are about to undergo much the same persecution as their Canadian counterparts.
The British Act includes a sweeping ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In a letter to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and members of his cabinet on January 22, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the leader of Catholics in England and Wales, urged the government to exempt Catholic adoption agencies from the new regulation.
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor underlined that the Catholic Church “utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse directed against people who are homosexual, and teaches that they must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.”
Given that the Catholic Church also upholds marriage and the natural family as best for children, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor insisted: “We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics” to force employees of Catholic adoption agencies to provide adoption services to same-sex couples in violation of “the teaching of the Church and their own consciences.”
On this point, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor got solid backing from the two most senior clerics in the Church of England -- the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York John Sentamu. In a joint letter to Blair on January 23, Williams and Sentamu emphasized: “The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.” And they pointedly added: “It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest.”
Quite so. It’s regrettable that Williams and Sentamu stopped just short of joining Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor in affirming what the Church has traditionally taught and a wealth of social-science data has confirmed: That children thrive best under the care and guidance of a mother and father who are joined in the bond of marriage.
Initially, Blair seemed sympathetic to the pleas of England’s most prominent clerics to respect the rights of conscience. The same cannot be said for the Opposition Leader David Cameron and most members of Blair’s cabinet, including its leading Catholic member, Home Secretary John Reid. In a recent speech, Reid argued that no faith-based groups should be exempt from the newly proclaimed equality rights for homosexuals. By analogy, he said: "If somebody says to me: ‘I'm sorry, I'm not going to treat women as equal because my religion does not allow it,” I say: ‘Tough, you're in Britain and that's a fundamental value in Britain and everyone has to accept it.’”
Under pressure from Reid, Cameron and others, Blair caved in. On January 30, he announced that after a transition period, Catholic adoption agencies will be required by law to treat same-sex couples the same as a husband and wife.
In response, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor has threatened to shut down Catholic adoption agencies in England and Wales. Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, has vowed that Scottish adoption agencies will defy the new regulation on the ground that it violates the rights of Catholics to freedom of conscience in the Equality Act.
It will be interesting to see how British courts deal with Conti’s argument. In Canada, the courts have consistently held that equality rights for homosexuals trump the religious rights of Christians that are supposedly guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The row over adoption agencies signals just the beginning of a campaign against religious freedom in Britain. A spokesman for the Scottish Catholic bishops has pointed out that the Equality Act “will impact on anyone who provides goods and services, from the priest who refuses to hire the parish hall to a same-sex couple, to the editor of a Catholic newspaper who refuses to carry a Gay Pride advert, or a printer who refuses to print those adverts - they will all be criminalised by this Draconian measure. This is as close as you can get to a thought crime."
It’s scandalous that politicians like Reid are leading this attack on their fellow Christians. It’s high time that church leaders in Britain and Canada took tougher action to defend the faithful, by telling these rogue Christian politicians that they are no longer welcome at communion.
By Rory Leishman
Thanks to a draconian new Equality Act which comes into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, faithful British Christians are about to undergo much the same persecution as their Canadian counterparts.
The British Act includes a sweeping ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In a letter to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and members of his cabinet on January 22, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the leader of Catholics in England and Wales, urged the government to exempt Catholic adoption agencies from the new regulation.
Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor underlined that the Catholic Church “utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse directed against people who are homosexual, and teaches that they must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.”
Given that the Catholic Church also upholds marriage and the natural family as best for children, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor insisted: “We believe it would be unreasonable, unnecessary and unjust discrimination against Catholics” to force employees of Catholic adoption agencies to provide adoption services to same-sex couples in violation of “the teaching of the Church and their own consciences.”
On this point, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor got solid backing from the two most senior clerics in the Church of England -- the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York John Sentamu. In a joint letter to Blair on January 23, Williams and Sentamu emphasized: “The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.” And they pointedly added: “It is vitally important that the interests of vulnerable children are not relegated to suit any political interest.”
Quite so. It’s regrettable that Williams and Sentamu stopped just short of joining Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor in affirming what the Church has traditionally taught and a wealth of social-science data has confirmed: That children thrive best under the care and guidance of a mother and father who are joined in the bond of marriage.
Initially, Blair seemed sympathetic to the pleas of England’s most prominent clerics to respect the rights of conscience. The same cannot be said for the Opposition Leader David Cameron and most members of Blair’s cabinet, including its leading Catholic member, Home Secretary John Reid. In a recent speech, Reid argued that no faith-based groups should be exempt from the newly proclaimed equality rights for homosexuals. By analogy, he said: "If somebody says to me: ‘I'm sorry, I'm not going to treat women as equal because my religion does not allow it,” I say: ‘Tough, you're in Britain and that's a fundamental value in Britain and everyone has to accept it.’”
Under pressure from Reid, Cameron and others, Blair caved in. On January 30, he announced that after a transition period, Catholic adoption agencies will be required by law to treat same-sex couples the same as a husband and wife.
In response, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor has threatened to shut down Catholic adoption agencies in England and Wales. Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Glasgow, Mario Conti, has vowed that Scottish adoption agencies will defy the new regulation on the ground that it violates the rights of Catholics to freedom of conscience in the Equality Act.
It will be interesting to see how British courts deal with Conti’s argument. In Canada, the courts have consistently held that equality rights for homosexuals trump the religious rights of Christians that are supposedly guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The row over adoption agencies signals just the beginning of a campaign against religious freedom in Britain. A spokesman for the Scottish Catholic bishops has pointed out that the Equality Act “will impact on anyone who provides goods and services, from the priest who refuses to hire the parish hall to a same-sex couple, to the editor of a Catholic newspaper who refuses to carry a Gay Pride advert, or a printer who refuses to print those adverts - they will all be criminalised by this Draconian measure. This is as close as you can get to a thought crime."
It’s scandalous that politicians like Reid are leading this attack on their fellow Christians. It’s high time that church leaders in Britain and Canada took tougher action to defend the faithful, by telling these rogue Christian politicians that they are no longer welcome at communion.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Frivolous posturing on Kyoto
The London Free Press,
by Rory Leishman
In forcing a bill through Parliament that gives the Harper government 60 days to come up with a detailed plan for fulfilling Canada’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the three opposition parties are simply playing Canadians for fools. The leaders of these parties know full well that no government –- not even one led by them -- could possibly meet this absurd deadline.
Under terms of the Kyoto Protocol, Canada is supposed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below the levels set in 1990 by 2012. The previous Liberal government signed this Kyoto Protocol on behalf of Canada, but failed to devise a plan for fulfilling the commitment.
Indeed, during 13 years of Liberal rule in Ottawa, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions rose more than 30 per cent above the 1990 level. Liberal leader Stephane Dion cannot escape responsibility for this record inasmuch as he served as the environment minister of Canada between 2004 and 2006.
Having failed for two years to devise a plan for complying with Kyoto, how can Dion expect the Harper government to pull off this feat within 60 days? Dion knows full well that this deadline is preposterous. In a candid moment during last year’s election campaign, he admitted that he did not think that a Liberal government led by him would be able to slash Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Kyoto Protocol within the next five years.
Dion had good reason for scepticism. It’s practically impossible for any government to have Canada comply with the Liberals’ rash Kyoto commitment According to the latest data from Environment Canada, Canada contributed about 758 megatonnes of green house gases to the atmosphere in 2004. That was 195 megatonnes above the Kyoto target.
Eliminating 195 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions is a monumental undertaking. Even a total ban on the operation of automobiles would cut Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by fewer than 50 megatonnes.
Earlier this week, Mark Holland, the federal Liberal energy critic, pointed out that the Alberta oilsands are by far the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Without going into specifics, he suggested that Canada could not possibly meet its Kyoto target, unless the rate of growth in this industry is significantly curtailed.
Perhaps so. Yet even the complete closure of the oilsands industry would not bring Canada into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. As Holland should know, total oilsands production in Alberta produces fewer than 35 megatonnes of annual greenhouse gas emissions.
Besides, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach wants nothing to do with Holland’s proposal to curtail expansion in the oilsands industry. In a statement on Monday, he warned that “a moratorium on oilsands development will bring about dire economic consequences right across the country.”
That’s not exaggeration. The oilsands already account for more than 40 per cent and will soon rise to well over half of Canada’s total annual crude oil production .
It also happens that the Alberta oilsands are owned by the province and subject to provincial regulation. How could any federal government induce Stelmach to overcome his reluctance to impose production curbs on this vital Alberta industry in the interests of complying with Kyoto? Holland and his fellow Liberals have yet to offer any explanation.
In Ontario, one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases is the provincially owned Nanticoke Generating Station. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty promised during the last provincial election to close this coal-burning polluter by 2009, but he recently backed away from this commitment, because Ontario simply cannot afford to get along without the electricity generated by the gigantic Nanticoke plant.
McGuinty’s brother, David, is the federal Liberal environment critic. Both McGuintys clamour for the Harper government to come up with a plan for complying with Kyoto. Yet neither brother is willing to contemplate any early closure of Ontario’s biggest polluter at Nanticoke.
On the Kyoto issue, it’s evident that the Liberals are hypocritical. And the same goes for leaders of the New Democratic Party, Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois. They all must know that Canada cannot possibly comply with the reckless Kyoto commitment made by the Liberals without plunging the entire country into a dire economic crisis.
by Rory Leishman
In forcing a bill through Parliament that gives the Harper government 60 days to come up with a detailed plan for fulfilling Canada’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the three opposition parties are simply playing Canadians for fools. The leaders of these parties know full well that no government –- not even one led by them -- could possibly meet this absurd deadline.
Under terms of the Kyoto Protocol, Canada is supposed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below the levels set in 1990 by 2012. The previous Liberal government signed this Kyoto Protocol on behalf of Canada, but failed to devise a plan for fulfilling the commitment.
Indeed, during 13 years of Liberal rule in Ottawa, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions rose more than 30 per cent above the 1990 level. Liberal leader Stephane Dion cannot escape responsibility for this record inasmuch as he served as the environment minister of Canada between 2004 and 2006.
Having failed for two years to devise a plan for complying with Kyoto, how can Dion expect the Harper government to pull off this feat within 60 days? Dion knows full well that this deadline is preposterous. In a candid moment during last year’s election campaign, he admitted that he did not think that a Liberal government led by him would be able to slash Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Kyoto Protocol within the next five years.
Dion had good reason for scepticism. It’s practically impossible for any government to have Canada comply with the Liberals’ rash Kyoto commitment According to the latest data from Environment Canada, Canada contributed about 758 megatonnes of green house gases to the atmosphere in 2004. That was 195 megatonnes above the Kyoto target.
Eliminating 195 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions is a monumental undertaking. Even a total ban on the operation of automobiles would cut Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions by fewer than 50 megatonnes.
Earlier this week, Mark Holland, the federal Liberal energy critic, pointed out that the Alberta oilsands are by far the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Without going into specifics, he suggested that Canada could not possibly meet its Kyoto target, unless the rate of growth in this industry is significantly curtailed.
Perhaps so. Yet even the complete closure of the oilsands industry would not bring Canada into compliance with the Kyoto Protocol. As Holland should know, total oilsands production in Alberta produces fewer than 35 megatonnes of annual greenhouse gas emissions.
Besides, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach wants nothing to do with Holland’s proposal to curtail expansion in the oilsands industry. In a statement on Monday, he warned that “a moratorium on oilsands development will bring about dire economic consequences right across the country.”
That’s not exaggeration. The oilsands already account for more than 40 per cent and will soon rise to well over half of Canada’s total annual crude oil production .
It also happens that the Alberta oilsands are owned by the province and subject to provincial regulation. How could any federal government induce Stelmach to overcome his reluctance to impose production curbs on this vital Alberta industry in the interests of complying with Kyoto? Holland and his fellow Liberals have yet to offer any explanation.
In Ontario, one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases is the provincially owned Nanticoke Generating Station. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty promised during the last provincial election to close this coal-burning polluter by 2009, but he recently backed away from this commitment, because Ontario simply cannot afford to get along without the electricity generated by the gigantic Nanticoke plant.
McGuinty’s brother, David, is the federal Liberal environment critic. Both McGuintys clamour for the Harper government to come up with a plan for complying with Kyoto. Yet neither brother is willing to contemplate any early closure of Ontario’s biggest polluter at Nanticoke.
On the Kyoto issue, it’s evident that the Liberals are hypocritical. And the same goes for leaders of the New Democratic Party, Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois. They all must know that Canada cannot possibly comply with the reckless Kyoto commitment made by the Liberals without plunging the entire country into a dire economic crisis.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Never any justification for torture
The Interim
By Rory Leishman
Alex Berenson, a reporter for the New York Times, has written a chilling and informative novel, The Faithful Spy, which raises some serious questions about whether it is sometimes right to do evil so that good might result.
In the course of the novel, John Wells, a CIA agent who has infiltrated Al Qaeda, uncovers evidence that a cell in the United States might be about to follow up the 9-11 attack with a far more lethal strike using a biological or nuclear weapon. Before he can get the information he needs to prevent the attack, he is asked to prove his loyalty to Al Qaeda, by assassinating a retired general who formerly headed counter-terror operations for the U.S. army.
Wells refuses to carry out the order. He tries instead to save the life of the general without blowing his cover as a CIA agent. Berenson writes: “There were some lines he could not cross. He couldn’t play God and sacrifice one of his countrymen in the hopes of saving others.”
Not all CIA agents in the novel are so scrupulous. Farouk Khan, a rogue Pakistani nuclear physicist who has been captured in Baghdad while in possession of a canister of bomb-making radioactive materials, is whisked away to a secret, overseas CIA interrogation centre. There, with the authority of a top-secret executive order of the United States president, CIA interrogation experts subject him to various forms of torture including a series of extremely painful shots of electricity from a Taser electrical gun.
Here the novel takes leave of reality. Under terms of United States law, it is a serious criminal offence for the President or anyone else to authorize or commit “an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information.”
In conformity with this law, CIA interrogators can, and do, subject Al Qaeda operatives to rough treatment, including prolonged interrogations, sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. But under no circumstances can any agent of the United States deliberately torture or kill a prisoner.
This law is intensely controversial. Senator Hillary Clinton has argued for an amendment that would authorize the torture of a captured terror suspect who knows about “an imminent threat to millions of Americans.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, a prominent conservative columnist and former state prosecutor, takes the same view. In an article published last summer in Commentary Magazine, he pointed out that the great majority of people who oppose abortion “favour its availability in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk.”
Likewise, he contended that almost all of the sensible people who oppose the slaughter of innocents would support a just war that is necessary to defeat a profound evil at the cost of death for some innocent civilians.
“Torture is not meaningfully different,” McCarthy argued. Most people deplore torture, but would favour its use if necessary to get information out of a terrorist who is “aware that a radiological bomb will be detonated momentarily in the heart of a major metropolis.”
President George W. Bush disagrees. He rejects all utilitarian arguments for committing torture and deliberately killing the innocent. As a Christian, he takes the view expressed by St. Paul in his letter to the Romans that: “There are those who say: “And why not do evil that good may come?” Their condemnation is just.”
In a statement on torture at the White House on September 6, Bush reiterated: “I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it.”
Bush is right. In a just war, innocent civilians might inadvertently be killed. And in some exceedingly rare circumstances, abortion might be necessary to save the life of the baby’s mother. Nonetheless, it remains true that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral and can never be justified.
And the same goes for torture. Bush should stand by his conviction that there can never be any justification for authorizing or committing torture or murder.
By Rory Leishman
Alex Berenson, a reporter for the New York Times, has written a chilling and informative novel, The Faithful Spy, which raises some serious questions about whether it is sometimes right to do evil so that good might result.
In the course of the novel, John Wells, a CIA agent who has infiltrated Al Qaeda, uncovers evidence that a cell in the United States might be about to follow up the 9-11 attack with a far more lethal strike using a biological or nuclear weapon. Before he can get the information he needs to prevent the attack, he is asked to prove his loyalty to Al Qaeda, by assassinating a retired general who formerly headed counter-terror operations for the U.S. army.
Wells refuses to carry out the order. He tries instead to save the life of the general without blowing his cover as a CIA agent. Berenson writes: “There were some lines he could not cross. He couldn’t play God and sacrifice one of his countrymen in the hopes of saving others.”
Not all CIA agents in the novel are so scrupulous. Farouk Khan, a rogue Pakistani nuclear physicist who has been captured in Baghdad while in possession of a canister of bomb-making radioactive materials, is whisked away to a secret, overseas CIA interrogation centre. There, with the authority of a top-secret executive order of the United States president, CIA interrogation experts subject him to various forms of torture including a series of extremely painful shots of electricity from a Taser electrical gun.
Here the novel takes leave of reality. Under terms of United States law, it is a serious criminal offence for the President or anyone else to authorize or commit “an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information.”
In conformity with this law, CIA interrogators can, and do, subject Al Qaeda operatives to rough treatment, including prolonged interrogations, sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. But under no circumstances can any agent of the United States deliberately torture or kill a prisoner.
This law is intensely controversial. Senator Hillary Clinton has argued for an amendment that would authorize the torture of a captured terror suspect who knows about “an imminent threat to millions of Americans.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, a prominent conservative columnist and former state prosecutor, takes the same view. In an article published last summer in Commentary Magazine, he pointed out that the great majority of people who oppose abortion “favour its availability in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at risk.”
Likewise, he contended that almost all of the sensible people who oppose the slaughter of innocents would support a just war that is necessary to defeat a profound evil at the cost of death for some innocent civilians.
“Torture is not meaningfully different,” McCarthy argued. Most people deplore torture, but would favour its use if necessary to get information out of a terrorist who is “aware that a radiological bomb will be detonated momentarily in the heart of a major metropolis.”
President George W. Bush disagrees. He rejects all utilitarian arguments for committing torture and deliberately killing the innocent. As a Christian, he takes the view expressed by St. Paul in his letter to the Romans that: “There are those who say: “And why not do evil that good may come?” Their condemnation is just.”
In a statement on torture at the White House on September 6, Bush reiterated: “I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it.”
Bush is right. In a just war, innocent civilians might inadvertently be killed. And in some exceedingly rare circumstances, abortion might be necessary to save the life of the baby’s mother. Nonetheless, it remains true that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral and can never be justified.
And the same goes for torture. Bush should stand by his conviction that there can never be any justification for authorizing or committing torture or murder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)