School Boards Could Face Large Lawsuits

Boards must be accountable for normalizing behaviour

Published on Apr 17, 2009
While the guilty verdict of the HIV/AIDS infected Johnson Aziga makes headlines around the world, Hamiltonians should consider that other parties may very well become complicit in the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus and the resulting infection and death of sexual partners.

Unbeknownst to many Hamiltonians, the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board continues to move ahead aggressively with their sexual orientation "equity" policy which will require the inclusion and encourage the celebration of numerous sexual behaviour choices in all subject areas while offering little or no medical evidence of the specific associated health risks.

In fact, the board has rejected requests from concerned parents to include official Ministry of Health information which establishes that those who practice MSM (males who have sex with males) have HIV rates as high as 25 per cent or one in four men (Region of Toronto).

This rate is 250 times higher than males from non-endemic countries who contact HIV via heterosexual contact.

Given the above, should school boards not be held accountable for their indoctrinative approach to normalizing high-risk behaviour and what penalty should they face?

Harold Schulz, Ancaster


Do you know what your child's school is teaching?

Did I really give to them?

If you want to see where all your money is going when you give to your favourite charity click on the website below, type in the charity name and click on 'Search'. You don't have to fill in the other info. they ask for.
Check out their total income and total wages paid. It's a real eye-opener. Look at thousands of feminist organizations that are getting fat off the hog. Check out Development and Peace or World Vision.


http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/sec/SrchLogin-e;jsessionid=Jd6JcghJwtNKJGn52Xd1K1TL1WjMxXRLQwBhvddTzQTyrGYq6jyq!1770044462?login=true&searchType=

In honour of Earth Day!

In honour of Earth Day!

On Saturday, March 28th our country's elite enviro-maniacs will be celebrating their self-proclaimed Earth Hour by asking everyone to turn their lights off between 8:30 and 9:30 pm.

Send a clear message to your government ministers and David Suzuki that you don't like their expensive, wasteful Green Plan by turning on all your lights, inside and out, for that evening.
Give them a toot when you drive by a house with all the lights on.
Mark your calendar and pass this on.

Our government isn't satisfied with murdering the unborn, now they're turning their attention to the old and disabled.

(MP Francine Lalonde gave notice on Thursday Feb. 11 that she will be introducing a Private Members Bill to legalize assisted suicide. This means her bill could be introduced as early as Monday, since bills require at least 2 days notice.)


http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2&DocId=3666245&File=11

February 11, 2009 — Ms. Lalonde (La Pointe-de-l'Île) — Bill entitled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity)”.

There's no such thing as dying with dignity. We try to live with dignity.
Euthanasia has proven to be abused everywhere it has been legalized.

What's a 'person' to do?

A friend of mine told me today that I was a nice person. I told her that she has insulted me. Startled, she asked me how she had done that.
First of all, I told her that I was a man, not a person and when she refers to me with a non-descript word like 'person', she doesn't respect my manhood plus she is feeding the feminist/gay movement. How?
For the past 20 years or so certain people have been trying to remove our genders male and female to make us all 'inclusive' or one. The media, reporters and our own governments have changed our language to please these radicals until we find ourselves using the word 'person' all the time instead of the gender.
We are at the point where we are almost ashamed to use man or woman. Ask yourself when was the last time you used the words? Try it out by just saying out loud "I am a good man/woman". Say it to someone else. What do you feel after you say it. If it's a little guilt then you can be sure you have been brainwashed by those people who want to remove any pride or identity in your sex and that is exactly what the fem/gay movement is all about.
Your intellect tells you there's nothing wrong with the non-gender word but your 'self' is insulted.
The only way to stop this insult to your sex is to bring it to a conscious level in others and gently correct them when they call someone a person instead of the gender God gave them.
Be a man. Be a woman. Be a husband or a wife but don't let them call you person or spouse.


Further-

In truth, the English word 'person' does not belong in the bible. In scripture, the Greek and Hebrew words that 'person' is translated from mean "to reveal the man" (i.e., presence, countenance, face, etc.), whereas in man's law, the word 'person' means "to conceal the man" (i.e., the term persona means "the mask of the actor", i.e., a fictional character that substitutes for the flesh and blood man. From this word persona we get 'person,' a fictional entity). You're the actor when you become a person, because a mask (the person) covers the true character, and you become something other than who God says you are.

In addition, it can be seen that 'person' and 'man' are not synonymous by the phrase "artificial person." In man's law, this phrase is used to describe corporations and such. But, if we replace the word 'person' with 'man,' look at what we get! "Artificial man." What is an artificial man? Is it a cyborg, a half-man/half-machine or something? However, "artificial person" makes much more sense, because a person is created by man, whereas a man is created by God. God does not create artificial things, only man does.


[As a side note, we are told that a 'noun' refers to a "person, place, or thing." Well, a 'person' is not a noun, because it is only a fiction; it does not exist; it hides the true man. However a man (or woman) is a noun. Therefore, it is more accurate to say a noun refers to "people, places, or things."]


Furthermore, if they call you a 'nice' 'person', they are doubly insulting you. Read this:

1) The only words which have substance are nouns. Nouns have substance, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, etc., do not. Verbs are not substantial, they only indicate action. The substance is in the noun. For example, the word party was previously only a noun, but now it's a verb, now it's an act. Instead of saying, "let's go to a party", we say, "let's party". We see how the English language, through its evolution, changes the substance of a word into nothing. By keeping nouns as nouns, they represent the "truth". By converting nouns to verbs, they do not represent the truth, and therefore the language becomes "fictitious".

2) The way a word is spelled determines its meaning, and what law one is under. There are at least three ways to spell any one word. Let's take, as an example, the spellings of "rich," "Rich," and "RICH." The first spelling, "rich," means "wealthy." This word is an adjective and has no substance; it merely describes the person of man, but not the man himself. The spelling "Rich," on the other hand, has a completely different meaning. It is a proper name, and refers to the man himself. This word has substance. By spelling this word lawfully, it brings you under the Law that created it. Since God created man, this would bring you under God's Law. And the last spelling, "RICH," has a completely different meaning than the previous two spellings. You won't find any words spelled in all capital letters in the dictionary, because these words do not exist. They are fictions. And by spelling a name in all caps, it brings you under the law that created it; which would be the fictitious laws of man. This is why all corporations are spelled in all capital letters, because they are fictions created by man, and not substance created by God.

3) We cannot take an unclean word and make it clean. For example, let's take the word 'nice,' which is derived from the Latin 'nescire.'


Nice: "Srange, lazy, foolish, stupid, ignorant, not knowing, to be ignorant, difficult to please, fastidious, discriminative." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 914.

New Sign For Buses:


There's no such thing as Global warming. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

Feminist Public School System is a Toxic Environment
By Brian Simpson (pseudonym)

I've been a supply teacher for 20 years in every subject area, K-12 in over 200 schools and in over 1000 classrooms in a large Canadian city. I can report that the education system has been taken over by feminists and lesbians who preach a daily diet of hate, violence and discrimination against males despite pretenses of “tolerance” “non violence” and “inclusiveness.”

It's moderately common to find girls wearing anti-male, hate clothing. Slogans on T-Shirts include: “Stupid Factory:Where Boys are Made;” “BOYS ARE STUPID, THROW ROCKS AT THEM!” and (prefixed by the profile view of a handgun) “He had it comin'”

Others include “WHO NEEDS BOYS WHEN YOU HAVE CREDIT CARDS?” and “I LIKE BOYS WHO ARE SENSITIVE AND CRY, WHEN I HIT THEM;” and “MENtal Anxiety MENtal Breakdown MENstrual Cramps MENopause Did you ever notice how all our problems begin with MEN.”

Can you imagine if these comments were addressed at girls?

I've been in staff rooms where I have read pamphlets issued by the Canadian Federation of Teachers about Afghanistan. Exclusive concern was shown for women, girls and female babies and none for males despite the fact that boys had the double-whammy-plus of being forced to carry a gun, kill and be killed, traumatize and be traumatized, starting as early as eight-years-of-age. They had been denied schooling and been traumatized for life. The girls only had been denied schooling.

I've been in classrooms where videos were shown blaming all date violence on males. No sexual violence female-to-male was mentioned and women were referred to as "men's property." Once the video had been shown, the girls overflowed with anti-male hate statements and the boys were afraid to speak on any matter. I told students that the video's depiction was false but they insisted that the video depiction was the absolute truth. Such indoctrination is the norm in schools.

In the context of the omni-present, "Women's History Month" posters in the school, I have been in homerooms in which the boys are so abused by their feminist teachers that they cannot even whimper, even after serial attempts to get them to say anything at all. In one classroom in which Grade-12 students were nearing their graduation, I had a boy cry about the climate of ever-climaxing anti-male hate.

EMPLOYMENT

As a male, I am routinely discriminated against for employment with no recourse to authorities.

In supply teaching, patterns emerge such as gender-cleansing in the early years (Men need not apply.) The substitute clerks want women, and when they can't get them (a rarity), a man can get called at the last minute (late calls generally translate as, "I-couldn't-get-a-woman call").

In my experience, all substitute clerks are women. In the last two decades, phone/computer machines have been put into place in various districts. As a result, when IT phones instead of SHE, the early years open up to men, initially. The resultant realization that the conventional gender-cleansing is not in place results in male supply teachers being "greeted" by school secretaries (always women) who ask the man reporting to the office in the morning, "What are YOU doing here?" "I'm here for____(a woman teacher)."

In response to that, the secretary reports the man to the principal who tries to gender-cleanse by saying to the male supply teacher, "I can give you Grade 5." "No, thanks, I'll take the Kindergartens." I've even had to discuss such matters for two minutes with some principals.

In the hundreds and hundreds of applications I have put into for teaching jobs, I have never had a response to any application for Grade 2, Grade 1 nor Kindergarten; and I've only had one interview for a position in Grade 3--which was assigned to a woman.

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

Here are some of my experiences as an Education student.

First of all, to be in teaching is to be immersed in femininity. Wall-to-wall women, everywhere; the students, the teaching staff, the curriculum, the posters on walls, the celebrations, the laments, the teacher unions, the student unions, the union unions. In perfect lock-step, all are one, and half of humanity counts for nothing, except to be harmed, of course.

In one class, the professor had issued a 4-page photocopy to all students (26 women and 3 men in the room). The article was composed entirely of assertions. There was a perfect void of evidence. The essence of the article was that men, most especially white men were all advantaged and that women were all disadvantaged.

The monomania was so advanced that one black woman complained that whereas there was affirmative action for women, including black women, it was mostly Caribbean black women who got the jobs and not the African black women. The women in the room gushed with sympathy that such a situation could persist in Canada. Various women-as-victim and men-as-victimizer as the universally advantaged had serialized. I waited for an almost void in the lament and had declared various facts.

I pointed out that in Canada's armed services, over 116 000 men and boys and only 30 women and no girls had been killed in service and that the response of governments in Canada and elsewhere the world over had been one of, "Advance women."

I pointed out that in the civilian work world, up to 2005, just over 96% of job-caused deaths were male and that as of 2006, with the boom in the economy, for the first time, just over 1000 men and only approximately 20 women were killed.

The women who spoke (about 12 of them), utterly whaled against me in seething frenzied hate. It was like being in a Nazi Party meeting. I was shouted-down. In fact, the women who insisted that the proper world order was save-the-women/kill-the-men, complained vociferously to the knights in shining armor (the few men who were allowed into the teaching faculty.)

These professor men called me at home on a Sunday to set up a meeting to censor me for raising gender issues!. They didn't complain about what the women were doing.

The one male professor encouraged me to get out of teaching by way of using the university employment service (a feminist organization.)

I told them that in every case, I was responding to the women who had raised the issues in the first place and that they had to back off. The head professor said he would speak with the professors. But, following that meeting, my classroom curricula had included one article about suicide which mentioned that female depression was 50% higher than male depression, but did not mention that male suicide was 400% higher than female suicide.

Another professor issued learning-outcome statements to the class which counselled us to include examples of women (and not examples of men).

OTHER HARASSMENT

Previous to that event, we teacher-students were shown a video of two teachers in team teaching. The woman teacher in the video had the line assigned to her, "I hope I'm treated as an equal (by the man teacher)" and the man teacher was assigned the line, "I'll have to guard against my male ego."

The same female professor who had presented that video had chosen a text book which included curricular topics for lesson plans. The topics included, "Violence against Women" (and, of course, no concern for "Violence against Men").

During one presentation, a mother of a disabled daughter told how some, "ardent Feminist" women had taken her daughter to a male strip joint. Such was described by the mother as, "wonderful." Following that, the same "ardent Feminist" woman had taken her daughter to the USA to attend a Feminist, "woman's music camp" and we were shown a slide of those women, many of whom were topless. Evidently lesbianism is encouraged.

"So, why didn't you complain to officials of the university or elsewhere?" My answer is as follows: The student union had a handbook which blamed all date violence on men and its front office window had three prominently displayed posters about date violence which blamed into all on men. Also, annually, the union had taken part in the Marc Lepine remembrance day ceremonies at the university...which blamed everything on men. As for the university, it had Women's Studies and no Men's Studies, and a , "Womyn's Center" and no Men's Center. The, poster, "greeting" men to the "Womyn's Centre" reads:

MEN:

Welcome to the Womyn's Centre
This is a SAFE PLACE for Womyn
and Womyn identified people only.
MEN are asked to KNOCK before entering and to use the space briefly
Only to access the resources such as: pamphlets, free stuff and books in the Library.
Thank you for your respect and understanding.

The Coming Anti-Life Onslaught: Obama's Abortion Agenda at Home and Abroad



Exclusive Commentary by Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
Human Life International

January 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President-elect Barack Obama’s Web site, change.gov, contains a link titled, “Open Government: Your Seat at the Table.” Follow this link and you will find hundreds of papers submitted to the Obama-Biden Transition Project by various interest groups.

One other such paper, entitled, “Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration: The First 100 Days,” is endorsed by over 50 pro-choice organizations ranging from the ACLU to one called Women Thrive Worldwide. Most of the demands contained in the paper are disturbing though not surprising: a massive increase in funding to Title X (which funds Planned Parenthood), an end to abstinence-only education, assuring that anyone, anywhere can have an abortion at taxpayers’ expense, passing the ironically-named Freedom of Choice Act, and making sure that only pro-choice ideologues are appointed to the federal judiciary, and so on.

The international ambitions of this anti-life coalition, however, are the most fearsome aspect of their agenda and US taxpayer funding is the new plum to be plucked. In post-Roe America, it is hard to find ways to make abortion more ubiquitous than it already is, but significant sectors of the developing world still maintain firm prohibitions against the destruction of innocent life, and these groups want to change all that. What they are advocating may be “change that America can live with,” but it certainly isn’t change that the developing world can live with.

In addition to the expected demand for a reversal of President Bush’s “Mexico City Policy” (the executive order first enacted by Ronald Reagan) which restricts funding for international organizations that promote abortion, these groups are calling for the investment of one billion dollars in the promotion of abortion and contraception around the world. This call includes the restoration of funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), that radical abortion-promoting arm of the UN which has supported and funded coercive abortion in China. They want to nearly double the US contribution to the UNFPA to the tune of $65 million in order to continue this malfeasance and other like works. Monies going to the organizations formerly blocked from funding by the Mexico City Policy could represent as much as a 10-fold increase in funding for contraception and abortion worldwide.

We can’t underestimate the potential negative impact of this funding on inherently life-affirming cultures. In a recent interview in Rome, Dr. Stephen Karanja, head of the Catholic Doctors’ Association of the country where Barack Obama’s father was born, had this to say about the coming US war on babies in the developing world: “We in Kenya know [Obama] as a person who is anti-family. A person who supports abortion .. This is something that a lot of people don't realize, that what these Americans do affects innocent people thousands and thousands of miles away. The truth is that they have put a bad man in the most powerful office in the whole world and are putting people outside your borders in danger.” It is rare to find someone so clear-sighted about Obama in the countries that are presently fawning over this “historic” presidency. Dr. Karanja sees the oncoming onslaught of American-led propaganda against his people, a full 90% of whom consider abortion to be an “abomination” (his wording).

As president of an international pro-life organization, I travel to countries all over the developing world and meet those who have been harmed by the United States’ most destructive export: our twisted “pro-choice” ideology which is deceptively re-packaged and re-named “reproductive healthcare” for propagandizing the decision-makers of the poorer countries. In our official support of “reproductive healthcare,” we, as Americans, communicate to the world that we think their economic and social problems would be solved if only there were fewer of them that had problems. This attitude is nothing more than the classic elitist mind-set of blaming the poor for their poverty and trying to eliminate poverty by eliminating poor people. And now we are dangerously close to putting billions of dollars behind that attitude.

If the Obama administration gives in to the demands of the anti-life coalition in its first 100 days, as we have every reason to believe he will, I fear there will be no undoing the damage we will be forcing on the developing world. It seems that often we have more to learn from the people of the developing countries of the world than they do from us. Dr. Karanja’s final word is true not only of Kenya but of all nations: “The only resource we have that is truly ours, is our people. Don’t attack them and we’ll be alright.” He added, ominously, “And this administration of Obama, is going to be a nightmare for our people.”

We owe it to our brothers and sisters in these countries to let President-elect Obama know that the “places at the table” should not be taken by those who think that the world would be better off without them.

Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

To all parents in Canada.

Time and again our provincial governments are conspiring with our well padded school boards and teachers unions to bypass the parental rights of our children.
Currently in Ontario there is no specific age for which a person is considered too young to receive 'medical treatment'. It is up to the doctor's discretion to determine if the person is mature enough to understand the implications of the medical treatment; abortion, pills or otherwise.

This law came into effect back in the 80's under a committee principally driven by Planned Parenthood. It was a means of secretly getting to our children and pushing their sexual freedom agenda which ultimately leads to a perceived need for sexual health clinics. Create a void that can never be filled then apply for tax dollars to fill it.

The last place parents want to place their children today is in any publically-funded school or institution, especially if the parents have any moral standards. They simply don't have enough sense to stick to the mandate they were originally given by parents and taxpayers. Indeed, they've become propaganda tools to indoctrinate our young minds with their own personal agendas.

Is it any wonder provincial governments don't support private or home schooling?
Why don't you?

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRGZLSVph3A

It takes a real woman to expose the false feminists.

Fed on myths, preying on men

Barbara Kay, National Post

Published: Saturday, December 06, 2008



http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=1039527

November was Domestic Violence Awareness month. Truth in advertising suggests it should be Y-Chromosome Apartheid Month. Far from promoting "awareness" of a social problem or remedies for men and women with anger issues, the month is basically a radical feminist war dance around the Original Sin of maleness, cheered on by "progressive" media sympathizers.

The annual verbal pogrom will find its apotheosis in to-day's 19th observance of the Montreal Massacre anniversary, our domestic violence industry's shrine to feminism's Big Lie of male unilateralism in domestic violence.

It's awkward that the Dec. 6, 1989 massacre of 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal -- unlike ritual wartime massacres of men and boys, such as the 8,000-death horror of Srebrenica -- remains a freak one-off in the West, perpetrated by a lone sociopath, with neither prequel nor sequel to suggest a pattern. But emotion, not reason or facts, drives the Domestic Violence industry.

The truth is that the more precisely identified phenomenon of "intimate partner violence" (IPV) in Western culture is gender neutral, an acting out of psychological problems around intimacy that afflict men and women alike. IPV is initiated by both sexes in about equal proportions. Self-defence is rarely the motive for women's violence against men. Literally hundreds of peer-reviewed, community-based studies, including StatsCan's, confirm this. But they don't reach the public. (Under pressure from feminist organizations, for example, a Quebec health agency recently sequestered a commissioned psychosocial study showing men and women are equally culpable for IPV.)

But most damaging is the suppressed fact that even bilateral IPV in general is a relative rarity in our culture. A woman is more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by her spouse. IPV simply isn't the systemic epidemic that hysteria-mongering feminist organizations so shamelessly project.

Since 1980, the Quebec government has sanctioned the "fact" that 250,000-300,000 women over the age of 15 suffer IPV from their partners or husbands annually. Actually, about 14,000 Quebec women and 2,500 men annually report themselves victims of conjugal violence. Allegations deemed worthy of trial, however, are dramatically fewer in number.

Recently, the Quebec government abruptly withdrew its wildly conjectural 300,000 figure from Google-accessible circulation, after a pertinacious group of independent researchers demanded to know its source through the Access to Information Act. There was no source, of course. Yet financial allocations remain pegged to the mythical 300,000 and are exclusively awarded to women's projects.

This year, the Quebec Auditor-General's report focused an accusatory light on fiscal profligacy and lack of oversight in the women's abuse industry. Grants to abuse-related women's projects have soared from $30-million in 2002-2003 to $60-million in 2007-08. One six-bed shelter's grants in that period bounced from $58,832 to $406,817, even though the shelter only served nine women throughout 2006-07.

Almost half a million dollars to house nine women? Yet a bamboozled public believes thousands upon thousands of battered women are seeking refuge.

Reality just doesn't jibe with that picture. In 2004, the Yellow Brick House, an Aurora, Ont., shelter closed during a labour dispute. It emerged that of the eight women and three children residing there, only one woman was fleeing abuse. The others were homeless.

Exceptions, believers will say. Everyone "knows" violence against women is epidemic.

Really? Edmonton Police Service reports from 1999-2000 indicate the police responded to 3,000 domestic incidents. They referred exactly 24 women--less than 1% -- to shelters.

That 1% figure recurs again and again. The co-ordinator of Cornwall Commmunity Hospital's Assault and Sexual Abuse Program in Cornwall, Ont., claims that "17-30% of all women treated in hospital emergency departments are victims of domestic violence." Reality check: Her own hospital's screening for abuse of 157,000 in-patients turned up only 150 IPV-related injuries (both sexes).

I'll conclude with the words of a former batterer, Linda Kinsella. When her unprovoked anger turned to rage, Kinsella used to scapegoat her disabled husband by tipping over his wheelchair and otherwise abusing him. Adding to his nightmare, the police (typically, stupidly) arrested him when called to the scene.

Therapy for Linda saved their marriage. A repentant Kinsella asks: "If women are able to do all the good things that men can do in [the] professions ... then why [do] we, as a society, deny that women can do the bad too? It is my fondest hope that someday there will be true equality in our society and that domestic violence will be seen not as a gender issue but as a societal one that will end when we work together to stop it."

Amen, brothers and sisters.

bkay@videotron.ca

This is a wacky coup d'état worthy of a banana republic by three stooges:

a socialist, a separatist, a citizen of France.

The day the Bloc Quebecois joined the government
By Ezra Levant on December 1, 2008 11:52 PM

A few quick thoughts on the coup d’etat, in no particular order.

1. The math here is pretty simple: in a Parliament of 308 MPs, a Prime Minister needs 155 to govern with a majority. Stephen Harper came pretty close with 143, up 19 from the last election. The Liberals and NDP combined have just 114 MPs combined, down 18 from the last election. So it is mathematically impossible for the Liberals to be installed as the government without the Bloc Quebecois’ explicit help. Without formally including the Bloc in a coalition, Stephane Dion would be going to Governor-General Michaelle Jean with 114 MPs – a non-starter. With the Bloc, he’s got 163.



2. Without the Bloc, the Liberals and NDP have even less of a claim after the recent election than they did before. The Conservative vote, measured as a percentage, has grown five elections in a row. The Liberal vote, measured as a percentage, has declined four elections in a row. Trivia: in terms of absolute vote count, Stephen Harper received more votes in 2008 (5.21 million) than Paul Martin did in 2004 (4.98 million) or Jean Chretien received in his 1997 election (4.99 million) which earned him a majority. Harper’s 2008 count roughly tied Chretien’s 2000 majority result, too (5.25 million).



3. In other words, the Bloc’s formal, explicit participation is essential for the Liberal-NDP coalition to work. But, until now, the Liberals and NDP had been politically, if not morally, averse to coalescing with them. The reasons are obvious: they’re secessionists, who explicitly call for the disintegration of Canada. Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien both made opposing Quebec separatists one of their signature policies. (Chretien undid that legacy by participating in the negotiations this weekend; Justin Trudeau, now an MP himself, likewise departed from his father’s Quebec legacy by agreeing to the deal, too.) What changed? It’s obvious – Harper’s short-lived plan to remove the public subsidy from political parties, which would have put the opposition at a disadvantage. Opposition claims that it was a disagreement over economic substance are incredible. Not only has the opposition approved every Tory budget to date, but just a week ago they voted to accept the Throne Speech which was, at least in general terms, exactly what the Conservatives proposed in their fiscal update.


Continued....

http://ezralevant.com/2008/12/the-day-the-bloc-quebecois-joi.html

Every year the CBC offers up this garbage at Christmas with our money.

THE PAGAN CHRIST

Thursday December 6, 2007 at 9pm on CBC-TV
repeating Saturday February 9 at 10pm ET on CBC Newsworld
There are 2.1 billion Christians on the planet – roughly one third of the entire human population. At the heart of their religion is the New Testament and the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. To Christianity, the written word is the glue that binds the faith of its followers.

So, what if it could be proven that Jesus never existed? What if there was evidence that every word of the New Testament – the cornerstone of Christianity – is based on myth and metaphor?

Based on Tom Harpur’s national bestseller, The Pagan Christ examines these very questions. During his research, Harpur discovered that the New Testament is wholly based on Egyptian mythology, that Jesus Christ never lived, and that – indeed – the text was always meant to be read allegorically. It was the founders of the Church who duped the world into taking a literal approach to the scriptures. And, according to Harpur, this was their fatal error – and the very reason Christianity is struggling today.

The mission of The Pagan Christ is not to accelerate Christianity’s slow demise, but to breath new life into its holy book and, in the process, bring the world a richer, more spiritual faith.
See other dates here:

http://www.cbc.ca/search/cbc?ie=utf8&site=CBC&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields=description&oe=utf8&safe=high&q=pagan+christ

Sick Daze at CBC

According to government Access to Information documents obtained by Sunmedia, CBC spent $15 Million for employee sick days in 2006/07. A majority of those sick days went to the French CBC radio and TV staff in Quebec.
Canadians pay approximately $500 each per year for 'cultural concepts' like museums, libraries, etc. but around 80% of that money goes to the CBC, CRTC and Can. Television Fund.
Studies have shown that cultural spending is overwhelmingly consumed by the well-to-do and paid for by the masses of poorer people who don't even listen to or watch the wasteful public broadcaster.
Snubbing its’ nose at rural Canada, CBC is well known for promoting 'alternate' and radical feminist life choices in its’ broadcasts such as airing the first live homosexual 'wedding' on a cold Sabbath day in Feb/04 and avoiding equal time for differing opinions.
We're happy for the 6% of Canadian elites who actually view CBC but the majority of us are fed up with our public funds going to pay for utter stupidity, biased, agenda-driven reporting, huge salaries and in case I didn't mention it, biased, agenda-driven reporting. On top of all that we have Public Television with its’ own agendas.
CBC may have been relevant 50 years ago when there was a shortage of information networks but today, with a broad variety of providers, plus the internet, the CBC has become a Billion dollar a year, obsolete and unnecessary yoke on Canadian taxpayers who prefer to spend their money on their own choices, like any other charity.
Since when is it the publics responsibility to support a socialist enterprise that losses hundreds of millions of dollars every year? At a time when the real market industry is looking for financial support, it is irresponsible for our government to be pouring our money into frivolous enterprises like the arts and entertainment world.
CBC content is made in the big cities, for the big cities and, like all of the pollution they send us, is unneeded and unwanted by most rural citizens.
If our cultural elites want to listen to classical radio and watch 'Steve and Chris' every day, let them pay for it, sick days included.

The Women Who Have Abortions, and the Love They Need

by Dr. Jeff Mirus At Catholic Culture

The November/December issue of Envoy Magazine includes an article by Jane Brennan, entitled “How Could She Do That?”, about what motivates a woman to have an abortion. Jane herself had two abortions, worked with Planned Parenthood, and helped her sister get an abortion before she finally began to reevaluate everything she believed. Now she does pro-life counseling.

The article is not a statistical analysis; it is simply Jane’s own story. For Jane, feminist ideology, the lies of abortionists and their advertisements, limited understanding of the biological and metaphysical issues, widespread social acceptance, abusive relationships both as a child and as an adult, and a deep fear that each of her first two pregnancies would ruin her life all combined to drive her into the abortion culture. After her second abortion, Jane divorced an abusive husband. She later met and married a man who treated her well. Unfortunately, she needed counseling and chose to get it from a radical feminist counselor. The result was that she generally made her husband’s life a kind of hell. But when he moved out, she was shocked and upset enough to begin questioning everything the counselor had been telling her. Jane realized she had to change. Her husband moved back in. And Jane did change, ultimately finding relief and new life in a Catholic Church.

The point of Jane Brennan’s article is that pro-lifers need to try to understand the mindset of women who get abortions, as well as the problems they experience afterwards. She feels that many pro-lifers find the decision to abort incomprehensible, and that this limits their ability to reach these women. Brennan recommends that the pro-life movement make better use of women who have had abortions (such as those in the group Silent No More) to make presentations at parishes and elsewhere which will encourage other post-abortive women to begin to turn their lives around, and help pre-abortive women to do the same. As she says in her conclusion:

Then the grim reality of how abortion shatters lives would be heard, and soon it would not be thought of as a clinical procedure or a fundamental right but the tragedy it is. This might cause people to say, “I don’t want that to happen to my daughter, my sister, my girlfriend, or to me. In fact I don’t want abortion to happen at all.”
Brennan’s story is powerful and moving. While I think most people who work in pro-life counseling are far more sympathetic to the plight of women seeking abortions than Brennan tends to believe, there is no arguing with her recommendation that the pro-life movement should make greater use of personal testimony from those who have had abortions.

The pro-life movement also needs to make use of men who can get out the message of what it means to love. Brennan reveals this need in her own story when she notes that it was the departure of a man who actually treated her well that finally jolted her out of her self-centered, self-defeating philosophy of life. I have long argued that too many problems of contemporary women (especially the kind of problems that drive them to abortion) are caused by men who either do not know how to be men, or who refuse to be men—men who use women as toys, abandoning them when they no longer find them fun. Fathers who abuse and/or abandon their daughters; lovers and husbands who abuse and/or abandon their wives: These men are architects of insecurity and anger in women, both of which fuel feminism and a culture of death.

It is no coincidence that the wildly popular film Bella makes precisely this point; the film's hero ought to become a role model for males. My own prescription, therefore, is that in addition to inviting post-abortive women to become increasingly involved in pro-life work, we also need to recruit good men who can help spread the message of what it really means to love. Men must not only explain but demonstrate with their lives what it means to love a woman as Christ loves the Church. There will always be exceptions, and some good men have been devastated by a wife's decision to abort. Nonetheless, I think it is not too much to say that the single most important force in ending the epidemic of abortion is something men have the power to do: Love.

Our Kangaroo Courts in the Media

Is the media a credible source for information anymore?

Suppose, for a moment, that unborn babies started growing outside a woman’s womb instead of the inside. Connected by the umbilical cord until full maturity the mother could watch its progress. At any time she could cut the umbilical cord with a quick slash of a knife, killing the child. Only the mother would be personally responsible for the death.

I don’t think we would have many abortions. That difference of a few inches from the inside to the outside of the womb is literally a matter of life and death for a young child. God made the womb to be a place of holy protection for a child yet it has become a tomb for many.

Pro-abortion people have taken full advantage of the hidden child by calling it a piece of flesh but science has exposed this fraud with ultrasound pictures inside the womb. Women can now see the development of their child yet this is not enough for the pro-death media who still perpetuate the lies. If life, at any stage, has no meaning to these people, then neither does knowledge, truth and wisdom.

Is it time to give Quebec the freedom it wants?

Now that the dust has settled on our election and the numbers are in, we find that, without Quebec, we would have a majority conservative government. Take away the 50 seats the separatists won and Harper wins 143 of the 258 remaining ridings; a majority. Of course with a majority, Quebec wouldn't be able to play the 'poor us vs. them' game and get the special attention they exist upon.
Come to think of it, without Quebec we wouldn't have homosexual marriage, unfair distribution of federal transfer payments to prop up Quebec's socialist system, the lingering Kyoto agreement which would penalise the rest of Canada while Quebec's huge hydro dam makes a fortune, a second worthless language that only francophone use and a host of intrusive socialist policies that only suit a province that survives on federal monies.
If you think I'm biased toward Quebec, what about their fixation for electing a string of prime ministers that come from Quebec for 40 years and then reject Harper because he's not one of 'Da good old boys'.
Quebec has a whole different set of values which they have been forcing into our society for years and if that's what they want they should have them without Canada's support. After all, they voted for the separatist party.It's time we respected their choice to leave Canada so we can all get on with our lives.
Canada is never going to have conservative social and fiscal values as long as this yoke is on it's neck. It's time to cut our losses.

IT'S TIME FOR UNITY

There is less than 1 week until the election, an election
that will decide the next Prime Minister of Canada. The person elected will
be the Prime Minister of all Canadians, not just the Conservatives or the
Liberals. To show our solidarity as Canadians, let's all get together and
show each other our support for the candidate of your choice.

It's time that we all came together, Conservatives or Liberals alike. If you support the policies and character of Stephen Harper, please drive with your headlights
ON during the day. If you support Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Elizabeth May,
please drive with your headlights OFF at night.
Thank you for your participation in this patriotic endeavor.

Winnipeg Statement: Now in the Trash Heap of History

Social Conservatives United
News & Action Notice
_______________________________________________

After reflecting on the recent pastoral document on Humanae Vitae,
"Liberating Potential", issued by the CCCB today, I have revised my
original commentary:

http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=1319

The Winnipeg Statement can now be relegated to the trash heap of history.

Regards,

John Pacheco
Social Conservatives United
www.socon.ca
www.socon.ca/or_bust/

Can this, hopefully mean the end of the 'Fully Alive' sex education and subsequent homosexual indoctrination in our Catholic schools? There are still a host of liberal agenda educators who will try to ignore this new development so it will be up to our Bishops to bring us back to sanity in education.

Eliminate the HRC's
Canada’s human rights commissions and tribunals are a system parallel to the court system. They are redundant and should be eliminated.

To the people who think that they are unique and provide a “service” different from court system, here is how they are they different:

· They are not bound by rules of evidence, precedent, or courtroom procedure.

· The state pays all the plaintiffs’ legal costs, but defendants must pay their own.

· “Feelings” are accepted as evidence.

· The “likelihood” of damages being incurred, at some indefinite time in the future, substitutes for real damages that can be shown to have been incurred.

· They have the power to “balance rights” and decide whose rights matter most in any given set of circumstances, thus citizens can never be sure, from day to day, what their rights are.

As a result, in Canada real justice is done only when HRC cases are appealed to the real courts.

Who wants to maintain the human rights commissions and tribunals? The people who want to use public money and resources to attack and smear their political opponents.

They have become an instrument for enforcing one’s own views using public money.

They are seeds of "cultural change" implanted into the bureaucracy by previous left-wing governments.

They have become a lobby group paid by the public purse.

They cannot be “reformed”, but need to be eliminated.

Giuseppe Gori, Leader
Family Coalition Party of Ontario

Prominent Psychiatrist: "No Particular Need for Sex-Education"


Commentary by Dr. Philip Ney

OTTAWA, September 4, 2008 (LifeSitenews.com) - I am a retired professor of psychiatry, having taught in 5 universities in different parts of Canada, Hong Kong and New Zealand. I have also run child and adolescent psychiatric units. I have been on school boards. It is from a review of the literature and from my experience that I write this brief opinion.

1) There is no particular need for "sex education." For many centuries there was no sex education, yet children were conceived and their parents enjoyed the process. Discovery of each other and what is pleasant in bed, on the wedding night and thereafter, is an important part of the exciting and unique pleasure that bonds the couple.

2) Sex education inhibits pair bonding. To educate young people about something that comes naturally robs them of the spontaneity and joy of sex that is vitally important for pair bonding and thus family stability.

3) The more sex education, the more sexual self-consciousness. There is substantial evidence that the more sex education, especially on technique, the more the couple is sexually inhibited. The greater the emphasis on sexual performance, the less communication and interpersonal intimacy there is.

4) The more sex education, the more sexual activity. It is quite conclusive now, that the more sex education, the more sexual activity and all the problems that go with that. The introduction of sex education is well correlated with the increase in abortion, STDs and boy-girl interpersonal problems. Good education gives people the desire to try it out or learn more experientially. Paradoxically, in that respect, current forms of sex education are good education but have the wrong results.

5) The earlier the sex education, the younger children explore sex and try various sexual techniques. Present evidence makes it possible to also conclude that the earlier the sex education, the earlier the sexual behavior. Thus sexual education is sexual titillation.

6) In preventing disease and pregnancy, sex education has been a failure. Sex education has had the opposite effect in preventing young people from engaging in "risky sexual behavior."

7) The idea of "safe sex" has failed. Frightening children with the dangers of "unprotected sex", drugs, fast driving, alcohol, etc. for many children has the paradoxical effect of increasing their interest in trying it.

8) The reliance on condoms has been dangerously misleading. There are sexually transmitted diseases (eg. Human Papilloma Virus) for which condoms offer no protection. The most effective use of the best condoms offers 87% protection from lethal HIV, transmitted by anal intercourse. Condom use has failed particularly in Africa. Condom use creates the false impression of safety, thus encouraging sex, when there is a 13% (at least) chance of dying as a result.

9) There is nothing in sex education that cannot be part of a more effective general health education. Everything of value in sex education can be integrated with the necessary knowledge of how the body and mind work. We found that by using the young person's curiosity and letting them discover how their heart, lungs etc. work, gives them a natural desire to protect something very precious - their body and mind.

10) The sex industry profits from sex education. There is an enormous sex industry that financially profits from natural biological drives and makes billions on fashions, condoms, contraceptives, etc. It is understandable they contribute to the sex problems.

11) Sex education creates mind absorbing conflicts and preoccupations. Exposing children to sexual titillation (sex education) creates conflicts and preoccupations that interfere with their mental health, education and personal development.

12) Sex education tends to result in mental images that interfere with the appreciation of nature and art.

13) No sex education teaches the beauty and hazards of pair bonding. To my knowledge there is no sex education program that informs kids about inadvertent pair bonding. Humans are made one flesh through sex. Thus many kinds of sexual behaviour create life long pair bonds. These interfere with the intimacy and durability of a later committed marriage. Statistics indicate that the more "premarital" sex the more extramarital sex.

14) Many kinds of sex education, including "chastity" education, leave a young person with the impression that any kind of sex except vaginal intercourse is okay when it is not.


To visit Dr. Ney's website:
http://www.messengers2.com

Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

Do we really need sex education in our schools that contradicts parents ideas especially now that our schools are starting to homo-sex the education?