LifeSiteNews.com Life, Family and Culture News

Email: "Analysis of Canadian Federal Leaders English Debate of June 15"

Your Email:

Your Name:

Send To Email:

Subject:

Message:
Canadian Leaders Debate Strengthens Case for Voting For Candidates Rather Than Party or Leader BY LifeSiteNews.com OTTAWA, June 16, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Federal election leaders’ debate Tuesday night left many of Canada’s social conservatives dismayed with the response of all the leaders to the abortion and homosexual issues.* Word “Abortion” Avoided by All Leaders: All four leaders did not even once say the word “abortion”. Instead, they skated around the feared “A” word by using the deliberately evasive, abortion-activist-coined phrase, “right to choose”. Again, not one of the candidates aspiring to lead the nation had the integrity to indicate exactly what it was that they want women to be able to choose. Not one completed the open-ended, code-language phrase, “right to choose…?”* All Leaders Misled Canadians That There is a Right to Choose: Jim Hughes, president of Campaign Life Coalition Canada, emphasized that all four leaders were also misleading the public. Hughes told LifeSiteNews.com, “there is no legal right to abortion in this country. Our Supreme Court never created such a new right when it struck down the previous law. The court struck the law because it was not being applied equally and urged parliament to draft and pass a new law”. “This has still not been done”, said Hughes. He continued that “at least one of those leaders should have made this clear and not allowed the public to be misled on such a crucial matter”. “There has never been any Roe V Wade type of decision in Canada”, emphasized Hughes.* Stephen Harper Responses Disappointing: The pro-abortion and gay “marriage” activist leaders, Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, NDP leader Jack Layton and Liberal leader Paul Martin, again challenged Conservative leader Stephen Harper on gay “marriage” and abortion. In response to a question from Layton, Harper responded, “I’ve said repeatedly, that I will not, that my Conservative government will not be tabling any legislation impacting in any way a woman’s right to choose. Likewise, I fully support the equality rights of gay men and lesbians in Canadian society. I think that the place we disagree is on the traditional definition of marriage and whether that should be respected.” Responding to another Layton question about the hypothetical putting forward of a proposal “that said a woman’s right to choose should be removed” Harper tersely responded, “I won’t be supporting that kind of legislation.” Paul Martin asked Harper “Would you use the notwithstanding clause in the case of a woman’s right to choose? Would you protect it?” Harper responded,” I will not have legislation limiting a woman’s right to choose, Mr. Martin.”*Harper Would Use Notwithstanding Against Child Porn, But Not Abortion: Following on Martin’s Charter challenge, Harper stated “Let me talk about an example where the notwithstanding clause might be appropriate. We’ve had repeated decisions and acts of your government on trying to declare child pornography having artistic merit or public good, court decisions that limit our ability to stop the dissemination of child pornography. If I can’t do it through ordinary legislation, I will do that to protect the rights of children”. The Conservative leader was right to say he would use the notwithstanding clause to stop child porn. However, he did not appear to grasp that the lack of protection for the very lives of Canada’s of unborn children might be a major contributing factor to increasing sexual exploitation and abuse of children. The highest right, the right to life of children, was not indicated as something that should to some degree be protected, regardless of activist court decisions. * Sexual “orientation” and the Charter Martin later followed with the charge, “Mr. Harper had said that sexual orientation is not protected under the Charter. He is wrong. That means that somebody could be fired because they were gay.” Harper responded, “We don’t support that at all”. He did not take the opportunity to mention serious problems already being encountered by religious related institutions and educational and youth organizations intimidated by human rights codes to accept or retain persons living in serious violation of the institutions’ moral codes.* Martin Elevates Trudeau Liberal Charter to Mythical Status: Prime Minister Martin gave almost religious authority to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to justify his statements that he would not permit Members of Parliament to remove any “right” to abortion or gay “marriage”. He spontaneously created mythological Canadian history by stating, “The fact is that the Charter is one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy.” Increasing numbers of critics of the Charter are stating that the Trudeau document has become a ball and chain for Canada’s previously enjoyed strong freedoms. More Canadians are catching on to the reality that they have been suffering an oppressive rule of autocratic political leaders, judges and special interest groups that have used the high sounding but actually deadly Charter to bypass democratic process. * Harper Credits Family Principles of New Immigrants, But Only as “Opinion” Conservative leader Harper scored with a comment on Marriage. He pointed out to Martin that “most new Canadians, most minority groups, come to this country with a pretty high regard for the traditional institution of marriage. They’re some of the people who are strongest in defence of this. These are people who don’t harbour racism or anything else against their fellow Canadians.” Unfortunately the Conservative leader followed with the comment that “They simply have a different opinion than you and a couple of judges on the definition of marriage.” He did not take the opportunity to indicate that the issue involved far more than mere “opinion” and that there is wisdom and understanding of the greater good for all in the immigrants’ high regard for marriage. Martin immediately took the cue and easily agreed that “there is no doubt they have different opinions”.  He followed, “but one of the things they want most is freedom to exercise their rights” - again, activist judge created and defined, institutionally imposed “rights”, citing the sacred Liberal Charter.* Concern That Conservatives Moving to the Left on Social Issues Harper distubingly did not respond that, although he personally favours a “right to choose” abortion, his constant provision has been that he would allow all elected Members to exercise their democratic freedoms in the House on these issues, as with any other issues. That would have presented a clear distinction between himself and the other leaders, at least on democratic process. The Conservative leaders’ responses this time have caused social conservatives anxiety. It is appearing to some that he and his stable of debate advisors, who the word is are all pro-abortion, may be moving to join the leftist tradition of making abortion and homosexuality the ideological exceptions to all norms. Once again, Canada’s social conservatives were left without a confident, articulate champion in a major Canadian political debate. The center and left are full and the Conservatives, according to Campaign Life’s Jim Hughes, are gradually moving to the left on social issues, leaving the right vacant. “That development”, he says, “is something we should all be concerned about.” See excerpts from the debate at http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/040616a.html http://www.lifesitenews.com/resources/analysis-of-canadian-federal-leaders-english-debate-of-june-15/

Please enter the word you see in the image below: