Runciman and Fantino are on Our Side: Thanks from US -- the Little Guys!
Toronto's Chief Fantino and Ontario's Minister of Public Safety, Bob Runciman are our heroes against the morally insupportable stance of our Federal Government, and particularly our Minister of Immigration Denis Coderre. Thanks to The Canadian -- again. I am quoting his post here because we want everyone to know what is going on.
This situation is still going on. It's no surprise considering who is running the show.
Ontario's public safety minister and Toronto's police chief accuse Denis Coderre, the federal Minister of Immigration, of putting the privacy concerns of 59 fugitive foreign war criminals ahead of the safety of the Canadian public.
In a strongly worded letter yesterday to Mr. Coderre, obtained by the National Post, they accuse the ministry of "an unfathomable lack of co-operation" and running a "seriously flawed system" that prevents police from knowing the identities of dozens of accused war criminals who came to Canada and then disappeared.
Bob Runciman, Ontario's Minister of Public Safety and Security, and Julian Fantino, Toronto's Chief of Police, sent the letter after Ottawa denied their requests for photographs, names and birthdates of accused foreign nationals believed to be on the loose in Canada.
The crooks must be feeling all warm and fuzzy over the situation.
Read this again:
***Ottawa denied their requests for photographs, names and birthdates of accused foreign nationals believed to be on the loose in Canada. ***
This is the safety of Canadians that Minister Coderre and his Liberal government are so cavalier about!
All of us who are disgusted that our government would PROTECT the privacy of a bunch of fugitive foreign criminals over Canadian citizens -- that's US! -- appreciate the fact that The National Post is making the newspaper reading public aware of the courage of these two men, Chief Fantino and Bob Runciman.
Yesterday's Vatican document on the obligation of Catholic politicians to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions can be summarized in one sentence: You can't believe two contradictory things at the same time.
The teaching of the Catholic Church -- along with the unanimous moral tradition taught for millennia by all major religions -- is unquestionably clear. Homosexual acts are immoral, and therefore, as yesterday's document stated, cannot be recognized as the basis for "marriage, which is holy." Anyone who believes this -- and faithful Catholics presumably do -- therefore cannot be part of an effort to promote legal approbation of homosexual unions.
Many Catholic politicians in Canada are doing just that -- including the Prime Minister, his presumptive successor and the Justice Minister. They have explained that their legislative views and their religious faith are two separate things.
Two questions arise: Is this approach in fact possible? And is it morally coherent? The Church -- and basic logic -- answer no to both.
Is it possible to separate one's legislative views from one's religious faith? Take the venerable Tommy Douglas for example. A Christian clergyman and founder of the CCF (forerunner of today's NDP), his religious faith was the principal animating factor of his political campaigns for an expanded welfare state. Was he imposing his religious faith on others by voting for health care or social assistance programs? To have told Tommy Douglas to separate his religious faith from his political program would have struck him as absurd. The same would apply to innumerable campaigns for human rights or social justice that were animated by religious faith -- suffice it to mention the celebrated anti-slavery campaign of William Wilberforce in 19th-century Britain.
More fundamentally, if a politician is a serious person, his religious faith will inform his entire worldview. How exactly does he then separate this from his public policy decisions? Would it be possible for an MP to separate his biblically motivated concern for the stewardship of creation from his vote on an environmental bill? And if he were to somehow ignore his convictions on those things most important to him, what basis would there be for a decision? To remove religiously grounded convictions from policy-making is to move a giant step toward raw political power as the only determinant of public policy. . . .
The Vatican document said that "the scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than the moral law.". . . .
Yet what happens when the civil law is in conflict with the moral law? [In the words of] Martin Luther King, Jr. . . . .A politician cannot profess something as wrong according to his conscience, and then promote it in his legislative acts. To do so is simply to say that he is both in favour and against the same thing at the same time. It is morally incoherent. . . .
The Catholic temptation to adjust one's moral compass to the prevailing political conditions is an ancient one. Often the cost of integrity has been martyrdom. It is the courageous choice always available to the honest believer. And a choice always has to be made -- between what one professes to be true and what the demands of a particular political situation may be. Yesterday's Vatican document clarifies -- as have Canada's Catholic bishops over the past weeks -- that you can't choose contradictory things at the same time. Something has to give.
A Post headline writer summarized the situation yesterday: Martin Puts His Faith Second. Just so.
Nothing more needs to be said. It is clear that all lawmaking involves morality and a background of belief -- whether Christian or otherwise. No-one can hold two opposing views and be consistent.
I am posting some typical comments below in response to Paul Martin's statements--which come first--while he was attending the Toronto SARS concert this week.
Martin says duty comes before faith Admits caucus divided over same-sex marriage, by Anne Dawson, Chief Political Correspondent and John Ivison, with files from Peter O'Neil and Janice Tibbetts
Liberal leadership front-runner Paul Martin suggested yesterday his role as a legislator will take precedence over his religious beliefs when it comes to allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Mr. Martin, a staunch Roman Catholic, acknowledged the growing division within Canada and the Liberal caucus over the federal government's decision to rewrite the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians, a change the Catholic Church and other religious groups strongly oppose.
"I am a practising Catholic and I have responsibilities as a legislator and those responsibilities must take in a wider perspective,"
One word sums it up, ex-communication In other words, Mr. Martin, votes before conscience! I am appalled and disgusted by Paul Martin's comments.
Just more proof that this man has zero moral and ethical standards that he adheres to. A catholic willing to ignore all his beliefs to appease less than 5% of the population. So the 'courts have decided' but who appointed the judges . . .
The issue of gay marriage should be decided by a referendum. Duty be damned, it's all about votes and power. I am tearing up my Liberal Party Membership Card
The Most Succinct Summation!
[Paul Martin is] really saying he doesn't believe in anything but his political aspirations. He'll blow which ever way it takes to be Prime Minister - he'll stand for nothing or anything if that's what it takes. He has no perosnal standards and has effectively said so. He should state his personal beliefs and stand by them - that would be called character and integrity. If he is for or against any issue, he should let us know, make a stand and let us vote. He seems to want to be the invisible man and get elected for what he doesn't stand for. Some choice for Prime Minister.
Name: Barry McIntyre
Occupation: Engineer
Location: Calgary
I could not have said it better! Didn't I suggest the natives are getting--or going to get--restless?
Supremes make JC wait -- and Maybe PM, Future PM, As Well
There is news on the SCOC front. The Supreme Court will not decide for JC the gay marriage issue--or the wording of the legislation, the feds say--until after Paul Martin is crowned PM, and maybe even later than that. Bear in mind, that the Issuer of Judgeship Appointments--Himself--wanted the SCOC to act quickly so he could muscle the legislation through with his mostly trained seals. Wonder, of wonders, even some of them are balking! Jean Chretien--Himself--used his power a little too nakedly in this instance methinks.
Paul Martin is reported to be intending to call an election soon after the coronation so it will likely become an election issue. It seems that 24 groups (+ or -) have requested intervenor status with the SCOC and the SCOC has responded that it needs time, that the justices will be working at their usual pace--not at the accelerated pace hoped for by our present PM -- the one who appointed so many of them.
Perhaps sensing a restless populace--slow to anger, but edging toward livid enough to bellow for ELECTED, not APPOINTED, judges--the Supreme Court may be protecting its appointed turf for future generations of Liberal Prime Ministers.
The populace is akin to a mob; once aroused, it is not easily controlled. Perhaps our natural governing party will find out -- indeed, needs to find out! Go to The National Post for the story. This is really important to all of us! Maybe we should thank the SCOC -- or perhaps we should await their decision, bearing in mind that they are appointed and like not being elected -- because it might compromise their independence. Remember, politicking and electioneering are dirty processes. Nevertheless, the Supremes will probably subconsciously, if not consciously, recall to whom they owe their appointments -- and act accordingly. I am a cynic!
The Canadian, in his own inimitable way, has come up with a solution to the runaway disintegration under the federal Liberals of so much that Canadians hold dear.
Members must remember to keep church and state separate
The Charter is wrong...the Bill Of Rights is WRONG..and we are paying a huge price for that error.
It is my personal opinion, but one that I truly believe!
I'm going to share a little secret with you...one that you may not have really considered.
That secret is Independent MP's -- and I will tell you why.
ALL the organized parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
ALL OF THEM!
If you truly want honest representation in Parliament, then what you must consider is returning an MP to Ottawa who can vote his conscience on EVERY BILL that comes before the house.
No party discpipline...no bullshit.
Before you dismiss it out of hand, read the whole post -- and think about it! The present party system is destroying our country. This is a sensible and possible solution.
