For immediate release January 18th, 2012

LANCET LETTER EXPOSES SERIOUS ERRORS IN VANCOUVER INJECTION ROOM STUDY

The current edition of Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, has published a letter which gives evidence that contradicts the findings of an April 2011 study which found that Vancouver’s Insite had reduced overdose deaths in its immediate vicinity by 35%.

The flawed study was influential in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in September 2011 to permit the Vancouver Drug Injection Site to remain in operation.

An international team including three Australian specialists has found serious errors in the study, conducted by chiefly Canadian researchers, which negate its claims. Their letter to Lancet, requesting retraction of the study, documents clear evidence that the researchers knew of a zero-tolerance policing crackdown commencing the year Insite opened and continuing to this day which reduced drug use indicators in the policed area by 46%, but failed to declare that knowledge. This fact directly skewed the study.  The letter also demonstrates that there has been an increasing trend in overdose deaths in Vancouver and the Downtown Eastside area surrounding Insite since 2002, the year before Insite opened, despite the study erroneously claiming decreases of 9% in the larger Vancouver area.

The current Lancet issue also contains a response by the researchers in which they repeat their previously expressed claim that the police crackdown, starting 6 months before Insite opened, did not continue through to 2005, the end of their study period.  However, it has been demonstrated that the same document cited by the researchers to end the crackdown in 2003 does in fact record that the crackdown was still in operation in August 2004, when this review of the initial 6-month trial period was being written.

The Editor-in-Chief of Lancet is a colleague of two of these Canadian researchers, sharing membership in the same scientific board for a Drug Law Reform organization, the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy.  We appreciate that the publishing of the letter’s evidence by Lancet indicates that he is staying at arms-length from this issue, as should be expected.

Contact:                                                         

C. Gwendolyn Landolt Vice President (905) 787-0348

David Berner      Executive Director (604) 731-2425

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For immediate release January 17th, 2012

Ottawa, Ontario

  DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FEMALES BY WAY OF GENDER BASED ABORTIONS

The Canadian Medical Association Journal (January 16^th, 2012) has identified a problem that is occurring in Canada due to abortions based on gender. The editorial recommends a direct ban or restrictions on the disclosure of medically irrelevant information such as the gender of the child, to pregnant women until after about 30 weeks of pregnancy, at which time far fewer abortions are performed.

This problem was previously identified by Statistics Canada in 2006 when it reported that abortions for gender reasons were being performed in several areas in Canada highly populated by immigrants.

Cultures from some countries traditionally desire to preserve the bloodlines through the male offspring, and it is this preference that now seems to be in effect in certain areas in Canada. 

 There is currently no distinction under Canadian abortion law between abortions performed for medical reasons and abortions performed for any other reason.  That is, under our current federal abortion law, there is no prohibition of abortion on the grounds of the gender of the child. 

The loss of females by way of sex selection abortions devalues all women and their contributions to society in the past, present and the future.  The availability of such abortions can result in family pressure on women to have an abortion –which is unacceptable bullying that can traumatize such women.

REAL Women of Canada has been alarmed for some time about abortions based on gender, in Canada.  In June 2006 we wrote to all provincial and territorial Ministers of Health requesting that they look into this matter and regulate the ultra-sound procedures to prohibit the disclosure of a child’s gender prior to birth, so as to preclude abortions being performed for gender reasons.   

REAL Women of Canada therefore endorses the recommendation in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, especially since the sex of the child in the womb is medically irrelevant information (except when managing rare sex-linked illnesses) and does not affect care.

Although women may seek gender information from other private sources, or use other  medical techniques to determine the sex of the child, this requires time, effort and money.  In contrast, the ultra-sound procedure is now carried out on a regular basis under provincial health services in pre-natal care in Canada, and is the most common source of information on the child’s gender.  Consequently to prohibit the disclosure of the gender until after 30 weeks will save the lives of a number of females.

Equality between the sexes and the prohibition of discrimination against females, applies throughout the entire life span. What do other rights matter if the child is not allowed to be born, simply because she is of the female gender?

Contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt National Vice President, (905) 889-1993 (905) 731-5425 (answering machine)

Researcher Diane Watts (613) 236-4001

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For immediate release November 23, 2011

Ottawa, Ontario

B.C. COURT DECISION ON POLYGAMY

Chief Justice Robert Bauman of the B.C. Supreme Court has combined thorough research with common sense, to conclude that polygamy is harmful and should be prohibited under Section 293 of the Criminal Code.

According to one of the intervenors in the case, REAL Women of Canada’s National Vice-President, Gwendolyn Landolt, “the evidence is that polygamy presents a clear and present danger of harm to women, children and all of society that justifies its prohibition.
It reduces women to be chattels rather than equal partners, and is harmful to children depriving them of the immediacy and intimacy of a father. Young men competing for an artificially limited number of young women, are forcefully removed from the polygamous society, without education or job skills”.

According to REAL Women of Canada, “polygamy serves the needs of males, in that it enables powerful older men to assemble a household of young and desirable women. This promotes gender inequality, as adolescent girls are pressured into arranged marriages with the older men. This reflects the inherent unequal nature of these relationships. Polygamy is therefore contrary to fundamental Canadian values. Moreover, if polygamy is allowed, this would open the floodgates of immigration to polygamist families at significant social and economic costs, which will eventually destabilize Canadian society”.

Because the legalization of polygamy would create an upheaval to society and grave social and economic costs, it can never be accepted.

Accordingly, should the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately decide that polygamy be legalized in Canada, it is critical then that the federal government invoke the Notwith-standing Clause of the Charter (S.33) to overturn such a decision. It can do no less to protect our fundamental Canadian values.

Contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt National Vice President, (905) 889-1993 (905) 731-5425 (answering machine)

Researcher Diane Watts (613) 236-4001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For immediate release November 7, 2011

Ottawa, Ontario

TIME FOR THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE

The time has come for the federal government to apply the Notwithstanding Clause (S.33) of the Charter. This is due to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada recently threw down the gauntlet, indicating that it, rather than the government, will in future direct the nation's affairs.

This occurred in the Vancouver case known as Insite, in which the Court established a number of significant precedents that have maximized its power, and conversely, diminished the power of Parliament.

The fall-out from these precedents will affect future government policies and legislation, such as the federal government's crime bill with its provisions for mandatory sentences, and other critical issues such as prostitution, assisted suicide and polygamy, which are now before the provincial courts.

According to these precedents, the court will henceforth weigh legislation and policies, not necessarily on law, but rather on the judges own perspective according to their qualitative judgment on liberty (criminal law), life and death (assisted suicide), health and quality of life (social conditions) of Canadians.

The relevant precedents are as follows:

— The Supreme Court arbitrarily substituted its own opinion for that of the Minister who had been given Ministerial discretion to make the decision on Insite, even though the Court acknowledged in Paragraph 125 that "there is room for disagreement between reasonable people….." on this matter.

— The Court failed to apply any restraint or deference to Parliament in regard to legislation that had been passed only after extensive and careful debate and deliberation.

— The Court broadly extended its reach to change the interpretation of the meaning of "rights" as understood across liberal legal systems, by extending its jurisdiction to include social and economic conditions that have always been the responsibility of Parliament. In the Insite case, the court gave Charter protection for the first time to a social condition i.e. drug addiction. This sets a precedent for future court decisions to provide Charter protection for other social and economic conditions, e.g. homelessness, poverty, unemployment, etc. thereby tying the hands of future governments to make decisions on these matters.

The Notwithstanding Clause is a valid and operational provision of the Charter.

When the Charter was initially debated in 1981-82, the provincial premiers were reluctant to adopt it, fearing correctly as it turns out, that it could lead to an all-powerful Supreme Court making legislative decisions. Because of this concern, the Notwithstanding Clause was added to the Charter. In retrospect, this was a wise decision.

An elected Parliament representing the public, should determine national policies in a democracy, rather than appointed, unaccountable judges. The latter have now exposed themselves as either incapable or unwilling to show restraint and deference to an elected Parliament.

Instead, the Supreme Court of Canada has incrementally maximized its power over the years, which culminated in the Insite decision. Since the public has no input in its decisions, a handful of appointed elitists now control Canada's destiny.

The time has come to implement the Notwithstanding Clause to protect democracy in Canada.

- 30 -

Contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt National Vice President (905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993

Researcher Diane Watts (613) 236-4001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For immediate Release
October 3, 2011

A DRUG ADDICT’S DESTINY

Drug addicts are human beings.  They deserve better than being shuffled off to a drug injection site, which will only deepen their addiction and hasten their inevitable and terrifying death.

The Supreme Court of Canada based its decision to legalize the operation of the site on the supposed premise that it “saves lives and health of the addicts”.  This conclusion, however, was based only on the flawed evidence of the activist researchers who had a conflict of interest in that they were also the lobbyists for the establishment of the site a decade ago.

The impartial federal government’s Expert Advisory Committee in its report in March 2008 concluded that the drug injection site, which costs three million dollars annually to operate, only refer 3% of its attendees for treatment, the latter is the only way that an addict can regain his/her health and dignity and return to a normal life.

The happiest people in Canada with this decision will be the drug traffickers whose business will boom by way of the addicts obtaining the drugs from them to bring onto the site to inject themselves.

Conversely, the unhappiest individuals will be the police who will have to deal with the inevitable increase in crime due to the criminal activity caused by addicts who require a minimum of $35,000 annually to feed their addiction.  This is one of the reasons why Vancouver has one of the highest crime rates in North America.

The compassionate and humane solution for drug addicts is to help the addicts, not kill them by allowing them to inject more and more of the drugs into their system facilitated by the drug injection site. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For immediate Release
September 30, 2011

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECIDES
CANADA’S NATIONAL POLICY ON DRUGS
RE: VANCOUVER DRUG INJECTION SITE

The Supreme Court of Canada in its decision handed down today on the legality of the Vancouver drug injection site, has arrogantly decided that it is more capable of determining Canada’s national drug policy than the elected government.

It has ordered the Minister of Health to continue the operation of this controversial drug injection site, even though, under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act (CDSA), this is supposed to be a matter for the Minister’s discretion.

In its judgment, the court talks on both sides of its mouth by claiming it is not interfering with the exercise of ministerial discretion but then goes on to state that the Minister must grant the exemption not only for the Vancouver site, but also generally for all other applicants for drug injection sites in the country, on the grounds, that to do otherwise, would deprive [addicts] of their “life and security of person” under Section 7 of the Charter.

The practical effect of this decision is that the court has exempted the Vancouver drug injection site from the criminal provisions on illicit drug use and has only graciously allowed the federal government to “regulate” these sites, thus fundamentally changing our national drug policy by widening the use of illegal drugs.

The court has made the decision despite the fact that Canada has been criticized numerous times by the UN’s International Narcotic Drugs Control Board (INCB), for establishing this site, the first in North America, as it contravenes UN drug treaties ratified by Canada. Apparently, the Supreme Court is of the view that the UN drug treaties ratified by Canada are not binding on us.

The Supreme Court gave as its reasons to exempt the drug injection site from the provisions of the CDSA the fact that it supposedly “saves the lives and health” of drug addicts.

This is highly questionable since this conclusion is based on the flawed research provided by a group of advocates and promoters of the Vancouver drug injection site who have a conflict of interest in this research, since they were also the lobbyist and advocates for the establishment of the drug injection site over a decade ago.

This points out that judges are ill positioned to make national policy decisions. They have limited access to social data, depend on biased and narrow arguments of the litigants, and also on unreliable information in the media. They are Isolated from society, and are not exposed to differing perspectives, since there is no public debate, such as occurs in Parliament.

This decision by the Supreme Court on the Vancouver drug injection site stands as a monument to the determination by the Supreme Court to control Canada’s national agenda, not Parliament, presumably on the basis that it believes it knows what is best for the Canadian public.

This decision directly attacks the democratic process and is a flaunting of the power and influence of the courts using the vague words of the Charter to promote their own ideological perspective.

- 30 -
Contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
(905) 889-1993
(905) 731-5425 (answering machine)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For immediate Release
September 22, 2011

 ERRONEOUS STUDY ON VANCOUVER INJECTION SITE EXPOSED

Three Australian doctors, a Canadian Ph.D., and Dr. Robert Dupont, the President of the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), are part of an international team, which has exposed major, inexcusable errors in a highly influential 2011 Lancet study on Vancouver’s Insite injecting facility.  The study had claimed that the site has reduced overdose deaths in the immediate surrounding area (Down Town East Side-DTES). This recent analysis nullifies the Lancet study’s claims, which are found to be unsustainable.  According to data from the British Columbia’s Coroner’s office, the number of deaths from drug overdose in the drug injection area has not decreased, but increased each year from 2002 – 2007, despite Insite’s commencement in 2003 (see endnote).
See analysis at www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/Media/Global/Lancet_2011_Insite_Analysis.pdf
The erroneous Lancet study was conducted by the same researchers who had previously completed over two dozen other, well publicized, positive, studies on the drug injection site.  These researchers however, have a conflict of interest, in that they were also the lobbyists for the establishment of the drug injection site over a decade ago.

A complaint about this questionable research has now been filed with the University of British Columbia, who employs the Lancet study researchers.

The Lancet article, published on 18 April 2011, may be influential in the Canadian Supreme Court hearings on the drug injection site held on May 12 this year, having been strategically timed to be distributed to the media the week the case was argued before the court. The Court reserved its decision on whether the Canadian government can close the facility, having been hampered from doing so by the court action launched by the operators and supporters of the site.  

This exposure of the erroneous study points out that activists cannot be relied on to provide objective science.  The dozens of other studies on Insite provided by these activists are now also under a cloud, as a result of the errors found in 2011 Lancet study.

The Lancet article on Insite by Brandon D L Marshall, M-J Milloy, Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr  titled "Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America's first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study” can be found at http://www.communityinsite.ca/injfacility.pdf.

The Coroner’s data for British Columbia, Vancouver and the Downtown Eastside (where Insite is located) is as follows:

Coroner’s data for BC and Vancouver: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/coroners/publications/docs/stats-illicitdrugdeaths-1997-2007.pdf 

 DTES data only for each year at Table 45, BC Vital Statistics Agency, Annual Reports: http://www.vs.gov.bc.ca/stats/annual/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEAL ON PROSTITUTION CASE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND BEDFORD

Ottawa, Ontario
June 13th 2011

The Ontario Court of Appeal will hear arguments for four days June 13 - June 16, 2011, on the appeal from the decision by Madam Justice Himel, of the Ontario Superior Court to strike down the prostitution laws. 

REAL Women of Canada, in a coalition with the Christian Legal Fellowship and the Catholic Civil Rights League, has been granted intervener status in the case and will be presenting its arguments to the court on Thursday, June 16, 2011. 

 Madam Justice Himel had based her decision on selected portions of the evidence (contradicted by other evidence) to conclude that prostitutes are safer working from licensed brothels than from the streets, and struck down the prostitution laws. 

Every country in the world that permits the establishment of legal brothels has had to grapple with organized crime, which eventually controls the industry.  Decriminalizing prostitution also draws more individuals into the industry - not only in legal brothels, but also on the street.  It increases the demand for prostitutes and the number of women trafficked from other countries and the exploitation of aboriginal women. 

The pro family coalition will argue that the prostitution laws uphold societal standards of morality and values.  It protects prostitutes and communities from harm and nuisances, and upholds human dignity.

C. Gwendolyn Landolt                                        
National Vice President                                        
(905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993

Diane Watts
(613) 236-4001
Researcher

REAL Women Granted Intervenor Status In Prostitution Case Before Ontario Court of Appeal

Ottawa, Ontario
March 14, 2011

REAL Women of Canada is pleased that the Ontario Court of Appeal has granted our organization intervenor status together with the Christian Legal Fellowship and the Catholic Civil Rights League in the controversial case determining the constitutionality of the prostitution laws.

Our coalition will be arguing that Canada’s laws on prostitution are a reflection of Canadian society’s moral views, namely that prostitution is an act that offends the conscience of ordinary Canadian citizens. Further, we will argue that our laws on prostitution serve an important objective in that they target individuals, such as pimps, who profit from prostitution. We will also argue that the law protects prostitutes and serves to reduce the nuisance and blight on city streets.

REAL Women, together with the other two pro-family organizations, are the only intervenors fully supporting the Attorney General’s position that the prostitution laws are constitutional.

It is expected that the case will be argued before the Ontario Court of Appeal in June.

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
(905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993

Diane Watts
(613) 236-4001
Researcher

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin – was she confused or just presumptuous?

Ottawa, Ontario
December 7, 2010

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin may have confused her role as a judge in her recent speech to the feminist oriented North-South Institute when she made a proposal to include a women’s impact assessment in future international trade agreements. Previously this was solely the role of legislative policy workers and elected MP’s.

Modestly admitting that she was not a “trade policy person” she nonetheless believed herself qualified to provide the advice to government officials on trade.

Alternatively, if Chief Justice McLachlin wasn’t confused, she then must believe that her appointment as a judge provides her with rare insight and understanding that transcends that of the experts in the field, who would benefit from her guidance. If such is the case, her comments were only an extension of the remarks she made in another speech, in December 2005, that judges may base their opinion on unwritten norms “even in the face of enacted laws or hostile public opinion.” She reached this bizarre conclusion on the belief that judges have a “judicial conscience [which] is founded on the judges’ sworn commitment to uphold the rule of law.”

There is also a third possibility for the comments of the Chief Justice – namely, that she threw all caution to the wind in her speech in pursuit of her feminist concerns promoting the cause of women. If this were not the case, why then was she not equally concerned about the rights of men, children, the aged and the poor in trade agreements?

Regardless of the reasons for her agitation on behalf of women in her speech, Chief Justice McLachlin has displayed a remarkable lack of judgment and common sense. This discredits her personally as well as the judiciary.

For Further Information Please Contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt                                        
National Vice President                                        
(905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993

Diane Watts
(613) 236-4001
Researcher

PROSTITUTION DECISION PUT ON HOLD

Ottawa, Ontario
December 2, 2010

As one of the intervenors in the legal challenge of Canada’s prostitution laws, REAL Women of Canada is pleased that the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that the prostitution laws will stay in place until the appeal is heard in its court April 2011.

This decision prevents Ontario from becoming a center of prostitution and organized crime in Canada, where pimps could freely rule prostitutes, and the police would be powerless to intervene and to prevent the chaos and harassment that would occur in the ensuing sexual free for all of an unrestricted sex industry.

The lower court decision, by the single Judge Madam Justice Susan Himel, was deeply flawed in that she reached her conclusion solely on the basis of uncertain social science evidence of purported “harm” to prostitutes working on the streets as opposed to those working in brothels. She also ignored a previous 1992 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which concluded that prostitution was a complex social problem to society, and not merely a “social nuisance” as claimed by Judge Himel.

“The decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal to put the stay on the lower court’s decision was both reasonable and practical,” said Gwen Landolt, National Vice President of REAL Women. “It saves not only prostitutes from harm, the number of which would vastly increase as a result of Madam Justice Himel’s decision, but also protects society from the detrimental effects caused by a wide-open sex industry.”

For Further Information Please Contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt                                        
National Vice President                                        
(905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993

Diane Watts
(613) 236-4001
Researcher

Ontario court decision on prostitution is without merit

Ottawa, Ontario
September 28, 2010

Ontario Courts are one of the most liberal in Canada.  The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has handed down a decision today on the prostitution law that merely confirms the court’s liberal perspective, which previously legalized marijuana for “medical” reasons, three-parent families, and same-sex marriage.  The decision on the prostitution law today is just more of the same.  

What has occurred is that an appointed non-answerable judge has handed down a decision on a national social policy that would never be passed by an elected Parliament.  

Madame Justice Himel has used the vague wording in the Charter of Rights as a tool to interpret a grave national social policy according to her ideology, rather than on sound facts and legal principle.  To declare prostitution and all its accompanying activities as a legal right and activity protected by the Charter of Right’s section 7 (security of persons) is an absurdity.  

The purpose of the law on prostitution is to protect women and children (and also some men) from harm and possible death.  To remove the law, as Madame Justice Himel has done, increases the number of individuals involved in legal and illegal prostitution.  It is particularly important to protect the most vulnerable women, such as aboriginal and other women, who are used and exploited in the human trafficking business.

Ideology should not supplant common sense on a matter which degrades and exploits individuals who need assistance to get out of the horrendous activity of prostitution by protective laws.


Please contact:

Diane Watts
National Office
(613)  236-4001
 

Maternal Health Care Policy Lacks Clarity

Ottawa, Ontario
September 2, 2010

Minister of International Cooperation, Bev Oda, may have gone off on a frolic of her own in regard to Canada’s G-8 maternal health care policy.

The federal Conservative government’s policy at the G-8 Meeting on the issue of maternal health care was that Canada’s $1.2 billion contribution would be used for only positive assistance to women and children.  This policy includes clean water, inoculations and better nutrition, as well as the training of health care workers to care for women and deliver babies.

However, according to a report in the Ottawa Citizen (September 2, 2010), Ms. Oda is now proposing:

       … Canada would support abortion infrastructure if asked. ‘As long as it is legal within the country and it's a legal procedure ... if we were asked to help in that way, we would do that.’  

And The Ottawa Citizen also states:

       ...the federal government supports Marie Stopes International, which provides family planning in Africa, and is on the verge of re-funding International Planned Parenthood.

International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) and the UK based Marie Stopes International are both well-known for their objectives of extending abortion and population control world wide.

The federal government had previously given IPPF $18M over a 3-year period.  IPPF has made another application to further its anti-life agenda, which, to date, has not been granted.

Neither of these organizations can be relied upon to provide accurate statistics or analysis of international maternal care, and instead, provide only information that promotes their unacceptable anti-life ideology.

Ms. Oda may be making up policy on the fly as she goes along, according to her whims.  In the alternative, it could indicate a serious change in government policy on maternal health care.

Canadians should be told what is going on.  After all, we’re providing the $1.2 billion to fund this project.

Contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt                                        
National Vice President                                        
(905) 731-5425, (905) 889-1993

Diane Watts
(613) 236-4001
Researcher

Feminists Deny the Reality That the Times have Changed

Ottawa, Ontario
May 5, 2010

Feminists are quaintly arguing that recent funding cuts by the government are due to their promotion of abortion.

These groups appear to be blind to the fact that they are only a small group of women, whose numbers dwindle each day, and have no membership to support them.  They don’t deserve to be bankrolled by the government for their outdated policies.  Just because their government funding has been cut off, doesn’t mean they are “voiceless” as they claim.  REAL Women of Canada has thrived for 27 years on membership dues and donations, without government funding and is by no means “voiceless”.

Instead of arguing for more abortion both here and abroad, these feminist groups should be arguing for desperately needed critical health care services.  According to the April 2010 issue of the prestigious British Medical Journal Lancet, Canada, Norway and the USA have all experienced a rise in maternal mortality rate between 1980 and 2008 despite their liberal abortion laws.  Abortion is no solution to women’s health care problems.

Malaria, cervical cancer and HIV coupled with the lack of clean water, proper nutrition and skilled birth attendants have long been the enemy of women in the developing world.  In Canada, obviously we too have problems with maternal and child care, which have to be addressed.

Since 1973, feminist groups have complacently sat back, greedily taking taxpayers money to promote their left-wing agenda.

Times have changed.  Women have moved on.  It is only reasonable that the government would move on to, and curtail funding of these obsolete groups.



Contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt                              
National Vice President                            
(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425               
(905) 889-1993, (613) 236-4001

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

Media Releases  2007 to 2010

Including

LIBERALS REJECT MOTHERHOOD

Ottawa, Ontario
March 23, 2010

We now know why the Liberal Party is so keen on including contraception and abortion in the G-8 Summit’s proposals in June.  Such proposals will eliminate motherhood - every time.

IGNATIEFF’S REAR VIEW VISION

Ottawa, Ontario
February 4, 2010

So much for opposition leader Michael Ignatieff’s vision.  He sees through a rear view mirror.

Rule by Judicial Fiat
Vancouver Drug Injection Site

Ottawa, Ontario
January 18, 2010

The liberal-minded B.C. Court of Appeal, in order to maintain the operation of the Vancouver Drug Injection site, has had to forsake common sense by describing the site as a “hospital” which provides a “health care program”.