Real Women of Canada - Newsletters - Real Women Of Canada 2001 Annual Conference

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Real Women Of Canada 2001 Annual Conference - March 17, 2001
Chateau Edmonton Hotel Edmonton, Alberta

Freedom and Limitations

A wonderful conference was organized by REAL Women's Alberta affiliate, the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families in Edmonton on March 17th. The exciting, informative and well-attended conference was coordinated by Corry Morcos, who did a marvelous job, not just in organizing the conference itself, but also in keeping it all together and on schedule, during the course of that busy day. Thanks, Corry, for all your efforts. It was a job well done.

The conference entitled Freedom and Limitations had a roster of excellent speakers - all knowledgeable in their respective areas, talking about our basic freedoms, whether freedom of speech, religion or conscience, and they explained how they are under attack in our present society. A summary of the speakers' talks is as follows:

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
Summary by Karen Wedel Board Member at Large Saskatchewan REAL Women of Canada	A talk by Maria Bizecki, Pharmacist Spokesperson for Concerned Pharmacists for Conscience

Maria Bizecki began her presentation by telling us that since August, she had been suspended from her job as a pharmacist, for refusing to dispense certain drugs because of conscientious objection.

She explained that conscience laws are needed for health care professionals because Hippocratic traditions are not honoured in the medical professions and have been replaced by secular bio-ethics. Conscience laws are needed because of the vulnerability of the individual health care worker and to ensure that the ethical and professional standards of these people are not compromised. Such laws will protect health care workers because, if they do not subscribe to secular bio-ethics, they may be forced to leave their profession.

Maria then gave five examples of what life is likely to be like without conscience laws.

Inconvenient patients' lives are likely to be terminated, e.g., A doctor in Holland, who needed a bed in the hospital, killed the cancer patient or "bed blocker" in order to free the bed.
Family members will be pressured not to resuscitate their relative in the hospital. This can lead to giving only partial food and water, leaving patients to slowly starve to death.
Parents who want to save the life of their disabled child, by discontinuing a drug that was killing that child, might not be able to.
Non-consensual organ donation may become routine.
For convenience, there is likely to be non-consensual hastening of death; 36 per cent of doctors in Australia say they give drugs in greater doses than required, without request from the patient. Quite often the administration of the medication is left to nurses.

Maria reflected that other places in the world are far ahead of Canada as far as conscience laws are concerned. The UK, and 44 out of 50 states in the US, have enacted specific legislation. In our country, although Manitoba allows refusal to dispense, BC requires pharmacists to dispense, even if contrary to their beliefs. At present, the allegiance is not to the individual patient, but to an apparent duty to the larger community. Economic interest is above everything.

Maria made a comparison between the situation of doctors being forced to refer patients to other doctors for morally objectionable procedures (such as abortion) with the situation of someone not wanting to help a student to cheat on an exam, but then referring him to someone else to help with the cheating. Should we facilitate stealing if we think it is wrong? Professional ethics should not violate personal ethics.

Another concern is that governments may force doctors to provide services to maintain government policies. An example of this is a Chinese doctor who was forced to perform abortions to support the 1979 one-child policy in China. Interference with this population plan would have made her a counter-revolutionary.

Physician-assisted suicide is a very serious problem looming on the horizon. In Holland, they have gone from assisted suicide to voluntary euthanasia of the terminally ill, the chronically ill, the physically ill, the mentally ill, and the physically distressed. Now such people are sometimes euthanized involuntarily. It is beginning to be a social duty to kill! Closer to home, nurses at the Foothills Hospital in Calgary reported that babies aborted for genetic reasons were quite often alive after the procedure and then left to die. Eight Ontario nurses went to court to win the right not to assist in abortions. This was not easy in that they were harassed, stressed, and lost thousands of dollars in legal expenses and lost wages.

This is against the intent of the Declaration of Helsinki, which is a universally adopted medical ethics code that says the interest of a patient must always prevail over the interest of science or society.

These days, the utilitarian greatest good for the greatest number seems to prevail over what is best for an individual patient. Maria believes that bio-ethics is a misnomer. Bio-ethics often conflicts with what citizens want; bio-ethics is not neutral, even though it defines itself as normative; bio-ethics redefines personhood: a person is "someone who is actively expressing rational attributes" versus a human being with inherent moral worth.

To end her talk, Maria compared the outcomes of bio-ethics versus natural law.

Medical procedures, some resulting in death, will occur without the consent of the patient.
Some patients will be persuaded, against their will, to sign a "Do Not Resuscitate" notice.
Parents of a disabled child will be allowed to permit a doctor to give a fatal dose.
Organs will be retrieved without parental consent, again for the "common good."
As in China, people will be sterilized and aborted to decrease the population, for the "common good."
Teenagers will be allowed, as in Holland, to give consent for their own deaths.
Decisionally incapacitated patients will be used for research with the consent of a third party.

With natural law the outcomes would be the exact opposite.

Health care workers with moral and religious values are the last defence that society has. Which standard of ethics do you want your health care workers to follow?

THE ROLE OF CHRISTIANS IN POLITICS
Summary by Jill Cahoon Alberta Representative, Board of Directors REAL Women of Canada	A Talk by Julius Yankowsky Alberta MLA

Mr. Yankowsky kindly accepted our last-minute request to speak after Senator Anne Cools was unable to attend the Conference due to illness.

To describe his own feelings about the role politicians should play in our society, Julius Yankowsky, who has been a member of the Alberta Legislature since 1991, cited the recent words of Archbishop Collins of Edmonton:

As the calling of a politician is a sacred one, so is the responsibility of the voter to ponder the gospel vision of society and to choose those leaders who will govern according to that vision.

Mr. Yankowsky aid that if a politician truly believes that his work is a ministry, not just a job, then he must be a voice for justice and morality in the legislature and in his constituency.

Can servanthood and political power go hand in hand? Unfortunately, it is like swimming against the tide when applying Judaeo-Christian morality to politically-correct issues. In fact, there are those who scoff at the idea that it is possible to be a servant of the people while in a position of power. It is true, also, that some politicians who have spoken out in defence of traditional beliefs have received vile hate mail or even had damage done to their homes.

We live today in a culture of death, and pro-life politicians have their work cut out as they swim against the tide. For example, it should not have been necessary said Mr. Yankowsky for him to propose legislation to protect health care workers who refuse to participate in procedures which offend their conscience or religion; he did so because our existing laws are inadequate.

There was a time, Mr. Yankowsky said, when being a politician was a part-time job, dealing mainly with financial matters. Not so today. He said that the reason why the state is becoming so involved in social matters is because of the collapse of traditional values, due mainly, he feels, to the rise of secular humanism. In 1933 a group of 34 secular humanists organized a society whose principles clearly denied the existence of God; in 1968 Henry Morgentaler was the founding President of the Humanist Society of Canada, and fought for legalized abortion "in the name of the humanist movement". The effects of the secular humanist movement are continuing to be seen in society.

Legislators today seem eager to legislate so-called living wills, without questioning the possibility that they could be used to support euthanasia. Thanks to the efforts of pro-life legislators, the Alberta Personal Directors Act has a clause included in the preamble which states that the law cannot be used for the purpose of euthanasia.

Mr. Yankowski said his personal objective as an MLA is to encourage the government to pursue strong family values and to support legislation that will benefit our children and their families. Recent legislation such as Alberta Bill 201, which mandates that parents take a course before proceeding with a divorce, is a good example of politicians working to support traditional family values.

The Alberta government is also looking into a Marriage Preparation Act, whereby couples would be made aware of all aspects of marriage: legal, child rearing, responsibilities, and the emotional and financial pressures. Currently no province in Canada requires or encourages marriage preparation courses, even though the divorce rate continues to increase.

Mr. Yankowsky reminded us that politicians, no matter how conscionable, can do little without the support of their constituents. Members of the public must contact their political representatives and express their concerns. They should also actively support those persons running for office who will defend traditional and moral values. It is absolutely necessary, Mr. Yankowsky stated, for the public to speak out in order for this country to get back on track.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: THE ROLE OF THE PRESS
Summary by Cecilia Forsyth Western Vice President REAL Women of Canada	A Talk by Shafer Parker, Senior Editor The National Report Magazine

Mr. Parker began his talk by stating, "If the demand for religious freedom is the motivating spirit behind other freedoms, then freedom of the press must be seen as the strong right arm that fights to make sure all the other freedoms survive."

To prove this point, Mr. Parker reported excerpts from a survey of religious freedom in the world published by Freedom House (www.freedomhouse.org). For example, in Africa, 6 countries have freedom of the press, 17 partial freedom and 30 no freedom. In Asia, 6 countries have freedom of the press, 4 partial freedom and 14 no freedom. There is a dramatic difference in Western Europe where 20 countries have freedom of the press, 4 have partial, and 0 countries have no freedom.

According to Mr. Parker, "Christianity or faith is the foundation of all other freedoms. The part of the world that is most Christian also enjoys the most widespread other freedoms." He cited additional findings of the survey to further substantiate this basic premise. In Latin America, 17 countries have freedom of the press, 14 partial freedom and 2 no freedom. In contrast, the Middle East has only 1 country with total freedom of the press, 2 with partial freedom and 11 countries with no freedom.

Mr. Parker concluded the survey report on religious freedom in the world by stating, "It may be arguable as to how freedom arises but I am quite certain that it is free speech and freedom of the press that keeps totalitarianism at bay in this country and throughout the world."

The internet has made a huge difference in the way reporting is carried on in the world. It is keeping journalism honest by reporting news stories that mainstream media ignore. Shafer recommended several news sites for review on a regular basis. A couple of US sites which have a daily review of conservative news issues are: www.worldnetdaily.com and www.drudgereport.com. Recommended Canadian sites are: www.bourque.com and www.report.ca.

Mr. Parker then proceeded to examine Christian journalism based on the book, Telling the Truth by Marvin Olasky, who is a Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas, Austin, editor of World Magazine, and advisor to US President George W. Bush.

First, you can link the words "conservative" and "Christian" together for when you say one you mean the other. Conservative journalism looks like traditional Christianity because it is based on ultimate and eternal values. Sound theology, coupled with an understanding of sin and a willingness to battle government-supported sin, will place a journalist right-of-centre in our current political spectrum.

While some Christians are political liberals, they should realize that the liberal emphasis in 20th century America has been liberation from traditional institutions such as family, church, and business, in the belief that these institutions are oppressive. Liberals have also repeatedly used governmental power to assault and batter the walls of these institutions. Liberal culture emphasizes government rather than family and stresses subjectivity (e.g., the right to choose abortion) rather than objectivity.

Secondly, conservative journalists believe that limitations on human progress are natural, not the result of external forces. These journalists understand how to apply external values in a way that leads to an informed objectivity.

Liberal journalists, on the other hand, see man as a helpless pawn, a victim of the forces that surround him. They see poverty as the failure of government social programs and the failure to re-distribute wealth. They assume that abortion is a failure of government-mandated sex ed programs. Liberal journalists believe that it is never anyone's fault that they are in trouble; it is always the fault of big government, big business or somebody else. This "poor little me, it's not my fault" attitude is common in journalism.

Again, referring to Marvin Olasky's book, Mr. Parker explained the 6 classes of issues. He suggested we should know them just as a canoeist knows the 6 classes of white water.

Class 1. An Explicit Biblical Position Exists

Where we stand as conservatives and Christians is sometimes easy to decide because on some issues the Bible is very clear. We know where the Bible stands on issues of adultery, homosexuality, group marriage, etc. A conservative journalist would report the truth of the matter and not try to balance a silly attempt to present opposing positions as equal.

Class 2. An Implicit Biblical Position Exists

There may not be a direct injunction on a particular issue, but, for example, on the issue of education, the Bible clearly emphasizes the importance of a Godly education under parental supervision. Again conservative journalists would base their reports on what the Bible has to say on the issue.

Class 3. Both Sides of an Issue Can be Found in a Biblical Position

Sometimes, both sides of an issue are able to conscript scripture, but careful study allows a Biblical conclusion to only one of the sides. An example is the poverty issue. The left talks about God's preferential treatment option for the poor. But a Biblical understanding of this means giving the poor full legal rights, while not treating them as more worthy than the rich by virtue of their class position. The Biblical provision of material help should be coupled with the provision of spiritual obligations. The poor should be given the opportunity to glean, but they should also be challenged to work.

Class 4. Biblical Understanding is Backed by Historical Experience

Even though no explicit biblical commandment exists on such issues, historical experience may be clear. For example, the Bible does not address the size of government, but it is bad theology to see government as "savior." We should be suspicious of the person who says, "I'm from government and I'm here to help you."

Class 5. The Issue isn't Clear but we have a Biblical Sense of Human Nature to Guide Us

When there is no clear Biblical mandate and no clear historical trail, a certain understanding of human nature can be applied. For example, those who believe peace is natural emphasize negotiation and disarmament. A Biblical understanding of sin leads to tough questions. What if war is the natural habit of sinful post-fall man? Objectivity in such a situation emphasizes discernment rather than credulity. If we do not assume a benign human nature concerning warfare, we need to plan for military preparedness and be willing to pay the cost of war with potential aggressors, which is exactly how we won the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Class 6. Issues are so Difficult, We Don't Know the Answers

This occurs when there is no clear Biblical position or historical trail for the discerning person to apply. For example, on the NAFTA issue, a person should simply seek balanced views and perspectives.

Mr. Parker concluded his presentation by saying, "To keep freedom of the press, refuse to shut up, observe the truth, report the truth, and pass on The Report (magazine)."

Other websites recommended by Shafer Parker are: www.lewrockwell.com which has a list of 100 books on freedom and www.nationalreview.com.

ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND FREE SPEECH IN CANADA: MYTHS AND REALITIES
Summary by Lorraine McNamara Durham Region Chapter REAL Women of Canada	Talk by Dr. Hymie Rubenstein Professor of Anthropology University of Manitoba

Dr. Hymie Rubenstein, a professor of Anthropology at the University of Manitoba, is known for his willingness "to go where others fear to tread", in that he has challenged certain politically correct stances which curtail freedom of speech. He has also paid a price for his courageous actions. In his eloquent but concise manner, Professor Rubenstein discussed the serious problem of academic censorship which, at present, is poisoning the university environment.

Freedom of speech for an academic is somewhat more narrow than that for the general public. Teachers must temper free expression with academic and scientific reliability and a respect for truth. For example, a member of the public is perfectly free to claim that the earth is flat and try to convince others that this is so, but a teacher cannot claim the earth is flat without backing up the statement with evidence. It is reasonable to constrain professors from teaching "nutty" ideas, nor should a classroom be used for political propaganda. Similarly, it would be wrong for a teacher to suggest that students may lie about their grades when seeking employment.

Dr. Rubenstein cited four cases where freedom of speech was censured, all involving female students who were outraged by comments which the professors rationally believed to be truthful. He also listed some myths and realities:

Case #1: A professor of Geology at the University of Oklahoma was charged with sexual harassment by the university when he sent a letter to a campus newspaper rebutting a column with respect to gun control.

The columnist had made the statement, "Easy access to a handgun allows everyone in this country to quickly and easily kill as many random people as they want". In his letter the professor compared a man's control of a gun to a woman's control of her sexuality.

Admittedly, his comments were somewhat controversial, but they were not directed as a personal criticism but as a rebuttal of muddled logic. Nor was the person with whom he disagreed a student of the university. Because the professor's rights were defended by persons outside the university, and because he threatened legal action, the university stopped the proceedings after two months.

Case #2: A Mathematics professor at the University of New Brunswick, in a letter to a newspaper, challenged the concept of date rape. This professor, a conservative Muslim who was born in the Middle East, suggested that Western morality and behaviour had changed so much that, for example, "When a boy invites a girl to his pad, especially after meeting the first time, she should consider this an invitation for sexual intercourse". Although he had tenure, having taught for 27 years, he was immediately suspended, and for two months was banned from the university grounds. After investigation, it was decided that he had not breached the university's speech code. He was reinstated, but immediately accepted a retirement package.

Case #3: A professor (who is also a member of REAL Women), teaching at the University of Winnipeg in the 1999/2000 school year, ran into a wall of discrimination because he dared to question feminist dogma. Four females from a class of 35 wrote an anonymous letter complaining about his teaching, which they felt was critical of women. One of the complainants had even suggested that saying "men and women are different" was the same as saying "all Indians are drunks". This professor was advised that if even one student felt uncomfortable, it was a cause for action, and in fact, a committee was struck to find out what degree of discomfort should be allowed in a classroom! There was no investigation to find out whether the complaint had merit. The President of the University told the professor that he was anti-feminist, and that "to be anti-feminist is to be anti-woman". This non-tenured part-time instructor has not been rehired, nor will he ever be rehired.

Case #4: Professor Rubenstein, himself, was chastised for distributing a pamphlet entitled, What gay/lesbian activists won't tell you or your children, at a board meeting of a large inner city school where a so-called "anti-homophobia" program was being discussed. In this literature Professor Rubenstein had debunked many ideas of homosexuality. Although he was acting strictly as an ordinary citizen and there was no mention of his university affiliation, a member of the university student union registered a complaint. He was never provided with a copy of the accusations; it was a news reporter who faxed this information to him. Professor Rubenstein was obviously very disappointed that his fellow faculty members did not support him and that it was only through the actions of persons outside the university, especially members of the press, that the charges were quickly dismissed. (It was decided that since he was not engaged in university business, his actions did not fall under the university's mandate.)

Myth #1: University professors are fierce defenders of academic expression and freedom of speech.

Reality: Most academics are indifferent to breaches of academic freedom on or off campus. When the University of Oklahoma professor approached a close friend for support, this securely tenured faculty member responded, "What would people think?"

Myth #2: In a free and democratic society, the personal opinions of a professor, outside the classroom, so long as they are lawful discourse, are acceptable.

Reality: Academic freedom apparently does not mean a professor may disseminate false ideas or act illegally. However, professors play a variety of roles in society, and the punishment many of them are receiving within the university, for claiming the same rights as other citizens, is being condoned instead of condemned.

Myth #3: Instances of suppression of free speech, as in the cases cited above, are isolated instances and should not be of concern to society.

Reality: When university professors believe they can be punished simply for making provocative statements in or out of the classroom, it is an assault on academic freedom. When the rights of one faculty member are affected, the rights of all are diminished.

Myth #4: The search for truth is the overriding function of higher education.

Reality: Especially in the Liberal Arts, truth is being defined on the basis of moral relativism. Eternal truths and values are said to be no more valid than the opinions of the students themselves.

Professor Rubenstein has the reputation of being the most outspoken member on his campus, yet he recently cancelled a talk about academic freedom of speech because, quite frankly, he felt he would again land in hot water. He could not count on his university administration, his union or his fellow faculty members for support. Both Professor Rubenstein's respect for the truth and his deep disappointment at the lack of support by the academic community was obvious.

It is no wonder academics fear to speak out on politically-correct issues. As newspaper columnist and former Professor of Law, Ian Hunter, stated in a column published in the National Post, universities are "islands of oppression in a sea of freedom."

THE UN: A THREAT TO AUTONOMOUS NATIONS
Summary by Cecilia Forsyth Western Vice President REAL Women of Canada	A Talk by C. Gwendolyn Landolt National Vice President REAL Women of Canada

Gwen Landolt's talk explored the evolution of the UN from a world forum of discussion in 1945 to its present role as an agent of world control and domination.

The UN began as a forum for the nations of the world to meet in a spirit of dignity and good will, respecting the national sovereignty of each nation and their differing cultural and religious values. However, over the past 50 years, the UN has vastly changed. Goodwill and respect have been replaced by a ruthless determination to force policies on individual nations. In particular, the UN has attacked respect for life and the traditional moral values of the family in the developing world, with the intent of imposing the West's decadent moral values worldwide.

From generation to generation, the family has been a formidable influence in passing on cultural and religious values - values which the UN now deems subversive to its agenda. Another factor behind the UN's intolerance of traditional values and national sovereignty is the population growth in the developing world, which is considered a threat to global domination by the western nations.

Previous UN policies for population control have not proven successful because of cultural and religious objections. The UN devised a new approach -- the failed feminist revolution of the West. Gender equality and the empowerment of women became the key approach to change, based on the belief that once women are educated and economically independent, they will voluntarily separate themselves from the "liability" of religion, culture, family and children.

Consequently, in the name of advancing women's rights, "reproductive rights" (a UN code word for abortion, contraception and sterilization), homosexual, gender and equality rights have become the major issues advocated by the UN since the Cairo Population and Development Conference in 1994. This new game plan also includes an aggressive attempt to separate adolescents from parental control. It should be mentioned that the World Health Organization defines adolescents as children from 10 years of age to 19 years of age.

Two UN treaties especially useful in implementing anti-family policies are the Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Canada ratified CEDAW in 1981 and CRC in 1991.

CEDAW fulfills the wildest dreams of left-leaning and socialist radical feminists. It enables governments to radically interfere with family life and the relationship between men and women. It does not call for equal opportunities for women, but instead promotes the "maximum participation of women on equal terms with men in all fields in the labour force."

Motherhood is consistently portrayed as a stereotype that holds women back. Various articles in the Convention call for measures "to eliminate the stereotypical roles of men and women" in education, society and family life. This Convention differs from other UN human rights treaties in that it does not include any protection for religious rights.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does include some good provisions, such as the right of a child not to be subject to neglect, maltreatment or exploitation. However, it essentially enshrines rights for children by treating them as miniature adults and it regards the parent-child relationship as an undue restriction on children's rights. These rights include a child's right to privacy, freedom of expression, association, thought, conscience and religion.

In 1996 Canada was criticized by the Treaty Monitoring Committee for the Convention on the Rights of the Child for its failure to eliminate parental spanking of children. Australia received a similar reprimand. Spanking of children has become a UN offence, although no UN treaty specifically prohibits it.

Other UN treaties hinder the anti-family agenda. For example, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is accepted worldwide as the international standard for human rights, does not include reproductive (abortion) rights, homosexual or adolescent rights. It even endorses the traditional family, as does the 1976 Convention the Civil and Political Rights.

Frustrated by these latter treaties, UN officials have undertaken a new strategy to do an end-run around the pro-family provisions. Countries which have ratified the major UN human rights treaties are required to submit periodic reports to an international committee of "experts" detailing that nation's implementation of the treaty. The Treaty Monitoring Committees reviews these reports, and it can "re-interpret" and "read-in" anti-family policies. Sovereign nations who fail to implement newly discovered provisions are criticized.

Mrs. Landolt asked, "Why is the Canadian government putting our sovereignty at risk to these international committees, who directly infringe on our freedoms as Canadians and are in defiance of our history?" Answering her own question, she explained, "Under the Canadian Parliamentary system, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with the approval of the Prime Minister, has the sole right to make these decisions." In other words, foreign policy, as well as the ratification of international treaties, is never brought before the Canadian Parliament for debate.

Canada's national sovereignty received another heavy blow when Bill C-19 (International Criminal Court) was passed by Parliament last June. According to this piece of legislation, Canada agreed to both abide by the rulings of the International Criminal Court and to enforce in Canada all the decisions of this foreign court, no matter how outrageous its decisions may be. The rulings of the ICC are to have supremacy over Canadian law.

There are other reasons to be concerned about the implications of Bill C-19. This legislation accepts that the ICC is to deal with three specific international crimes: 1. genocide, 2. war crimes and 3. crimes against humanity. Mrs. Landolt warned that: "the definitions of these terms is so broad they are frightening." For example, crimes against humanity and war crimes include: "enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy, inhuman acts causing injury to mental health, sexual violence, sexual slavery and prosecution against any identifiable group."

The ICC was supposed to be a court which dealt solely with grave and well-established war crimes. Instead, it has turned out to be an ideologically driven feminist court to promote a feminist human rights agenda internationally. Given it is a "feminist" court, there is little doubt as to the direction it will take in its interpretation of international violations.

Mrs. Landolt further revealed that crimes against humanity are not limited to actions by the State. Private organizations or individuals are also subject to prosecution by the ICC. Bill C-19 permits ICC investigators and prosecutors to conduct investigations within Canada. Canadian authorities must fully cooperate as well as surrendering persons accused of a crime to the ICC. It is important to note that Canada is the first country to develop comprehensive implementation legislation for the ICC and that this legislation is now a model to be followed by other countries.

REAL WOMEN OF CANADA 2001 RESOLUTION

WHEREAS since some adolescents, some as young as 12 year of age, live on the streets of major Canadian cities and are frequently lonely, frightened and running away from abusive backgrounds, they are vulnerable to the attention of pimps, and

WHEREAS such adolescents are unable emotionally, psychologically or physically to resist the attentions and control of pimps, and

WHEREAS if such adolescents, should they continue to remain on the streets under the control of the pimps, may survive for only a limited time and meet early deaths as a result of homicidal acts, drug overdoses, AIDS or suicide.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT such adolescents be removed from the streets and placed under protective care, away from the pimps, where such adolescents may receive medical and legal support and psychological counselling, and

BE IT RESOLVED THAT every Provincial Attorney General be requested to enact legislation similar to the Protection of Children Involved in Prostitution Act enacted by the Province of Alberta in 1999, and the Protecting Children from Sexual Exploitation Act tabled by the Ontario Legislature in December 2000, which legislation provides the necessary protection for such adolescents.

FORMER MP ERIC LOWTHER HONOURED

Eric Lowther was a truly outstanding Family Critic for the Alliance party in Ottawa. He carried out this work until he was defeated by Tory leader, Joe Clark, in Calgary Centre in the November 2000 federal election.

During his term as an MP and as Family Critic, Mr. Lowther was a wonderful example to those of us in the front lines of the pro-family movement. He gave vigorously of himself, always striving to promote and protect the traditional family - an effort in which he deeply believed.

REAL WOMEN AWARD

Each year, since 1995, REAL Women has given an award to recognize and honour an individual or group who had made an outstanding contribution to preserve and promote traditional family values in Canadian society. This year, we were delighted to present the REAL Women of Canada Award to Mr. Lowther to thank him from the bottom of our hearts, for his tremendous contribution to the traditional family in Canada.

REAL Women was delighted that representatives from two other pro-family groups - Canadian Family Action Coalition (CFAC) and the Home School Legal Defence Association (HSLDA) also attended our conference in order to pay tribute to Mr. Lowther.

In presenting the REAL Women Award, President, Jeannine Lebel, stated that Mr. Lowther was an outstanding spokesperson and tireless advocate for the well being of the traditional values of marriage and the family. She stated that during his tenure, he succeeded in keeping family issues in the public eye. He presented petitions in Parliament against child pornography. He supported the Canadian Family Tax Coalition proposals for fair family taxation. Finally, Jeannine stated that we are particularly grateful for the resolution Mr. Lowther brought forward on June 8, 1999, in support of the traditional definition of marriage. That definition has proven to be especially useful in the debate which is now raging in both Parliament and the courts about same-sex marriages.

Finally, Jeannine reminded us that, in addition to his efforts in Parliament, Mr. Lowther established a national communications network among pro-family groups and individuals. This endeavour greatly strengthened and advanced the pro-family pro-life movement in Canada.

CANADIAN FAMILY ACTION COALITION (CFAC)

Roy Beyer, President of CFAC, stated that Mr. Lowther represented his constituents and millions of Canadians in his battle to protect Canadian families. Roy also commented that he believes that Eric Lowther is an example of a person standing effectively, in a fashion similar to Daniel in the scriptures (Prophet and Prime Minister in Babylon).

Daniel stood against moral compromise. Even as a young man, in the midst of spiritual darkness and under intense pressure to compromise, he stood strong. He also stood in a way that positively impacted others. The Bible states that "Daniel distinguished himself above the governors and administrators in that an excellent spirit was in him."

Roy said that this also described Mr. Lowther - there truly is an excellent spirit in him (of honesty, commitment to unity, compassion, courage, prayerfulness, respect, intelligence and so much more) and because of the spirit - he was truly effective. We thank him for his hard work and dedication.

HOME SCHOOL LEGAL DEFENSE ASSOCIATION (HSLDA)

Dallas Miller, Q.C., legal counsel for the HSLDA, in making his presentation to Mr. Lowther stated that he was pleased to publicly thank Mr. Lowther for his dedicated public service to Canadian families and a better Canada.

Dallas went on to say that Eric Lowther has been a catalyst for the pro-family community in Canada over the past few years. His warm personal style and his ability to bring people together have been key in getting pro-family groups to work together. He also has, according to Dallas, been particularly helpful to home school families and to HSLDA because of his work in the area of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and trying to bring some Parliamentary responsibility to this whole area of international treaties. Finally, Dallas said that HSLDA will always be grateful to Mr. Lowther for his hard work during his term as an excellent Parliamentarian and it is our hope and prayer that he will be back in that role very soon.

Thank you Mr. Lowther, on behalf of all Canadian families.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS