Archive for April, 2004

In early February, Canada’s auditor general, Sheila Fraser, released what most political observers and pundits consider the greatest financial rip-off in Canadian history. Fraser’s 34-page audit report into Canada’s sponsorship program revealed that $100 million of a total budget of $250 million was funneled to communication firms and other groups friendly to the ruling Liberal Party. Expressing her shock and dismay at the gargantuan fraud, Fraser related, “when we talk about fictitious bills, I never thought I would see something like this in the public service,” reported Canwest News Service’s Elizabeth Thompson. Even Canada’s national police, the RCMP, was not exempt as its administrative department was even implicated in the scandal.

With the use of diagrams and flowcharts, Fraser mapped out the complex and intricate route that various government departments and government corporations used to channel taxpayers’ money to questionable sources. “We found that the federal government ran the sponsorship program in a way that showed little regard for Parliament, the Financial Administration Act, contracting rules and regulations, transparency and value for money,” Fraser wrote in her report, the scope of which covered the program’s transactions between 1997 and 2001.

The advertising campaigns were intended to promote federalism in the province of Quebec by increasing the visibility and prominence of the Federal government. The Federal government’s strategy was to use the sponsorship program to convince Quebecers to stay within the Canadian federation, and therefore avoid the disaster which nearly befell the nation in 1995. In the autumn of that year, the country was nearly torn apart by the Quebec Independence referendum.

Once Fraser’s report was released, the previously untouchable Liberal Party’s political lock on the Canadian public appeared to loosen its iron grip. Prime Minister Paul Martin, who had just two months previously forced out his bitter rival, former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, found that the public was not buying his feigned ignorance of the scandal. And when, as CanWest New Service’s Anne Dawson reported, he attempted to deflect his own culpability in the matter to a “small group of civil servants who orchestrated a very sophisticated coverup”, the official opposition jumped all over him. “This sounds awfully reminiscent of Richard Nixon blaming a small unit in the White House for something he allegedly knew nothing about,” roared Conservative MP Jason Kenney. “I want to know how many Canadian tax dollars were stolen by these sleazy Liberal ad firms ended up in the slush funds and the $12 million leadership campaign of this prime minister?”

Martin fingered the Chretien regime’s Public Works Minister, Alfonso Gagliano, as the principle fall guy, and he wasted no time in recalling Gagliano from his comfortable patronage appointment to Denmark as the Canadian ambassador. Coincidentally, Gagliano was appointed by Chretien as the Canadian ambassador to Denmark after questions started to surface about the sponsorship program and Gagliano’s management of it. It appeared that Mr. Gagliano’s reputation as an alleged peddler of soft money preceded him. Before being shuffled off to Denmark, for instance, the Vatican had refused Chretien’s request to have Gagliano placed in Rome as Canada’s ambassador to the Holy See. As Martin’s floundering continued in the ensuing days, the scandal caused the Liberal Party’s popularity to dive 13% in the polls, falling from 48% to 35% – a feat which even a Howard Dean concession speech would be hard pressed to match.

The Sponsorship Program scandal is merely another instance in a litany of wasteful spending and corruption episodes of the ruling Liberal Party.  The Auditor General has given the government very poor reviews over the last few years on how the government spends taxpayers’ dollars. A couple of years ago, the Human Resource Department squandered $1 billion. In the last couple of years, Canadians have been subject to a federal gun registry that has drifted into outer space carrying $2 billion loonies with it. With that kind of money, the government could have funded a swanky space station to host the next generation of corrupt politicians! And, to add insult to injury, Paul Martin’s family shipping company soaked in $167 million dollars in Canadian government contracts while he was the Minister of Finance. The government previously reported the volume of business with Martin’s company was only $137,000.

The government’s pork barrel strategy of attempting to buy Quebec’s loyalties was simply a reflection of the Chretien regime’s view that national unity could be bought.  If Liberal-friendly ad firms could pocket a little dough and kick some of it back to the Party in power, so much the better.  Instead of fostering unity, however, the scandal’s negative fall-out translated into distrust and disenfranchisement between the Federal government’s relationship with both Quebec and the western provinces.  Prior to the news of the scandal becoming public knowledge, the Liberal Party was making significant gains in Quebec at the expense of its main rival, the Bloc Quebecois – the federal separatist party of the province.  After the scandal’s news broke, though, Quebec voters switched their allegiances back to the Bloc by a whopping 2-1 margin, largely because they believed the province was being insulted and humiliated by the Federal government’s sleazy attempts to buy its loyalties.  On the other side of the country, the western provinces, most notably Alberta, viewed the scandal as yet another tawdry Federal attempt to pander to Quebec interests at the expense of the rest of the country.  It further exacerbated the West’s long held distrust of preferential treatment for La Belle province.

In past days, such scandalous and corrupt practices of the governing party would have assuredly cost them the privilege of governance if only to restore trust in the management of the country’s finances. And while the Liberal Party has lost some significant support across the country, especially in the West and Quebec, these loses for the Liberal Party are, unfortunately, only illusory and transient.

Because of their insistence that moral issues like abortion and marriage should really not be a matter of Party policy, Canadians guard their sexual license as religious dogma. We are very careful to ensure that politicians do not legislate morality even if that means tolerating significant corruption in the process. Commenting on the sponsorship scandal, a liberal journalist summed up the sentiment marvelously, writing:

They were deeply saddened by the revelations…they were shocked; they were even angry.  But one of them veered back to the Liberal mothership.  “Prime Minister Stephen Harper?” [the Conservative leadership candidate] someone said with a delicate eastern shudder.  “What are the alternatives?” someone added.  Besides, said one of the men, “Don’t you believe Martin when he says he didn’t know anything?”  One of the women muttered ominously, “Abortion”. (Christie Blatchford, Globe & Mail, Feb.17.2004)

The hypocrisy of the Canadian electorate is almost palpable.  We don’t want to talk about moral issues during elections. It’s health care.  It’s the environment . It’s the economy, stupid.  In the end, it really all comes down to money, money, money.  But if  social conservatives play even a minority role in a Party which just so happens to be the only alternative to the sleazy corruption of the Party in power, the real and only issue becomes abortion, abortion, abortion for our self-proclaimed “multi-issue” electorate. 

The sponsorship program scandal is merely a logical outcome of the political schizophrenia that has engulfed our western culture in the past few decades. Taking their cue from former “Catholic” Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, both Chretien and Martin – nominal Catholics themselves – tickled the ears of the electorate by assuring them that they would keep their personal morality and religion separate from their public policy positions.  In Canada, voters elect liars because they like to be told smooth lies. Amazingly, this same electorate is “shocked” and “outraged” when the same politicians, who are so eager to abandon their “personal beliefs” about the central questions of human existence, continue their behaviour when they get into power.  Are we really so obtuse to believe that there is a magic switch between our politicians’ personal and public lives?  If we elect politicians who sell out their “personal religious views” to get into office, it is inevitable that the sell-out will continue well into their political careers. Canadians should stop their self-delusion regarding the imaginary line they have drawn between a politician’s public and private life.  Otherwise, they should stop their whining about the sponsorship scandal and open their wallets a little more.  The Liberals will soon need to refill the trough.

Comments No Comments »

1. Sexual Orientation is not defined. For instance, is pedophilia a “sexual orientation”? Can a citizen be imprisoned for advocating prison sentences for sexual predators? (See Appendix 1)

2a) Hatred is not is not statutorily defined. But the Supreme Court of Canada has defined it as connoting an emotion of intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 397. Is vilification and detestation of homosexual acts considered “hate”? Where does this leave the bible in relation to hate legislation in light of texts like Romans 1:24-27? Will the bible be banned in Canada as hate literature?

2b) Hatred is a highly speculative judgment. What is understood as hatred to some people is considered criticism to others. Many of our opponents have labeled opposition to Bill C-250 or rational criticism of homosexuality “hatred”. (See Appendix 2)

3. There is no language regarding the intent to cause harm. Without the requirement to prove a defendant’s intent to cause harm, anyone who might genuinely care for a person with homosexual inclinations can be convicted for their criticisms of the lifestyle or even their recommendations of therapy.

4. There is no provision for a non-religious defense. Subsection 319(2) provides an exemption from conviction by referring to a religious text. But what if a citizen appeals to Anthropology, Science, Anatomy, Natural Law or mere personal conviction without reference to a religious text? There is no provision for a defense on these bases.

5. There is no protection for health professionals who counsel and speak out against the destructive homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual activity has been long acknowledged to be very unhealthy. Yet, this legislation will stifle legitimate debate and discovery in the medical community. Not only will it lead to possible criminal convictions against doctors, but their professional associations might threaten them with sanctions and dismissal if they do not abide by the law (See Appendix 3).

6. Citing a religious text does not exempt a citizen from prosecution under the legislation. Although there is an exemption from conviction under Section 2 which deals with “promotion of hatred” (no defense can be used unless a religious text is cited), there is no such defense at all under Section 1 which deals with “incitement of hatred”. Technically, therefore, there is no real protection for those who appeal to a religious text. The prosecutor will simply by-pass Section 2 and indict the offender under Section 1.

7. The definition of “incitement of hatred” in Section 1 is purposely designed to intimidate and suppress freedom of speech. The legislation says that if the incitement “is likely to lead to a breach of the peace”, a citizen would be convicted. “Breach of the peace” can simply mean upsetting a group of homosexual activists whose peace has been breached!

8. The Bill is a political ploy to silence dissent from the Gay Agenda. The Bill is being proposed at a time where judicial activism is out of control. Because the judiciary in Canada is determined to re-engineer the social structure of society (as evidenced, for instance, by its destruction of the traditional definition of marriage), this legislation will be used as an intimidation ploy to silence people of faith, particularly Christians. Sympathetic judges and a zealous prosecutors could easily result in widespread religious persecution which has already started in earnest (See Appendix 4).

Appendix 1 – Bill C-250 Criminal Code Amendment

Adds “sexual orientation” to the phrase “identifiable group” in Subsection 318(4). This will mean that anyone who incites hatred against those with a sexual orientation would be indictable under Section 319 which reads as follows:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Appendix 2 – Hate for Thee But not for Me

  • In November, 2001, Senator Mobina Jaffer accused her fellow Senators of “giving comfort to those who hate” and attempting to use “faith to mask hatred” when they arose in the Senate to speak in favour of an act re-affirming the definition of marriage.
  • In September 2002, MP John Bryden was publicly accused of issuing a venomous and hateful tirade when he released a statement outlining his reasons for not supporting same-sex marriage.
  • Elizabeth Birch, director of Human Rights Campaign, has said that endorsing reparative therapy for gays and lesbians or even saying that gays and lesbians have a choice about their sexual orientation is “hateful”. Yet there are many former gays and lesbians in Canada who say that they did have a choice and they changed.
  • One of the leading websites advocating same-sex marriage,, has a section with comments such as “Rome is where the hate is” with reference to the Vatican.
  • In August 2003, the Irish Council of Civil Liberties warned priests in Ireland that distributing the Vatican issued statement on same-sex marriage issued in July 2003 could be a violation of the Irish Incitement to Hatred Act. Clearly the document constitutes religious expression on the subject of sexual morality

    Source: Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

Appendix 3 – Specific Medical Consequences of Homosexual Behaviour

A) Mental Health

Two extensive studies in the Jan. 2001 issue of the American Medical Association’s Archives of General Psychiatry : confirm a STRONG link between homosexual sex and suicide, and emotional and mental problems (Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders, ” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001))

An extensive study in the Netherlands undermines the assumption that homophobia is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The DUTCH have been MORE ACCEPTING of same-sex relationships than any other Western country and same-sex marriage is legal. The HIGH rate of psychiatric disorders associated with homosexual behaviour in the Netherlands CANNOT be attributed to social rejection and homophobia (Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders, ” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001))

Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the study, males who had ANY homosexual contact within that time period were more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. (Theo Sandfort, Ron de Graaf, et al., “Same-sex Sexual Behaviour and Psychiatric Disorders, ” Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(1): 85-91, p. 89 and Table 2 (January 2001))

B) Physical Health

Medical and social evidence indicates that men having sex with men leads to GREATER health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men. Anal sex, as a sexual behaviour, is associated with significant and life-threatening health problems. The fragility of the anus and rectum make anal sex a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among homosexuals as a result of anal sex is alarming (Anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Herpes simplez virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Gonorrhea, viral hepatitus types B & C, Syphilis) (Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America, 74 (6) Nov. 1990)

Sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown. Others, while found among heterosexuals and homosexuals, are clearly predominated by those involved in homosexual activity.

C) Life Span

An epidemiological study from Vancouver of data tabulated between 1987 and 1992 for AIDS-related deaths reveal that homosexuals lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The study concluded that the probability of a 20-year-old gay man living to 65 was only 32%, compared to 78% for men in general (cigarette smokers lose on average about 13 years of life expectancy and look at the campaigns we have against smoking) (R.S. Hogg, S.A. Strathdee, et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661 (1997))

D) Levels of Promiscuity

A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75% of white gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime. (Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualties: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978)

By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men curtailed promiscuity but not by much – instead of more than 6 partners/month in 1982, they had about 4 partners/month in 1984 (Leon Mckusick, et al., Reported Changes in the Sexual Behaviour of Men at Risk for AIDS, San Francisco, 1982-84, Public Health Reports, 100(6): 622-629 December 1985)

In more recent years, the U.S. Centres for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity among young homosexual men in San Francisco. From 1994-97 the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 24 to 33 percent. (Increases in Unsafe Sex and Rectal Gonorrhea among men who have sex with men – San Francisco, California, 1994-1997, Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, CDC, 48 (03): 45-48, p. 45 January 1999)

Appendix 4 – Persecution Against Christians in Canada

  • Scott Brockie, a conscientious born-again Christian and owner of a Toronto print shop, refused a request from gay rights activist Ray Brilliger to print material for the Canadian Lesbians and Gay Archives. Mr. Brockie found himself hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Board who ordered Mr. Brockie to pay $5,000 in damages to Ray Brilliger. While Heather McNaughton, the adjudicator assigned to this case, acknowledged the sincerity of Mr. Brockie’s religious convictions in her ruling dated February 24th, 2000, she nevertheless stated: “In fact nothing in my order will prevent Brockie from continuing to hold and practice his religious beliefs. Brockie remains free to hold his religious beliefs and to practice them in his Christian community.” Mr. Brockie has recently been denied court costs amounting to $40,000. He is now liable for these and other costs.
  • On June 15th, 2001, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry fined Hugh Owens, an evangelical Protestant, and the Saskatoon Star Phoenix $1,500 for violating the equality rights of three gay men. Mr. Owen’s crime? He expressed his opinion on gay and lesbians sex through an advertisement in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix. This advertisement consisted of a pictograph of two men holding hands superimposed with a circle and slash- the symbol of something forbidden-and a list of Bible verses condemning the practice of homosexuality. While Mr. Owens is currently appealing this ruling, if he loses and still refuses to comply with the Board of Inquiry, he will potentially find himself charged with contempt of court. If convicted, he will likely find himself consigned to jail as the first prisoner of conscience in the war between sexual and religious pluralism.
  • In May 2002, in an Oshawa area high school, Mr. Marc Hall invited his boyfriend to his Catholic High School prom. In keeping with the traditional principles of Catholic moral theology, the Catholic school board prohibited Hall from bringing the boyfriend to the graduation dance. Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion came to naught as the civil courts ruled that the Catholic school had discriminated against the rights of Marc Hall. His defense attorney has since been promoted to the Ontario Superior Court.
  • In May 2002, Chris Kempling, a 13-year teacher and counselor in the public school system in BC, was declared guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the BC College of Teachers by the College (BCCT). Kempling was reprimanded and suspended for writing letters to the editor, objecting to the promotion of the homosexual agenda in the public school system as well as for writing unpublished research essays, and private letters to his supervisors and elected officials. The College declared that “everything that you have written in its entirety is derogatory and discriminatory,” even though some information was merely quoting previously published research data. Kempling, who holds two masters degrees and an almost complete doctorate in psychology, objected to the use of Xtra West, a BC homosexual activist newspaper, which has obscene and vulgar classified ads, as a recommended classroom resource. (, Jun 7.02)
  • Rev. Stephen Boissoin is facing a human rights complaint brought by homosexual activist and University of Calgary professor Dr. Darren Lund. Rev. Boissoin, an outstanding citizen who for nine years ran an outreach to troubled youth that had 100-150 teens who would frequent it weekly, raised the ire of homosexual activists with a letter to the editor of a local paper which served as a wakeup call to parents regarding homosexual activism in schools. Lund accused Rev. Boissoin of hatemongering in comments to the press and when a local teen was beaten by hooligans supposedly because of his homosexual inclinations, Rev. Boissoin’s letter was blamed. Boissoin’s damaged reputation caused the loss of funding to his youth outreach which was forced to close due to lack of funds. Now Boissoin is faced with retaining a lawyer to defend himself against the human rights complaint (, Nov.22.02)

Around the World…(from CCRL)

  • Last fall, the Rt. Reverend Dr. Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester, England was investigated under hate crimes legislation and reprimanded by the local Chief Constable for observing that some people can overcome homosexual inclinations and “reorientate” themselves. (The Telegraph, 10/11/03)
  • In January of this year a Swedish Pentecostal Pastor Ake Green was prosecuted for “hate speech against homosexuals” for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality. (Kyrkans Tidning, 01/11/04)
  • Belgian Cardianal Gustaaf Joos faces a lawsuit under that country’s discrimination laws for his remarks about the nature of homosexuality and the Church’s teaching published in a Belgium magazine. (, 01/26/04)
  • Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela of Madrid is facing a suit in Spain for preaching against homosexuality in a homily he gave in the Madrid Cathederal on the feast of the Holy Family. (Washington Post, 01/03/04)
  • In Ireland, clergy and bishops were warned that the distribution of the Vatican’s publication on public recognition of same-sex relationships could face prosecution under Irish incitement to hatred legislation. (The Irish Times, 07/02/03)

Comments No Comments »