November 2nd 2011

WHO IS RUNNING THE COUNTRY:

THE COURTS OR THE GOVERNMENT?

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Vancouver drug injection site, known as Insite, has established troubling precedents by which the court has maximized its power, and conversely, diminished the power of Parliament.

In effect, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Insite case, has thrown down the gauntlet, and announced that it, rather than the government, will in future direct the nation's affairs.

The fall-out, by way of the precedents established in this decision, will affect future government policies and legislation, including 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.

In short, the Court on the basis of precedents set in the Insite decision will 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.

These troubling precedents include the following:

— The Supreme Court substituted its own opinion for that of the Minister who had been given Ministerial discretion to make the decision on Insite. The Court did so, even though the Court acknowledged "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 heretofore been the responsibility of Parliament. In the Insite case however, the court provided Charter protection for the social condition of 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.

Why has the Supreme Court Increased its Reach?

The Supreme Court of Canada has increased its authority simply because it can. Who is to stop it? As the final court in the country, there is no way its decisions can be appealed. It is accountable to no one.

A Political Solution

There is, however, a political way to curb the court's power, and this is the notwithstanding clause (S. 33) of the Charter which is the simplest solution to curb judicial activism. Section 33 of the Charter provides that the federal or provincial legislatures may pass legislation overriding the Supreme Court's decisions. After a few instances of overturning its decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada may, hopefully, cease to be quite so aggressive in overturning the will of Parliament.

Certainly S. 33 is a valid and operational provision of the Charter. Governments have been reluctant to apply it because they fear that it may de-legitimatize the courts, and the denial of new "rights" granted by the court by way of the governments invoking of the notwithstanding clause, could result in political backlash for that government.

It is a fact, however, that when the Charter was debated in 1981/1982, most of the provincial premiers were initially reluctant to adopt the Charter, fearing, quite correctly, as it turns out, that it could lead to the all-powerful Supreme Court making legislative decisions.

Because of this concern, the notwithstanding clause (S. 33) was added to the Charter to calm their fears. In retrospect; it was a wise decision to include (S.33) in the Charter as

the concerns of the provincial premiers have now become a reality.

The time has come to implement this section of the Charter. The application of the notwithstanding clause in the Insite case may serve as a 'shot across the bow" to the Court and be helpful in preventing judicial activism in regard to the looming issues of prostitution, assisted suicide, etc.

Please write to the following demanding that direct action be taken to curb the power of the courts in Canada by implementing the notwithstanding clause of the Charter.

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper

Office of the Prime Minister
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Fax: 613-941-6900
E-Mail: Stephen.Harper@parl.gc.ca

Honourable Robert Nicholson

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
fax: 613-992-7910
email: Nichor@parl.gc.ca

Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

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

May 17th 2011

Alert

JUDGES ILL POSITIONED TO MAKE PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS

The announcement by two of the judges on the Supreme Court Of Canada of their proposed retirement, provides an opportunity to ensure that the newly appointed judges to the Supreme Court respect the role of Parliament to allow it to make public policy decisions, rather than the judges assuming this role themselves. The necessity for this became apparent in the case argued before the Supreme Court last week on the Vancouver drug injection site. Although there was no evidence before the court that the site saved lives, two of the Supreme Court judges during the arguments made such a claim.

Such a claim, however, is contradicted by the Government of British Columbia Selected Vital Statistics and Health Status Indicators, Annual Report, which states that the number of deaths from drug overdose in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside has increased each year (with one exception) since the site opened in 2003. There were 28 deaths in 2003, 32 in 2004, 37 in 2005, 38 in 2006, 46 in 2007, 24 in 2008 and 40 in 2009.

The Supreme Court judges may have relied for their incorrect information on newspaper reports of a study published the same week by an advocacy group which also intervened in the court hearing. The latter made the claim based on its “observations” that the injection site saved lives. The questionable claim was, unfortunately, repeated in several newspaper editorials in support of the site published the same week of the hearing. The organization also reiterated this statement during its presentation to the Court.

This confusion of the facts emphasizes the significance of the reality that judges are ill positioned to make public policy decisions, because they have limited access to social data. Further they are isolated from society and have little exposure to differing perspectives on issues. On the other hand, Parliament has extensive research capabilities, access to the differing views of the public, and provides extensive debate so as to permit ample airing of issues. Consequently, Parliament is in a position to make public policy decisions, not appointed and unaccountable judges.

March 2, 2011

Alert

Ontario Government Equity Policy

The Ontario government has provided an “Equity and Inclusive Education Policy (EIE)” which it requires all publicly funded school boards, both public and Catholic, to implement.

Disguised as an anti-bullying strategy and a way to end racism and sexism, the government’s equity policy goes beyond these goals.  All individual school board equity policies are expected to recognize sexual orientation as grounds for non-discrimination.  The education ministry also suggests that schools celebrate Gay Pride events, use texts by homosexual authors and promote gay-straight alliance student clubs.

If this policy is successfully implemented in Ontario without objections from parents and others, prodded by homosexual activists, it will be quickly adopted by other provincial governments.  This cannot be allowed to happen.

We have already witnessed the fall-out from the implementation of such school equity policies by way of anti-bullying legislation passed on May 3, 2010, in the state of Massachusetts (see “MassResistance.org).  Since then, the 2011 state budget has included extensive funding for the promotion of homosexuality in the schools.  For example, $100,000 was allocated directly to a homosexual commission on youth with a further unspecified (i.e. unlimited), access to $11.7 million for “school health services” in public and non-public schools; $100,000 for anti-bullying programs; access to $5.9 million for homosexuals in crisis housing and sexual violence; and access to a $8 million fund to provide homosexual groups with training and outreach and to promote homosexual diversity.  Gay Day in high schools and amusement parks have been proclaimed; homosexual teachers have “come out” in assembles and encouraged students to do so as well; homosexual “Days of “Silence” have been held in high schools, etc.  The list is endless.

Although REAL Women is nondenominational, we are concerned that some Ontario Catholic school boards have already succumbed to homosexual pressure, and are adopting equity policies that do not conform to Catholic Church teachings.

It is disappointing that these Catholic boards have taken this compromising position on the Equity Policy because, for a long time, the only ones who have been willing to take a stand and hold the line for Biblical truth and morality with respect to this whole issue of homosexuality and what the Bible teaches, has been the Roman Catholic Church.

If insensitivity is really a problem in our schools, instead of an equity policy based on sexual preference, lifestyle choice, or race, we must demand a general equity anti-harassment policy, not an anti-homophobia equity program in the schools.  This truly inclusive policy would address all students who face ridicule, no matter what the reason.  It would promote true tolerance, equality and acceptance.  A school equity policy should teach acceptance, kindness and respect for all students and staff without placing the primary focus on particular issues such as homophobia and heterosexism.

All parents and ratepayers in Ontario must speak out and become involved in this Equity Policy.

Action:

1.  Copy, share, and discuss this information with family, friends and church members.

2.  Establish an informal network of like-minded people to work together to support a School Board equity policy that does not promote the homosexual lifestyle, upholds moral teaching and respects the rights of parents as primary educators.

3.  Discuss these concerns by letter, phone, fax, email or most importantly in person with School Board Trustees, both Public and Catholic, in your area.  Catholics are also requested to raise their concerns with their local Bishop.  Everyone should be respectful, calm, and factual in the discussions.  Speak and act in kindness as you strive to promote faith based teachings.  Try to maintain an on-going line of communication, and don’t give up.

4.  Attend School Board meetings.  It is best to have at least two people attend together to witness the meeting.  When and if a Board is scheduled to vote on an equity policy, it is important for those who have a faith based position to outnumber the homosexual activists.

It will be a long journey – but an extremely crucial one.

December 14, 2010

Alert

Bill C-510 – Roxanne’s Law Bill
to protect pregnant women from being coerced into having an abortion

Last April, Conservative MP Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South), introduced Bill C-510 (Roxanne’s Law).  The purpose of the bill is to protect pregnant women who want to bring their unborn children safely to term, free from coercion to abort. That is, it protects pregnant women from unwanted abortions by making it a criminal offence to coerce a woman to have an abortion against her will.

Second reading vote on this important bill will take place in the House of Commons tomorrow, Wednesday, December 15.  If the vote on December 15 fails, then that is the end of Roxanne's Law and it will be a long time before another bill that aims to protect pregnant women and their unborn children will come before Parliament again.

It would be appreciated, therefore, if you would contact your MP without delay to encourage him/her to vote in support of Bill C-510 tomorrow on second reading.  If it passes second reading, the bill remains alive, and will proceed to the Justice Committee for review, otherwise it dies.

Time is short, but we must do what we can.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has launched an excellent campaign in support of Roxanne's Law (Bill C-510).

Full details are posted at: www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/roxanne

December 13, 2010

Alert

Transgender Bill C-389 Proceeds to Third Reading and Debate

The controversial Bill C-389 protecting Gender Identity and Gender Expression in the Canadian Human Rights Act i.e. to protect the transgendered and transsexuals, was fast tracked through the House of Commons.  There was only one objection to the bill at second reading on June 10, 2010.  The bill was then pushed through the Justice Committee without hearing any witnesses or carrying out the customary clause by clause review (see REAL Women Alerts dated November 9 and November 17, 2010).

Although this bill was not supposed to come up for a vote until February, NDP MP Bill Siksay who introduced it, traded places with another NDP MP's bill, and as a result, the transgendered bill came forward to the House of Commons on December 8.

Usually at this stage, a bill goes forward with unanimous consent, but the Conservatives instead opted to force a vote.  The bill, however, passed 143 to 131 in the House of Commons at this report stage. That is, the only substantial opposition came from the Conservative MP's who voted overwhelmingly against this deliberately vague bill. Only 3 Liberal MP's voted against it – Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt), Dan McTeague (Pickering-Scarborough East) and Alan Tonks (York South-Weston). We are disappointed that 5 Conservative MP's voted in favour of the bill – Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Foreign Affairs), Sylvie Boucher (Beauport-Limoilou), Shelly Glover (Saint Boniface), Gerald Keddy (South Shore-St. Margaret’s) and James Moore (Port Moody, Westwood Port Coquitlam). Notable abstentions were Conservative MP's Dana Cadman (Surrey North), Lisa Raitt (Halton) and Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre), and Liberal MP John MacKay (Scarborough-Guildwood).???The next stage, debate and third reading in the House of Commons, will probably occur in late February or early March of 2011.???Please contact your MP and thank him or her for voting against this bill. If your MP voted in favour, please try to educate him/her to the unforeseen consequences which could result from such poorly drafted legislation – endless litigation over uncertainties about the legislation, special rights for cross dressers and the gender confused, people using washrooms reserved for the opposite sex with impunity, children exposed to gender confusion in schools, (the American College of Pediatricians distributed a warning letter on March 31, 2010, which stated:  It’s extremely dangerous for children to be taught that transgendered is equal to heterosexual and normal gender.”) and medical personnel will be pressured to disregard known medical practices in treating gender identity disorders.

Johns Hopkins Hospital in Maryland at one time was the leading authority on transsexual surgery.  It conducted follow-up studies and found that these altered individuals were no happier or well adjusted after all the hormone and surgical treatment.  Authorities at Johns Hopkins then concluded that to assist with this surgery and hormone treatment was to fundamentally cooperate with these individuals’ mental illness and has ceased to provide such treatment.

If Bill C-389 is passed into law, it would create a legal “right” to change sex at will and the basis of society, i.e. a man and a woman, will be forever altered to accommodate many other manifestations of mental disorders according to subjective social constructs based not on natural order but on arbitrary acts of interpretation by courts and human rights commissions.

November 17, 2010

Alert

Bill C-389 – Update to prohibit discrimination in regard to “gender identity”
and “gender expression” (transgendered)

The Minister of Justice, Honourable Rob Nicholson advised REAL Women, in a letter dated November 15, 2010 that he would be recommending to his caucus colleagues that Bill C-389 not be supported.

It is understood that the subject of this bill is to be raised in caucus possibly today, although not necessarily, if there are other more pressing matters to discuss at the regular Wednesday morning caucus meeting.

REAL Women has also learned that many if not most members of the Conservative party are not aware of this bill.

Bill C-389 easily proceeded through second reading and the Justice Committee took only a few minutes to vote and to return it to the House of Commons without the usual clause-by-clause examination and without hearing any witnesses. The bill therefore is now at the final report stage, and is expected to be on the Notice Paper for December 2, 2010.

Parliamentary Procedures

Parliamentary procedures are complex. It usually takes years to acquire a mastery of them. However, a review of the procedures prepared by the House of Commons Legislative Services Section indicates the following:

• If no amendments are made at the report stage, the House of Commons proceeds immediately with third and final reading of the bill.

• Even if amendments are made to the bill, such amendments cannot change the general principles of the bill since the principle and scope of the bill are fixed at second reading. That is, any amendments to the bill at this stage cannot change the substance of the bill. Debates on any amendments, however, can delay the third and final reading of the bill.

• The Speaker of the House has the authority to determine which bills at the report stage will go forward for debate in the House of Commons. For a number of reasons, we cannot rely on Bill C-389 being delayed – but it is also possible.

Third Reading of Bill C-389

At third reading, even if all the Conservatives MPs vote against the bill, this will not be sufficient to defeat it, since all the NDP, Bloc Quebecois and most of the Liberals will be voting for it. Consequently, this bill is very likely to pass third reading in the House of Commons.

REAL Women has done what it could to stop this bill.  We have sent letters to all the Liberal and Conservative MPs requesting that they vote against the bill.

It is important that we continue to urge the MP’s to vote against the bill. That is all we can do at this point in time.

Moreover, as stated above, Parliamentary procedure is complex so that there may be procedures available about which we are not aware that may alter the situation.

In any case, if the bill does pass the House of Commons, the next stage is the Senate – but that is another chapter.

Please write to the following, if you have not already done so, raising your strong objections to the Conservative government’s apparent support of this controversial bill.

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A2 

The Honourable Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson

House of Commons 
Ottawa, ON   K1A 0A6 

Your MP

House of Commons

Ottawa, ON  K1A 0A6

November 4, 2010

Alert

Canada's Behaviour at the UN

A report was submitted to the UN General Assembly in October by a UN Rapporteur or supposed “expert” in which he promoted a newly fabricated human right – the right of children to comprehensive sexual education from ”the early stages of life”.

His report includes the “right” to sex education unfettered by parents or religion, as the report claims that sexual education has been obstructed by religion and that guilt feelings about eroticism could be abolished by way of a diminished parental involvement in children’s sexual education.  The report continually referenced the government’s necessary role in providing “better sexual lives” for young people.

Sexual diversity, and gender rights, are also to be a part of the sex education according to this report.

Canada Supports the Report

This report was debated on October 25, 2010 at the General Assembly and it was met with a furious rejection by African, Latin American, and Caribbean nations, the organization of Islamic conference, Russia and the Holy See.  Canada, however, endorsed the report along with only a few other countries, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Argentina and the European Union.

Why is the Conservative government allowing our representatives at the UN to endorse such unacceptable policies?  It is intolerable that Canada should support such a shocking document which is clearly contrary to the views of most Canadians.

Please write to the following, raising strong objections to the government’s failure to monitor and control our representatives at the UN.

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington St,
Ottawa
K1A 0A2

Fax: 613-941-6900

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon
Minister of Foreign Affairs
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Fax: (613) 992-7910

Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

September 7, 2010

Alert

Re: Maternal Health Care

Further to our Alert of September 2nd, it would appear from the attached news story that the Prime Minister's office has moved quickly to clarify the confusion that has arisen over whether the maternal health care will include abortion.
 
Predictably Minister of International Co-operation Bev Oda now claims that her comments were taken out of context.  So be it.  Just so long as the Prime Minister's office has confirmed that abortion will not be included in Canada’s initiative on maternal health care agreed upon at the G8 meeting in June.

Thanks so much to those who wrote to the Prime Minister et al.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews//20100903/ottawa-abortions-third-world-100903/

September 2, 2010

Alert

Maternal Health Care in Jeopardy

Loud demands were made last spring by the opposition Liberal Party, feminists and the media that Canada’s G-8 policy on Maternal Health Care include abortion services.

The federal government resisted these demands by stating that funds provided by Canada ($1.2 billion) would be used for only positive assistance to women and children, which includes clean water, inoculations and better nutrition, as well as the training of health care workers to care for women and deliver babies.

However, Minister of International Cooperation, Bev Oda, has now announced, according to the Ottawa Citizen (September 2, 2010) that:

… 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.’

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, according to Oda.

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.

Please write to the following to insist that the G-8 grant for maternal health not include abortion, and that Canadian taxpayers not be forced to fund unacceptable agencies such as IPPF and Marie Stopes International.

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington St,
Ottawa  ON   K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900

The Honourable Bev Oda
Minister of International Cooperation
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0A6
Fax: (613) 992-2794

Your MP
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0A6

September 2, 2010

Undermining Canada's Drug Laws

Those lobbying for the decriminalizing of Canada’s drug laws have recently embarked on an all out campaign to pressure Mr. Harper and the Conservative government to change its current anti-drug policies of prevention, treatment and education, which prohibits the non-medical use of drugs.

They commenced this campaign using the International AIDS Conference held in Vienna in July 2010 as its cover. That is, although it was supposed to be an AIDS conference, the Canadian drug liberalizers, known as harm reduction supporters, manipulated the AIDS agenda at the conference to serve as a platform for advocacy for drug liberalization, which they viewed as an issue of “human rights” for drug users. 

They claimed that failure to liberalize the drug laws was fueling the HIV epidemic with overwhelming health and social consequences.  A document demanding drug liberalization, called the “Vienna Declaration”, was distributed at the conference.  This document was written by mostly Canadian “public health experts” who, without exception, happen to be drug liberalizers, supporting the harm reduction ideology.  The latter posits that drugs should be decriminalized to allow addicts clean needles, free drug injection sites, etc. which will supposedly reduce the “harm” of addiction.  Such policies, however, only deepen the addiction, leading to increased usage and an eventual painful death for the addict. 

Moreover, the greatest costs of illegal drug use are not generated by the criminal justice system, but by the non-medical use itself.

Despite this, using the Vienna Declaration as their tool, the drug liberalizers have begun an intense propaganda war in Canada to change our drug policies.  In pursuit of this objective, articles in support of decriminalization of our drug laws have been planted in numerous newspapers and editorials have been published in major newspapers supporting the Vienna Declaration. The left-leaning Toronto City Council, last week, endorsed the Vienna Declaration as one of its last acts (a municipal election is taking place on October 25th).

The federal Conservative government had previously brought in a number of anti-drug initiatives, including a bill now before the Senate (Bill S-10) which is to provide for minimum penalties for serious drug offences and to increase the maximum penalty for marijuana production and trafficking. 

This proposed legislation is crucial in order to stop the highly lucrative annual $7.5 billion marijuana operators in Canada.  The latter have been encouraged by liberal judges imposing only “slap on the wrist” penalties for drug violators.  As a result, the marijuana growers and traffickers regard these penalties as simply the cost of doing business, and as no deterrent to them.  Consequently, they continue to grow rich, preying on the vulnerability of the misguided. 

It is crucial that the Conservative government be supported in its efforts to prohibit the non-medical use of drugs in Canada.

Please write to the following to support the federal government in its anti-drug laws.

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington St,
Ottawa  ON   K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900

The Honourable Rob Nicholson
Minister of Justice
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0A6
Fax: (613) 992-7910

And to the Clerk of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs requesting distribution of your letter to the Senate Committee members.  The address is as follows:

Ms. Shaila Anwar
Clerk, Senate Standing Committee
on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
C/o The Senate of Canada?Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0A4
Fax: (613) 947-2104

May 5, 2010

G-8 Summit
Huntsville, Ontario
June 25-26, 2010

Maternal Health Care Proposal STUDY

REAL Women would be grateful if you could be of assistance in regard to the upcoming G-8 Summit which is to be held in Huntsville, Ontario on June 25th and June 26th, 2010.
 
Background

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as President of the G-8 this year, stated in January 2010, that maternal health care would be a priority at the G-8 meeting. He has stated that maternal health would include only positive assistance to women and children, which includes clean water, inoculations and better nutrition, as well as the training of health workers to care for women and deliver babies.

Canadian feminists and population control groups, however, have now formed an organization called “White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood” headed by Maureen McTeer, wife of the former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, Joe Clark (1979-1980).  They are lobbying the members of the G-8 countries to include sexual and reproductive health and rights, i.e., abortion, in the proposed maternal health care plan.

They are currently circulating a 13-page “Call to Action: Maternal and Child Health at the G-8 Summit”.  This document is being distributed to development, human rights and feminist organizations around the world in the hope that the latter will pressure their respective governments to keep “sexual and reproductive health and rights” in the Summit’s agenda, so as to facilitate abortion, i.e., a population control policy in developing countries.

Maternal Health and Abortion

The UN World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank, and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have repeatedly asserted that access to abortion reduces maternal mortality, which they claim has not decreased in decades.

However, the leading British Medical Journal Lancet, in April 2010, reported that maternal mortality has decreased an average of 35% globally since 1980 and that the UN agencies have significantly overstated maternal mortality rates.

The study in Lancet cites the increasing availability of basic medical care, including “skilled birth attendants” – people with some medical training to help women give birth, as one of the reasons for the decline in maternal mortality.

To include abortion in the G-8 proposal is to impose western values and practices on developing nations, contrary to their culture and religion.  Such a policy correctly can be described as elitist western imperialism in imposing population control under the guise of maternal health.

The G-8 countries are: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, the United States, and, in addition, the European Union.  (It has a total of nine participating members – but it’s still referred to as the G-8.)

The G-8 link is as follows, http://g8.gc.ca/home

REAL Women would be grateful if you could be of assistance in regard to this upcoming G-8 Summit by forwarding this Alert to your family members, friends, churches, service organizations.

It would be appreciated if you and your contacts would write to the G-8 members, expressing concern, and requesting that abortion not be included in the maternal health care proposal.

The names, addresses, fax numbers and email addresses of the G-8 officials are listed below.  Unfortunately, the list does not necessarily include all the faxes and email addresses.  Where no email address is available, there is included the web mail address which normally includes a “contact us” section with a pop up email form.

The addresses are as follows:

France:

President
President Nicolas Sarkozy
Elysee Palace
55 rue du faubourg Saint-Honoré
75700 Paris France

Fax: 011 331 47 422 465

Use this link to access e-mail: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.elysee.fr/ecrire/&prev=/search%3Fq%3DElysee%2BPalace%26hl%3Den&rurl=translate.google.ca&usg=ALkJrhitbECHnFboXYQ7IvPkzp6-N49dqw

Foreign Minister
Mr. Bernard Kouchner
Minister of Foreign & European Affairs
244, boulevard Saint-Germain
75006 Paris France

Fax: 011 331 3705 2739

Email: yves.mabin@diplomatie.gouv.fr

Germany:

Chancellor
Chancellor Angela Merkel
Federal Chancellery Willy-Brandt-Straße 1
10557 Berlin, Germany

Fax: 011 49 304000 1850

Use this link to access e-mail:  http://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/EN/SendArticle/sendmail.html?handOverParams=docId%3D22204%26uriHash%3Dddc7a9469e3a7400%26
uri%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bundesregierung.de%252FContent%252FEN%252FBiographien%252Fbiographie-angela-merkel__en.html
 
Foreign Minister
Dr. Guido Westerwelle
FDP parliamentary group
Platz der Republik 1
11011 Berlin

Fax: 011 030 22 776 562

Email: guido.westerwelle@bundestag.de

Italy:
 
Prime Minister
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi
Presidenze del Consiglio dei Ministri
Palazzo Chigi
Piazza Colonna 370
00187 Roma, Italy

Fax: 011 39 0667 793543
 
Foreign Minister
Mr. Franco Frattini
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Piazzale della Farnesina, 1
00135 Rome Italy

Fax: 011 39 06 3691 2006

Email: segr-co@cert.esteri.it

Japan:
 
President
Senate President Satsuki Eda
The Democratic Party of Japan Headquarters
1-11-1 Nagata-cho
Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-0014
Japan

Fax: 011 81 3 3595 7318

Use this link to access e-mail: http://www.dpj.or.jp/english/contact.html

Foreign Minister
Mr. Katsuya Okada
Minster of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Kasumigaseki 2-2-1,
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo
100-8919, Japan.

Fax: 011 81 3 5501 8430

E-mail: Webmaster@Katsuya.net

Russia:
 
President
President Dmitry Medvedev
Ilinka Str, No 23
103132 Moscow, Russia

Fax: 011 7 495 606 0766

Use this link to access e-mail: Eng.kremlin.ru/articles/send_letter_Eng1a.shtml

Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov
Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
32/34 Smolenskaya-Sennaya pl.,
119200, Moscow G-200 Russia

Fax: 011 7 499 244 4112

Email: dip@mid.ru

United Kingdom:

A national election is to be held in the UK on Thursday, May 6th.  There is a strong possibility that the present Labour government will be defeated.  Consequently the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister will change under a new government.

Prime Minister
Prime Minister Gordon Brown
10 Downing Street
London England SW1A2AA

Fax: 011 442079250918

Use this link to access e-mail: https://email.number10.gov.uk/Contact.aspx

Foreign Secretary
Right Honourable David Miliband
Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
King Charles Street
London England
SW1A 2AH

Fax:  011 44 207 008 2144

Email: milibandd@parliament.uk

U.S.A.:
 
President
President Barack Hussein Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC  20500 USA
 
Fax: 202 456 2461

Email: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
 
Secretary of State
Mrs. Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520  USA

Fax: 202 647 1579

Email: http://contact-us.state.gov

European Council:

(The European Council is the institutuion responsible for determining the political direction of the European Union.)

Mr. Herman Van Rompuy
President European Council
Rue de la Loi, Wetstraat, 175
B-1048 Brussels Belguim

Fax: 011 32-2 281 73 97

Email: ec.president@consilium.europa.eu

Ms Catherine Ashton
High Representative of the European Union
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Rue de la Loi 175,
B-1048 Brussels

Fax: 011 32 2295 19 15

Email: COMM-SPP-HRVP-ASHTON@ec.europa.eu

European Commission:

(The European Commission is one of two legislative bodies of the European Union, the other being the European Parliament.)

Mr. José Manuel Barroso
President of the European Commission
Rue do la Loi Wetstraat 200 1049 Brussels,
Kingdom of Belgium

Fax: 011 32 2298 8160

Email: Jose-manuelbarroso@ec.europa.eu

Alerts from 2006 to 2010

Including:

March 18, 2010

CANADIAN MUSEUM FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
RETAINS CROP RESEARCH TO CONDUCT A STUDY

November 4, 2009

UN Petition for the Unborn Child and the Family

August 12, 2009

PROPOSED FEMINIST AGENCY TO DOMINATE UN