REAL Women was prescient in this regard. There was little in the Progressive Conservative 2007 election platform to distinguish it from that of the Liberal Party. This led to the Progressive Conservative Party’s electoral defeat.

REAL Women has again written to the present Progressive Conservative caucus in a letter dated November 28, 2007 advising it that the REAL Women can, with some assurance, predict a Liberal victory in the 2011 provincial election unless there are substantial changes to the Progress Conservative platform and its leader John Tory.

That is, Ontario has changed since the era of Premier William Davis in that the province has moved by incremental stages to the right. The result of this is that there can no longer be a Conservative victory in this province without the support of social conservatives.

The voter turnout for the October election hit a record low, breaking the record set in 1923 of 54.7%. In fact, only 52.6% of the eligible voters in Ontario went to the polls in October 2007. One can be certain that many of the no-shows at the polling booths were social conservatives who believed there was no major party for which they could cast their vote.

It is realized that the proposed funding of faith-based schools was a contributing factor to the Progressive Conservative defeat. To our certain knowledge, however, many Jewish and Christian supporters of faith-based schools did not accept the proposal of Mr. Tory on faith-based schools, because of the strings attached to it. Many believed that the funding was a step toward the integration of the denominational schools into the public school system. Conservative strategists ignored the fact that less than half of the faith-based schools would consider its funding proposal (November 2007 issue of Policy Options Magazine).

Another concern arose over Mr. Tory’s failure to promote and support the traditional family of mother, father and children ­ so necessary for the continuation of society. Instead, Mr. Tory continued to promote homosexuality and same-sex marriage as equivalent to marriage of a man and a woman. The fact that same-sex marriage has been legalized ­ albeit by undemocratic means ­ does not make it either right or acceptable to social conservatives.

Mr. Tory’s apparent lack of concern for traditional values was also exemplified by his marching in the Gay Parade in Toronto in 2007. He had little understanding that this action sealed his political doom.

Further, it has not gone unnoticed that Mr. Tory has just appointed as his Chief of Staff Andy Pringle, a former member of the Fundraising Advisory Committee for the homosexual 519 Community Centre in Toronto.

Mr. Tory’s support of homosexual behavior (not just homosexuals as individuals) was apparent by his comments reported in the homosexual newspaper Capital Xtra (September 6, 2007 issue). Mr. Tory indicated in his interview, that he was open to the promotion of homosexuality in the schools and otherwise ­ which again was deeply disturbing to social conservative parents.

Canadian families welcome the $64 million anti-drug initiative and believe that it is long overdue. With two thirds of the funding directed toward prevention and treatment, the harmful effects on young lives is finally being recognized by the federal government and concrete action is being taken.

REAL Women of Canada has long advocated a multi level approach to this serious social and medical problem: education, enforcement, protection and treatment. The federal government’s strategy meets these basic requirements and offers hope for a better future for Canadians as we move towards a drug free and more productive society.

Contact:
Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

YOUNG GIRLS TO BE UNWITTING SUBJECTS OF A MASSIVE RESEARCH EXPERIMENT
HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINE (HPV), GARDASIL

For Immediate Release
Ottawa, Ontario July 11, 2007

In its March, 2007 budget, the Conservative government included $300 million to be distributed to the provinces to administer Gardasil, a Human Papillomavirus Vaccine (HPV) manufactured by Merck Frosst. The drug had been approved for use by Health Canada in July, 2006.

Since this drug was approved, however, serious problems with it have emerged. As a result, REAL Women of Canada has written to the provincial and territorial Ministers of Health requesting that the drug not be made available in their respective provinces. The province of Nova Scotia, unfortunately, has already gone ahead to make the drug available to Grade VII students. As a result, REAL Women has requested that this decision to make the drug available in Nova Scotia be withdrawn as soon as possible.

The problems with the use of Gardasil include the following:

There are only limited data on the effects of the drug on pre-teen and early teen-age girls. The drug has been tested on fewer than 1,200 girls, ages 9 to 15 years, and the research has been almost exclusively on young women 16 to 23 years of age. This raises questions about the drug’s efficacy, safety, and long-term effects. It would appear that any young girl, to whom Gardasil is to be administered, will be the unwitting subject of a massive research experiment.

There is uncertainty as to the length of time the vaccine will provide protection, and, consequently, if and when booster shots will be required. It is known that Gardasil is a prophylactic vaccine that targets the viruses that lead to cancer, rather than cancer itself, and that cervical cancer is a slow developing disease. Cancer data show that the average cervical cancer patient is 47 years of age and that HPV incubates for up to 15 years before becoming cancerous. That is, it manifests itself when the woman is in her thirties ­ decades after young girls may have been administered the vaccine. There are no data available as to the actual effectiveness of this drug over this long intervening period of time.

There are more than 100 types of HPV, about 40 of which can cause cancer ­ but the HPV vaccine protects against only 4 of the HP Viruses.

In the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has reported 1,261 such incidents. Several deaths have also been reported. Moreover, the long term neurological or immune system complications caused by the drug are completely unknown. It is uncertain if any of those vaccinated will go on to develop fertility problems, cancer, or genetic damage: the drug manufacturer, Merck Frosst, admits, in its product insert, that these possibilities have not been studied.

According to Statistics Canada, there are approximately 400 deaths a year in Canada caused by cervical cancer, whereas there are 5,400 deaths from breast cancer. The cause(s) of breast cancer are not yet known. It is known, however, that HPV is contracted only through sexual activity and is the most common sexually transmitted disease. Most HPVs are harmless, while others are self-limited infections, i.e., they typically disappear within two years, and most infected individuals do not even realize they have the virus.

Pap smears still remain the best tool available for preventing cervical cancer. If all women received a regular pap smear, cervical cancer would be virtually eliminated. Unfortunately, marginalized women, such as those who are poor, immigrants or minorities and others who lack access to health care programs that include pap smears, are greatly disadvantaged. It is they who should be targeted, not pre-pubescent girls.

Contact Person:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt
(905) 731-5425, (905) 787-0348
(905) 889-1993

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

HEARINGS BY STATUS OF WOMEN COMMITTEE A HOAX

For Immediate Release
Ottawa, Ontario February 8, 2007

The House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on which the opposition holds the majority, is conducting four days of televised hearings on the topic of the potential impact of the funding cuts at Status of Women Canada.

The Committee selected the groups which were to testify before it. The score: 27 groups who opposed the cuts and a total of only 3 groups who supported the cuts, including REAL Women of Canada. Although REAL Women has extensive background knowledge about Status of Women funding, we didn't even make the initial selection. Only after extensive pressure was the Committee prepared to hear our views on the subject.

The 27 witnesses opposed to the cuts with only a couple of exceptions, are all funded by the Status of Women and according to their testimony, regarded these grants as their "entitlements." Having no other source of income but taxpayers' dollars, they described the cuts as "anti-women", crippling the involvement of women in the public debate in Canada. REAL Women does not receive funds from the Status of Women but has managed to be involved in the public debate solely with the financial support of our members.

This remarkable lack of balance in the number of witnesses appearing before the Committee raises the question as to why was a review held in the first place, since the Committee's conclusions are obviously preordained?

Since the committee proceedings are televised by CPAC, it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose of these hearings is to provide fodder for the upcoming election to attempt to back the claim that the Conservatives are, in fact, "anti-women." Not only have these special interest groups of women already received many millions of dollars since 1973 from the Status of Women - now this Committee is spending even more taxpayers' money paying all the witnesses' expenses in order to hoodwink the public into thinking that these cuts are offensive to "women". The cuts are only offensive to the special interest group of feminists whose extremist views are not supported by mainstream women.

Contact Person:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt
(905) 731-5425, (905) 787-0348
(905) 889-1993

Diane Watts
(613) 236-4001

Conservative Government Bringing Common Sense to Public Finances

For Immediate Release
Ottawa, Ontario September 26, 2006

The decision by the Conservative government to cut back on some of the egregious abuse of taxpayers money is a great relief.

Canadians over the years have been more heavily taxed than any other country in the industrialized world. The Conservative government has apparently now decided to do something about it. This action is long overdue as literally billions of dollars have been wasted on programs and activities that not only are ineffective, but also have promoted agendas which most mainstream Canadians reject.

REAL Women is especially pleased that the Status of Women's budget will be reduced by $5 million in these cutbacks. This is a good start, and we hope that the Status of Women will eventually be eliminated entirely, since it does not represent "women", but only represents the ideology of feminists. That is the Status of Women was established in 1973 under Prime Minister Trudeau and over the years, it has funded feminist groups to serve as agents of change, never recognizing that other women have different views and have no wish to be represented by these feminist organizations.

REAL Women was also delighted that the budget cuts included the elimination of the troublesome Court Challenges Program. This Program was supposedly established to fund "disadvantaged" groups, but instead, it has constantly funded only left of centre organizations and by way of this abuse of the taxpayers money has carried out social restructuring by way of the courts. The promotion of social changes by way of judicial fiat funded by the Court Challenges Program has resulted in the bypassing of the democratic process of public debate in Parliament. In fact the Court Challenges Program was a profoundly undemocratic use of taxpayers money to restructure society, with the public being deprived of having any input in these changes. The elimination of the Court Challenges Program will go a long way to promoting democracy in Canada.

Finally, REAL Women was pleased that the Law Reform Commission was eliminated in the budget cutbacks. The Commission was established to make recommendations for the improvement and modernization and reform of federal legislation. However, the Commission's recommendations were not rooted in legal principle, but rather were rooted in the personal bias and perspective of the appointed Commissioners. As a result, the Commission became notorious for its promotion of the agendas of special interest organizations only. Moreover, the Commission's recommendations reflected the opinions of no one but the Commissioners themselves, and its recommendations served as a platform for the left-wing to launch their programs and perspectives.

All in all, the budget cut-backs announced by the Conservative government were an excellent start in the Government gaining control of our national agenda instead of allowing it to be dictated by special interest groups.

Contact Person:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt
(905) 731-5425, 787-0348

Diane Watts
(613) 236-4001

MR 11-06

Judicial Misconduct by Chief Justice Roy McMurtry
Ontario Court of Appeal

For Immediate Release
Ottawa, Ontario July 17, 2006

REAL Women of Canada asserts that the action of the Chief Justice in not recusing himself and in not disclosing his personal interest in the case Halpern and the Attorney General of Canada (Same-sex marriage), is judicial misconduct.

REAL Women of Canada has recently learned that Justice McMurtry's son, Jim McMurtry, in his published letter in the Vannet B.C. newspaper chain, acknowledged that his sister, the daughter of Justice McMurtry, lives in a homosexual union. This gives rise to an apprehension of bias that Justice McMurtry had a personal and familial interest in the disposition of the Halpern case, which seriously impaired his objectivity and his ability to adjudicate the case. Justice McMurtry did not recuse himself from the case, nor did he disclose, on the record, the fact of his daughter's homosexual relationship.

In consequence of this, additional apprehensions of bias arise against Justice McMurtry in the Halpern case:

• Justice McMurtry chose and selected the judges who actually heard the case. The selection of judges sympathetic to same-sex marriage, and to his own personal views on the issue, are contrary to the judicial obligation to act objectively, impartially and with neutrality.
  
  
• On June 26, 2003, two weeks after the decision, in apparent wanton disregard of judicial practice, ethics and behaviour, Justice McMurtry attended a public celebration inter alia of the Halpern decision. At this party, Justice McMurtry was photographed with his arms around a same-sex couple, Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell who were central to the Halpern case. This photograph is displayed on the internet. In January 2001, this same-sex couple, contrary to the law of marriage, entered into a form of marriage at the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto (MCCT). The McMurtry court in the Halpern decision ordered the Ontario Registrar General to register the marriage certificate of this same-sex couple, Kevin Bourassa and Joe Varnell. This order of the court legalized and gave legal effect to their illegal marriage ceremony, which had no legal validity at the time it was performed. This action by the McMurtry court is conduct that undermines the fundamental obligation of judges to remain objective, neutral and disinterested in the outcome of a case.

All the above, taken together with the fact that the court ordered that the Halpern decision take effect immediately, reduced and even blocked the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, an integral part of the judicial system. This judicial fiat also by-passed Parliament, the paramount institution in our system of government for decision making. This creates a reasoned suspicion of a lack of impartiality on the part of the Chief Justice.

The magnitude of the amounts awarded in costs by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Halpern case is notable. Toronto lawyer, Martha McCarthy, counsel for the litigants challenging the traditional definition of marriage, was awarded $645,000. Toronto lawyer, Douglas Elliott, counsel for the Toronto homosexual church, the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto ("MCCT") was awarded $409,162 (Lawyers Weekly, November 19, 2004). The court made this award to the legal counsel for the MCCT, notwithstanding the fact the court had dismissed that church's legal arguments.

In summary, Chief Justice McMurtry participated in the Halpern case contrary to the required ethical practices of behaviour for judges on many counts: his failure to place on record his personal and familial interest in the case and its outcome; his failure to recuse himself; his failure to respect the judicial process of appeal and review; his breach of accepted practices and behaviour of judges by publicly celebrating his own decision with those immediately affected by it, and his ignoring the role of Parliament.

All of these indicate a marked failure on the part of Justice McMurtry to fulfill the fundamental judicial obligations of office. Under these circumstances, a fair and reasonable person would reach the conclusion that Chief Justice McMurtry failed to conduct himself ethically, objectively, neutrally and with disinterest in the case.

This has resulted in a severe undermining of public confidence in the administration of justice in Canada.

- 30 -
For further information, contact:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
REAL Women of Canada
Tel: (905) 787-0348 (Monday-Thursday 9:00-5:00)
(905) 731-5425 (Answering Machine)
(905) 889-1993

Diane Watts
Researcher
National Office
REAL Women of Canada
Tel: (613) 236-4001

MR 09-06

Revisiting the Same-sex Marriage Issue

For Immediate Release
Toronto, Ontario May 4, 2006

Twelve pro-family organizations from across Canada have joined together in an association called
Defend Marriage Coalition to work toward a winning vote in Parliament in support of traditional marriage. This vote, according to Prime Minister Harper, will take place “sooner rather than later.”

As its first initiative, the Defend Marriage Coalition has written to the leaders of all the individual faiths
in Canada requesting that they become actively involved in this vote.

This is important not only for the fact that marriage between a man and a woman protects children,
and their families, but it is also important in order to properly protect religious freedoms in Canada.

Contrary to the former Liberal government's assertions, religious groups will be subject to legal challenges if the legal definition of marriage continues to include same-sex partners.

This is based on the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada in the same-sex marriage reference
handed down on December 9, 2004, concluded that although the provisions on the Civil Marriage Act
passed last year purports to preserve religious rights, this provision, in fact, has no effect, and is
superfluous, because the provision deals with provincial rights and is therefore outside the federal
government's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court did acknowledge that religious groups would be protected from actually performing same-sex marriages, but the court also stated that in situations where
there is a “collision of rights” the courts would be obligated to balance and delineate these colliding
rights. This is not reassuring because in most cases in which the courts have adjudicated religious
freedoms versus homosexual rights, the latter's rights have trumped religious rights.

Already, in less than a year since the same-sex marriage law was passed, cases have arisen which
determinably affects religious rights in Canada:

• The BC Human Rights Tribunal, in 2005, ordered the payment of a fine for “hurt feelings” caused by members of a Catholic Knights of Columbus Council in Port Coquitlam, BC, when they refused to rent their hall to a lesbian couple who wished to use it for their wedding reception. That is, there was a collision of rights between religious freedom and homosexual rights and the homosexual / lesbian rights triumphed. Although the decision acknowledged the right of the Knights to refuse to rent the hall to the lesbian couple because of their religious beliefs, they nonetheless were fined and had to pay costly legal expenses to defend themselves in this case.
• A Mennonite-owned summer camp was charged with discrimination by a homosexual male choir because the camp refused to rent the camp premises to it. This case is to be argued before the Manitoba Human Rights Tribunal this spring.
• The Canadian Human Rights Commission refused a complaint of a federal employee who wished to have her mandatory union dues diverted to charity because her union was actively supporting same-sex marriages. The federal employee claimed that the use of her union dues contravened her freedom of religion and conscience. The government employee is now seeking a judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.

The Coalition is heartened by the positive response it has received from the religious leaders to its letter.

The Defend Marriage Coalition will be undertaking further initiatives shortly in its effort to restore to Canada
the traditional definition of marriage, the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

Feminist Shell Game

For Immediate Release
Ottawa, Ontario February 15, 2006

300 women claiming to represent all Canadian women met on Parliament Hill February 13-14 to supposedly celebrate their work 25 years ago which resulted in the inclusion of S.28 in the Charter of Rights. Section 28 guarantees that the Charter's provisions apply equally for male and female persons. Ironically, Section 28 of the Charter has turned out to be unused, unproved and without effect, according to the decisions brought down by the Supreme Court of Canada on the Charter.

Feminists do not now, and never have had the support of Canadian women. They are a special interest group representing their own ideology only. Moreover, feminist organizations continue to exist in Canada today only because they are funded by the federal Status of Women, without which funding they would collapse, since they have little or no grassroots support.

This week's feminist meeting in Ottawa, true to form, was supported by the Status of Women and other government departments such as the Department of Justice, and government tax-supported agencies such as the National Film Board, Law Commission of Canada, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and International Development Research Centre (IRDC).

The meeting made such unpopular recommendations as championing a universal national day care plan, thereby ignoring the enthusiastic reception given to the $1200 child care support paid directly to all parents equally proposed by the Conservative Party in the recent election.

This meeting also recommended the imposition of proportional representation to ensure that 50 % of elected parliamentarians are of the female gender. Feminists refuse to accept that women vote on the basis of issues, not anatomy. Reasonable voters reject tampering with our democratic process by legislating gender quotas which bypass merit and reward the pre-set criteria chosen by undemocratically appointed committees.

Canadian women from diverse backgrounds and values are not represented by the narrow feminist agenda and reject their undemocratic manipulations. They prefer to work through a democratic system of government.

The federal government must stop funding these unrepresentative women and their irrational policies.

- 30 -
Contact persons:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt Tel: (905) 731-5425, 787-0348, 889-1993
Diane Watts Tel: (613) 236-4001

Public Hearings of Judicial Appointments

For Immediate Release
Ottawa, Ontario February 22, 2006

When Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin warned against public hearings of Supreme Court of Canada candidates because she feared they would "politicize" the judiciary, she perhaps was not aware of the reality of the current system. For example, in the two-year period that former Prime Minister Paul Martin and his Minister of Justice, Irwin Cotler, were in power, the following individuals were given judicial appointments:

• Michael Brown, Mr. Cotler's executive assistant and policy advisor;
• Yves de Montigny, Mr. Cotler's Chief of Staff;
• Randall Echlin, the Legal Counsel to the Ontario Liberal Party;
• Rosalie Abella, (appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada), wife of Mr. Cotler's close friend, Irving Abella;
• Marsha Erb, Alberta Libera l fundraiser, a close personal friend of Cotler's former Cabinet colleague, Anne McLellan;
• John J. Gill, Co-chair of the 2004 Alberta federal Liberal campaign;
• Vital Ouellette, an unsuccessful Alberta provincial Liberal candidate in 1997 and 2000 elections;
• Bryan Mahoney, federal Liberal candidate who lost twice to federal Conservative MP Myron Thompson; and
• Edmond Blanchard, former Liberal New Brunswick Minister of Finance.

When recently retired Chief Justice of Nova Scotia's Court of Appeal, The Hon. Madam Justice Constance Glube appeared as a witness on November 15, 2005 before the House of Commons Justice Committee which was reviewing the judicial appointments system, she acknowledged in her testimony that the judicial appointment system must be changed because the appointments were based not on merit, but rather on political considerations. This marked the first time that a chief justice in Canada has publicly challenged the appointment system of judges.

On December 1, 2005, Chief Justice McLachlin stated in a speech given to the law students at the University of Wellington, New Zealand that judges may render their opinions based on 'unwritten' Constitutional norms, even in the face of clearly enacted laws or hostile public opinion. She defined unwritten norms as those 'essential to a nation's history, identity, values and legal systems.' Such norms, according to Judge McLachlin, could be properly understood and interpreted by appointed judges.

Under these circumstances, the introduction of public hearings of proposed Supreme Court of Canada judges is not only a reasonable procedure, but a necessary one in view of the authority and power now assumed by the Supreme Court of Canada over the lives of ordinary Canadians.

- 30 -
Contact persons:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt Tel: (905) 731-5425, 787-0348, 889-1993
Diane Watts Tel: (613) 236-4001

Feminist Shell Game

For Immediate Release
Ottawa, Ontario February 15, 2006

300 women claiming to represent all Canadian women met on Parliament Hill February 13-14 to supposedly celebrate their work 25 years ago which resulted in the inclusion of S.28 in the Charter of Rights. Section 28 guarantees that the Charter's provisions apply equally for male and female persons. Ironically, Section 28 of the Charter has turned out to be unused, unproved and without effect, according to the decisions brought down by the Supreme Court of Canada on the Charter.

Feminists do not now, and never have had the support of Canadian women. They are a special interest group representing their own ideology only. Moreover, feminist organizations continue to exist in Canada today only because they are funded by the federal Status of Women, without which funding they would collapse, since they have little or no grassroots support.

This week's feminist meeting in Ottawa, true to form, was supported by the Status of Women and other government departments such as the Department of Justice, and government tax-supported agencies such as the National Film Board, Law Commission of Canada, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and International Development Research Centre (IRDC).

The meeting made such unpopular recommendations as championing a universal national day care plan, thereby ignoring the enthusiastic reception given to the $1200 child care support paid directly to all parents equally proposed by the Conservative Party in the recent election.

This meeting also recommended the imposition of proportional representation to ensure that 50 % of elected parliamentarians are of the female gender. Feminists refuse to accept that women vote on the basis of issues, not anatomy. Reasonable voters reject tampering with our democratic process by legislating gender quotas which bypass merit and reward the pre-set criteria chosen by undemocratically appointed committees.

Canadian women from diverse backgrounds and values are not represented by the narrow feminist agenda and reject their undemocratic manipulations. They prefer to work through a democratic system of government.

The federal government must stop funding these unrepresentative women and their irrational policies.

- 30 -
Contact persons:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt Tel: (905) 731-5425, 787-0348, 889-1993
Diane Watts Tel: (613) 236-4001

CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT

For Immediate Release
Ottawa, Ontario January 23, 2006

The Liberal pigeons came home to roost tonight.

The Liberals thought that the public would forgive and forget their many crimes and misdemeanors. The Liberals genuinely believed that they were entitled to govern Canada believing no one else was as capable of doing so. They mistakenly thought Canadians would show their gratitude by giving them their fifth mandate in a row.

How out of touch the Liberals are with real life and real people.

The defeat of the Liberal government in this 2006 election was predicted by REAL Women in a media release dated June 29, 2005. We stated in that press release:

• Liberal arrogance in 1957 over the pipeline led to Liberal defeat
• Liberal arrogance and intensive pork barreling in 1983 led to Liberal defeat
• Liberal arrogance over Bill C-38 and its imposing of the Bill which is unacceptable to the majority of Canadians, and by compelling the Cabinet and pressuring the Liberal backbenchers to vote for the Bill, plus the Liberals' overt corruption, will lead to its defeat in the early 2006 federal election.

  The Liberal government has outlived its usefulness. It will not recover from Bill C-38. Corruption, imposing on Canadians third world politics by way of arrogant top-down government, open bribery to obtain votes, and the manipulation of the Parliamentary process will bring down this despotic Prime Minister and his cronies.

Liberal history repeats itself.

We made this prediction based on the established pattern of behaviour by successive Liberal governments and the public's reaction to it. Once a Liberal government reaches the stage where it sincerely believes that it is the only party that deserves to govern, as an entitlement, rather than by earning that right, its loss of power is inevitable and becomes cast in stone. This occurred tonight.

During this election campaign, the Liberals and their supporters tried to manipulate the voters to convince them that the Conservative Party candidates, especially socially conservative ones, were dangerous. They endeavoured to dig up past statements by social conservatives on issues, such as abortion and the same-sex issue, to indicate that these issues would be prominently featured in the Conservative party's agenda. We wish it were so, but believe this is not likely to be the case.

The direction of Canada nonetheless has been changed by this election. We may now look forward to more respect being paid to the taxpayer, his/her money and his/her concerns, rather than the concerns and interests of the Liberal party elites and their followers both in and out of the government.

Canadians have voted for a long overdue change in government.

- 30 -
Contact persons:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt Tel: (905) 731-5425, 787-0348, 889-1993
Diane Watts Tel: (613) 236-4001

Decisions by Religious Tribunals Should not be Legally Enforceable

For Immediate Release
Ottawa, Ontario September 15, 2005

There is at least one positive aspect to the controversy in Ontario over the inclusion of the Muslim Sharia Law into the province's legal system.

It has brought to light, perhaps for the first time for many Ontarians, the fact that the religious tribunals have wide powers over family law and that their decisions are enforceable by the courts under the 1991 Ontario Arbitration Act.

This is troubling because the wide powers given to the religious tribunals on family matters such as custody and maintenance, are not subject to the customary legal restraints. For example, the Arbitration Act does not specify the qualifications required to be an arbitrator. Yet, religious tribunals under the Act make orders for detention of property and documents (S.18), can operate according to their own procedures (S.20(i)), can order injunctions and specific performance ( S.31), may apply any law of any country (S.32 (i)) chosen by the parties in its decisions, and may conduct the hearings orally with no written transcripts (S.26(i)).

The decisions of the religious tribunals are binding on the parties and enforceable by the Ontario courts which may only confirm, vary, or set aside a tribunal's award under limited circumstances. Moreover, it is difficult for the courts to assess the decisions of the religious tribunals since the Arbitration Act permits oral agreements (Article 5(S.3) and such agreements and proceedings impair the ability of the courts to properly monitor and review the tribunals.

Although there has never been any indication that religious tribunals have abused their authority under the Arbitration Act, nonetheless, the legislation does provide a wide opportunity for such abuse to occur. Disbandment of these religious tribunals under the Arbitration Act, because of these concerns, appears to be a reasonable decision.

This is not to say however, that religious tribunals should not continue to operate if that is the wish of the parties who have given their informed consent to the tribunals to arbitrate their disputes. But these decisions, should not be enforceable by the Ontario courts, as presently occurs.

All Ontarians should be subject to the same law whether it is family law or otherwise. That is, the privatisation of family law or any law for that matter, is not acceptable since everyone must be treated equally under and before a law as set out in (S.15) of the Charter of Rights.

- 30 -
Contact persons:
C. Gwendolyn Landolt Tel: (905) 787-0348
Diane Watts Tel: (613) 236-4001
PR-08-05

Bill C-38 (Same-sex Marriage) Based on Sentiment, Not Law

Ottawa, July 13, 2005

REAL Women of Canada will be appearing before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Thursday, July 14, 2005, Room 160-S, Centre Block at 9:00 a.m. We will express our concerns for society and especially for children, if Canada's present government redefines marriage for future generations.

We will also express our concerns that Bill C-38 is based on sentiment and emotion, not established law. The court decisions on same-sex marriage were completely political decisions, hiding behind judicial gowns, and were not based on law.

Moreover, it is unacceptable for appointed members of the Senate, who have no constituency, to rush Bill C-38 through the Senate against the deeply held convictions of the vast majority of Canadians. An editorial in a homosexual magazine, Fab, May 5, 2005, stated:
"The gay marriage movement in Canada has been spearheaded by a handful of lawyers and a few homo activists … there has been no mass gay movement supporting same-sex marriage here in Canada."

Why have Canadian legislators feared going to the Canadian public on this important issue in a referendum or an election? Who is behind this manoeuvring to rush this fundamental change through Parliament using closure in both the House of Commons and the Senate? Why have not all perspectives been made public on this issue since this is not a simplistic matter of rights and equality?

For further information contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
(905) 787-0348

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236- 4001

Ottawa, June 29, 2005

The Liberals are mistaken if they believe that Bill C-38 (same-sex marriage) is behind them.

REAL Women predicts that the Martin Liberals will meet defeat within the year during the next federal election as history repeats itself:

• Liberal arrogance in 1957 over the pipeline led to Liberal defeat
• Liberal arrogance and intensive pork barreling in 1983 led to Liberal defeat
• Liberal arrogance over Bill C-38 and its imposing of the Bill which is unacceptable to the majority of Canadians, and by compelling the Cabinet and pressuring the Liberal backbenchers to vote for the Bill, plus the Liberals' overt corruption, will lead to its defeat in the early 2006 federal election

The Liberal government has outlived its usefulness. It will not recover from Bill C-38. Corruption, imposing on Canadians third world politics by way of arrogant top-down government, open bribery to obtain votes, and the manipulation of the Parliamentary process will bring down this despotic Prime Minister and his cronies.

The Liberal government will linger on for a few more months, but its time has run out.

Wait and see.

For further information contact:

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236- 4001

Ottawa, June 7, 2005

Prime Minister Martin is apparently willing to promise anything to remain in power.

His latest deception, according to news reports, is to promise a group of his own MPs that he is willing to amend Bill C-38 (same-sex marriage), but since these proposed amendments relate, with one exception, to matters of provincial jurisdiction they will have absolutely no force nor effect.

His proposals include the following:

• Stronger guarantee s that Charter rights will not override religious freedoms
• Justices of the Peace who do not want to perform civil marriages of same-sex couples will not have to do so
• Churches will not be required to rent out their halls for same-sex weddings
• Religious educational institutions will still be allowed to preach that homosexuality is against God's law, without being subject to hate crime laws.

These are all mainly matters of provincial jurisdiction only, and are absolutely meaningless.

It is noteworthy that Mr. Martin did not make any proposals to amend Bill C-38 on matters that fall within his own federal jurisdiction, such as proposals to protect the freedom of expression and opinion and the charitable status of religious organizations and others, opposed to same-sex marriage, under the Income Tax Act and the Canada Elections Act.

Mr. Martin's proposals made to his Liberal colleagues reveal an intellectual and moral vacuity that has become a consistent pattern in his manoeuvring to remain in power. This is very disturbing and provides a clear warning that Mr. Martin is not to be trusted.

Former Liberal MP, Pat O'Brien, who left the party yesterday over deceptive promises made to him by Mr. Martin, has learned this, to his detriment.

For further information contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236- 4001

Ottawa, May 18, 2005

A strong message must be sent to the Liberal women's caucus that their feminist spin does not represent the views of all Canadian women. Belinda Stronach's behavior is not unequivocably endorsed by Canadian women as these Liberal MP's would have us believe. Rather than deal with the highly charged consequences of Ms. Stronach's decision, feminist Liberal MP's are typically diverting attention from her treacherous manouever to her dubious status as a victim of male prejudice.

These women want it both ways. They want to be equal to men, but they want to be treated differently. Which is it? If women are equal to men, they must expect to be treated the same as men. REAL Women, a national women's organization, believes in equality for women but that we should not expect preferential treatment as demanded by these Liberal female MPs.

All politicians must face the consequences of their decisions. Liberal Women's Caucus obsession with female victimhood should not overshadow the political turmoil caused by the Stronach defection. Feminist Liberal partisan politics insults the intelligence and integrity of Canadian women. Important issues now held in the balance should outweigh preoccupations with personal female advancement and ideology. Liberal feminist manipulation is unbecoming, and disgraces serious women politicians.

For further information contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236- 4001

Ottawa, February 9, 2005

An analysis of funding of the legal challenges by gay activists reveals that the Canadian taxpayer is footing most of the bill for their legal challenges, while family oriented defenders of marriage are obliged to raise their own funds.

Chief Justice Roy McMurtry of the Ontario Court of Appeal not only decided that traditional matrimonial law in Canada is unconstitutional, he ordered that the federal treasury pay the costs of the homosexual challengers. $645,000 went to Toronto Lawyer Martha McCarthy who acted for several of the homosexual challengers, and $409,162 to Toronto lawyer R. Douglas Elliot who argued the case on behalf of the homosexual/ lesbian/transgender Metropolitan Community Church.

The homosexual lobby group and matrimonial law challenger EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) received generous financial support from the Court Challenges Program for its legal challenges on same-sex marriage. The Court Challenges Program also paid the costs of the intervenors, the Canadian Coalition of Liberal Rabbis for Same-sex Marriage. This government Program receives millions of dollars annually from the federal Heritage Department (2.75 million a year minimum). Status of Women and the National Film Board are listed on EGALE's website as sponsors of their efforts. This funding also comes from Canadian taxpayers.

Documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, indicate that hundreds of thousands of dollars flow annually from Status of Women to Lesbian advocacy groups.

With the funds they receive from compulsory union dues, Canadian unions are also financially backing homosexual activists. EGALE lists Canadian Auto Workers, Canadian Union of Public Employees and Canadian Labour Congress as its "Gold" sponsors on its website. Also "Gold" are the United Church of Canada, IBM and Canada Digital Collections.

CIBC (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) "has also been a major donor to a number of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) related organizations over the year" according to CIBC President and CEO John Hunkin.

If Justice Minister Irwin Cotler wants to make legal changes to prevent public opinion from being "mortgaged to the highest bidder," as he recently stated, he should start by cutting off the flow of taxpayers' money to advocacy groups for homosexual and lesbian marriage.

Lawyers Weekly, November 19, 2004
http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2003_sept_oct/article_7.html
http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&item=113
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/advocacy/CIBC120804.htm

For further information contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236- 4001

Ottawa, February 2, 2005

The federal government knows that the Supreme Court of Canada in the same-sex marriage reference case specifically stated that religious rights are matters of provincial jurisdiction only and that the federal government has no authority over them.

Marriage commissioners in some Canadian provinces have already been ordered to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex partners, despite their religious beliefs. The federal government can do nothing to halt this trampling on the religious beliefs of these commissioners, despite its statement in the preamble that "everyone" has freedom of conscience and religion which will not be affected by this same-sex legislation.

In addition, the federal government knows that in every case where religious rights have competed with homosexual rights, the Supreme Court of Canada has ordered the trumping of homosexual rights over religious rights. The parade of cases to diminish religious rights on same-sex marriage issues has already commenced with a BC lesbian couple claiming discrimination because a Catholic men's organization, the Knight's of Columbus, has refused to rent their hall for their marriage celebration.

The preamble also claims that same-sex marriage, respects the "right" of same-sex couples to equality without discrimination. Again the federal government is fully aware that the Supreme Court of Canada did not state in the reference case that opposite sex marriage was discriminatory against same-sex couples. It merely stated that the government may, as a matter of policy, extend marriage to same-sex couples, but it did not require the government to do so, on the basis that it was an equality or human right issue.

It is obvious that, in its effort to push through this unpopular legislation and make it more palatable, the government is deliberately lying and misleading the public.

According to REAL Women National President, Lorraine McNamara, "The federal government must believe that Canadians are asleep at the switch on the same-sex marriage issue. On the contrary, we're wide awake and disgusted by the governments subterfuge and deception."

For further information contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236- 4001

Ottawa, September 21, 2004

Mr. Tory has thrown his support behind homosexual activists and their cause of same-sex marriage.

This issue is the mark on which social conservatives draw the line. As a result, Mr. Tory will not have the support of social conservatives, the bedrock of the party. Social conservatives will treat him with disdain and distrust as they did his predecessor, Ernie Eves, unless he adjusts his position on the issue. Will they contribute money to bring down the party’s debt of $8.5 million? Mr. Tory will have to rely on his homosexual supporters to assist him. The latter, according to Statistics Canada in a report released in 2003, in its first survey to include a question on sexual orientation, found that there was a total of 316,800 homosexuals in Canada, or approximately 1% of the population. In Ontario, according to this Stats Canada report, homosexuals/lesbians total 107,200 individuals.

In the June 2004 federal election, in spite of the Liberal party’s scare ads against the Conservatives, 24 Ontario seats went to the Conservatives. In total 1,592,724 votes were cast for Conservative candidates. This is a sizeable portion of Ontario voters who maintain conservative values.

Placating social conservatives by proposing less volatile social conservative policies on other issues will not alter the situation.

By throwing his lot in with the homosexual activists to the detriment of society and the social conservatives within his party, Mr. Tory has detrimentally affected his electoral chances. He has split his party over the homosexual issue. His party will not rally behind him unless there is a significant change in this stance.

Mr. Tory has thrown his support behind homosexual activists and their cause of same-sex marriage.

This issue is the mark on which social conservatives draw the line. As a result, Mr. Tory will not have the support of social conservatives, the bedrock of the party. Social conservatives will treat him with disdain and distrust as they did his predecessor, Ernie Eves, unless he adjusts his position on the issue. Will they contribute money to bring down the party’s debt of $8.5 million? Mr. Tory will have to rely on his homosexual supporters to assist him. The latter, according to Statistics Canada in a report released in 2003, in its first survey to include a question on sexual orientation, found that there was a total of 316,800 homosexuals in Canada, or approximately 1% of the population. In Ontario, according to this Stats Canada report, homosexuals/lesbians total 107,200 individuals.

In the June 2004 federal election, in spite of the Liberal party’s scare ads against the Conservatives, 24 Ontario seats went to the Conservatives. In total 1,592,724 votes were cast for Conservative candidates. This is a sizeable portion of Ontario voters who maintain conservative values.

Placating social conservatives by proposing less volatile social conservative policies on other issues will not alter the situation.

By throwing his lot in with the homosexual activists to the detriment of society and the social conservatives within his party, Mr. Tory has detrimentally affected his electoral chances. He has split his party over the homosexual issue. His party will not rally behind him unless there is a significant change in this stance.

For further information contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
(905) 787-0348, (905) 731-5425

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236- 4001

Previous Press Releases