Stephen Harper has been the biggest hypocrite in Canada with respect to the "democratic deficit". After his numerous promises while leader of the opposition, it turns out that the Prime Minister has concentrated more power in his Office than previous governments.
He also flaunts the democratic process by forbidding popular candidates from even running for the Conservative nomination in some ridings. What a disgrace.
Yet Another Social Conservative Forbidden from Running for the Conservative Party of Canada
By John-Henry Westen BURNABY, BC, March 19, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A revolt is brewing in the Conservative riding of Burnaby-New Westminster where the Party candidate in the last election - a strong social conservative - has been denied the opportunity to seek the nomination again despite massive local support.
Last week directors from the local constituency association held a forum discussing their concern at the Conservative Party's decision to disqualify Marc Dalton, the Conservative Candidate of Record for 2006. Prominent social conservative John Pacheco was similarly denied the opportunity to contest the Conservative Party nomination in 2005 which resulted in a firestorm of criticism for the Party.
The Liberal Party has also engaged in such tactics but felt the sting of electoral loss as a result. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion quashed the nomination of a local Liberal Party favorite David Orchard. Prior to taking action, Dion was warned that forcing another candidate would cost the Party a solid Liberal seat - which it did.
No reason was given for the Conservative Party's current decision on Dalton despite repeated requests to the National Council by board members and Dalton himself. Mr. Dalton filed his application papers over one year ago and has hundreds of supporters. He was well-positioned to win the nomination to be held March 29th.
He received notification of his disqualification last week just as the cut-off for signing up new members approached.
"This is unfair and unjust!" said Senna Ip, President of the Riding Association. "I support the right of all three of our candidates to run and would fight for each one of them to stay in the race. Mr. Dalton worked very hard in the last election and has been very busy strengthening our Party and building our membership. For the Party to disqualify him at the last moment with no reason is shameful and heavy-handed".
Thirteen directors and members of the Executive are asking the Conservative Party to allow Mr. Dalton the right to re-enter the nomination race. Members of the group met with National Councilors this week. The Councilors said that it was the local Nomination Committee's decision, yet the local committee said it was the National Committee's decision.
"They're just playing games with us", strongly contests Ip. "The local committee is supposed to reflect the wishes of the Board and the membership. They are not doing that!"
Mr. Dalton was invited to attend the forum. He said that he feels he has an obligation to speak up on behalf of the 400 people who support him, including most of the Conservative riding association long-term membership, young people and people who supported other parties.
Dalton, a public school teacher, said "what type of message are we sending to these young people who are participating in the democratic process for the first time? This type of action breeds cynicism and mistrust. It erodes and demoralizes our base. How will this help our Party build public trust and move us into majority territory?" He added, "On the one hand, our Conservative Party disregards members' desire to choose a candidate, and on the other hand, they become part of an aggressive fund-raising database. This is just not fair, especially towards our new members!" Over twelve thousand people voted for him as the Conservative candidate in the last election.
Dalton remarked that the disqualification may be permissible according to Party regulations, but these unfair practices are not acceptable to the public and run contrary to the principles of accountability and justice that the Conservative Party advocates.
Senna Ip and the other board members hope that Conservative voters and members everywhere will voice their opinion on this matter to the Conservative Party and in public. She contends that the Party must be seen as responsive to the people, especially its grassroots members.
To express concerns contact
Conservative Party Leader
Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Harper.S@parl.gc.ca
613-992-4211
Conservative Party President
Don Plett
donplett@conservative.ca
Friday, March 21, 2008
Religious Believers Happier than Atheists and Agnostics: Study
By Hilary White
LONDON, March 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Another study has found that sincere and active religious belief makes people happy, the Daily Mail reports.
Statistical analysis has shown repeatedly that church attendance, family life and stable marriages are the building blocks of a happy life.
Prof. Andrew Clark of the Paris School of Economics, and Dr. Orsolya Lelkes of the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research presented their research at the conference of the Royal Economic Society in Coventry. They said that religious believers are happier overall than atheists or agnostics. More than this, regular church attendance and an active prayer life make people even happier than passive belief alone.
Data gleaned from thousands of Europeans and British people say that religion can help people cope with life's disappointments and difficulties including the most stressful, such as the death of loved ones, divorce and unemployment. Religious believers have higher levels of satisfaction and suffer less psychological damage from life's troubles.
Meanwhile, church attendance in Britain and elsewhere continues its decades-long decline. Recent figures show a 500,000 fall in typical Sunday attendance in Britain since the last comparable research in 1998. Although these numbers can be seen most clearly in attendance at the Church of England and despite what is being called the "anomalous" and probably temporary rise in attendance at Catholic churches caused by an influx of eastern European immigrants to the UK, Catholic church attendance has also plummeted since the high point of the early 1960's.
But the numbers of people who believe is falling even faster than attendance at weekly church services. People who identified themselves as members of the official state religion have dropped by 40 per cent since 1983. A 2005 study said that only 50 per cent of children are likely to retain the religious faith of their upbringing. The report suggested that the decline in religious belief through the generations is already too far gone for any reversal.
The author one study, Dr. David Voas, said the loss of faith in Britain "is not temporary or accidental, it is a generational phenomenon - the decline has continued year on year. The fact that children are only half as likely to believe as their parents indicates that, as a society, we are at an advanced stage of secularisation." In 2000, a survey found that half of all adults in the UK say they have no religious affiliation, a 13 percent increase from 1983.
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Research Reveals Legislators Should Support Religion for Social Stability: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/dec/06122002.html
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Feminist double-standard
In Canadian law, women only became "persons" in 1929. Before that, women in Canada were not recognized as persons. So what happened in 1929 that caused this change? Was there a fundamental transformation in women's DNA that suddenly made them deserving of being called persons? Of course not. Since the beginning of humanity, women have been equal to men but it took the Canadian justice system until 1929 to figure that out. Before 1929, the system was out of touch with reality. A similar story could be told about the fate of visible minorities.
What can we learn from this? Obviously, the law can be dead wrong when it comes to morality or equal rights.
This lesson has important implications today. In 2008, Canadian unborn babies are still not recognized as persons. We live in an era where modern science has proved without a doubt that an unborn child is a living human being. The only difference between them and us is that they are at an earlier stage of development. Aside from that, we're the same. The unborn baby has her own heart beat, arms, legs, head, etc. You can see these parts in an ultrasound or through other more modern methods that allow 3D pictures of the baby. We can even perform surgery on a child while it is still in the womb.
The old argument that "a woman has a right to control her body" is based on science from the Middle Ages. Today we know better. The unborn child is not part of her mother. The unborn child has her own distinct DNA, different from mommy, which is an unmistakable sign that she is not part of her body.
A little side note: a baby's heart starts beating at about 20 days after conception, before most women even realize that they are pregnant. So when you see a billboard that says "Abortion stops a beating heart", remember that it's not just a slogan; it's a scientific fact.
Despite the mountain of scientific evidence, Canadian law does not recognize the unborn child as a "person", which means abortion is legal up until the moment of birth. Sounds like 1929 all over again. The law has not yet caught up to reality.
The tragedy is that the people who benefited from the ruling in 1929, i.e. women, are also leading the charge to deny that same right to the unborn. Feminists, who get hysterical about the abortion issue, are fighting to make sure that the unborn remain an inferior being with no rights.
But that will eventually change. It is inevitable. The preponderance of the evidence is too strong. And when change does come, all those pro-choicers are going to be hiding their faces just like the people in the early 1900s who used to advocate that women weren't people. Their shame will know no boundaries.
What can we learn from this? Obviously, the law can be dead wrong when it comes to morality or equal rights.
This lesson has important implications today. In 2008, Canadian unborn babies are still not recognized as persons. We live in an era where modern science has proved without a doubt that an unborn child is a living human being. The only difference between them and us is that they are at an earlier stage of development. Aside from that, we're the same. The unborn baby has her own heart beat, arms, legs, head, etc. You can see these parts in an ultrasound or through other more modern methods that allow 3D pictures of the baby. We can even perform surgery on a child while it is still in the womb.
The old argument that "a woman has a right to control her body" is based on science from the Middle Ages. Today we know better. The unborn child is not part of her mother. The unborn child has her own distinct DNA, different from mommy, which is an unmistakable sign that she is not part of her body.
A little side note: a baby's heart starts beating at about 20 days after conception, before most women even realize that they are pregnant. So when you see a billboard that says "Abortion stops a beating heart", remember that it's not just a slogan; it's a scientific fact.
Despite the mountain of scientific evidence, Canadian law does not recognize the unborn child as a "person", which means abortion is legal up until the moment of birth. Sounds like 1929 all over again. The law has not yet caught up to reality.
The tragedy is that the people who benefited from the ruling in 1929, i.e. women, are also leading the charge to deny that same right to the unborn. Feminists, who get hysterical about the abortion issue, are fighting to make sure that the unborn remain an inferior being with no rights.
But that will eventually change. It is inevitable. The preponderance of the evidence is too strong. And when change does come, all those pro-choicers are going to be hiding their faces just like the people in the early 1900s who used to advocate that women weren't people. Their shame will know no boundaries.
Great article denouncing extreme feminists
Here is a great article by Barbara Kay from the National Post.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=368477&p=1
Enjoy!
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=368477&p=1
Enjoy!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Deciding not to fund porn is not government censorship
An excellent article from the Calgary Herald last week.
Deciding not to fund porn is not government censorship
It's called fiscal responsibility
Susan Martinuk For The Calgary Herald
Published: Friday, March 07, 2008
"The sky is falling. The sky is falling."
That's the cry of all the Chicken Littles in Canada's film and television industry. Given their job descriptions, it should be no surprise that their response to a pending change in legislation is overly dramatic.
The industry is alarmed over proposed amendments to Bill C-10 that would ostensibly deny tax credits to TV and film productions containing extreme violence, graphic sex or other content that would be deemed offensive by a majority of Canadians.
Accordingly, those in the 'biz' have stirred public controversy with calls of "censorship" and claims that it will curtail freedom of speech-expression and singularly eliminate all artistic freedom in the Canadian film industry. Some commentators have taken the bait, and the game is on to name popular movies that "would NEVER have been made" under the restrictions of the new bill. One pundit claimed filmmakers like David Cronenberg (known for scenes of sex, destruction and death . . . all at the same time) would be forced to shoot remakes of Anne of Green Gables.
It makes for a good soundbite, but Bill C-10 has nothing to do with censorship. No films are banned; no films will be taken away by force and destroyed. They can fill them with as much sex, violence and controversy as they want. But there is no longer a blind guarantee of government money for films that feature porn stars and go on to premier at events like the FREAKZONE International Festival of Trash Cinema.
When opponents of the bill cry "censorship," they are really bemoaning the fact they no longer have a free pass for government subsidies in the form of tax credits.
Other industries have always had to meet strict requirements and regulations to gain tax credits or subsidies; such scrutiny hasn't been applied to artistic endeavours, but there is no reason for it to fall by the wayside just for the sake of artistic integrity.
Most Canadians would support that notion and that's why opponents have reached into the depths to float the idea that the Conservative government intends to use this "power" over film content to cleanse Canadian culture and transform it into some kind of conservative utopia.
If only. Instead, this outrageous claim stems partly from the suggestion that these amendments are the work of one man with a religious agenda who supposedly lobbied Conservatives for the restrictions. Key Conservatives deny it, but any kind of connection is now being used as proof the Conservatives have appointed themselves as the determiners (and guardians) of decency for all Canadians.
Frankly, I doubt that one man has that much power over the Conservative government, legislators from all other parties who voted for the bill, and members of the Senate where a Liberal majority will pass the final legislation. But if those who oppose him choose to grant him that power . . . who am I to argue?
The above arguments are rooted in rhetoric and fear. The reality is that the Conservative government's agenda to protect taxpayers' money and limit government spending on wasteful projects isn't exactly "hidden." It's called fiscal responsibility, it's one of the most prominent features of the conservative platform and it's exactly what Canadians expect from the federal government.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=70edcddd-b3d9-401c-b21e-b2748150836b
Deciding not to fund porn is not government censorship
It's called fiscal responsibility
Susan Martinuk For The Calgary Herald
Published: Friday, March 07, 2008
"The sky is falling. The sky is falling."
That's the cry of all the Chicken Littles in Canada's film and television industry. Given their job descriptions, it should be no surprise that their response to a pending change in legislation is overly dramatic.
The industry is alarmed over proposed amendments to Bill C-10 that would ostensibly deny tax credits to TV and film productions containing extreme violence, graphic sex or other content that would be deemed offensive by a majority of Canadians.
Accordingly, those in the 'biz' have stirred public controversy with calls of "censorship" and claims that it will curtail freedom of speech-expression and singularly eliminate all artistic freedom in the Canadian film industry. Some commentators have taken the bait, and the game is on to name popular movies that "would NEVER have been made" under the restrictions of the new bill. One pundit claimed filmmakers like David Cronenberg (known for scenes of sex, destruction and death . . . all at the same time) would be forced to shoot remakes of Anne of Green Gables.
It makes for a good soundbite, but Bill C-10 has nothing to do with censorship. No films are banned; no films will be taken away by force and destroyed. They can fill them with as much sex, violence and controversy as they want. But there is no longer a blind guarantee of government money for films that feature porn stars and go on to premier at events like the FREAKZONE International Festival of Trash Cinema.
When opponents of the bill cry "censorship," they are really bemoaning the fact they no longer have a free pass for government subsidies in the form of tax credits.
Other industries have always had to meet strict requirements and regulations to gain tax credits or subsidies; such scrutiny hasn't been applied to artistic endeavours, but there is no reason for it to fall by the wayside just for the sake of artistic integrity.
Most Canadians would support that notion and that's why opponents have reached into the depths to float the idea that the Conservative government intends to use this "power" over film content to cleanse Canadian culture and transform it into some kind of conservative utopia.
If only. Instead, this outrageous claim stems partly from the suggestion that these amendments are the work of one man with a religious agenda who supposedly lobbied Conservatives for the restrictions. Key Conservatives deny it, but any kind of connection is now being used as proof the Conservatives have appointed themselves as the determiners (and guardians) of decency for all Canadians.
Frankly, I doubt that one man has that much power over the Conservative government, legislators from all other parties who voted for the bill, and members of the Senate where a Liberal majority will pass the final legislation. But if those who oppose him choose to grant him that power . . . who am I to argue?
The above arguments are rooted in rhetoric and fear. The reality is that the Conservative government's agenda to protect taxpayers' money and limit government spending on wasteful projects isn't exactly "hidden." It's called fiscal responsibility, it's one of the most prominent features of the conservative platform and it's exactly what Canadians expect from the federal government.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=70edcddd-b3d9-401c-b21e-b2748150836b
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)