|
 |
Jan 2006
|
|
|
|
Many of our most experienced activists are well past retirement age (65) and continue to be diligent and determined in their efforts to defend the lives of the unborn, those with special needs and the elderly-at-risk. Their example encourages us all – both the young and the young at heart – to keep battling against the culture of death despite the many obstacles in our path, and even because of them. As Fr. Richard Neuhaus said at the International Pro-Life Conference in Toronto in November 2002, “It’s great to see all the young people involved in life and family issues, but you older people cannot quit – you’re in this for the duration.” Rev. Reynolds James, a retired Free Methodist minister in his mid-80s, hails from the Kingston area. During every election for over 20 years, he has encouraged other Methodist clergy to provide leadership to their congregations and urged them to get the faithful out to vote for pro-life political candidates. Seventy-eight year old Fr. Tom Morley, of Sydney, N.S., despite having a serious illness, has created a voters’ guide. His handy little pamphlet: A Call to Integrity (Morally Electable?) is available at www.sunrisemarian.com or call 1-800-884-1171. Also, Mike Hale, another CLC supporter recommends Voter’s Guide for Serious Christians, available by calling toll free 1-888-291-8000. People who cast an uninformed vote do great injustice to our democratic rights. Is it better for them to stay at home and not vote? CLC has never advocated that citizens not exercise their franchise. Will it happen in the future? Perhaps - as occurred in Italy this year, when 50% of voter turnout was needed for a referendum that was aimed at overturning the present restrictive law on in vitro fertilization. Religious leaders supported a campaign to discourage voter turnout, the strategy worked and the referendum was thereby defeated. Canadians are slowly losing their democratic rights. Gag laws intended to muzzle third party voices, such as CLC’s, will likely continue to be expanded unless you, the voters, bring about some big changes in who runs our nation. Otherwise, in the end, the political parties will dictate to us the issues they consider as being important and will expect us to be silent and passive and stop interfering with the process. That is not how a democracy should work. It will instead destroy democracy. We, the citizens right across this great nation, which we hope is still a democracy, should be determining the important issues, conveying the message clearly and emphatically to the political parties and candidates, and ensuring that our collective voices are also heard by means of the ballot box. Additionally, we need candidates and parties that represent our views on a wide variety of social and moral issues. No party will be able to completely satisfy everyone on every issue. But, if the platform of a major political party in Canada would reflect respect for life and family, and advocate policies that will support and strengthen society now and for the future, voters would turn out in droves to elect them to office. So far none of the major parties is prepared to do this. That is one of the reasons why CLC has always advocated support for individual candidates, regardless of party affiliation. Many would argue that only the Christian Heritage Party (CHP) offers policies that reflect the values of a large segment of the Canadian population. Many wonder why CLC and the CHP have not agreed beforehand on the ridings in which CLC can support CHP candidates. CLC has cooperated with the CHP since the party’s inception. I even trained the first campaign managers on how to understand and deal with life issues. I have also addressed an annual CHP conference and spoken at a number of CHP events, and CHP leaders have many times been invited to address our various conferences and have attended our national strategy meetings. However, it is not good strategy to support candidates for the CHP over incumbents who have consistently worked and voted for pro-life, pro-family legislation. But we do attempt to promote the party and its leaders wherever possible. Pro-Life Voting Strategy: A. There is one pro-life candidate who is representing one of the major parties B. All the major party candidates are anti-life and anti-family, but there is a CHP candidate or someone running as an independent candidate D. There is no pro-life candidate but there is one who supports marriage E. All candidates are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and pro-same sex marriage We ask you to pray about this election, vote wisely and especially pray that voters will be inspired to vote as their Heavenly Father would wish them to vote. As in everything CLC does, we need your support during this campaign - your votes, your efforts and where possible, your financial assistance. Yours for Life, It has been 18 years since the infamous Morgentaler decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down limited “restrictions” on abortion and urged Parliament to draft a new abortion law. To this day, Canada still operates in a legal void as our nation is the only Western democracy to have no law or any federal regulations preventing abortion. As a result, a pregnant woman can have her child killed for any reason, at any time during her pregnancy and almost always with taxpayer funding. With more recent “medical advances” and new permissive legislation, the child can be killed soon after conception with the abortifacient morning-after pill or destroyed for scientific experiments thanks to Bill C-6, the reproductive and experimental technologies legislation passed in 2004. The abortion lobby, their allied politicians and their media friends all claim that abortion is a constitutional right. However, the judges who wrote the majority decision in Morgentaler, did not find abortion to be a constitutional right but rather struck down the law on narrow security-of-the-person grounds. Indeed, they established the need for Parliament to regulate it. But Parliament has abrogated its duties in ignoring not just the Supreme Court’s request and the will of the majority of Canadians, but its responsibility to address fundamental issues of rights and justice. Abortion violates the rights of the unborn and the injustice results in more than 100,000 abortions each year, with a total death toll since 1969 of more than 2.6 million unborn babies. Yet many parliamentarians are still silent on this issue. It is perverse to think that the blood spilled by the killing of so many babies could be described as having contributed to ‘social peace”, as Jean Chretien did in the 2000 election campaign. And just as human life is invalidated, denigrated and destroyed at the beginning of the cycle of life, so it is now at the end. Last year, a private member’s bill brought the issues of euthanasia and assisted suicide to the forefront. It is, as we have long warned, the next logical progression of the culture of death let loose by abortion. Our role as voters We know that the unborn child is a human being. This knowledge is not a religious belief but scientific fact. We also know that the child in the womb is as deserving of protection before the law as you or I. So we must ask ourselves: does the person I intend to vote for recognize these very simple and straightforward facts? Fr. Norman Fitzpatrick, long-time (former) principal of St. Michael’s College School in Toronto, asked congregants in a homily a few years ago whether their MP represented their views and their values. He said that if the MP did not, the person to blame was yourself. He urged his listeners to not be afraid to vote for candidates who are pro-life and pro-family and who share one’s own moral values. Does the candidate that you intend to vote for share your views on the life and death issues of abortion and euthanasia? If a candidate does not share your pro-life views, that candidate does not deserve your vote. As we noted during the last election: “We must act on our pro-life convictions and demand that our elected representatives do, too. If we do not, then we must share the blame for creating victims of abortion (mother, child, extended family, society, our nation). We must demand that Parliament act to protect human life from the time of conception (fertilization) to natural death.” During the last federal election, Parliament saw an increase in the number of pro-life Members of Parliament. It is worth noting that only one pro-life Liberal incumbent lost, despite the large drop in Liberal numbers in Parliament – and that MP lost to another pro-lifer! Canadians hunger for men and women of principle in politics, and pro-life and pro-family candidates provide a much-need opportunity to fill that void. It is your responsibility to know where your candidates stand on life issues. The CLC Voter’s Guide will be available online at http://www.lifesite.net. It will list all the candidates for all the ridings outside Quebec. If you do not have web access or cannot find your candidates (information continues to come into our office throughout the campaign), call Campaign Life Coalition for more information. In Toronto call (416) 204-9749. Others may call us toll free at 1-800-730-5358. You can also contact your local CLC representatives. We strongly encourage you to talk to your candidates (and their supporters) about life issues, so that not only do you understand the candidates’ positions, but those seeking your support also know how important life issues are to voters. You won’t be the only one doing so and the cumulative effect of such questions sends a signal to candidates that they had better not ignore moral issues on the campaign trail. We cannot stress enough the importance of this aspect of the election process. We urge you to put aside partisan considerations and vote pro-life. If are able to do more to help pro-life candidates – volunteer in their campaign office, put up a lawn sign, whatever – please do. Candidates who stand up for human life deserve to have us stand alongside them. The parties and leaders  The Conservatives:A great many Conservative Members of Parliament are pro-life and many more voted to protect the traditional definition of marriage. But the party’s official position on abortion, as voted on by a slender majority of delegates at the Montreal convention last March, is for a Conservative government to not introduce pro-life legislation. In 1993 when Stephen Harper was running as a candidate for Parliament for the Reform Party, he answered the CLC questionnaire by declaring that he would vote on moral issues according to the majority of his constituents and that having already solicited their opinion on the issue, would vote to maintain abortion but could support defunding it. As leader of the Conservative Party during the 2004 election campaign, Harper said that Conservative MPs would have a free vote on the issue but framed the issue as “a woman’s right to choose.” Harper is a very astute man and chooses his words carefully. The terminology was typical pro-abortion language that is used in an attempt to portray abortion as being acceptable. More recently, in a December 11, 2005 letter to the editor of the Washington Times, Harper stated, “a new Conservative government will not initiate or support any effort to pass legislation restricting abortion in Canada.” Then he went on to distance himself from Republican politicians by noting his “differences on many issues with some American conservative politicians.” It is clear that Harper is trying to signal to Canadians that he is not pro-life. It seems that Harper did not need the advice of Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory who, two weeks into the federal campaign, urged his federal cousins to eschew social conservatism, urging them to be “inclusive” and to respect “diversity.” He said that the party should not divide the country by introducing moral issues to the political debate. Tory, who is pro-abortion, pro-same-sex-‘marriage’, obviously does not want a Conservative Party that is “inclusive” of pro-life and pro-family Canadians. His support for diversity involves the silencing of social conservative voices. Despite Harper’s carefully calculated move of highlighting the party’s concerns with same-sex “marriage” on the first day of the campaign, he hasn’t provided the leadership on this issue that many social conservatives would like to see from him, leaving some people fearful that he may fail to fully capitalize on the issue. We are worried that once again the Conservative Party is blowing its chance to make serious inroads, by not promoting policies that are unabashedly pro-life and pro-family. We are positive that such a strategy would connect with many ethnic voters who currently support the Liberal Party and re-connect with many Christian voters who have long given up on politics because no political party leader has represented or addressed deeply held concerns.
Chretien suppressed pro-life voices in his caucus and declared that there should be no national discussion of abortion because on that particular issue, Canada had “social peace.” Martin went further, declaring during the 2004 federal campaign, that the Liberal Party supports “a woman’s right to choose” as a matter of upholding the Charter of Rights. The party has no official position on abortion and it is unlikely that delegates will want to open the issue for debate any time soon. Furthermore, despite promising to fix the “democratic deficit” so apparent under Chretien, Martin has actually taken a harder line. During the same-sex “marriage” vote, the Prime Minister required cabinet ministers to support redefinition and, we heard, pressured MPs to support the legislation. This was after ensuring the Supreme Court, while hearing the reference case asking for a constitutional opinion on the matter, was stacked with supporters of same-sex “marriage”. In August 2004, four months before the Court rendered its decision, Martin appointed to the Supreme Court, Rosalie Abella and Louise Charron, two radical, pro-gay feminist jurists from Ontario. We are worried that, once again, the Liberal Party is attacking traditional Canadian values of life and family. Furthermore, we are concerned that Paul Martin’s strident pro-abortion and pro-same-sex “marriage” positions could drive voters away from the many pro-life and pro-family Liberal candidates – approximately a quarter of the Liberal caucus supports life and family – who truly deserve our support.
These people deserve our support – especially if there is no other pro-life candidate in the riding. If there is a vote on abortion, euthanasia or another life issue, the pro-life side will need every vote in Parliament we can get. And just a someone like Bev Desjarlais defied her party and did the right thing during the marriage debate (despite the fact that she is pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia), pro-life NDPers could also stand against their party on a matter of principle. We are deeply saddened that the NDP, a party which purports to speak for the “little guy”, has become so extreme in its support for killing the tiniest of human beings (the unborn) and the most vulnerable in society (the elderly, the disabled, the sick). We are shocked that a party born of principles to give a voice to those whose voices were not heard in the public square, could so callously support abortion and euthanasia. But we must not allow the party’s immoral positions and leader’s hardline stance to lead us to punish pro-life and pro-family candidates who have, as a matter of principle, not abandoned the most vulnerable Canadians who are desperately crying to have their voices heard.
A final word about the parties: In Canada, citizens vote not for a party or even leader but for the local candidate who becomes their member of Parliament – their representative. While the party label may be an indication of the candidates’s views – a starting point for examination – it cannot be the last word. We care about the candidate’s party, its policies and principles, but from the beginning CLC’s policy has been to support pro-life candidates who will vote pro-life on the issues. It doesn’t make any sense for pro-life voters to oppose a candidate who defends the sanctity of human life, simply because of party affiliation. When looking at the issues of abortion, euthanasia and reproductive technologies, it is necessary to look at the candidate’s views on these issues, not the party label, and determine from the candidate whether he/she will vote according to his/her views, rather than the party’s or leader’s policies. As Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life in the United States has said, the order of importance when considering who to vote for is: the candidate, the party’s policies and the leader. While all are important, the candidate’s personal views and commitment to vote accordingly, are the most important. Beware the false arguments Many MPs and candidates will try to side-step the issue and they use various tactics. Most commonly used is the patently untrue argument that abortion is a constitutional right. Many federal politicians claim that abortion is a provincial matter. They are just attempting to pass the buck. Conveniently, many provincial politicians claim it is a federal matter. In a way, they are both right. As a healthcare service, which is how abortion is perversely treated in Canada right now, abortion is funded and largely regulated by the provinces. But when it is treated as a criminal matter or in some circumstances as “healthcare,” it is a federal matter. So the matter of whether abortion should be legal or not and whether there should be restrictions with criminal sanctions for violations, is a federal matter. Politicians will sometimes seek “wiggle” room in wanting to keep abortion legal in “exceptional” circumstances such as cases where the mother’s health is in danger or in cases of rape and incest. These are unnecessary “exceptions” that have great emotional appeal. According to traditional medical ethics and sound pro-life principles, a medical intervention designed to prevent the death of the mother that inadvertently causes the death of the child in the womb (ectopic pregnancy or cancer of the uterus), is not considered an abortion and is therefore not illicit. So while the argument for the health exception carries strong emotional appeal, there is no substance to it. On the “exception” of rape and incest, although the circumstances of conception are traumatic, they cannot be used to invalidate the dignity of the life created, and therefore the disposal of that life by abortion should not be permitted. In fact, when pro lifers accept these “exceptions”, it undermines the pro-life principle that the unborn are full-fledged members of the human race and thus deserve every legal protection that the rest of us enjoy. It should be noted that numerous studies have found that conception during rape or incest is extremely rare. Again, there seems to be a powerful emotional case for this exception which does not stand up to moral or logical scrutiny. Women who find themselves pregnant in such cases deserve love and support, not the trauma of an abortion which would only compound the original outrageous indignities they have already suffered. Moral issues on the campaign trail When we went to press before the Christmas break, there had been very little discussion of moral issues during the campaign. Abortion has not been mentioned at all; same-sex “marriage” only slightly. On the first day of the campaign, Conservative leader Stephen Harper was asked by journalists about same-sex “marriage.” He said that a Conservative government would be open to revisiting the issue and that all members of his caucus would have a free vote. The Liberal Party has tried to score points by attacking Harper over same-sex “marriage” by insisting that he state whether he would use the notwithstanding clause to bring back traditional marriage. Sadly, Harper responded that he would not invoke the clause, leading pro-family voters wondering whether the Conservative leader is really committed to the defence of marriage. However, the Tories say that they can defend marriage without the use of the notwithstanding clause. Enshrine Marriage Canada and many others doubt that will be possible once the Supreme Court gets another chance to rule on the issue, should a new pro-marriage vote pass in Parliament. We are deeply disturbed that moral issues – issues that reflect the kind of country Canada is – are being ignored by politicians and journalists alike, except in the most cynical and politically expedient ways wherein which they are mentioned but never discussed. It is our responsibility as citizens to raise them directly with the candidates and their representatives, during all-candidates meetings, in letters to the editor and in radio call-in shows. We must not permit Canada to forget the moral assault perpetuated on this nation since 1969 and to allow it to continue out of sight and out of mind. Same-sex “marriage” Yes, this is also a very important issue. The natural family is the cradle of life, in which new life is most ideally conceived and nurtured. The legal acceptance not only of same-sex “marriage,” but also of all other attempts to change sex into a recreational, solely feel-good activity, separate from procreation, are ultimately attacks on the dignity and sacredness of human life. However, as serious as it is, the same sex “marriage” issue cannot be compared to the devastation of the culture of death spawned by abortion. If anything, same-sex unions are a natural symptom of the abortion mentality which generally results from a life of selfish, pleasurable and emotional pursuits. Base your voting decision first on direct life issues, then on the candidates’ views and commitment on same-sex “marriage” and then other important issues. Vote! Jan. 13, 14, 16 or on the 23rd Get out and vote pro-life on January 23. Better still, arrange to vote at the advance polls on Jan. 13, 14 and 16 to ensure you don’t miss the opportunity to vote. The voter information card that the government sends you shows the address of your advance polling station. Or, go to http://www.elections.ca/ and enter your postal code in the section “Find your electoral district.” You can also vote now if you will be or are already out of the country. See the elections Canada website or call us at 1-800-730-5358. We repeat the words we used for the June 2004 election: It is your responsibility to elect MPs that will uphold the values that you believe in. No issue could possibly be as important as abortion. Without the basic right to life all else is meaningless. There is no social justice issue that comes even close to the importance of this one. Don’t accept anyone telling you otherwise. If we stand together for pro-life candidates, we will make a difference in this country. We desperately need pro-life MPs, regardless of party, to help enact pro-life legislation. In each of the last three elections, voter turnout has fallen. Experts expect that trend to continue. That means if we do go out and vote in unison for pro-life candidates, and strongly encourage others to do likewise, we will have a greater influence than we might have had in previous elections. It would be a tragedy if we let this opportunity to elect pro-life men and women, regardless of party, slip past us. With pro-life political successes south of the border and renewed vigour and enthusiasm here in Canada among pro lifers, it is just a matter of time until the tide changes in our fair country. But we need every pro-life Canadian to commit to helping elect MPs who share our commitment to life and defeat those who don’t. Winning legislative battles is a simple numbers game; if the pro-death, anti-marriage side has more votes, they win; if we have more votes, we win. Every pro-life, pro-family MP sent to Ottawa is a vote for life-saving, family defending legislation and each such MP brings us closer to the goal of a pro-life majority. To be sure, there is still a long way to go and lots of work ahead of us, but together, by supporting only pro-life candidates, when that is a possibility, we will elect a pro-life Parliament. On Monday, January 23, vote pro-life. Ignore the tactics of intimidation or ridicule that are used to try to silence you. There is far too much at stake for the future of our nation and for our very freedoms, to be concerned about personal discomfort. Always be calm and courteous but firm. Whatever you do on behalf of life and truth in this election will be remembered forever by almighty God. We strongly urge you to be good and faithful servants for the Creator of Life and Family.
Yours for life Please support CLC's actions with your generous donations. Tel: (416) 204-9749 Fax: (416) 204-1027 E-mail: clc@lifesite.net |
||||||||||||||
The Liberals:
The NDP:
The CHP: