|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
REAL WOMEN 20th ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE
Women, Families and Society In the Charter
Era of Rights and Freedoms
REAL Women's twentieth anniversary conference
held in Ottawa, was marvellous. The speakers were outstanding,
and the friendly comradeship among all the participants was
heart-warming.
The conference room was filled to capacity,
despite the late spring snow and ice storm that was whirling
around southern Ontario the few days before, and on the actual
day of the conference. The roads in southern Ontario were
virtually impassable - except for intrepid REAL Women, of
course! A busload of REAL Women arrived triumphantly from
Toronto on Friday evening, just in time to catch the tail-end
of our annual meeting and to join in with refreshments after
the long journey on the perilous icy roads. The Toronto bus
driver had never expected the members to show up to take the
trip to Ottawa, but REAL Women were there at the pick-up point,
ready and willing to go. They told the bus driver, "of
course we're here - after all we're REAL Women!" Carloads
of REAL Women came from the northern Ontario Chapter in North
Bay, and also made the drive through the snowstorm to Ottawa,
arriving feisty and as full of energy as they were when they
had left North Bay many hours previously.
REAL Women members came from Pembroke and
other Ottawa Valley towns, not to mention the Ottawa members
themselves who managed to navigate the tricky roads driving
to the conference. This wonderful turn-out at our conference,
despite the unbelievably challenging weather conditions, is
a real tribute to our members, and probably explains why REAL
Women is such a vibrant organization today, when other volunteer
organizations are collapsing from a lack of support - we never
let anything stop us!
We are determined, no-nonsense women, not
easily swayed by weather, popular ideology or the media. We
are what we are - so watch out to all those who might try
to intimidate us. They will have a very discouraging time.
For all those who were unable to attend the
conference, we are pleased to provide you with the summaries
of the talks. Tapes of these talks, by the way, are available
at a cost of $25 for the full set, $7 for individual tapes.
Please contact:
Cheryl Lebel
Conference Co-ordinator
Box 599
Powassan, Ontario P0H 1Z0
to request any of the tapes.
SUMMARIES OF THE TALKS, PRESENTED AT THE REAL WOMEN 2003 CONFERENCE
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
THE DEATH OF MEN
Summary by Sharen Frewing
BC Representative
REAL Women of Canada
A talk by Professor Jeffrey Asher
Teacher, Writer and Lecturer on Social Studies
We hear endlessly about the rights of women
and the challenges they face in the workplace and family,
their health issues and stressors. In his presentation to
the REAL Women 2003 conference, Jeffrey Asher made a compelling
case for balancing this perspective by considering the dangers
and challenges men face in our society - some of these challenges
caused by the consequences of the success the radical feminist
agenda has had in Canada.
Asher noted that life expectancy is the primary
measure of quality of life and that male death rates, overall,
are 64% earlier than females', and that 97% of workplace fatalities
are men. Asher noted that, "Since the 1970's, women received
more resources and legal protection against sexual harassment
than all the programs established to prevent work-caused deaths."
Mr. Asher stated that, "men are still
defined by their success in traditional masculine roles,"
and that "the foundations of men's lives remain the support
of a wife and family. Men commit their lives to compete in
the marketplace, as the irreplaceable financial support for
their extended families. A man is still expected to preserve
his wife and children from the insecurity and deprivations
caused by poverty. The burdens on men of an erratic economy
have rarely been examined by the media or social scientists.
Husbands and fathers blame themselves for low income, job
loss, bankruptcy and family poverty."
Mr. Asher also provided further food for thought
when he stated: "Private and public employers welcomed
the 'bottom line' gains of the new female labour force with
salary devaluation, temporary and part-time contracts, and
'down-sizing' of the senior male work force. Employers manipulate
government-mandated 'equity' quotas to eliminate full-time
and skilled male workers for lower paid young women. Before
1970, a woman's salary was a welcome increase to family income.
Now, mother, father and often children work to maintain family
sufficiency. If he cannot provide adequately for his family,
a man loses one of the primary meanings for his life."
Mr. Asher commented on the fact that men are
expected by society to suppress dissatisfaction, disappointment
and fear. This initially attractive 'strong and silent' manner
is now criticized as uncommunicative, uncaring and detached
from women's interests. Men endure high-pressure and socially
empty work by ignoring symptoms of these physical or psychological
illnesses. "Many men begin to pay for this repression
in the emergency ward," Mr. Asher said.
According to Mr. Asher, "few Canadians
know that 80% of all suicides are men, often among recently
divorced fathers and later among sons of divorce, and that
this percentage rises after age 70." Mr. Asher attributes
the rise in suicide rates among men to their despair in not
seeing their children after divorce, a loss of identity and
purpose following divorce, which is often compounded with
the demoralizing effect of an unstable economy. He commented,
"Research shows that two thirds to three quarters of
divorces are initiated by wives, not because of violence or
abuse, but for personal fulfillment needs. From 1968 to 1992,
divorce rates rose 500%. Sons of divorce lack an essential
male role model, yet many male children attempt to fill the
absent father role. They often display exaggerated 'macho'
behaviour, failure in school, drug abuse, and lack of skills
for affection and love. Fatherless sons and locked-out fathers
drift to apathy about health and safety, mental illness, alcoholism,
violence, and suicide." Asher notes "even when desperate,
men are reluctant to appeal for help, and abandon their last
shred of dignity."
Another salient point that Mr. Asher made,
and one that is rarely talked about, is that men face a 'daily
minefield' in their expression of affection, of even what
used to be considered common courtesies. Such uncertainty
is very disorienting and can even cause men to despair about
companionship and love in their lives, he said.
In a call to action, Mr. Asher encourages
researchers and governments to study men's health issues and
workplace safety. He appealed to women with male loved ones,
be they husbands, sons, brothers, fathers or neighbours, that
more than ever, men need the care and concern of the women
who love them.
DEFENDING HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE - GOOD
ARGUMENTS
IN AN ERA OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Summary by Michelle Bitto
Brunswick Chapter
REAL Women of Canada
A Talk by Dr. Katherine Young
President Professor, McGill University, Montreal
Dr Young, a professor of religion at McGill
University has gathered a great deal of evidence to support
responses to the claims made by advocates of gay marriage.
Dr. Young has undertaken this defence because
people have become complacent, assuming there is no need to
defend what is taken for granted. Also, the burden of proof,
which should rest with those who want change, has landed on
the defenders of the status quo.
Mating, largely biological, is not the same
as raising a family.
Because heterosexuality is directly related
to both reproduction and survival, every human society has
had to promote it actively. It is always fostered. Some norms
vary, but others are universal.
Comparative research reveals a pattern: Marriage
has universal, nearly universal, and variable features. Its
universal features include the fact that marriage is:
(a) supported by authority and incentives;
(b) recognizes the interdependence of men and women;
(c) has a public dimension;
(d) defines eligible partners;
(e) encourages procreation under specific conditions;
and
(f) provides mutual support, not only between men
and women, but also between them and children.
This debate is really about the prevalent
but misleading assumptions about heterosexuality, and not
about homosexuality. Young argues that heterosexuality, i.e.
marriage between men and women, must be both publicly fostered
by culture and supported by law.
Many of the claims made to support gay marriage
are incorrect, for instance, that the main purpose of marriage
is to foster love between two people, or to promote self esteem.
To the claim that norms are discriminatory,
they reply that choices must always be made. We will all lose
if marriage is further weakened. What about equality? All
moral and legal codes try to balance the conflicting needs
of individuals and society. Everything cannot be equal.
An important reply to the claim that allowing
gay marriage would constitute only a slight change. In fact,
much change would occur, including the fact some gay couples
would then demand the right to have children with all the
technological requirements (government paid, of course) to
enable them to do so, e.g. sperm banks, surrogacy, etc. These
changes would not be beneficial to children especially, or
to society.
To the claim that we must be tolerant, the
reply was that we must also be wise.
To briefly summarize the conclusions, changing
the definition of marriage would:
(a) amount to a massive experiment
on future generations, the hazards of which have not even
been discussed;
(b) place children at even greater risk than they
are;
(c) legitimize a notion of citizenship that expects
the state to provide self respect;
(d) victimize another minority, single people;
(e) polarize the nation between liberal and conservative,
and secular and religious communities, including new ethnic
groups.
I believe that this talk is so important that
it would be beneficial for people to obtain the tape and listen
to it. The tape provides many counter arguments to the myths
created by homosexual activists in their attempt to legitimize
their unions by legal marriage.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM UNDER SIEGE
Summary by Cecilia Forsyth
Western Vice-President
REAL Women of Canada
A Talk by Philip Horgan
Lawyer and Vice-President
Catholic Civil Rights League
Lawyer Philip Horgan confirmed that religious freedom is a
fundamental right, and that Section 2 of the Charter of Rights
does guarantee freedom of conscience, freedom of religious
belief and freedom of expression. He then agreed with Robert
Fulford, National Post columnist, who stated "that on
the list of rights, religious freedom comes last."
According to Horgan, "We have reached
the point in Canada, where you can believe what you want as
long as you don't act on it or talk about it."
Other examples of the decline in religious
freedoms in Canada, according to Mr. Horgan, include:
Education
- Trinity Western University (TWU), a private university
in Langley, BC applied in 1997 for a final professional
fifth year for its education students. The British Columbia
College of Teachers (BCCT) refused to accredit the university
teaching program, arguing that TWU graduates would be unfit
to teach in public schools because of their religious "world-view"
and its "discriminatory practices" in regards
to homosexuality. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour
of TWU in 2001, but unfortunately, also ruled that religious
freedom in Canada means a freedom to believe, but not necessarily
to act on such beliefs in the public square.
- A three-member disciplinary committee of the BCCT found
Chris Kempling, a BC teacher and counsellor, "guilty
of conduct unbecoming a member of the BCCT," and was
suspended for one month without pay as punishment. His "unbecoming
conduct" was writing letters to the local media, stating
that he did not think that active promotion of the homosexual
lifestyle in the public schools in BC was in the bests interests
of children. Kempling has appealed the verdict to the BC
Supreme Court as an infringement of his freedom of religion
and freedom of speech.
- On December 20, 2002, the Supreme Court overruled the
Surrey BC School Board by approving three books on gay-parenting
for kindergarten and grade one. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin
claimed that "tolerance and respect for diversity"
were required in a school curriculum, and that the books
were "always age-appropriate." However, the words
"tolerance" and "diversity" were not
written into the BC School Act - but were merely "read-in"
by the Court which then proceeded to uniquely interpret
these words to mean that homosexual propaganda in the schools
must be accepted in the name of the "read-in"
words "tolerance" and "diversity.".
Politics
At the 9/11 memorial service on Parliament
Hill, the Liberal government did not permit any mention of
God. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien boasted to the Liberal
caucus that the decision to exclude reference to God at the
memorial service was one of his proudest moments.
Bill C-250 proposes to incorporate 'sexual
orientation' as grounds of protection from hate crimes, even
though there is little evidence of hate crimes directed at
homosexuals to support such an amendment. If enacted, this
Bill will have a chilling effect on debate about the morality
of homosexual conduct, and will interfere with the right of
religious leaders to communicate essential matters of faith.
Business and Community
Scott Brockie, a Christian printer from Toronto,
refused to print material for a homosexual activist group.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission fined Brockie $5,000,
and ordered both an apology and sensitivity training. Upon
appeal, the Ontario Divisional Court upheld the fine, but
did recognize some right of conscience for a business based
on religious views, but limited that right. Brockie was awarded
costs of $25,000, but his legal fees totaled $125,000.
Marc Hall, a homosexual student at a Durham
Region Catholic School, was granted a court injunction to
take his 'boyfriend' to a high school prom, even though it
clearly violated Catholic Church teachings on sexual morality.
Hall was supported by 12-15 groups, including Buzz Hargrove,
union leader, Alan Rock, federal Cabinet Minister, and Dalton
McGuinty, Ontario Liberal leader.
The court, ignoring the constitutional right
of Catholic schools in Ontario under the BNA Act and the Charter
of Rights to operate its schools in accordance with Catholic
teachings, and ignoring the freedom of religion of the school,
ordered the school to allow Marc Hall to attend the prom with
his male boyfriend.
Mr. Horgan concluded by encouraging us to
be alert, mindful of social and political issues as well as
our own attitudes, actions, and words. He challenged us to
always be a source of conversion for love of God and love
of country. We must not accept these rulings, but should actively
oppose them at every opportunity.
DEFAULTING ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE AND
THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY:
WHO INFLUENCES THE LAW MAKERS?
Summary by Lorraine McNamara
National President
REAL Women of Canada
A talk by C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
REAL Women of Canada
In her analysis of why these are such difficult
times for Canadians and why we feel so helpless to make changes,
Gwen Landolt noted that there are two main causes: (1) The
federal Liberal government which is singularly indifferent
to the views of the general public, and (2) The determination
of crucial social issues by the arbitrary decisions of unappointed
and unaccountable judges on our courts.
"All political power rests with the
Prime Minister himself." The political power in Canada
is controlled by the Prime Minister and his paid advisers.
The Canadian Cabinet is there simply for consultation and
"rubber stamping" purposes. It is Prime Minister
Chrétien who makes decisions for Canada - even on such
serious matters as what Canada's position is to be on the
Iraq war. It should also be noted that even though the "heir
to the throne," Paul Martin, has suggested there is currently
a "democratic deficit," he has not put forth any
specifics, and there is no assurance that he will change the
present system.
The role of Canada in establishing and promoting
the International Criminal Court (ICC) is another example
of an important decision being made without public input.
This court was established, supposedly to deal with offences
such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity,
serious crimes of international concern. However, the court's
structure and definitions permit it to be used to arbitrate
delicate questions of social policy. For example, during negotiations
for the ICC in Rome in 1998, the radical Women's Caucus for
Gender Justice, supported by U.N. officials and the Canadian
government, managed to have the entire Rome document pockmarked
with "gender issues." Because "gender sensitivity"
and "gender balance" were mandated, the judicial
nominees were required to have "expertise on issues related
to sexual and gender violence." The result is that already
three of the judges have been clearly identified by Life
Site News (March 13, 2003) as having pro-abortion ties,
including Canadian Philippe Kirsch, recently elected as President
of the ICC. Mr. Kirsch, who also served as chairman of the
1998 ICC Rome Conference, blatantly used procedural abuse
and manipulation during the Rome negotiations to achieve the
pro-abortion, feminist objectives which now form an integral
part of the ICC structure. It should be noted that any decision
of the ICC must be applied in Canada; so should a Canadian
be brought before the ICC, there would be no legal protection
for that person.
However, despite such manipulations, Gwen
said there are some glimmers of a break in the Liberal government's
resistance to public opinion. When the 1999 same-sex benefits
bill (Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Act) was presented,
the then Minister of Justice, Anne McLellan, was obliged,
because of public pressure, to include in the bill a statement
to the effect that the definition of the word "marriage"
was the "lawful union of one man and one woman to the
exclusion of all others."
Also, because of public input, and despite
pressure from homosexual activists and most of the media,
the government was not only forced to appeal the decision
of the Superior Court of Ontario supporting same-sex marriage,
but was obliged to have the matter reviewed by the Justice
Committee. Public response to this committee has been in support
of traditional marriage.
Another piece of proposed legislation, MP
Svend Robinson's infamous hate crime bill C-250, which would
deeply infringe on religious freedoms as well as freedom of
speech, will not likely proceed, again due to overwhelming
negative response from the public.
"The Courts are the real power in
our country." Judges, and more specifically, the
nine appointed judges sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada,
are the real rulers of our lives. Gwen spoke forcefully when
she said, "Judges have absolute power to issue decrees
clothed as judgments, which are based not on precedent, logic
or reason, the customary pillars of legal judgments, but rather
on their own personal ideology and philosophy." She
gave the example of the Supreme Court's decision that the
child in the womb does not exist in law, but merely as part
of the mother's body - a decision made in defiance of common
sense, logic, medicine, biology and science. This decision,
Gwen said, was the result of the court's acceptance of feminist
ideology presented to by the Women's Legal Education Action
Fund (LEAF).
When Gwen was involved in preparing pro-life
legal arguments, she was shocked to read the feminist pro-abortion
arguments which were not based on any law whatever, but rather
consisted of pages and pages of ideology with scarcely any
legal arguments or case law. Similarly, when the Ontario Divisional
Court ruled that same-sex liaisons be recognized as a legal
marriage, this decision was based, almost exclusively, on
the collective views and feelings of the claimants, not on
the law.
"The imbalance created by the court
decisions and their lack of objectivity has undermined the
credibility of the courts and judges themselves. There no
longer is any reason to respect them." Judges do
not have special or secret knowledge with which to interpret
the Charter of Rights. Although they were not given the power
to interpret the Charter of Rights or to rule according to
their ideology, judges have assumed this power. These judges
(who are merely well-connected lawyers with political connections)
have attained the apex of power in Canada, with the elected
legislatures serving only a secondary role in determining
public policy.
"Something must be done to restrain
the courts' ambitious takeover of society." Gwen
made four recommendations - short of a constitutional amendment
- which she feels are the best we can do to change the structure
of the courts.
1. Establish the notwithstanding clause;
2. Limit the tenure of judges;
3. Establish nominating committees;
4. Establish confirmation hearings prior to appointment.
There are, Gwen said, some encouraging indications
that in the United States there is a gradual trend toward
respect for traditional values, and since Canada usually follows
the lead of the US (ten or twenty years later) there is hope
for the future. For the present, it is our duty to become
the voice of reason in our democratic society.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
