REAL WOMEN COURT INTERVENTIONS

Instead of having their issues debated in Parliament where they would not likely be well received, homosexual activists are using the courts as willing vehicles to bring about fundamental changes in Canadian society to fit their agenda -- namely, to grant their relationships the same recognition and benefits as those accorded to the traditional family. REAL Women's Board of Directors decided at its annual meeting in May that we must speak up for the traditional family in the Canadian courts on these cases.

REAL Women's participation in these homosexual cases has proven to be a grave and difficult responsibility in view of the courts' determination to cooperate with the homosexual activists to provide them with the recognition they desire. This is the situation even though the homosexual activists have provided the courts with no evidence of discrimination. In fact, the courts are using homosexual propaganda or "spin" to decide these cases. Such decisions, therefore, are not legal ones based on fact and law.

The contribution to society by the traditional heterosexual family is both absolutely unique and necessary for society to survive since this institution creates and raises future generations at great sacrifice. Same-sex partners, because of biological realities, cannot make this contribution to society.

The courts have decided, however, to overlook this basic distinction, and, as a result are quickly undermining the very foundation of personal and communal stability in Canada.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and Rosenberg

On October 20th and 21st, in Toronto, the Ontario Court of Appeal heard arguments by nine (9) legal counsels on behalf of some dozen or so homosexual organizations that homosexuals/ lesbians experience discrimination under the Income Tax Act in that they cannot register their partners as "spouses" for pension benefits, but only as "beneficiaries". There was no evidence provided to the court that the homosexual partners suffer financial penalties because of this difference.

The panel of judges in this case was comprised of Madam Justice Rosalie Abella, who is an outspoken radical feminist and an obvious supporter of the homosexual agenda. (See article in Reality, July/Aug. 1995, "Court Lowers Age for Homosexual Sex", page 7, in which she referred to homosexual men as "an historically disadvantaged group" and described anal sex as "a basic form of sexual expression for gay men.") She, in fact, dominated the court proceedings in Rosenberg.

The two other members of the Court were the recently-appointed Judge Stephen Goudge, who is well known as a point-man for the ChrŽtien government. (He acted for him on the Toronto Pearson Airport deal). The third member of the Court was Madam Justice Hilda McKinlay, a very mature woman who said little but nodded her head in agreement at all of the frequent interruptions by Madam Justice Abella. It is very unlikely that it was mere chance that this particular panel of judges was chosen to hear the case. What it does indicate is some considerable backroom maneuvering.

The court clearly had made up its mind even before it heard the case. It refused to hear any arguments from pro-family lawyers as to why S. 15 (the Equality Clause) of the Charter should be argued in this case so as to show that same-sex partners did not experience discrimination under the Income Tax Act. Rather, the court took the position that since the lawyers for the federal Justice Department and the Respondent had already agreed that same-sex partners do suffer discrimination under the Income Tax Act, then we were prohibited from disputing this fact. The only question that we were permitted to argue was whether such discrimination could be justified under S. 1 of the Charter. During the arguments it was all too obvious by the questions posed by the judges that they believed the homosexual propaganda which says that they are being discriminated against and that their relationships should be recognized in law. Further, since Parliament was refusing to recognize such relationships in law, the judges made it plain that they were prepared to step in and do it instead

It is doubtful that the new federal Minister of Justice, Ann McLellan, a radical feminist, judging by her past writings, will bother to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. This means that this decision will have grave ramifications for the traditional family in Canada since the Income Tax Act defines "spouse"as meaning a married couple living in a conjugal relationship. If same-sex partners now fall within this definition, the implications are obvious.

Ackerstrom and Moore vs The Treasury Board

In June 1996, the Canadian Human Rights Commission ordered the federal Treasury Board to grant medical and dental benefits to same-sex partners of public servants and also ordered the federal government to amend 16 other federal statutes to accommodate homosexual/lesbian couples.

Former Attorney General, Allan Rock, hastened to follow these directions. However, in doing so, he created two classes of beneficiaries: "spouses" and "same-sex partners". This distinction was met with disapproval and rejection by the Commission and the Public Service Union.

Mr. Rock then filed for a judicial review of the case, significantly, not on the broader and more meaningful issue of whether the Commission's ruling was fair and reasonable in law. Instead, he applied for a review only on the very narrow question of whether he could give different names to the benefits awarded to traditional heterosexual partners and those awarded to homosexual partners.

This turned the entire review into an absurdity. If REAL Women intervened in the case, we could only do so on the grounds that we acknowledged that homosexuals are entitled to benefits and that the only question is what these benefits should be called.

REAL Women, of course, was not prepared to become involved in such a judicial review on such narrow and inane grounds, which, in fact, turned the entire review into a meaningless exercise.

The Delwyn Vriend Case

The Alberta government, based on the response of the voters in that province, decided not to include sexual orientation in the Alberta Human Rights legislation. Mr. Vriend, who was dismissed from his employment at a Christian College because of his open display and promotion of homosexuality, contrary to the beliefs of the College, brought a legal action against it.

This matter was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada on November 4th. REAL Women's Alberta affiliate, the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families (AFWUF) intervened in the case on behalf of the traditional family, along with Focus on the Family and the Evangelical Christian Fellowship and the Christian Legal Fellowship. In addition to numerous homosexual organizations, there were many intervenors on the other side, such as the United Church of Canada (whose counsel stated during argument that civil human rights have priority over religious rights!), the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Civil Liberties Union and the Canadian AIDS Society. The nine Supreme Court judges wasted no time in making sarcastic comments about the pro-family lawyers' arguments. The judges, in fact, treated the pro-family lawyers with barely concealed contempt. The judges were particularly vicious and sarcastic in their attacks on the lawyer representing the Attorney General of Alberta, repeatedly claiming it was "terrible" that homosexuals in Alberta did not have the protection of the law. The appointed, unaccountable judges have no doubt that they are judicial "Captain Marvels" swooping down to rescue homosexuals from supposed discrimination, even though there was absolutely no evidence before the court to support such a conclusion.

M v H Case

REAL Women was granted Intervenor Status by the Supreme Court of Canada in this case, which deals with whether same-sex partners can receive benefits under the Ontario Family Benefits Act. The case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on February 24, 1998. We can hope that our arguments will receive fair treatment before the Supreme Court in February . Nothing, however, would surprise us.

Conclusion

Courts are supposed to be fair and just. Don't count on it in Canada where our zealous, politicized judges are intent on revising Canada's social values to fit their own personal philosophies.

REAL Women's expensive and torturous journey through the Canadian courts in these cases has been extremely trying. At least, however, our presence before the courts will prevent them from getting off the hook for the terrible disasters that they are foisting on this country and if they try to claim that nobody ever spoke up in defence of the traditional family, at least we've been there, doing just that. The courts have chosen to ignore the virtues and values of the traditional family. We have not.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS