It
may be that the House of Commons Justice Committee reviewing marriage,
which will submit its report in June, will support the traditional
definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
This definition has been accepted and acknowledged, throughout
time, by all major religions and cultures of the world. After
receiving the report, Minister of Justice Martin Cauchon must
then determine how to proceed with this crucial issue in the House
of Commons.
However,
it is a major concern that the Liberal leadership candidates,
John Manley and Sheila Copps, both publicly support the notion
that same-sex unions should be recognized as legal marriage. Front-runner
Liberal leader candidate Paul Martin has expressed uncertainty
on the issue of same-sex unions being recognized as marriages
- but most tellingly, he stated (Globe and Mail, April 29, 2003):
…
if the court makes it clear that the marriage issue is a matter
of fundamental rights, … I will comply rather than invoke
the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I
believe fundamentally that governments cannot discriminate on
a question of rights.
National
Liberal Caucus Research Bureau
By
a remarkable coincidence, just four days after the BC Court of
Appeal handed down its decision on May 1, 2003, in support of
same-sex unions to be recognized as legal marriages, the National
Liberal Caucus Research Bureau distributed a document to the Liberal
members of the Justice Committee advising them that the federal
government had "little legal choice" in light of the
court rulings to adopt same-sex marriages into law. The bias of
this document was obvious when it stated that, "The recognition
in law of same-sex marriage is about fair play, equality, inclusiveness,
and justice, values that are consistent with our government's
commitments." This conclusion is wide open to debate. The
sole purpose of this document, obviously, was to convince the
Liberal MPs on the Justice Committee reviewing the definition
of marriage, to meekly acquiesce to the court's rulings.
The
Public Must Become Involved
Canadians
have shown that when aroused, they mean business and will not
be ignored. This resolve was indicated this past year over Svend
Robinson's Bill C-250, which, if passed into law, would have infringed
the Charter of Rights' basic freedoms of religion and expression.
Thousands
upon thousands of letters poured into the House of Commons, leaving
no doubt that Canadians wanted this damaging bill withdrawn. As
a result, this bill will probably not proceed. Similarly, Canadians
from one end of the country to the other, either wrote to or appeared
before the House of Commons Justice Committee in support of the
traditional definition of marriage, leaving the Committee in no
doubt as to their responsibility to protect the present legal
definition of marriage in Canada.
All
this shows that the Canadian public is a formidable fighting force,
once it makes up its mind that the issue is important enough
to become engaged. Certainly, the definition of marriage is
one such issue. It is crucial that Canadians participate in
this great battle over the definition of marriage, the foundation
of society as this decision will profoundly affect the destiny
of our nation.
Unfortunately,
our MPs are apathetic and submissive, accepting the decisions
of the courts on public policy matters. This attitude was expressed
publicly by Paul Martin in his willingness to abide by the court's
decision on the marriage issue. Such an abdication of responsibility
by Parliamentarians must cease because it is unhealthy for democracy.
We must insist that Parliament assume responsibility for public
policy decisions, rather than allow the handful of unaccountable
lawyers appointed to the courts to assume this responsibility
for them.
The
courts appear to have reached the conclusion that homosexuals
are a minority group requiring their special protection. In defiance
of common sense, logic, reason, the law, or even the grave implications
to the fabric of society, the courts have granted homosexuals
all that they have requested in their numerous court challenges.
Supreme Court's Manoeuvering on Homosexual Issues
The
Supreme Court of Canada has positioned itself to make the decisions
on homosexual demands by its 1995 decision Nesbitt and Egan.
In that decision, the Court "wrote in" sexual orientation
in the equality section (S.15) of the Charter, since that section
of the Charter did not include this provision, because, in a 22
to 2 vote, the Parliamentary Committee studying the Constitution
in 1981, voted against its inclusion. The Court also concluded
that an individual's equality rights under S.15 were threatened
if that individual's "human dignity" was undermined.
(Law v Canada (1999)). "Human dignity," was interpreted
by the Supreme Court in the Law case, as existing only
if an individual or group feels that self-respect and self
worth are present. That is, according to the Supreme Court of
Canada, an individual's 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 in order to determine "equality"
rights under the Charter. This broad interpretation of equality
provides a wide opportunity for the courts to protect their favourite
groups, regardless of the intent of Parliament, the plain wording
of the legislation, or the views of the public.
No Evidence of Discrimination
In
this regard, it is significant that in the courts' many decisions
on the equality right of homosexuals, evidence of such discrimination
has never been introduced or argued before the courts. Rather,
the courts have based their decisions on homosexuals' equality
rights, solely on the assertion of such discrimination by the
homosexuals themselves. That is, evidence, such as credible data,
has never been introduced to support their claim of discrimination.
Instead, the Canadian courts have accepted, as a fact, that homosexuals
experience disadvantages because of supposed stereotyping and
prejudice. This unthinking presumption by the courts is an indication
of their lack of impartiality on the homosexual issue.
Moreover,
this interpretation of "equality" by the courts, unfortunately,
does not mean "equality" as reasonably understood, but
instead has come to mean an entitlement given to favoured
groups by the court.
It
was this interpretation of "equality" that gave the
Ontario Divisional Court in 2001, the opportunity to declare that
same-sex unions be recognized as legal marriages. How else can
one explain Mr. Justice Robert Blair in the Ontario marriage case
concluding that "child bearing and companionship" are
the sole defining characteristics of marriage, or the conclusion
of Mr. Justice Harry LaForme in that same decision, that the sole
purpose of marriage is to provide a "social stamp of approval
and acceptance for an adult relationship?" With these simplistic
conclusions, the court had no difficulty in deciding that homosexuals'
"human dignity" and "feelings" of self worth
were undermined by their inability to enter into legal marriages,
and were, therefore, unable to achieve a "social stamp of
approval" for their relationships. Such a conclusion, however,
ignores the intensive historical, sociological and anthropological
evidence establishing the nature and purpose of marriage - the
very foundation of society, the heterosexual nature of which transcends
cultures, religions and time.
The
decision on the definition of marriage touches on social, political,
cultural, emotional and legal implications that are extremely
complex. Their resolution, was acknowledged even by Mr. Justice
Blair of the Ontario Divisional Court, when discussing the possible
remedies available to address the problem, who admitted at para.
97, that his proposed transformation of the concept of marriage:
…
[will] require a response to a myriad of consequential issues
relating to such things as inheritance and property rights,
filiation, alternative biogenetic and artificial birth technologies,
adoption, and other marriage-status driven matters. The Courts
are not the best equipped to conduct such a balancing exercise.
Yet,
he ignored his own assessment of the problem, and concluded that
the definition of marriage should include same-sex unions, notwithstanding
the obvious ramifications of his decision.
It
is always possible that some of these judges lack the intellectual
capacity to understand the significance of the issue before them,
and, instead, obligingly leap into the opening provided them by
the Supreme Court of Canada in its interpretation of "equality,"
in order to reach their politically correct conclusion that homosexual
relationships are marginalized by their exclusion from the definition
of legal marriage.
It
is bizarre, however, that the destiny of our nation is held captive
by the inadequacy of these judicial manoeuverings.
Another
problem in regard to the court's reliance on its own subjective
perception of "human dignity" as the core value in equality
cases is that the Supreme Court of Canada has extended this interpretation
to mean, according to the Surrey School Board case (December
2002) that "tolerance" of differences now requires acceptance
of these differences, despite one's own beliefs. That is, the
Supreme Court of Canada now requires that Canadians accept
homosexual differences, regardless of their own beliefs, since
to do otherwise, will cause harm by hurting the feelings
of homosexuals.
The
Supreme Court's determination that equality rights under S.15
of the Charter are based on the human dignity or the feelings
of the participants, and the court's requirement that everyone
accept these differences in relationships (not merely acknowledge
the differences), is an illogical, non-legal, non-judicial absurdity.
It is stifling dissent in regard to the homosexual agenda, and
is creating a special intolerance all its own.
Absence
of Controls on the Courts
How
did the courts establish such non-legal criteria, which they have
no expertise to determine and distort their own faculties of reason
in such a manner that they provide these entitlements to homosexuals?
This
extraordinary situation has developed because there are absolutely
no checks and balances on our courts, which rightly reason that
they can do whatever they please, no matter how spurious their
reasoning.
In
no other country in the western world have the courts been given
such powers as those now enjoyed by our courts. In fact, The Supreme
Court of Canada is the most powerful court in the western world
- headed by judges whose appointments have never been scrutinized
or screened.
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, in the present situation, make
their decisions accordingly.
It
is arrogant of judges to assume they know what is best for us.
This assumption also ignores the reality that the very basis of
their appointments is political. Judges are not above the political
passions of the day, but are a part of them. Judges are well-connected
lawyers, who have the political clout to secure their appointments
to the bench. Canadians should not be held hostage to the presumptions
of these few unaccountable, appointed lawyers who have no distinctive
recommendation, other than these political ties.
Courts
Not Set Up to Determine Public Policy
Moreover,
the courts should not determine public policy in Canada because
they are not set up to carry out this important function. Courts
do not have access to the social facts of the issues before them
as does Parliament; they do not have the luxury of time to adequately
reflect on the issue; they do not have access to research facilities
available to 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 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.
The
courts also proceed only on the basis of the arguments placed
before them. For example, on social issues, the court hears most
frequently from special interest feminist/homosexual groups, which
are funded by the federal Court Challenges Program. Added to this
are the arguments of the Attorney General which frequently provide
an unenthusiastic support for the law because the Attorney General's
arguments are based often on political concerns, according to
the dictates of the Attorney General's political party, rather
than on legal concerns. Only occasionally do individual, independent,
self-supporting organizations muster the necessary funds to intervene
in these court cases and oppose this limited debate.
Canadian Courts Have Become Centres of Radicalism
Unlike
any other country in the world, the unchecked power of Canadian
courts has led them to become hotbeds of radicalism. For example,
courts in other countries have rejected same-sex marriages.
The New Zealand Court of Appeal in Quilter et al. vs. the Attorney
General (New Zealand) (1998) held that marriage was the union
of a man and a woman only. This latter conclusion, by the way,
was upheld by the UN Human Rights Committee in Geneva in 2002,
on the basis that the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (which Canada has ratified) only recognizes unions between
a man and a woman as marriages.
In
fact, nowhere else in the world, with the exception of
the Netherlands and Belgium, has marriage been changed to include
a union of two persons of the same sex. Yet Canadian judges, using
their appointed, unaccountable positions, are ready to make this
momentous decision on our behalf.
Courts
in Support of Same-sex Marriages
The
unfortunate reality we must face is that the three provincial
Courts of Appeal (BC, Ontario and Quebec), where court challenges
by homosexual activists on the legal definition of marriage have
been launched, will support same-sex marriages. In the first appeal
decision handed down on May 1, the BC Court relied heavily on
the interpretation and analysis of the Ontario Divisional Court
in reaching the conclusion that marriage should include same-sex
unions.
The
Supreme Court of Canada has flexed its political muscles several
times on the homosexual issue and will undoubtedly pronounce that
same-sex marriages are necessitated by reason of the Court's absurd
interpretation of "equality" under the Charter. This
decision is to take place in late 2004 once the appeals of the
three provincial marriage cases have come before the Court.
Deluge of Pro-homosexual Cases
Canadians
thus will soon be inundated with a series of court decisions based
on the questionable, highly subjective "equality" interpretations
of the "human dignity," i.e., hurt feelings of homosexuals/lesbians
The courts will decide that legal marriage must include same-sex
unions. Nowhere else in the world have courts had the effrontery
and arrogance to make such a revolutionary decision on behalf
of the public and especially on such specious, irrational grounds
as the "human dignity" (feelings) of homosexuals.
Something
must be done to change this unacceptable situation. The court's
ambitious assuming of power to determine public policy must end
- without delay. Something must be done, now to
curb the power of the courts. We cannot wait for the changes to
the appointment system of judges which are to take place under
a new Prime Minister. We must undertake a pre-emptive strike
against the courts before the marriage cases are completed
with all the media fanfare and preening of the homosexual activists
who will "explain" to us that same-sex "marriage"
is inevitable.
WE
MUST LAUNCH IMMEDIATELY, A TWO-PRONGED ATTACK ON THE DEEPLY
FLAWED JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SYSTEMS IN CANADA WHICH SO GRAVELY UNDERMINE
DEMOCRACY.
A.
Changing Canada's Flawed Judicial System
Historically,
the courts have been at arms length from the public, supposedly
standing above the roar and rattle of the general public and
the politics of the day.
Today,
this is no longer the situation. The courts in Canada have
unelected politicians delving into the public policy arena
without the slightest deference to Parliament. The courts
will not show any restraint until they are forced to do so by
the public's reactions against them.
Since
the courts have taken on policy decisions as politicians, the
time has come for them to be treated as politicians.
Judges
must be made aware that their position as judges is no longer
protected by the myths surrounding their supposed impartiality.
Those days are over. The public must place a check on the presumptions
of the judges that they are all-powerful and above criticism.
They are not.
Restraining
the Judges
In
order for the courts to realize that their days of protection
from the public's reaction are over, it will be necessary for
individuals to write to the Chief Justices of each of the provincial
Courts of Appeal (BC, Ontario and Quebec) and the Supreme Court
of Canada. These letters must advise them that the courts' participation
in public policy areas is not acceptable. Judges must be advised
that the court's proper role is to interpret the law
according to the intent of Parliament, not to make up
public policy in accordance with their personal philosophical
and ideological beliefs.
You
should be forewarned, however, that in response to your letter,
you will receive a brief letter from the Registrars of the Courts
advising you that judges cannot directly reply and the judge's
role is not to be involved with the public on the issues before
them. In making this response, the Registrars are merely protecting
the judges, attempting to continue the myth that judges act
for the public good and are above the political process. Regard
the Registrar's response as meaningless in today's world of
judicial supremacy. Judges cannot have it both ways - on the
one hand, making public policy decisions, and on the other hand,
expecting to remain immune from public criticism because of
their exalted position.
Please write also to the newspapers expressing your concerns
about the courts' assumption of power to determine public policy
matters.
The
names and addresses of the Chief Justices are as follows:
The
Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of Canada
301 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1
The
Hon. Lance S.G. Finch
Chief Justice
Court of Appeal for British Columbia
The Law Courts
800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 2E1
The
Hon. R. Roy McMurtry
Chief Justice
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Osgoode Hall
130 Queen Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5H 1E3
The
Hon. R.R. Michel Robert
Chief Justice
Court of Appeal for Québec
1, Notre-Dame Street East
Suite 17.12
Montréal, Quebec H2Y 1B6
B.
Changing Canada's Flawed Political System
In
order for democracy to be restored to Canada, Parliament must
break from its apathy and resume control over our public policy
issues. Our elected members of Parliament must no longer be
permitted to submissively accept the decisions of the courts
on the pretense that they are "bound" to follow these
egregious decisions. Many elected officials, such as Minister
of Justice Martin Cauchon prefer to take this submissive approach
to the courts, since it reflects his own views and those of
the other Liberal elites. In fact, the courts are now a part
of the Liberal party's orthodoxy in that the courts share and
reinforce the Liberal government's beliefs and policies.
In short, the Canadian courts are upholding federal policies,
rather than placing any restraint on them.
At
the present time, MPs and Cabinet Ministers believe they will
not pay a political penalty for passing legislation dictated
by the courts, and, therefore, willingly allow the courts to
pre-empt their role. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice
and individual MPs must know that they will pay a penalty
for their failure to take responsibility for public policy -
and especially so on an issue so fundamental to society as the
definition of marriage.
Parliament's
Duty
It
is the duty of Parliament to uphold the public interest, and
it is not in the public interest to permit same-sex marriages
as a response to pressure from a special interest group. If
the courts choose to grant marriage rights to homosexual partners
based on their convoluted non-judicial, subjective approach
to determining equality issues, the Canadian public must no
longer support them. Citizens must insist that Parliamentary
democracy be restored to Canada by requiring Parliament to act
pre-emptively on the marriage issue, and pass legislation stating
that marriage is exclusively a union between a man and a
woman only.
The
only way this will be accomplished is by public pressure.
It's up to us to provide this all important pressure - as we
did last year in regard to Bill C-250 (hate propaganda amendment
by MP Svend Robinson). We put a stop to that bill. We must now
insist that Parliament oppose the will of the unaccountable
courts, by asserting its own will on behalf of the public.
