Ottawa, August 24, 2004

THE BIZARRE 2004 ELECTION

June 29, 2004

Canadians have put up with a lot these last ten years under the Liberal government. We’ve paid the highest taxes in the industrialized world, we’ve experienced corruption by way of taxpayers’ money used to line the pockets of their special friends. We’ve endured the Prime Minister’s autocratic ways in completely controlling the reigns of power, including the prohibition of any independence on the part of his Caucus. Canadians have no input in the development of Liberal policy, whether child pornography, decriminalization of marijuana, the age of consent, or same-sex marriage. It’s all decided by the Prime Minister and his paid advisors who demand absolute obedience.

The Liberals managed to convince the voters to forget all this pain during the election by their attack ads on the Conservatives – suggesting the latter had a scary “hidden agenda”. This may well have contributed to the Liberal win. The results were disappointing, but not unexpected.

The results of the 2004 election will now permit the Liberals to continue unabated with their usual abuse of Canadian taxpayers. Fortunately, there is at least one comfort with this minority government. The Liberal Caucus, because of the close election, includes MPs who may now have the backbone to stand up to the Prime Minister and his dictatorial ways for once, since the Prime Minister needs every one of them to maintain his narrow hold on power.

Moreover, things are not settled yet. The tensions are palatable within Parliament and the public. A minority government means instability and we will no doubt be voting again sooner, rather than later.

In the meantime, a new political universe will unfold. REAL Women of Canada National President, Lorraine McNamara, said, “REAL Women is willing, as it has been in the past, to work with any political party. We will continue our efforts with the large number of pro-family Liberal MPs who were elected. We hope that the Liberals’ scare in this election may make them more sensitive to these caucus members, as well as to the sensibilities of the public.”

For further information contact:

National Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236- 4001

MEDIA ADVISORY

Re: Special Treatment for MP Svend Robinson

May 13, 2004

It has been a month since MP Svend Robinson admitted theft of a $50,000 ring and no charges have been laid against him.

This indicates that there is a different standard of justice being applied in BC than in the rest of Canada.

It is particularly disturbing that Mr. Robinson is being treated preferentially. This is not the first time that the BC justice system has treated Mr. Robinson differently from others. In 1994, Mr. Robinson was present when the life of Sue Rodriguez ended under mysterious circumstances. Mr. Robinson and Ms. Rodriguez were both vocal campaigners for physician- assisted suicide. Ms. Rodriguez had Lou Gehrig's disease and, therefore, could not have taken her own life. Yet, even under these circumstances, no charges were ever laid against Mr. Robinson.

This failure to lay charges against Mr. Robinson creates a dangerous precedent. It implies that prominent individuals are treated with deference and respect under our justice system and that they are not answerable for their felonies - even openly admitted ones. This throws the entire system of justice into disrepute, and greatly diminishes respect for the rule of law. It sets a poor example for our country, and in particular, for our youth.

For further information contact:

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

National Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236- 4001

WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES III FORGES INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCES

April 1, 2004

The World Congress of Families III was held in Mexico City this week with over 3,200 delegates from more than 75 nations participating.

The World Congress of Families III (WCFIII) is the largest international gathering of pro-family leaders, activists and thinkers ever assembled. Its theme was "The Natural Family and the Future of Mankind" and it builds on the success of WCFI (Prague, 1997) and WCFII (Geneva, 1999). See www.worldcongress.org

Speakers at WCF III focused on issues like homosexual "marriage," continued vulnerability of the unborn, population decline, anti-family media, parental rights and the UN's anti-family agenda. It forged an international pro-family alliance transcending national borders, cultures and faith traditions.

Mrs. C. Gwendolyn Landolt, National Vice-President of REAL Women of Canada was a speaker at the conference, in addition to being part of the planning and declaration committees. Other participating organizations included The Howard Center For Family, Religion and Society (US), The Family Network (Mexico), Focus On the Family (US), The Latin American Alliance for the Family (Venezuela), The Australian Family Association, The Civic Institute (Czech Republic) and Family Research Council (US).

"No matter what country we come from today we have a common vision, the value of the family. Family is the hope of the world", said Mrs. Martha Fox, first lady of Mexico. President George W. Bush sent a message encouraging the efforts of the World Congress of Families III to "recognize the importance of families in our society. Around the world, families are the source of help, hope, and stability for individuals and nations. As one of the pillars of civilization, families must remain strong and we must defend them during this time of great change. Your work improves many lives and makes the world better."

New alliances were formed and old alliances reaffirmed to defend and enrich family life around the world.

For further information contact:

Diane Watts
(613) 236- 4001

MARTIN CAUCHON - A SPIN DOCTOR ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE ISSUE

July 17, 2003

Judging by the statement today by Martin Cauchon on his proposed legislation on same-sex marriage, it appears he has become a spin doctor on the issue.
Same-sex marriage is definitely not a "Canadian value," as the Minister states. Polls tell us otherwise. Mr. Cauchon has also accepted the opinion of a mere three Ontario and three BC provincial court judges, and has thereby ignored the opinion of the approximately 200 appeal judges in the other eight remaining provinces. Mr. Cauchon's perspective to same-sex marriage is a very selective one.

Canadians live in a country that respects the rights of all citizens but also our differences. If it were otherwise, Mr. Cauchon would have taken steps to amend the Income Tax Act to make us all "equal" under its provisions regardless of our circumstances

Mr. Cauchon also expresses a surprising naivety in suggesting that this draft bill will not erode the significance or sanctity of marriage. The marriage bond between opposite-sex couples is the foundation of our society and is the relationship, according to former Supreme Court of Canada judge, Gerard LaForest that:

……..is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.

The definition of marriage as being "between two persons," also opens a Pandora's box - as two undefined "persons" includes any unlimited assortment of couples including transgendered, cross dressers, father and daughter, uncle and niece, even heterosexuals who want financial benefits of marriage, etc. The so-called "sanctity" of marriage, under the proposed legislation makes a mockery of marriage.

Finally, it is a fallacy that freedom of religion will be protected under this legislation. Religious freedom includes the right to live out one's faith in society, not just within a church. Religion is not protected by this legislation. The opinion of the current Supreme Court on this crucial matter provides no assurance that judges sitting on a future court will share the same opinion. Consequently, erosion of religious rights is inherent in this proposed legislation.

Mr. Cauchon's enthusiasm for same-sex marriage is evidenced by his second reference question which asks "Whether extending marriage to persons of the same-sex is valid under the Charter?, " rather than the central question, "Whether traditional definition of marriage is valid under the Charter?"

Mr. Cauchon cannot hide from the fact that he is attempting to bring about a revolution in Canada without public consensus.

For further information:

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

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM BY BC COURT OF APPEAL

July 9, 2003

REAL Women is concerned about judicial activism as evidenced by the decision of the BC Court of Appeal to consent to the demands of gay activists to allow its decision in support of same-sex marriage to have immediate effect. The court in its initial decision of May 1, 2003 had suspended it until July 2004 to provide Parliament the opportunity to determine a political solution to the problem.

The BC court’s decision yesterday, therefore, is yet another example of judicial activism currently taking place in Canada, whereby the important moral political and cultural values affecting the lives of Canadians are steadily being removed from democratic control by the judiciary.

The decision of the BC Court is also unacceptable because of the pending Leave to Appeal application by the Association for Marriage and the Family before the Supreme Court of Canada and for a Stay of the recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Ontario decision was relied on by the BC court which claimed that the BC and Ontario laws were being unequally applied. In fact, because of judicial activism, the law on marriage is being applied unequally all across the country.

The BC court, in ordering its judgement to have immediate effect, therefore, was acting both precipitously and presumptuously.

The intrusion into social policy matters by the courts has become a serious concern as it is undermining the credibility of our entire judicial system.

REAL Women’s National President, Lorraine McNamara, stated, “Canadians do not have a strong tradition of judicial criticism, but the action of the BC Court of Appeal reveals with fresh clarity how, in the interests of democracy, judicial activism must be reigned in.”

For further information:

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

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

REAL WOMEN OF CANADA SEEKS LEAVE TO APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

July 7, 2003

REAL Women of Canada is a non-partisan, non-denominational organization of independent women which supports the family as the basic unit of society and affirms the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

REAL Women is a part of the Association for Marriage and the Family, which includes Focus on the Family and Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC). It is seeking Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, from the Ontario decision on same-sex marriage.

REAL Women is concerned by the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and the failure by the Prime Minister and Cabinet to appeal the case. It is unfortunate for Canada that the court system was the venue for action rather than Parliament which is supposed to represent the people. Proceeding through the courts was not a process initiated by us but by others. We would not have chosen that route. However, the process, once begun, has been truncated. This has had the effect of cutting out Parliament and the nation-wide House of Commons Justice Committee hearings. It is a tragedy that the public has not been included in this decision. This is dangerous for democracy and for Canada’s future.

The current legal situation in regard to same-sex marriage is in considerable disarray. The decision of a provincial court is only binding within its own province. The B.C. Court of Appeal has stated that Parliament should deal with this by July 2004, whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has quite a different remedy in that it has determined that its decision on same-sex marriage must take immediate effect. Complicating the matter further, the Quebec Court of Appeal will not be hearing the arguments on the issue until September. There is no definitive resolution to this situation and the provinces which, under our constitution, have jurisdiction to determine the procedures for marriage, have been left in uncertainty.

Moreover, it is unfortunate that the government has chosen to go by way of Reference to the Supreme Court. This is a very limited course of action since the questions drafted by Justice officials can only be answered by a “yes” or “no” response. The Supreme Court of Canada would not be able to hear the fundamental arguments on both sides of the issue. Also, a Reference is not binding, it is only advisory.

Because of this enormous confusion, the House of Commons Justice Committee should come forward in order to contribute the views of Canadians who have spoken on this important issue. Crucial questions need to be publicly addressed. Is the issue a simple matter of equal rights as argued by gay activists, or is their relationship different from that of married couples? Also, who is in charge of public policy in Canada? The courts are carrying out a unilateral monologue rather than a dialogue with Parliament and the people.

All Canadians, through Parliament, need to be actually involved in any major alteration of society. We therefore ask for a Stay on the Ontario Court of Appeal decision, and the Association for Marriage and the Family is requesting the Supreme Court of Canada for Leave to Appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision.

For further information:

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

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

CANADA'S PRO-HOMOSEXUAL POLICIES QUESTIONED YESTERDAY AT THE UNITED NATIONS

Geneva, Switzerland, June 11, 2003

On June 10, in Geneva, Switzerland, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child heard a presentation from REAL Women of Canada, an NGO with consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the UN. REAL Women opposes the misleading homosexual campaigns being carried out in Canada, particularly in Quebec, Ontario and BC schools, and the adoption of children by homosexuals.

The Working Group Committee, associated with the High Commission for Human Rights meeting in Geneva, invited REAL Women to explain why the spirit of several articles of the Convention related to the UN Rights of the Child are not respected by Canada in regard to these issues.

Misleading campaigns in schools

The Convention on the Rights of the Child dictates that the interests of children must be the primary consideration for all governmental decisions. Governments, under the Convention, are also held responsible for protecting children from information harmful to their well being. Some Canadian schools, however, are encouraging school children to believe in unproven theories and invalid statistical studies on homosexuality. For example, in Quebec, the homosexual organization, Gai Ecoute, urges children to believe that 10% among them are homosexual for life, and states in its pamphlets and posters that homosexuality "is not catching, does not change, is like skin color…." Children are not informed that thousands of American, European and Asian ex-gays prove the contrary. There are many married and new parents who have acknowledged that their homosexual past was the result of false information or homosexual relations at a young age encouraged by activists.

The powerful homosexual lobby claims that homosexuality constitutes a healthy alternative to heterosexuality. Experts demonstrate, however, that many psychological troubles, illnesses and specific sexually transmitted diseases afflict this sexual minority. It is documented that almost one third of boys who adopt the homosexual lifestyle will be HIV positive or dead before the age of 30. They have the life span of a Canadian living in 1871. There is only 1% - 3% of the population which is homosexual, and a vast majority of AIDS sufferers in Canada are homosexual. The publisher and managing editor of the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra, in an article published in the September 27, 2002 issue, confirms that the homosexual lifestyle is much less healthy than that of straight men. The tragic health problems associated with the homosexual lifestyle were also acknowledged in an article in the March 2003 issue of the homosexual magazine, TO BE.

Homosexual parenting

The UN Declaration on Human Rights notes that a family consists of a man and a woman. This position also forms a part of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The UN Convention on the Child recognizes, along with almost all of humanity, that the traditional family constitutes the fundamental unit of society and the natural environment in which children thrive best. The Committee was thus asked to insist that Canada (state party to the Convention) adhere to the Convention that the fundamental right of all children to a mother and a father, be respected. A 1996 Statistics Canada longitudinal study, disclosed that children thrive best in an environment consisting of their biological mother and father. Children who do not have this advantage are far more likely to experience out-of-wedlock pregnancy, poor school performance, early school drop-out and difficulties with the law, etc. Children have the right to the best chance in life.

A world first

The discussion of a country's problem with homosexual pressure is a first for the UN Committee. Since its members are mandated to ensure that the Convention is respected, the Committee was urged by REAL Women to consult with experts able to counter the false theories of activists and homosexuals, and also able to explain invalid statistics used by some fifty American studies favorable to homosexual parenting. Studies that expose the problems with homosexual/lesbian parenting are being ignored in Canada, the UN Committee was advised.

The Canadian government will be asked to address these issues, among others, when it submits its official report to the Committee in Geneva in September 2003.

For further information:

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

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

THE ARROGANCE OF THE COURTS

Ottawa, June 10, 2003

Predictably, the political appointees to the Ontario Court of Appeal have used their unelected position to impose their own vision on the country - a vision based not on the law, but on their own politically correct ideology. In no other nation, do the courts enjoy the power now held by the Canadian courts which operate without any checks and balances. Consequently, the Canadian courts are the only ones in the world that have had the arrogance to change the definition of marriage.

The truth is that judges do not have special or secret knowledge with which to interpret the general and ill-defined words in the Charter of Rights. Instead, judges come to the bench with their own political and ideological axes to grind, and make their decisions accordingly.

The decision on the definition of marriage touches on social, political, cultural, emotional and legal implications, that are extremely complex. Yet, after scarcely six weeks' deliberation, the judges of the Ontario Court of Appeal have handed down a decision setting aside the heterosexual definition of marriage, which latter transcends culture, religion and time. This decision would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

The courts are now knee-deep in public policy decisions, a function which they are not set up to carry out because they do not have:

Consequently, it is not possible for the courts to entirely grasp the long-range implications and ramifications of the narrow arguments placed before them by the litigants.

The appointed, unaccountable courts should not be permitted to continue their bizarre role of determining public policy.

To restore democracy to Canada, Parliament must undertake a pre-emptive strike by assuming its proper role of determining public policy, by defining the legal definition of marriage, rather than relinquishing this role to the unscreened, unscrutinized judges.

For further information contact:

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

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

L'ARROGANCE DES COURS

Ottawa, le 10 juin, 2003

Dans une décision malheureusement prévue, les juges de la cour d'appel d'Ontario ont employé leur position non élue pour imposer leur propre vision au pays - une vision basée non sur la loi, mais sur une idéologie personelle, politiquement correcte, et apartenant à eux mêmes. Malheureusement, les juges aux cours du Canada ont, en ce moment, une puisance incroyable parce que nous n'avons aucun critère de sélection, ni de processus pour interviewer les candidats avant de les nommé aux positions de pouvoir, ni de façon à corriger leur décisions faites hors du point de vue du droit. Cette situation n'existe dans aucune autre nation libre du monde. Les cours canadiennes sont les seules dans le monde qui ont eu l'arrogance de commander la rédéfinition du mariage.

La vérité est que les juges n'ont pas une connaissance omnisciente ou toute puissante avec laquelle ils peuvent rééinterprééter des termes dans la Chartre des Droits. Mais la réalité au Canada est que les juges viennent au banc avec leurs propres haches à moudre, et politiques et idéologiques, en vue desquels ils font leurs décisions.

La décision de la cour vis à vis la définition du mariage emmenera des implications sociales, politiques, culturelles, émotives et légales extrêmement complexes. Cependant, après une délibération de six semaines seulement, les juges de la cour d'appel de l'Ontario ont donné leur décision mettant de côté la définition hétérosexuelle du mariage, en dépit de la culture, la religion et l'histoire de la civilization humaine. Cette décision serait risible si elle n'était pas si tragique.

Les cours se sont mêlé dans des décisions de politique publique -- une fonction qu'elles sont incapable d'effectuer parce qu'elles n'ont

1. ni accès aux faits sociologiques des issues de même que le Parlement ;
2. ni autant de temps de réfléchir en juste proportion sur la question ;
3. ni libre accès aux recherches comme les parlementaires;
4. ni accès aux expéériences pratiques des citoyens sur ces sujets qui deviennent de plus en plus complexes du point de vue economique, sociale et scientifique; et, enfin,
5. ni la capacité d'évaluer la gamme complète des solutions politiques qui sont disponibles au gouvernement.

En conséquence, il n'est pas possible que les cours saisissent entièrement les implications et les consequences à longue durée des arguments specifiques placées devant eux par les plaideurs.

Les cours, peuplé par les juges nommés et indépendants ne devraient pas être permits de continuer leur rôle bizarre de déterminer la politique publique.

Pour réconstituer la démocratie et la justice au Canada, le Parlement doit immédiatement rétablir son rôle approprié de déterminer l'ordre public, en réaffirmant une fois et pour tous la définition légale du mariage, au lieu d'abandonner ce rôle au non-élus, non-scruté, et inconnus juges des cours du Canada.

Renseignements:

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

Diane Watts
Chercheur
(613) 236-4001

UNCHECKED POWER OF THE COURTS LEADS TO JUDGES DETERMINING PUBLIC POLICY

Ottawa, Ontario May 1, 2003

The definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman has been acknowledged and accepted throughout time by all the major religions and cultures of the world.

The B.C. Court of Appeal, in its supposed wisdom, has seen fit to strike down this traditional definition of marriage after deliberating for scarcely two months.

In defiance of common sense, logic, reason, the law, or even the grave implications to the fabric of society, the courts have capitulated to the demands of special interest groups.

No other court in the western world has assumed such power. For example, the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Quilter et al. vs. the Attorney General (New Zealand) (1998) held that marriage was the union of a man and woman only. Nowhere else in the western world have courts had the effrontery and arrogance to make such revolutionary decisions on behalf of the public on an issue which affects the foundations of society. The courts in Canada have taken on policy decisions as un-elected politicians, delving into the public arena without the slightest deference to Parliament.

The myth that judges are impartial has been shattered by this irresponsible decision.

Contact persons:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt Tel. (905) 713-0354, 731-5425, 889-1993
Diane Watts Tel. (613) 236-4001

CURBING THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

February 24, 2003

Since the Charter of Rights came into effect in 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada has, case by case, gradually widened its jurisdiction so that it has now reached the apex of power in Canada. In assuming this power, the Court has effectively become a second level legislature, reducing the elected Parliament to a secondary role in the political process.

With these assumed powers, the Supreme Court of Canada is pushing ahead to interpret the Charter so as to rearrange Canadian laws to fit the ideological and philosophical views of its judges.

REAL Women of Canada has completed an analysis of this serious problem with recommendations to resolve it. We acknowledge that these recommendations will not completely resolve the problem, but if implemented, they will at least begin the process of restoring a more democratic system of government in Canada.

Topics discussed in the booklet include:

- How did these Judges Achieve this Absolute Power?
- Astonishing Views of Some Judges
- Judges are Merely Well-connected Lawyers
- Judges as Politicians
- Suggestions for Curbing the Power of this Court

This analysis can be obtained electronically by emailing to: realwcto@interlog.com. It is also posted on our website: www.realwomenca.com. A hard copy can be obtained from our National office: REAL Women of Canada, P.O. Box 8813, Station T, Ottawa, ON K1G 3J1 Tel: (613) 236-4001, Fax: (613) 236-7203, email: realwcna@on.aibn.com

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

Diane Watts
(613) 236-4001

December 12, 2002

It would appear that Martin Cauchon has done a con job regarding his proposed amendments to the Child Pornography law.

On December 5, with great fanfare, Mr. Cauchon announced amendments to the Child Pornography Law. In particular, he proposed removing from a charge of child pornography, the defence of "artistic merit or an educational or medical purpose," and replace it with the single defence that the material must be shown to serve the "public good."

The defence of serving the "public good," however, has always been a defence in regard to a charge of pornography, so there is nothing new in the use of the term in pornography cases. The problem is the courts over the years have interpreted the expression "serving the public good" as meaning that material has artistic or literary merit, or served an educational, medical or scientific purpose! That is, although the actual words, "artistic merit," etc., have been deleted from the child pornography provision in the Criminal Code, it is still there, clothed in the term "public good," so there is little improvement at all.

There is only one minor improvement provided by Mr. Cauchon's amendments in that the defence of public good cannot be successful where the risk of harm outweighs any public good it does.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the proposed amendment to provide our judicially activist liberal judges from determining in their wisdom that not all child pornography is bad or risky and, therefore, to conclude that the supposed artistic merit outweighs the "risk". So much for Mr. Cauchon's proposed amendment.

In effect, Mr. Cauchon has done a con job with regard to the proposed child pornography amendments. He has done so despite the findings of his own Liberal government's polling company, Pollara, which found in May 2002, when polling on the question whether artistic merit should be recognized as a defence in child pornography, that 74% rejected it as a defence.

The Liberal government has once again shown that it cares little about the views of the Canadian public. Its policies are absolutely out of touch.

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
(905) 731-5425 (905) 787-0348

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

December 10, 2002

One has to wonder why the Liberal government is so intent on liberalizing our current drug laws including the decriminalizing of marijuana.

The House of Commons Committee on Drug Use, which report will be released this Thursday and the Senate Committee Report on Marijuana which was released in September, were set up only to provide the excuse for the government to liberalize the drug laws which it had intended to do all along.

The Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, in her report tabled in February 2001, severely criticized the federal government for its fundamental failure in leadership and coordination in respect to Canada's current drug policy of enforcement, education and treatment. In fact, according to Ms. Fraser, there has been a deliberate and steady decline in funding to implement Canada's drug policies in the past few years. Instead of making our drug laws more effective, the Liberal government has failed to enforce them in order to provide the excuse to change them by placing an emphasis on harm reduction, which is merely a creative re-naming of policies liberalizing drug laws.

European experience on harm reduction policies has shown beyond doubt that the decriminalization of marijuana, free needle exchanges and heroin injection sites recommended in the government's Committee report, will only serve to widen access to drugs to the detriment of the drug users themselves and to society. For example, marijuana use increased 250% in the Netherlands when it liberalized its drug law in 1976 and liberal drug policies in Switzerland has resulted in Swiss adolescents using more drugs per capita than any other country in western Europe. This has grave significance in view of more and more medical evidence indicating that marijuana is not an innocuous drug but causes many medical problems such as increased cancer risk and pulmonary damage.

Further, European and Australian experience has shown that needle exchanges and drug injection sites serve as "honey pots" or meeting points for drug users and dealers since they are "no-go" areas for police. They undermine treatment programs and result in higher drug use, crime, prostitution and the spread of HIV/AIDS. Not surprisingly, they also lead to a demise of businesses in these areas because of the dangers resulting from increased crime and the absence of police enforcement.

The problem with a liberalized drug policy is that drug use increases always and everywhere when drugs are available without legal sanction. In short, the law serves as a deterrent. To many, what is legal becomes acceptable and once legal sanctions are removed, there is a greatly increased use of drugs. Drug use is not just a matter of lifestyle choice. The proven answer to drug addiction is deterrent legislation, backed by well-funded, sound public education and proper enforcement of the law, as well as the wide availability of treatment centers. Such action is the truly compassionate and human response to the problem.

So why is the Liberal government so eager to liberalize our drug laws? The only explanation is that it is responding to the demands of special interest groups and political activists who will gain by the wide availability of drugs. Certainly Canadian society and definitely our young people will not receive any benefits from these proposed changes in our drug laws.

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
(905) 731-5425 (905) 787-0348

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

December 5, 2002

The decision announced today by the Minister of Justice to remove the defence to a charge of child pornography that it had "artistic merit or an educational or medical purpose," and replace it with the single defence that the work must be shown to serve the "public good," is a vast improvement in the child pornography legislation.

This conclusion is based on the fact that it is difficult to believe that the exploitation of children by pornography can ever possibly serve the "public good." However, anything is possible with our liberal judges today and it would have been far preferable to simply remove all defenses for child pornography.

REAL Women is also pleased that the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code include the creation of a new category of offence - namely that of "sexual exploitation." This offence should provide some protection for children between 14 and 18 years of age from exploitative relationships by the manipulation of young people by older persons or pimps - a protection long overdue.

On the other hand, the amendments have failed to include the raising of the age of consent for sexual activity from the present 14 years of age to, at the very least, 16 years of age. This failure makes no sense at all since young people under 16 years are currently prohibited from purchasing alcohol or cigarettes and are protected under our criminal justice system until 18 years of age. Why are 14 year olds deemed responsible to enter into sexual activity which can create such long range problems and repercussions, including sexually transmitted diseases (STD), AIDS and pregnancy - problems which can stalk them for the rest of their lives? It makes no sense at all in comparison to the other protections given them.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code are an improvement, but the law on sexual offenses against young people remains as unfinished business since the age of consent still remains at 14 years.

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
(905) 731-5425 (905) 787-0348

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

October 31, 2002

One of the most peculiar bills ever, Bill C-10, is making its way through Parliament. It is at second reading stage in the Senate. This Bill deals with two completely unrelated issues, which are cruelty to animals and firearms control. The only common thread between these two issues is that both are driven by the lobbying of powerful, well-funded special interest groups.

Bill C-10 will amend the Criminal Code to broaden protection previously provided only to persons and property, which also included animals, so as to move animals out of the property category, and make animals into beings in their own right, worthy and needy of separate protection under the Code.

The Bill provides that anyone who kills or causes suffering, injury or pain to an animal, which is defined as a vertebrate, other than human being, that has the capacity to feel pain, will be subject to a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. Yet the same Criminal Code now provides no protection whatsoever for pre-born human children who similarly feel pain and suffer. Pre-born children can be killed anytime up to birth without penalty under the law, without any protection from the Criminal Code.

Further, for those who kill by way of Infanticide, defined in the Code as the killing of a newly born child by its mother, the maximum penalty for that offense is also five years' imprisonment. The penalty will be the same as for killing or abusing an animal.

It seems the Liberal Government lacks concern for and understanding of the dignity and value of human life, pre-born or newly born. The Liberal government seems to have a greater compassion for animals.

This Bill indicates that the time is now overdue to extend, at the very least, the same protection to pre-born human life as is now being extended to animals.

The provisions in Bill C-10 regarding firearms are as perplexing and disturbing as the animal cruelty provisions. The sponsor of the Bill, Senator Mobina Jaffer, claimed that the reason for the firearms provision in Bill C-10 was to protect women, whom, she alleges, are particularly at risk from domestic violence and homicide. In her speech on October 22, 2002, she stated "A vast majority of domestic homicides are committed by rifles and shotguns."

In fact, according to Statistics Canada's Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics for the year 1994, which data supported the Firearms Bill when it was passed in 1995, the number of women killed by firearms by their spouses or intimate partners was 23. In sharp contrast, 157 men were also killed by firearms that same year. So much for "gender" feminist social policies.

Bill C-10 should be amended to permit legal protection for the pre-born human child, and to protect men who also appear to be an endangered species.

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
(905) 731-5425 (905) 787-0348

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

October 18, 2002

Non-experts who think they know more than parents are using taxpayers' money by way of the Federal Court Challenges Program to once again challenge Section 43 of the Criminal Code that provides that parents may spank their children if it is reasonable under the circumstances.

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted Leave to Appeal on October 17, 2002 for the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law to bring a final challenge to overturn this law. Section 43 has permitted parents to teach and guide their children to learn right from wrong for over a century. Children are not adults, their consciences must be formed by parental direction. Parents, not the state, must decide how they will raise their children, providing it is reasonable. The lower court has found that there is no causal relationship between the outcome of a child's subsequent behaviour and whether or not he/she was spanked. Consequently, these non-experts are using the courts to impose on Canadians a particular method of child rearing with which, according to all national polls, Canadians do not agree.

REAL Women will apply to intervene in the case as it has in the lower courts in a coalition called Coalition for Family Autonomy, consisting of Focus on the Family, The Home School Legal Defence Association and REAL Women of Canada.

Lorraine McNamara
National President
(905) 723-5195

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001

September 26, 2002

Enclosed is a letter that our organization has sent today to Mr. David Young, the Attorney General of Ontario, in connection with the withdrawal, by the Crown Prosecutor, of the public nudity charges that were laid against seven participants at the Gay Pride Parade 2002.

No thinking person would ever consider that these men marching in the Parade were not breaking the nudity law simply because they were wearing shoes, the reason given for the withdrawal of the charges. The public display of nudity at the Gay Pride Parade is contrary to community standards of tolerance, especially when minors under the age of 14 were present. It also interferes with the ordinary and peaceful enjoyment of the streets.

The problem clearly lies with the Crown's office. It has led to a political decision rather than a legal one.

We take this matter very seriously and are not prepared to ignore this matter which has thrown the administration of justice into disrepute.

For further information contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt
National Vice President
(905) 731-5425
(905) 787-0348

Diane Watts
Researcher
(613) 236-4001