REAL Women of Canada - Realistic, Equal, Active, for Life

Search:

Media Releases Prior to 2007

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.

REAL Women of Canada
Diane Watts
Researcher
realwcto@interlog.com
www.realwomenca.com
613-236-4001

Catholic Civil Rights League
Philip Horgan
President
horganlaw@chmlegal.com
ccrl.ca
416-777-9994

Campaign Life Coalition
Jim Hughes
National President
jimhughes@lifesite.net
www.lifesite.net
416-204-9749

Canada Family Action Coalition
Brian Rushfeldt
Executive Director
execdirector@familyaction.org
403-295-2159

Enshrine Marriage Canada
William Gairdner
Chairman
info@enshrinemarriage.ca
www.enshrinemarriage.ca
416-533-5124

Preserve Marriage-Protect Children's Rights
Préserver le Mariage-Protégeons les droits des enfants
Louis DeSerres
National Coordinator
info@preservemarriage.ca
www.preservemarriage.ca
514-733-7708

United Families Canada
Jill Cahoon
President
abccagiib@telus.net
www.restoremarriagecanada.ca
780-662-2785

United Mothers and Fathers
Michelle Dow
President
m_dow@telus.net
www.unitedmothers.ca
403-938-3271

Mariage Canada
Jean Deslauriers
Modérateur
jdeslaur@yahoo.ca
http://cf.groups.yahoo.com/group/MariageCanada
514-941-0919

Equité-Famille
Michel Lizotte
Porte-parole
mlizotte@equite-famille.ca
www.equite-famille.ca
514-597-1234

Equipping Christians for the Public-square Centre
Tristan Emmanuel
President
temmanuel@netscape.ca
www.ecpcentre.org
905-719-8410

Association des parents catholiques du Québec
Jean Morse-Chevrier
Présidente
apcq406@bellnet.ca
www.apcqc.net
514-276-8068, 1-866-376-8068

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

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

Previous Press Releases