Hilary White

David Cameron faces ‘biggest Tory rebellion in modern times’ over gay ‘marriage’ plans

Hilary White
Hilary White
Image

LONDON, November 28, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – With nearly 120 MPs ready to rebel against David Cameron’s plans to create same-sex “marriage,” a project that appeared in no Tory policy book during the last election campaign, the UK prime minister is facing a crucial test of his leadership of the Conservative Party.

The Daily mail revealed this week that 118 Tory MPs have written to their constituents that they intend to oppose any bill brought forward to change the legal definition of marriage, a development that the Daily Mail is calling the “biggest Tory rebellion in modern times”. Parliamentary sources have said that a bill could be released “within a few weeks”.

Since the announcement of the plan to redefine marriage in September 2011, the plan has met with steadily increasing opposition not only from conservative Christian groups, but from within Cameron’s own party. The government angered voters when its public consultation only allowed discussion on “how” to legalize same-sex “marriage,” rather than whether same-sex “marriage” should be implemented in the first place. Since this gaffe, confidence in Cameron’s leadership on domestic social and foreign affairs issues has been eroding, with the party hemorrhaging members and MPs growing increasingly restive over concerns about the plan’s impact on Tory chances in the next election.

Earlier this month, Chancellor and long-time friend of Cameron’s, George Osborne, announced his support for marriage redefinition in a letter to The Times, saying it will be a vote-winner for the Conservatives. However, polls continue to show that the policy’s unpopularity is driving a call for referendum. The Daily Telegraph warned Osborne he was playing a “dangerous game” by picking a “needless fight with social conservatives”. The Daily Express said, “Mr. Osborne appears to believe that being ‘socially liberal’ is the key to electoral success.

“In fact, most voters believe fixing the economy and dealing with bread and butter issues about living standards are by far the most important tasks facing the Government.”

The most recent poll has shown that most Britons – 65 percent – believe that Cameron’s drive to redefine marriage comes not from any concern with “equality” but is simply a ploy to “rebrand” the Conservative party as “trendy and modern”. Sixty-two percent of 2000 adults surveyed say they want the definition of marriage to remain unchanged. Only 23 percent thought George Osborne was correct when he said the change would help the party win the next election.

The Coalition for Marriage (C4M) has said that Cameron’s inner circle is in a state of “panic” over the growing opposition.

Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.

A ComRes poll, commissioned by C4M, shows that 34 percent of MPs cited gay marriage as one of the main concerns raised with them by voters, ahead of welfare reform (23 per cent), NHS reform (19 per cent), pensions (13 per cent), fuel prices (13 per cent), unemployment and jobs (8 per cent) and the Budget (8 per cent).

Three in four constituents writing to MPs either “opposed” the measure (19 percent) or “strongly opposed” (55 per cent) it, according to MPs’ assessments. Only 16 percent supported the plan. These results were confirmed by MPs from all three main parties - Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats - irrespective of their party’s support.

Cameron was publicly corrected by the head of ComRes after he wrote a letter to Tory MP Cheryl Gillan, claiming that all the polls show the public favor “gay marriage” and that the policy will win votes for the party. ComRes Chief Executive Andrew Hawkins sent a letter to Cameron saying this is “simply not the case.” The numbers clearly show “the party loses more votes than it gains as a result of the policy, and that former Conservative voters are especially less likely to return to the fold,” according to Hawkins.

Even Tim Montgomerie, the editor of the party’s aggregate website Conservative Home and a supporter of the homosexualist movement’s political agenda, has warned Cameron that with gay “marriage” he is on the “right side of history” but decidedly on the wrong side of his party’s core supporters. Conservative Home ran a poll of 1,419 Tory members who were asked to rate 23 ideas for the party’s priorities. Dropping gay “marriage” came seventh, above revamping the National Health Service.

Anger over this and issues surrounding EU expenditures is also costing Cameron sitting MPs. The Daily Telegraph revealed this week that 8 more Conservative MPs are currently in secret talks with the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) to discuss possible defection to the up-and-coming Euro-skeptic party. The names of the MPs have not been revealed, but UKIP treasurer Stuart Wheeler told the Telegraph, “I have had lunch secretly, in a completely confidential way, with eight different Tory MPs.”

Meanwhile, the government’s assurances that gay “marriage” will not be forced on religious groups against their consciences are increasingly coming under scrutiny. Simon Reevell, the Tory MP for Dewsbury, wrote on Conservative Home that any wording in proposed legislation would likely quickly be thrown out by litigation as homosexualist activists work in the courts to force compliance.

“In other words,” Reevell said, “Parliament will legislate to end what it has identified as discrimination - same sex couples not being able to marry - but, within that anti-discrimination legislation, Parliament will preserve the right of some people (religious organisations) to behave in a manner that has been identified as discriminatory.

“If the local authority refuses to conduct a same sex marriage, it will be acting as unlawfully as the B&B owner who will not allow a same sex couple to share the same room. If the local priest refuses to conduct a same sex service, his position will be protected by the exemption. It’s just that sooner or later it won’t be.”

 


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook