Archived Columns

Canada displays no compassion for the neediest
The London Free Press, July 6, 2004
By Rory Leishman

In last week's Canada Day address, Prime Minister Paul Martin lauded the alleged virtues of the Canadian people. claiming: "Our compassion toward those in need and the inclusive nature of our society are second to no other."

Is that right? A truly compassionate and inclusive people would safeguard the lives of all innocent human beings in their society. But do we Canadians fulfil this primordial obligation? Evidently not.

Thanks to the calamitous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Morgentaler, 1988, Canada is the only purported democracy in the world that provides no legal protection for the lives of the most vulnerable and neediest of our fellow human beings -- babies in the womb. In Canada, it's perfectly legal to deliberately kill even a healthy boy or girl within seconds before birth.

In the United States, the commission of such a barbaric act is a criminal offence, thanks to Congressional enactment of the Partial Birth Abortion Act. In signing this act into law, President George W. Bush described partial birth abortion as involving, "the partial delivery of a live boy or girl, and a sudden, violent end of that life.

"Our nation owes its children a different and better welcome," Bush insisted. "The bill I am about to sign protecting innocent new life from this practice reflects the compassion and humanity of America."

What has Prime Minister Martin done to outlaw partial birth abortion in Canada? Absolutely nothing. Worse, neither he nor any of the other major party leaders promised during the election campaign -- perhaps the tawdriest in Canadian history -- to do anything to end the disgraceful lack of legal safeguards for the lives of pre-born babies.

To the contrary, Martin declared: "As a legislator. I believe that women should have the right to choose."

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper refused to take a stand on the issue other than to promise: "A Harper Conservative government would not legislate on abortion."

Granted, the views of Canadian politicians on such controversial moral issues are largely irrelevant. Through arbitrary interpretations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada has taken it upon itself to determine public policies in defiance of the express will of Parliament and the provincial legislatures.

A corresponding disposition of judges in the United States to subvert the legislative process under the guise of constitutional interpretation does not sit well with Bush. Referring to the Partial Birth Abortion Act, he vowed: "The executive branch will vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the courts."

In contrast, Martin has promised that he would never invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter to prevent the courts from striking down duly enacted laws on abortion, gay marriage, child pornography or any other issue. Martin subscribes to the perverse view that unelected judges, rather than elected representatives of the people, should determine public policy on crucial moral questions.

Suppose that by some miracle, the Supreme Court of Canada were to summon up the common decency to outlaw partial birth abortion. Would Martin stand by his pledge never to use the notwithstanding clause to circumvent a policy decision of the courts? Or would he fulfil his promise to uphold a woman's alleged right to choose?

Faced with a similar dilemma on the gay marriage issue, Martin chose to kowtow to the courts. Despite having repeatedly promised to defend the natural family, he reversed course after the Ontario Court of Appeal arbitrarily discovered a requirement of gay marriage in the Charter.

In effect, Martin says: "Here are my principles. If the courts don't like them, I'll change them." That's pathetic, especially coming from someone who purports to uphold the fundamental principles of Judeo-Christian morality.

In signing the Partial Birth Abortion Act, Bush observed: "The wide agreement amongst men and women on this issue, regardless of political party, shows that bitterness in political debate can be overcome by compassion and the power of conscience." Quite so.

Why, then, has Canada failed to outlaw this atrocious abortion procedure? Let's face it: Despite our moral pretensions, we Canadians now have less compassion and power of conscience than our neighbours to the south.

It's the Liberals who have embraced a radical social agenda
The London Free Press, June 15, 2004
By Rory Leishman

As the Liberals slide ever lower in the polls, they are becoming ever more desperate in their attacks on the Conservatives. In a press release on Thursday, the Liberal Party went so far as to accuse Stephen Harper and the Conservatives of harboring a "radical social agenda."

That's nonsense. It's not Harper and the Conservatives, but Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Liberals who have taken to imposing radical social change on Canadians.

Take the issue of so-called gay marriage. On June 8, 1999, Canada's elected MPs adopted a resolution affirming that, "It is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada."

Martin voted for this resolution as did former prime minister Jean Chretien, justice minister Anne McLellan and the great majority of other Liberal MPs. Have the courts paid any heed? Not at all. In a direct and open expression of contempt for Parliament, judicial activists have invoked the guarantee of equality rights in section 15 of the Charter as a pretence for amending the law to permit homosexual as well as heterosexual couples to marry.

Martin has done nothing to oppose this judicial subversion of democracy and the rule of law. He has broken his promise to support all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of Parliament to preserve the legitimate definition of marriage. Instead, even before the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on the issue, Martin and most of his fellow Liberal MPs have acquiesced in the arbitrary decision of judicial activists to permit homosexuals to marry.

Harper and most of his fellow Conservatives reject such radical and undemocratic social change. The Conservative Party vows in its election platform to, "fight to give a greater voice to Parliament. We will ensure that issues like marriage are decided by Parliament, not the courts."

Harper says he would resort to the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution to prevent the courts from imposing gay marriage on Canadians. Justice Minister Irwin Cotler strenuously objects. In a statement last week, he said that any attempt to invoke the notwithstanding clause would constitute, "a moral failure of leadership."

Is that right? By Cotler's standard, Martin displayed a moral failure of leadership on Dec. 18, 2003, when he stated in an interview with CBC Radio: "Let's say that some kind of decision came down that was going to force churches, synagogues, mosques or temples to redefine marriage in a way that that particular religion did not want to, then I would use the notwithstanding clause."

Good for Martin. Like Harper, he at least understands that in democratic principle, unelected judges should not have unbridled power to determine vital issues of public policy.

Martin claims in the Liberal campaign manifesto that his government has restored Parliament to the centre of national debate and decision-making. He says: "Most votes in the House of Commons are now free votes in which MPs can represent the views of their constituents as they see fit."

What about a vital issue like abortion? While both Martin and Harper pledge that their governments will not introduce any abortion legislation, Harper says the Conservatives would allow a free vote on a private member's bill on abortion; in contrast, Martin says he would "strongly advise" his backbenchers not to introduce such a bill.

Voters have a clear choice in this election. Those who favour gay marriage should support the Liberal Party or the New Democrats. And the same goes for voters who support the virtually untrammeled power of unelected judges to impose radical new laws on Canadians in defiance of Parliament.

Harper insists that the role of the Supreme Court of Canada, "is to apply the Charter to protect the rights laid out in the Charter; not to invent rights that are not in the Charter." Voters who share this view should back the Conservative Party. It's the only major party committed to reviving democracy and the rule of law in Canada.

Safety skills are essential to healthy cycling
The London Free Press, June 1, 2004
By Rory Leishman

Twice in the past three years, I have crashed on my bicycle and ended up in the hospital. Undaunted, I have returned to riding the rusty steed. Does this prove, as many have long surmised, that I am an unteachable lunatic?

Naturally, I do not think so. Having carefully reviewed the literature on bicycle safety, I am persuaded that cyclists who know and practise the skills of safe cycling are likely to enjoy longer and healthier lives than auto addicts who can't find the time for daily aerobic exercise.

The greatest danger to most cyclists is not mad car drivers, pot-holed streets or anything other than their own recklessness. Cyclists who run red lights; ride after dusk without lights, reflectors and luminescent clothing; speed past pedestrians on multiple-use pathways; or turn too fast on wet pavement (it's this last foolishness that has twice done me in) are a menace to themselves and others.

Cycling on a sidewalk is both dangerous and illegal. Yet riding on bicycle sidepaths paralleling busy streets is hardly less perilous. Motorists habitually cross into and through these sidepaths without seeing oncoming cyclists.

The risk of collisions between cyclists and motorists at sidepath intersections is so serious that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in the United States has strongly warned against the construction of sidepaths in its authoritative, Guide for the Development of Bicycling Facilities. London's city engineers might wish to consult this guide before squandering more taxpayers' money on the proliferation of dangerous sidepaths instead of wider inside street lanes that can safely accommodate both cars and bicycles.

Still, the best protection for any cyclist is a knowledge of cycling skills. Beware of false information. The Owner's Manual for my bicycle advises: "Ride on the right side of the road as close to the edge of the road as possible."

That advice is dead wrong. A good source of sound information is Cycling Skills: A Guide for Teen and Adult Cyclists that is available free of charge from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. Another reliable manual is free on-line at: www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm

Cycling Skills agrees that cyclists who are going straight ahead should never ride against the traffic, but always use the right-hand through lane. However, the guide warns: "Stay at least half a metre from the curb to avoid curb-side hazards, and ride in a straight line."

There are exceptions to this rule: "In urban areas where a curb lane is too narrow to share safely with a motorist, it is legal to take the whole lane by riding in the centre of it." The Ministry of Transportation guide advises: "This is safer than riding near the curb which may encourage motorists to squeeze by where there isn't sufficient room."

There is an exception to the exception: "On high speed roads, it is not safe to take the whole lane." The guide counsels cyclists to generally avoid high-speed roads in favour of lower-speed, lightly travelled routes.

"Riding in a straight line," says the guide, "is the key to riding safely in traffic." Even in the presence of parked cars, cyclists should ride in a straight line -- in this case, at least one metre away from the parked cars to avoid opening doors. Cyclists who weave around parked cars take themselves out of a following motorist's line of vision.

The guide to cycling skills warns: "You have less traction on wet roads, so corner slowly with little leaning." This is one safety tip I am not likely soon to ignore.

The Ontario Highway Traffic Act requires every cyclist under the age of 18 to wear an approved bicycle helmet. Everyone over the age of 18 should do so as well. It is undoubtedly true, as the guide to cycling safety states: "An approved bicycle helmet can greatly reduce the risk of permanent injury or death in the event of a fall or crash."

Let us, though, not exaggerate the dangers of riding a bicycle. Carefully designed statistical studies in Canada, the United States and Europe have conclusively demonstrated that bicycle riding is an eminently safe and healthy form of transportation and enjoyment -- provided the bicyclist learns and consistently practises safe-cycling skills.

Bishops equivocate on key election issues
Catholic Insight, June, 2004
By Rory Leishman

The Apostle Paul asked: "If the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who shall prepare for battle?" That's a good question for members of the Episcopal Commission for Social Affairs of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. In preparation for the impending federal election, the Commission has issued a lamentably indistinct bugle call for Catholic voters in the form of a public statement, "Election 2004: Responsibility and Discernment."

To begin with, the Commission offers the trite observation that, "As citizens, Canadian Catholics have an obligation to be interested in political life and to exercise their civic responsibilities by participating in the electoral process, particularly by voting." That's true enough, but for the great majority of Canadian Catholics, the key question is not whether, but for whom, to vote.

In this respect, the Commission noted: "The Gospel does not give Catholics a specific program of social and political action. Each Catholic must exercise political discernment and prudential judgment. Within a democratic society, there exists a range of legitimate political approaches."

Quite so. But of course, that range of legitimate approaches is circumscribed by basic moral principles. Thus, the Gospel and the Church have made clear that it is illegitimate for any politician or party to manifest indifference for the poor, yet Christians can reasonably disagree on the best means of alleviating poverty.

Take the case of foreign aid. Currently, Canada allocates about 0.22 per cent of its gross domestic product to overseas development assistance. That's about the same as Britain and twice as much as the United States. But it's not nearly enough for the Commission. It says Catholic voters should ask of the political parties and candidates: "How will they increase overseas development assistance to 0.7 percent of Canada’s Gross National Product?"

A tripling of Canada's foreign aid might well be appropriate, but that is surely a matter for prudential judgment on which Christians might reasonably disagree. The Commission can cite nothing in the Gospel or the teaching of the Catholic Church to support its view that 0.7 per cent of GNP is the one and only right amount.

This is not to suggest that all political issues are ambiguous. On some vital policy matters, there is no room for disagreement among Christians. Chief among these issues is abortion. No one has put the matter better than Pope John Paul II: "Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.... No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself and proclaimed by the church."

In conformity with this teaching, the Commission suggests as the first question for Catholic voters to ask: "What is the position of the candidate and his or her political party on protecting the right to life of all human beings, from conception to natural death?"

Paul Martin, Jack Layton and most other Liberal, New Democratic Party and Bloc Quebecois MPs have already given their answer: They will oppose any attempt by any pro-life MP to end Canada's disgrace as the only democracy in the world that provides no legal protection whatsoever for the life of even a healthy and full-term baby in the womb.

In the face of such a cruel and barbaric policy, what should Catholic voters do? On this key point, the Commission on Social Affairs of the CCCB is silent.

Yet the answer is obvious: The Commission should have instructed Catholic voters that they cannot in good conscience support any political party that condones policies like abortion, euthanasia and so-called gay marriage that run clearly contrary to fundamental principles of the Christian faith as affirmed by the Gospel, the constant teaching of the Catholic Church and the most solemn pronouncements of Pope John Paul II.

With such a statement, the Commission would have issued a clear and distinct bugle call for the upcoming election. Alas, the members of the Commission chose not to do so. On behalf of the CCCB, they have emitted only an indistinct and confusing sound that is bound to leave many Catholic voters no less morally confused and benighted on vital political issues than our Catholic prime minister.

Muslim guide to the 2004 federal election
The London Free Press, May 18, 2004
By Rory Leishman

In preparation for the upcoming federal election, the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) has been quick off the mark with the presentation of a research report entitled, Election 2004: Towards Informed and Committed Voting. The report describes a set of principles that the CIC presents as, "the best standards for Canada and Canadians."

Some of these principles are non-controversial. Take health care, for example. The CIC states: "We believe that every Canadian is entitled to the basic human right to be treated when sick, irrespective of financial means." Would any electoral candidate want to disagree?

On the national economy, the CIC report is more contentious. It affirms: "We believe that economic competition can be ethical and advantageous, but not at the expense of workers’ wages, benefits, and job security. When competition -- chiefly motivated by increased profit margins -- results in unnecessary and socially destructive plant closures…, we all pay the ultimate price in social unrest, extremist movements, public anger and crime."

On national defence, the CIC says: "We believe that every dollar and every human intellect that Canada devotes to the

maintenance of our outdated war technology is effectively lost and wasted, as we will never be able to duplicate the military profile of the American defense program. The return on our investment would be much greater if our efforts were instead directed toward addressing international issues of peace, development and justice."

During the Second World War, the Canadian military made an heroic contribution to the struggle to liberate the world from the Nazi and fascist menace. Today, many Canadians think that this country should also make a significant military contribution to the war on terror.

The CIC disagrees. It states: "We believe that when diplomacy fails in resolving international conflicts, the solution -- to paraphrase the late Lester Bowles Pearson -- is yet more diplomacy. Current practices, in which diplomacy is only pursued in contexts that leave war as the final court of appeal, are both unsatisfactory and dangerous. War cannot achieve more than diplomatic peace."

In conformity with this statement, the CIC should urge Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist terrorists who target innocent Israeli citizens to lay down their weapons and negotiate a peace agreement with Israel. Instead, the CIC states: "We also believe that people who are under occupation have the right, as recognized by the UN, to liberate their lands by various means, including the use of armed resistance. Such armed resistance, as described by the UN, cannot be labeled 'acts of terrorism.'"

By these criteria, how does the current crop of federal MPs measure up? It comes as no surprise that the CIC awards every New Democrat a solid "A". Among the Liberals, 42 receive an "A", 80 a "B", and 50 an "F". As for the 75 Conservative Party MPs, only six get an "A"; the remainder all fail the test.

Four London-area MPs -- Sue Barnes, London West; Joe Fontana, London North Centre; Pat O'Brien, London Fanshawe; and Gar Knutson, Elgin-Middlesex-London -- rank among the minority of Liberal MPs who merit an "A". Rose-Marie Ur, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex (Liberal), earned an "F."

That the CIC awarded O'Brien an "A" is not surprising. In a statement in the House of Commons on Feb. 17, he denounced the security fence that Israel has constructed to prevent Islamist homicide bombers from attacking innocent Jews. He charged: "This wall denies basic human rights to the Palestinian people and further reduces the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the status of concentration camps."

The next day, Liberal MP Art Eggleton denounced O'Brien's statement in the Commons as "unacceptable." "It makes a mockery of the Holocaust," he said. "The security fence is a measure of necessity. Simply put, no terror, no fence."

Liberal MP Anita Neville also spoke out against O'Brien's statement as did Conservative Party MP James Lunney. "I was shocked by the insensitive and inflammatory remarks about the security wall being constructed in Israel," said Lunney. "I am certain most Israelis would agree to dismantle that wall in a heartbeat if the reign of terror and carnage inflicted on its citizens were halted."

In the CIC evaluation of federal MPs, Eggleton, Lunney and Neville all earned an "F".

Judicial activists have destroyed the rule of law
The London Free Press, May 4, 2004
By Rory Leishman

Anyone who thinks conscientious Christians have nothing to fear from the courts should ponder the escalating persecution of Hugh Owens and Scott Brockie.

Brockie is the Christian printer who ran afoul of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, by refusing to print business cards and other materials for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. The aim of the Archives is to promote the lifestyles of gays, lesbians and bisexuals -- lifestyles that Brockie deplores as gravely unhealthy and sinful.

In a ruling on Feb. 19, 2000, the Tribunal found that Brockie had violated the ban on discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation in the Ontario Human Rights Code. To atone for this offence, the Tribunal ordered him to pay $5,000 in damages to the Archives president, Ray Brillinger. In addition, the Tribunal directed that Brockie must henceforth print materials for any homosexual individual or group on the same basis as all other clients.

Brockie appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court, and lost. On June 17, 2002, the Court upheld the orders of the Tribunal, subject only to the qualification that he is not required to print anything that, in the opinion of a judge, "might reasonably be held to be in direct conflict with core elements of Mr. Brockie's religious beliefs."

Having expended close to $100,000 in legal fees for a fruitless defence, Brockie decided against any further appeal. That decision would have ended the matter, except that the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Brillinger appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal for an order requiring Brockie to pay their legal costs. In a ruling on March 30, the Commission and Brillinger won. Brockie is now stuck with an additional legal bill of $40,000.

Meanwhile, Owens is appealing a ruling by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal that requires him to pay $15,000 in damages to three homosexuals who were offended by an advertisement he had placed in The Saskatoon StarPhoenix that contained a list of Bible verses opposed to homosexuality. Owens is a modestly paid guard at the Regina Correctional Centre. To avoid legal costs, he has represented himself without the benefit of legal counsel.

Now, even Owens is facing financial ruin. He has already lost one appeal in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench. If he loses again in the Court of Appeal, he, like Brockie, could get stuck with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees run up by the prosecuting human rights commission.

Apologists for gay rights activists and the courts would argue that Brockie and Owens are only getting what they deserve for deliberately breaking the law. That's patently untrue. Brockie and Owens did not intend to violate the law. Given the ostensible guarantee of freedom of religion in section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they and their lawyers thought Christians are still free in Canada to express peaceful opposition to sodomy, rimming and other deviant sexual practices.

In a classic text, The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek observed that in countries governed by the rule of law, "government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand -- rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge."

Prior to the rulings in Owens and Brockie, no one could have foreseen with fair certainty that Canadians are no longer free to publish Bible verses opposing sodomy or to refuse on principle to print materials for a gay advocacy organization. These two cases illustrate how judicial activists have destroyed the rule of law for all Canadians.

Sean Murphy of the Catholic Civil Rights League is fed up. In reaction to the latest Brockie ruling, he charged: "There is a point beyond which the conduct of judicial officers will bring the administration of justice into disrepute. That point is passed when a Christian printer is ordered to produce business cards and letterhead for an organization that promotes pro-pedophilia essays, is fined $5,000 for having refused to do so, and is left with $40,000 in legal bills for daring to defend himself."

Liberals have destroyed the Canadian military
The London Free Press, April 20, 2004
By Rory Leishman

Speaking at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown last week, Prime Minister Paul Martin said he was "very pleased" to announce that in August, Canada will retain 600 troops in Afghanistan: He should have been very ashamed that Canada is making such a paltry contribution to the war on terror.

The United States has about 15,500 troops in Afghanistan and another 135,000 in Iraq. Canada has not and cannot contribute a single soldier to the liberation of Iraq. Our woefully depleted armed forces are hard pressed just to maintain their meagre presence in Afghanistan.

What accounts for the abysmal contribution to international peace and security by the once mighty Canadian Armed Forces? During the First and Second World Wars, they distinguished themselves in the thick of the fighting. By 1945, Canada had the third largest navy, the fourth largest airforce and a powerful army consisting of five full divisions and two additional armoured brigades.

Jack Granatstein, Canada's premier historian, recounts the past glories and impending demise of the Canadian Armed Forces in an excellent new book, Who killed the Canadian Military? While many share the blame, Granatstein fingers former prime minister Pierre Trudeau as a prime culprit.

Within four years of taking office, Trudeau had slashed defence spending by 20 per cent. Instead of supporting Canada's NATO allies, he advocated appeasement of the Soviet Union. "Over 16 years in power, he succeeded in making the Canadian Forces as weak and irrelevant as he left Canadian foreign policy," writes Granatstein. "Without a doubt, Pierre Trudeau killed the Canadian Forces."

Granatstein describes the years under Brian Mulroney as a "false dawn of hope" that led to the "Last Rites," when Jean Chretien finished off the Canadian Forces. Today, much of Canada's military equipment is reaching "rust out."

For example, the air force's fleet of 32 Hercules transport aircraft is approaching total collapse. More than half of these planes are almost 40 years old and two-thirds were recently grounded because of cracks in the airframe.

All of the navy's destroyers were built in the early 1970s. Granatstein reports: "Their service life is nearing an end and, if they are not replaced or their command and control capacities not grafted onto a frigate or three, the navy's ability to run task groups at sea will be lost."

Granatstein sums up: "Chretien's Liberal regime had handled defence questions shamefully in its nearly 11 years in power, and virtually all the unhappy trends of the last half-century came to their apogee during his time in office. He failed to fund the Canadian Forces adequately, ran down its strength, and allowed major weapons' systems to fall into obsolescence, often at risk to the soldiers, sailors and aircrew who operated them."

Will Martin's Liberal regime undertake to revive the Canadian military? That, to say the least, is questionable.

Granted, Martin announced plans last week to spend $2.1 billion on replacements for the navy's three obsolete support ships, while Defence Minister David Pratt came to London to announce a $700-million contract with General Dynamics for the purchase of 66 Stryker-class, light armored vehicles to replace what remain of the 127 obsolete Leopard tanks Trudeau bought from Germany in the 1970s.

In the course of these pre-election ploys, neither Pratt nor Martin has announced any plan to replace the navy's destroyers, the air force's C-130s or an array of other obsolete military equipment. All Martin and Pratt have to say is that these urgent matters are under review.

Currently, Canada allocates only 1.1 per cent of gross domestic product to defence spending. That's less than half the NATO average.

Australia, despite having a population one-third smaller than Canada's, spends about $5 billion per year more than Canada on defence. Moreover, the government of Australia recently embarked on a 10-year, $50-billion plan to purchase new equipment for the Australian Armed Forces.

How much do the Martin Liberals plan to spend on reviving the Canadian Armed Forces? That remains to be determined. In the March 23 budget, Finance Minister Ralph Goodale would only say that, "As Canada conducts its International Policy Review and develops a new national security policy, long-term financial resource requirements will be considered as part of the review of defence strategy."

Reflections on the historical events of Holy WeekThe London Free Press, April 6, 2004
By Rory Leishman

This is the beginning of Holy Week -- that most somber period in the liturgical calendar when Christians are summoned to recognize and rue their guilt for the suffering, torture and death of Jesus Christ.

Granted, there are now and always have been numerous Christians who deny any personal responsibility for the crucifixion. Down through the centuries, all too many of these heterodox believers have pinned the entire blame upon the Jews, although it was Romans who did the evil deed.

Paul Johnson has recounted the abysmal record of Christian anti-Semitism in A History of the Jews. He points out that one of the worst offenders was King Edward I of England. In 1276, Edward seized the property of several hundred wealthy Jews, then had them arrested, consigned to the Tower of London and executed on charges of blasphemy. Next, in 1290, he expropriated the property of all remaining English Jewish and expelled them from his kingdom.

There can be no excuse for Edward. While tyrants like him persecuted the Jews, other medieval Christians rallied to the defence of their Jewish neighbours. For example, in 1096, the Archbishop of Cologne thwarted a mob of rampaging crusaders bent on massacring the city's Jews, by quelling the rioters with armed force and hanging the ringleaders.

In our era, Pope John Paul II has been an exemplar in the battle against anti-Semitism. Like him, all Christians should make every effort to protect innocent Jews from attack by cowardly fanatics, be they covert vandals in Canada, homicide bombers in Israel or anyone else.

Amid the agony of the cross, Jesus expressed that most sublime of utterances: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Christians understand that with this prayer, Jesus interceded not just for his Roman and Jewish tormentors, but for all mankind.

That Jesus died on the Cross on the eve of the Jewish Passover in about AD 33 is no less certain than that Julius Caesar was stabbed to death on the Ides of March in 44 BC. Both events are well authenticated historical facts.

History also attests to several self-styled Jewish Messiahs who were killed in Israel between 150 BC and AD 150. Why is only Jesus still reverenced?

N. T. Wright, the eminent British scholar who currently serves as the Anglican Bishop of Durham, has addressed this issue in his latest book -- an 817-page tour de force entitled, The Resurrection of the Son of God.

Some skeptics say that grave robbers stole the body of Jesus from the tomb. Others insist that the disciples were hallucinating when they experienced Christ bodily resurrected from the dead. Among revisionist theologians, it is commonplace to suppose that the empty tomb and the resurrection of Christ are mere fictions relayed by the gospel writers for various ideological ends.

Wright disagrees. In The Resurrection of the Son of God, he persuasively argues that the empty tomb and the resurrection of Christ are historical events, which, taken together, can provide the only reasonable and sufficient explanation for the astonishing fact that the very disciples who abandoned Jesus on the Cross went on to found Christianity and become heroic martyrs for the faith.

"Be ye therefore perfect," admonished Jesus, "even as your Heavenly Father is perfect." Christians know they are not perfect. They realize they have fallen woefully short of the divine perfection. They also firmly trust and reasonably believe that God was in Christ, offering Himself on the cross as a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

With this faith, hundreds of millions of Christians attending services this week will sing the magnificent 12^th-century hymn attributed to Bernard Clairvaux -- O Sacred Head, Now Wounded:

"What Thou, my Lord, hast suffered, was all for sinners’ gain;
Mine, mine was the transgression, but Thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Saviour! ’Tis I deserve Thy place;
Look on me with Thy favour, vouchsafe to me Thy grace.

"What language shall I borrow to thank Thee, dearest Friend,
For this Thy dying sorrow, Thy pity without end?
O make me Thine forever; and, should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never outlive my love to Thee."

Harper the best choice to lead the Conservatives

The London Free Press, March 16, 2004
By Rory Leishman

With only a few days left before Saturday's leadership convention for the Conservative Party, Stephen Harper remains the apparent front runner. Would he make the best choice to lead the new party into an impending election?

Consider the alternatives, starting with Belinda Stronach. Her candidacy has the support of several former backroom operators within the Progressive Conservative Party, some of them political sophisticates who touted Kim Campbell as a worthy successor to former prime minister Brian Mulroney. Campbell, of course, won that contest, served briefly as prime minister and then led her governing party to the worst defeat in the history of Canadian politics.

At least Campbell had considerable experience in federal politics, including a prolonged stint as justice minister, going into that contest. Stronach has virtually no political experience at all. She barely won the nomination in her own riding last week. With her as leader, the Conservative Party would be doomed to electoral oblivion.

In contrast, Tony Clement is an astute politician with extensive experience as a provincial cabinet minister. Most recently, he served with distinction as the Ontario Minister of Health during last year's SARS crisis.

During the current election campaign, Clement has advanced the freshest policy initiatives, including a bold 10-year plan for rolling back the economically crippling tax and spending increases that successive federal and provincial governments have imposed on Canadians over the past 40 years. In essence, though, there are no significant policy differences between Clement and Harper. Both are fiscal conservatives. Both would strengthen the Canadian armed forces. Both would mend relations between Canada and our closest historic allies -- the United States and Britain.

Clement and Harper agree that the Conservative Party should tolerate differences of views on sensitive moral issues like the sanctity of human life. Both would allow each member of the Conservative caucus to speak and vote freely on such matters in accordance with his or her conscience.

Prime Minister Paul Martin, following the lead of Jean Chretien, has fobbed the so-called "gay marriage" issue off on the Supreme Court of Canada. Harper repudiates this undemocratic evasion of responsibility. He insists: "Decisions about marriage should be made by the parliament you elect, not by judges the prime minister appoints."

Clement concurs. Like Harper, he maintains that Parliament should settle the marriage controversy on a free vote. And Clement has made his personal position clear: "I believe in the traditional definition of marriage -- that marriage is for a man and a woman." Likewise, Harper avows: "I will vote to retain the traditional definition of marriage –- because I believe it is the right thing to do."

Roy Beyer, former president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, says Harper and Clement are both, "generally solid on the issues and both have a record of a commitment towards building a new conservative party that respects the contribution of all conservatives, including people of faith and conscience. The question of choosing between the two comes down to a secondary but also very important consideration in politics - the issue of electability."

On balance, Beyer gives the nod to Clement, whom he sees as an adept coalition builder and a fresh personality on the federal scene, who is better placed than Harper to strengthen the Conservative Party in Ontario and to the East. However, the people of Ontario and Atlantic Canada are not parochial. Time and again, they have helped elect prime ministers from outside their regions, including two prominent Westerners -- Joe Clarke and John Diefenbaker.

Harper is intelligent, articulate and fluently bilingual. Over the past two years, he has not only revived his own nearly moribund and faction-ridden party, but has also played a key role in uniting the right. Today, his bid for the leadership of the Conservative Party commands the support of the great majority of his caucus colleagues.

Clement has waged a good campaign. He deserves a key role in a Conservative Party government.

Harper is the better choice to lead the new party into the upcoming federal election. With an experienced federal campaigner like him as leader, the Conservative Party would stand the best chance of ending the seemingly interminable rule of the arrogant and corrupt Liberals.

Bold new policy proposals advanced by Clement

The London Free Press, March 2, 2004
By Rory Leishman

Of the three candidates for the leadership of the Canadian Conservative Party, only two are worthy of serious consideration -- Stephen Harper and Tony Clement. Belinda Stronach has no apparent qualifications for the job except a vast pile of wealth conferred upon her by her father.

Harper is the obvious front runner, thanks to his astonishing success in unifying the fractious Canadian Alliance and negotiating a merger with the Progressive Conservative Party. Given Harper's years of experience in Parliament, he would be the safest choice to lead the Canadian Conservatives into battle with the Liberals.

Still, Clement deserves a close look as well. Like Harper, he is highly intelligent and reasonably bilingual. Clement also has the advantage of years of experience as a cabinet minister, most recently as the Ontario minister of health.

In the current leadership campaign, Clement has distinguished himself, by outlining some of the boldest policy proposals since Preston Manning advanced his "zero-in-three" proposal in 1993 for holding down taxes and balancing the budget. Alas for Canadians, the Liberal finance minister Paul Martin rejected Manning's advice: Instead of holding down taxes, he hugely increased them.

Now, Clement says it's time for Parliament to mount a concerted effort to rollback virtually all the Liberal tax increases imposed over the past 40 years. Correspondingly, he suggests that Parliament and the provincial legislatures should adopt a plan for cutting total government spending to 33 per cent of GDP, down from about 40.1 per cent.

Is 33 per cent too low? Hardly. That's about three percentage points higher than the current level in the United States. Clement persuasively argues that without a substantial reduction in the deadweight of government spending and taxation, we Canadians can never achieve the living standards enjoyed by our neighbours to the south.

To restore fiscal balance to Canada, Clement calls for a 10-year commitment to hold the increase in total government spending to no more than inflation plus population growth. That works out to an annual increase of about 2.5 per cent, down from the current level of close to 4.5 per cent.

While holding down total expenditures, Clements says he would increase federal funding for medicare by close to $13 billion over the next five years. In addition, he would hike defence spending by at least three per cent faster than GDP growth. Over the next five years, that could result in a total increase of about $6 billion -- not much considering the woeful state of the Canadian armed forces after 10 years of reckless Liberal under funding.

In a recent interview, Clement elaborated upon his views on the so-called "gay marriage" reference that the Martin Liberals have submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada. Clement made clear that he thinks this is a crucial policy issue that Parliament, not the courts, should decide.

"I believe in the traditional definition of marriage -- that marriage is for a man and a woman," he said. "I have promised a free vote on the issue. "The judiciary should know and should have regard to parliamentary intent."

Clement would not speculate on invocation of the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution if the Supreme Court of Canada were to flout a renewed expression of the will of Parliament to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. "Suffice it to say," he said, "that I want to have a legitimate parliamentary discussion and parliamentary will to occur on this issue."

Asked if he would allow a free vote on other contested moral issues such as a private member's bill to outlaw partial birth abortion, Clement answered, "Yes."

On these moral issues, there is no discernable difference between Clement and Harper. The latter also personally affirms the traditional definition of marriage; insists this issue should be settled by Parliament, not the courts; and holds as a general rule, that, "controversial issues of a moral or religious nature, such as abortion, should be settled by free votes of MPs, not by party policy."

Clearly, with either Harper or Clement as leader, the Conservative Party can be counted upon to uphold democracy and the rule of law. What a refreshing contrast to the Martin Liberals, who prefer the arbitrary rule of judges.

Devastating judicial blow to freedom of religion

The London Free Press, Revised Version, February 17, 2004
By Rory Leishman

(Note: In the version of this column published in The Free Press on February 17, I refer to an article entitled "HIV infection and risk behaviours among young gay and bisexual men in Vancouver" Canadian Medical Association Journal (11 January 2000). I stated that this article reported the findings of a survey of 861 men and that: "The average age of these men was only 25, yet they had already had an average of almost 30 lifetime, male sexual partners."

Alas, there were several things wrong with this statement: There were only 681, not 861, men in the survey; they were not randomly selected or presented as representative of all young gay and bisexual men in the Vancouver area; they had a median, not an average, age of 25; and among the 630 men in the survey who said they had been sexually active in the previous year, the median, not the average, number of reported lifetime sexual partners was 30.

Naturally, I am hugely embarrassed by these errors. They will be corrected in The Free Press. The following is a revised and corrected version of the column:)

In an indignant response to an outrageous ruling by the British Columbia Supreme Court, Chris Kempling of Quesnel, British Columbia, has declared: "It is a black day for religious freedom in Canada." That's no exaggeration.

Kempling is a high school teacher in Quesnel, British Columbia. He is embroiled in litigation over the decision of British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) to suspend his teaching licence because he expressed his honestly held views on homosexuality in an article and a series of letters to the editor in the Quesnel Cariboo Record.

Kempling appealed the BCCT ruling on the grounds that it violated his rights to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression in section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On Feb. 3, Mr. Justice Ronald Holmes of the British Columbia Supreme Court rejected the appeal.

Holmes acknowledged in his ruling that Kempling, "has been a BCCT member since 1980, with a long and unblemished teaching career, and a notable record of community service." In fact, despite the controversy with the BCCT, the Ministry of Health appointed Kempling to serve as the voluntary head of the Quesnel Community Health Council.

What, then, could this model citizen and teacher have written in his local newspaper to warrant suspension of his teaching licence? Holmes explains: "The appellant consistently associated homosexuals with immorality, abnormality, perversion, and promiscuity. Examples of such statements include: 'Thus my main concern with giving same sex couples legal rights in child custody issues is due to the obvious instability and short term nature of gay relationships … My second concern is how can children develop a concept of normal sexuality, when their prime care-givers have rejected the other gender entirely?'"

On the basis of this and other similar statements, the BCCT convicted Kempling of professional misconduct for making "discriminatory and derogatory statements against homosexuals." In his defence, Kempling submitted that only discriminatory actions, not speech, can count as unprofessional conduct within the meaning of the law.

Holmes disagreed. He pointed out that under the rubric of "discriminatory publication," section 7(1) of the British Columbia Human Rights Code bans the issuing of any statement that is likely to expose a group or class or persons to contempt because of their sexual orientation.

The BCCT cited no evidence of a "poisoned school environment" or specific complaints against Kempling. Regardless, Holmes concluded: "In my view, the appellant's published writings were harmful to the public school system … because of their discriminatory content."

Note the general implications of this finding: Holmes implies that it's a human rights offence for anyone, not just teachers, to lament sexual promiscuity among homosexuals in a letter to the editor of a newspaper.

Yet homosexual promiscuity is a notorious fact. However, such considerations are of no account in a human rights proceeding. In the 1990 Keegstra case, the Supreme Court of Canada decreed that truth is not a defence against a charge of discrimination under a human right code.

As for Kempling's right to freedom of expression under s. 2 of the Charter, that, too, was of no account to Holmes. He stated as his view that the Charter does not protect, "the appellant’s right to express … strictly personally-held, discriminatory views with the authority of or in the capacity of a public school teacher/counsellor."

Kempling is a Christian. What about his right under section 15 of the Charter to the equal protection of the law without discrimination on the basis of religion? Holmes dismissed this argument on the specious ground that all teachers, not just those who are Christians, are required by law not to discriminate against homosexuals.

Kempling plans a further appeal. That's a forlorn hope. Former prime ministers Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien have stacked the appeal courts with so many dogmatic gay-rights ideologues that it's practically impossible for a Christian in a case like Kempling's to get a fair hearing.

Candour in the "gay marriage" debate

The Interim, February, 2004
By Rory Leishman

Over the past 30 years, dissident theologians within the Catholic Church and the mainline Protestant denominations have incited a divisive debate over the morality of homosexuality. This dispute has riven and marginalized the United Church of Canada. Now, it threatens to split the Anglican Church of Canada as well. How can this be? Is there any reasonable theological basis for Christians to reject the hitherto universal and constant teaching of the Holy Catholic Church that homosexual sexual intercourse is no less wrong and sinful than heterosexual sexual intercourse outside the bond of marriage?

In 1974, the Catholic Theological Society of America appointed a committee to look into these questions. In Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought, the committee affirmed that Catholic teaching on all questions of sexual morality is, "rooted in the Bible." Most Protestants would agree. They, too, hold that the ultimate authority on faith and morality is the word of God as pre-eminently expressed by Jesus in the Holy Scriptures.

Given this premise, it might be supposed that there is no room for debate on the immorality of homosexual acts inasmuch as the Bible consistently condemns sexual relations between people of the same sex. What could be clearer than the warning of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans about people who had exchanged the truth of God for a lie: "God gave them up to dishonourable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

That statement seems straightforward. Yet according to the committee of the Catholic Theological Society of America, the so-called historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation has established that with this passage, Paul intended only to denounce the evils of homosexual prostitution. Correspondingly, the committee contended that the biblical condemnations of Sodom and Gomorrah related only to homosexual rape. In the opinion of the committee, there is no biblical basis for holding that homosexual sexual intercourse is inherently immoral.

Today, few biblical scholars would advance such arguments, and for good reason: These revisionist interpretations of the Bible have not stood up to rigorous exegetical analysis. They have been demolished by eminent scholars like Prof. Thomas E. Schmidt, a Protestant theologian who holds a PhD in New Testament ethics from Cambridge University. In Straight & Narrow: Compassion & Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate, Schmidt has conclusively demonstrated through a meticulous study of the original Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible that Jesus, Paul and the Old Testament prophets utterly repudiated sexual intercourse between male or female homosexuals.

Some liberal dissidents are still wont to argue that Jesus makes no explicit reference in the Gospels to homosexual acts. True enough, but it’s also true that He says nothing about bestiality. Is there any reason to suppose that Jesus condoned such perversion? Of course, not. Likewise, it’s evident that if Jesus had sanctioned homosexual acts even between loving homosexuals living in committed relationships, He would have scandalized His fellow Jews. Such a sensational break with conventional Jewish teaching could not have gone unrecorded in the gospels.

Rev. Gary Comstock appreciates the force of this argument. He concedes that Jesus condemned all homosexual acts. Rev. Comstock’s views are significant, because he is a professor of theology and chaplain at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, who is also an ordained Minister in the United Church of Christ and a leading homosexual activist. In Gay Theology Without Theology, a celebrated book among homosexual activists, Rev. Comstock relates that as a sexually active, gay man, he approaches the Bible and Christianity, "not with the purpose of fitting in or finding a place in them, but of fitting them into and changing them according to the particular experiences of lesbian/bisexual/gay people. Christian Scriptures and tradition are not authorities from which I seek approval; rather they are resources from which I seek guidance and learn lessons as well as institutions that I seek to interpret, shape and change." With regard to the teaching authority of Christ, Rev. Comstock states: "We perhaps have regarded Jesus too exclusively as a hero and not permitted him the status of a friend who would value our criticism and contributions … It is Jesus the master who says, 'Don't look to me for answers; you're on your own … I'm not the boss, simply a friend who's soon dead and gone. Goodbye.'"

Rev. Comstock deserves credit for candour. He admits that the homosexuality debate goes to the essence of Christology: Who was Jesus? Was He just an ordinary mortal corrupted by the homophobic prejudices of His time? That's the view of blaspheming revisionists like Rev. Comstock who insist there is nothing wrong with sodomy.

Christians who firmly and reasonably believe that Jesus is the divine son of God cannot condone homosexual acts. Christians who revere Jesus as a sure and certain guide on all questions of faith and morality must accept His authoritative teachings that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God; that we must all love and care for each other, regardless of our sexual orientation; and that we must reject as sinful all sexual intercourse outside the bond of marriage between a man and a woman.

Wolfhart Pannenberg, the eminent Protestant professor of systematic theology at the University of Munich, insists that all church leaders who condone sodomy must know they are schismatics. He aptly warns: "If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground, but against the unequivocal witness of scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church."

Only Harper is determined to curb the democratic deficit

The London Free Press, February 3, 2004
By Rory Leishman

Prime Minister Paul Martin has promised to eliminate what he calls the "democratic deficit" in Ottawa. But what did he do last week? Like his predecessor, Jean Chretien, he went cap in hand to the Supreme Court of Canada, seeking permission for Parliament to enact a law on gay marriage.

While Martin kowtows to the courts, United States President George W. Bush made clear in his state of the union message that he will not tolerate any attempt by judicial activists to impose so-called gay marriage on the American people. Bush said a strong America must value the institution of marriage. He called upon his fellow citizens to, "take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization," and to remember: "The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight."

In 1996, the United States Congress reaffirmed the traditional legal definition of marriage in the Defence of Marriage Act. President Bill Clinton signed that act into law. So far, 37 states have adopted similar acts.

In 1999, the Canadian house of commons likewise resolved: "It is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada."

The great majority of MPs, including Martin and Chretien, voted in favour of this resolution. Nonetheless, with supreme contempt for Parliament, a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal unilaterally proceeded in a ruling last June to amend the law to include same-sex marriage.

Former Ontario premier Ernie Eves acquiesced to this ruling. And so did Martin and Chretien. Instead of upholding their commitment to defend traditional marriage, they flip-flopped in obeisance to our rulers in the courts.

Meanwhile, in November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court aped the Ontario Court of Appeal, by suddenly discovering a constitutional requirement for same-sex marriage. However, instead of capitulating to the court, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney immediately initiated an amendment to the state constitution reaffirming marriage as the voluntary union for life of a man and a woman.

Bush has served notice that he is contemplating a similar amendment to the constitution of the United States. In his state of the union address, he said: "Activist judges have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard."

Bush warned: "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

Who will stand up for the sanctity of marriage in Canada? Certainly not Martin and his Liberal cabinet. In announcing that the government has asked the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion on the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler stressed: "We are reaffirming our position in support of same-sex marriage. It's unwavering -- no retreat."

Among the contenders for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, Belinda Stronach is also in favour of same-sex marriage. Tony Clement is opposed. He has said: "I would put it to Paul Martin that if he believes that Parliament should be supreme and sovereign, we should eliminate our so-called 'democratic deficit' and allow parliamentarians to have some say in this."

That's not good enough for Steven Harper. He maintains that Parliamentarians should have, not just "some say," but the final say on upholding traditional marriage. Like Bush, Romney, and other leading politicians in the United States, Republican and Democratic, Harper insists that elected legislators should refuse, "to allow unelected, unaccountable judges to decide major social policies."

Canadian voters should take note: If they want the judicially imposed, democratic deficit eliminated in Canada, they should assure, first, that Harper wins the leadership of the Conservative Party and then leads that party to victory in the upcoming federal election.

Canada can have no respect as a freeloader on defence

The London Free Press, January 20, 2004
By Rory Leishman

Canadians should be grateful for the magnanimous decision by United States President George W. Bush to allow Canadian firms to bid on some of the $18.6 billion worth of United States-financed reconstruction contracts for Iraq.

Last December, the Pentagon restricted bidding on the Iraq contracts to companies in the United States, Britain, Australia and 60 other countries that had given political or military aid to the Iraq war. At the time, Bush supported the policy. He said: "Our people risk their lives. Friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and, therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that."

Surely, that was an eminently fair and reasonable stance, yet Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin objected. He had the effrontery to express dismay over the exclusion of Canadian firms from the bidding, although Canada, together with France, Germany and Russia, had done nothing to help the United States liberate the Iraqi people. If Canadian policy had prevailed, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, terrorizing Iraqis and flouting the United Nations.

It's absurd to suppose that Canadian firms have any right to profit from generous assistance financed by United States taxpayers for reconstruction in Iraq. Yet Bush has reversed course. In a high-minded gesture following a meeting with Martin last week, he announced that Canadian firms will be permitted to bid on the contracts after all.

In this way, Bush has signalled his desire to improve relations between Canada and the United States. Martin should follow suit. Instead of pursuing the petty, anti-American policies favoured by Jean Chretien, Martin should pledge to the United States -- as well as to Britain, Australia and other allies -- that Canada will prepare to fulfil its responsibilities in the war on terror.

During the Second World War, Canada made an heroic contribution to combating the Nazi and fascist powers. Today, thanks to the irresponsibility of a succession of Liberal and Conservative governments, Canada has been reduced to the contemptible status of an international freeloader that is no longer capable of doing its part as a relatively prosperous democracy to help defend the world from rogue states and international terrorists.

At present, Canada has only 3,500 troops stationed overseas, including 2,000 in Afghanistan. Yet these paltry deployments have stretched Canada's once mighty armed forces to the limit. In comparison, the United States now has 473,000 superbly equipped troops on overseas assignment, including 130,000 in Iraq, 37,000 bordering volatile North Korea and 9,000 in Afghanistan.

As finance minister in the 1990s, Martin compounded decades of neglect for the Canadian armed forces, by imposing additional severe cutbacks in defence spending. The devastating, cumulative impact of these cuts on the size and operational effectiveness of the Canadian armed forces has long been evident. Yet Martin and his fellows Liberals have paid no heed. They have had no compunction about sending our overworked troops into harm's way with dangerous and obsolete equipment such as breakdown-prone 40-year-old Sea King helicopters or flimsy 19-year-old jeeps, like the one that was blown to smithereens last October on a mined track in Afghanistan, killing two brave Canadian soldiers.

In a report sombrely entitled -- Canada Without Armed Forces? -- analysts at Queen's University project that for want of adequate training and equipment, the army, navy and air force are set essentially to disappear within the next 10 years. The report warns: "Canada cannot help but become the first modern and major power to disarm itself."

Canada now spends only $13 billion a year on defence. To head off disaster, the Queen's analysts call for an immediate $5.5-billion increase. That's hardly excessive. To match defence spending in Britain relative to economic size, Canada would immediately have to hike expenditures on the Canadian armed forces by more than $15 billion.

Canada's newly appointed Defence Minister David Pratt is a former head of the Commons' defence committee and an expert on the critical depletion of Canada's defence capabilities. He should make clear to Martin and the rest of the Liberal cabinet that he will resign as defence minister unless the government adopts a massive program to revive the Canadian armed forces, starting in the upcoming federal budget with at least an immediate $2-billion hike in defence spending.

Secularism will not close the Muslim divide

The London Free Press, January 6, 2004
By Rory Leishman

In a nationally televised address on Dec. 17, French President Jacques Chirac warned that France was falling prey to sectarian strife. He lamented: "The gulf that is opening up between the difficult areas and the rest of the country belies the principle of equality of opportunity and threatens to tear apart our republican pact."

Chirac’s French auditors did not need to have him spell out what he meant by "difficult areas." They knew he was referring to the large, impoverished, crime-ridden, Muslim ghettos that plague virtually every French city.

Over the past 40 years, there has been a massive influx of Muslim immigrants into France. Currently, there are about 5 million French Muslims. They comprise close to 10 per cent of the total population.

What worries Chirac and many other French men and women is that most of these Muslims are not assimilating into the predominant culture, but perpetuating their unique identity, by living apart in sectarian communities. Chirac asked: "How can we ask the inhabitants of these communities to identify with the French nation and its values when they live in inhumane urban ghettos where the absence of law and the law of the strongest purport to reign?"

"Sectarianism cannot be the choice of France," Chirac insisted. "It would be contrary to our history, to our traditions, to our culture. It would be contrary to our humanist principles, to our faith in social promotion based solely on talent and merit, to our attachment to values of equality and fraternity among all French men and women."

To combat sectarianism, Chirac called for the zealous promotion of state-enforced secularism. "We cannot tolerate opposition to the laws and the principles of the Republic under the cover of religious liberty," he said. "Secularism is one of the great conquests of the Republic. It is a crucial element of social peace and national cohesion."

With backing from the Socialist Party, Chirac announced that his centre-right government would undertake to strengthen secularism in France, by banning displays in the public schools of any "ostentatious sign of religious affiliation," including the wearing of Muslim head scarves, Jewish skull caps or large Christian crosses. Chirac also expressed support for empowering business managers to ban employees from wearing religious emblems on the job and he indicated that his government would forbid hospitals from catering to anyone – Muslim or otherwise – who refuses to be treated by a physician of the opposite sex.

According to opinion polls, the great majority of the French people support Chirac’s plan to suppress religious symbols in government, business and the public schools. However, there are noteworthy dissenters. In a joint statement, leaders of the Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches in France denounced Chirac’s policy. Joseph Sitruk, the grand rabbi of France, has asked what’s next: Will a Jewish boy be arrested for putting a yarmulke on his head as he recites a silent prayer before an exam?

France is not the only Western country that is trying to promote social harmony through state-enforced secularism. Germany is taking much the same approach and so is Canada.

However, in the Canadian case, it’s not Muslim headscarves, but professions of the Christian faith that the courts and government have banned from the public square. In keeping with this policy, Prime Minister Paul Martin, a professed Roman Catholic, did not invite any Christian cleric to bless the inauguration of his Liberal government. Instead, he marked the occasion by taking part in a pagan Indian smudge ceremony in which an Ojibway elder enveloped him in sage smoke and patted his head with ceremonial eagle feathers. "It's cleaning the whole spirit and everything that surrounds him," the elder explained, "so his spirit is cleansed to begin work."

Can secularism work? Can even the thoroughgoing suppression of public expressions of religious faith maintain social peace in traditionally Christian countries like France, Britain, Germany and Canada that have large and rapidly growing Muslim minorities? That’s unlikely.

For the better part of a century, Stalin and a succession of other Soviet dictators used the most brutal means to enforce godless secularism. Yet relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in Chechnya and other areas of the former Soviet Union remain no less violent and bloody than ever.

A penetrating criticism of unbridled judicial activism

The London Free Press, December 16, 2003
By Rory Leishman

Robert Martin is a longstanding professor of law at the University of Western Ontario and well known among lawyers as one of the most prominent legal commentators in Canada. Everyone who still appreciates our national heritage of freedom under law should ponder his latest book, aptly entitled, The Most Dangerous Branch: How the Supreme Court of Canada Has Undermined Our Law and our Democracy.

With this title, Martin ironically alludes to the assurance by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers on June 14, 1778, that the people had nothing to fear from the powers conferred on the judiciary by the proposed Constitution of the United States. He wrote: "The judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."

In offering this assurance, Hamilton said he assumed that judges would respect the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers in the Constitution. He quoted the warning by the Baron de Montesquieu in L'Esprit des Lois: "There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."

Likewise, Sir William Blackstone warned in his magisterial 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England that liberty, "cannot subsist long in any state, unless the administration of common justice be in some degree separated both from the legislative and also from the executive power. Were it joined with the legislative, the life, liberty, and property, of the subject would be in the hands of arbitrary judges, whose decisions would be then regulated only by their own opinions, and not by any fundamental principles of law; which, though legislators may depart from, yet judges are bound to observe."

Martin contends there is no longer any separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers in Canada. "The Supreme Court of Canada now exercises all three sorts of power," he charges, "and, on the basis of Montesquieu's analysis, must be regarded as despotic."

Canadian judges used to feel bound to set aside their personal opinions for the purpose of upholding the law as defined by statutes and judicial precedents. This is no longer the case. Under the pretence of upholding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our arbitrary judges have become a law unto themselves. They do not shrink from unilaterally amending even the most basic laws such as the venerable legal rule that defined marriage as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman.

"Every police constable is expected to act within the law and so are judges of the Supreme Court of Canada," Martin observes. "In practice, however, the judges behave as if they possess unlimited power and are not subject to any legal constraints. They amend the Constitution at will, rewriting it or inventing new principles, as if the Constitution were their private possession or plaything."

How has the Supreme Court of Canada gotten away with usurping legislative power? Part of the explanation is that most law professors do not object. Martin is one of only a few dissenters. He states: "Canadian university law professors have largely abandoned any pretence at being scholars and have turned themselves into propagandists -- propagandists for the ruling clique and the orthodoxy."

Likewise, Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Justice Minister Jean Cauchon, Industry Minister Allan Rock, Health Minister Anne McLellan and most other lawyers, inside and outside of politics, relish the increased power that the Supreme Court of Canada has conferred on the legal profession. Most of these same lawyers and Liberal politicians also overtly or covertly share the politically correct, post-modernist and feminist ideology that animates most of our top judges.

What can be done to curb the judicial subversion of democracy and the rule of law in Canada? Absolutely nothing, Martin suggests, so long as most Canadians remain complacent. "Absolute power, in Lord Acton's aphorism, corrupts absolutely and the Supreme Court is now absolutely corrupt," he concludes. "This distressing situation will exist only so long as Canadians continue to tolerate it, and Canadians are probably the most tolerant people on earth. There is no virtue in tolerating the intolerable."

Interim measures to curb the abortion license

The London Free Press, December 2, 2003
By Rory Leishman

In a recent national opinion survey, Leger Marketing asked a representative sample of Canadians: "In your view, when did your own life begin? Was it at conception; at birth; sometime between conception and birth; after birth?"

Twenty-six per cent selected at birth; 12 per cent between conception and birth; and 22 per cent after birth. Only 32 per cent correctly affirmed that their life as a human being began at conception (a process that is also denoted in the medical literature as fertilization). That every human life begins at conception or fertilization is not a debatable opinion. It's an irrefutable, scientific fact.

Thus, Dr. Keith Moore and Dr. T. V. N. Persaud succinctly affirm in the sixth edition of their authoritative medical textbook, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology: "Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

In the Leger poll, the respondents were next asked: "In your opinion, at what point in human development should the law protect human life? Should it be from conception on; after three months of pregnancy; after six months of pregnancy; or from the point of birth." Only 31 per cent upheld the pro-life position -- that the law should protect every human life from the beginning at conception.

Given the widespread confusion over when human life begins, the failure of most Canadians to uphold the sanctity of all human life in the womb is hardly surprising. There can be no hope of assuring that every unborn child in Canada is welcomed in life and protected in law, until most Canadians grasp the elementary truth that life begins at conception.

As it is, Canada stands alone among the so-called civilized nations in having no law whatsoever to protect the life of the unborn child. In Canada, an abortionist can lawfully terminate the life of a baby in the womb at any time during a pregnancy right up to the last second before birth.

Do most Canadians support this total lack of legal protection for the life of the unborn? Evidently not. Only 28 per cent in the Leger poll said the law should protect human life only after birth. The great majority -- 63 per cent -- agreed that the unborn deserve legal protection after six months of pregnancy, if not sooner.

On Nov. 5, United States President George W. Bush signed into law the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Pro-life members of the Parliament of Canada should press for the adoption of a similar law, confident that it would command the support of a solid majority of Canadians.

On the provincial level, pro-life politicians might well focus on the funding issue. According to the Leger poll, only 25 per cent of Canadians uphold the funding of all abortions through the tax-funded health system." Fully 53 per cent held: "An abortion should be financed using tax dollars but only in medical emergencies, such as a threat to the mother's life or in case of rape or incest."

In the Leger poll, respondents were told: "Some states in the U.S. have informed consent laws concerning abortion. These laws require that before a woman has an abortion procedure, her physician must provide her with certain information such as details on the stages of fetal development including an ultrasound scan, possible complications and side effects following an abortion, and alternatives to abortion. Would you support similar laws in Canada for women considering abortion?"

The great majority -- 69 per cent -- answered, "Yes." Yet no province in Canada has an informed consent law on abortion. Why is that? Why should abortion be the only medical procedure that a physician can legally perform without obtaining fully informed consent?

Clearly, Canadians are not likely to arrive at a consensus on the abortion issue any time soon. Surely, though, it's not too much to expect that our politicians should start enacting those partial measures that the great majority of Canadians desire to safeguard the life of the unborn.

Broken leg brings out the best in an array of care-givers

The London Free Press, November 18, 2003
By Rory Leishman

I am feeling alright. The operation seems to have been a complete success. I am now recuperating at home and the prospects are excellent for a full and complete recovery.

"What's this all about," you ask. The shameful truth is that through my own grievous fault, I have had another bicycle accident. Suffice it to say that on Wednesday, Nov. 5, I was proceeding north from Harris Park along the Thames River bicycle path, with a new bicycle helmet planted firmly on my head, when I decided to make a sharp right turn into a side path that leads up to Oxford Street. To help make it up this steep incline, I picked up momentum.

That was a foolish mistake. The asphalt on this side path was wet and uneven. My front wheel lost traction. I crashed heavily to the pavement, landing smack on my right thigh. Immediately, I sensed that something was broken.

In this column, I will not name any of the numerous people who came to my assistance, because I have not obtained permission to do so and I do not have sufficient space to pay particular tribute to each of my many benefactors. That said, the first person to help me was a young boy. While walking over the Oxford St. bridge with his grandmother, he saw me crash. The two of them promptly came to my aid, followed shortly by a fellow cyclist and a young woman.

Together, these four Good Samaritans stayed by my side. They phoned for an ambulance, covered me with their coats and otherwise comforted me as best they could until I was safely lifted into an ambulance. God bless them.

As for the two ambulance attendants, they were outstanding. After carefully checking me out on the ground, they used their strong arms to move me as gently as possible onto a stretcher and drove me off to St. Joseph's Hospital.

The staff in the emergency and x-ray departments at St. Joseph's were no less considerate. During the time before a blessed relief of morphine could safely be administered, they gingerly moved me about so as not to aggravate my pain. And the same can be said for the ambulance attendants and staff I later encountered at the South Street and Westminster campuses of the London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC).

At South Street, an expert trauma team of orthopaedic surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses and technicians successfully inserted a titanium rod into the centre of my right femur and bolted the broken pieces together. My heartfelt thanks go out to these medical professionals as well as to at least two of my fellow blood donors whose gifts of life have made it possible for me to write this column.

No doubt, there are many deficiencies in our medicare system, including excessive delays in the provision of some forms of elective surgery. Today, though, I am especially mindful of the gratitude we all owe to our extraordinarily skilled and dedicated medical professionals who stand ready to provide life-saving services in the case of an emergency.

In addition, my wife and I are grateful to the senior minister of our church, who took precious time away from her family on a Sunday afternoon to visit and pray with us while I was undergoing a blood transfusion. We are also profoundly appreciative of the many prayers, kindnesses and expressions of good will extended by numerous other friends and relatives.

One fine fellow has consoled me with the suggestion that the next time someone denounces me as a completely worthless human being, I can stoutly demur on the unimpeachable ground that I now have a valuable titanium rod permanently implanted within my right leg.

Let the final word go to one of my hospital room-mates -- a prominent London physician and gravely ill patient who confided in me about a near-death experience he recently had while battling cancer. My wife and I will never forget how this courageous Christian assured us even in the face of death: "Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's." Thanks be to God.

Blame all around for fiscal irresponsibility

The London Free Press, November 4, 2003
By Rory Leishman

In announcing last week that former premier Ernie Eves and his Progressive Conservatives colleagues had saddled the province with a projected $5.6-billion budget deficit this year, Finance Minister Greg Sobara charged: "It is shocking. It exemplifies a history of mismanagement and misrepresentation on the part of the previous government."

Long-time voters have heard such protestations of surprise and outrage before. The New Democrats professed dismay over the size of the budget deficit left by the Liberals in 1990 and the Progressive Conservatives said the same when they took over from the New Democrats in 1995.

Nonetheless, Sobara has good reason for indignation: The fiscal mess left by the Eves government is a disgrace.

Former education minister Elizabeth Witmer insists that if the Progressive Conservatives had won another majority, they would have stood by their election promise to balance the budget for the fifth year in a row. She said: "We were going to look at savings, we were going to sell assets, we were looking for money from the federal government."

That explanation will not wash. For one thing, it's ridiculous to suppose that a federal Liberal government might hand over hundreds of millions, not to mention billions of dollars, to help bail out a deficit-ridden Progressive Conservative government of Ontario.

Going into the provincial election, the Eves government must have known that it was facing an impending fiscal crisis. Yet it did not identify, let alone disclose to voters, the huge asset sales and drastic mid-year budget cuts that would be necessary to balance the books.

However, Sorbara's protestations of shock over the size of the impending budget deficit is hardly less disingenuous. While the Liberals charged during the election campaign that the provincial treasury was heading toward a budget short-fall of close to $2 billion this year, the Fraser Institute estimated on Sept. 22, 10 days before the vote, that the deficit would reach $4.5 billion.

What did the Liberals do in the face of this warning? They continued to base their fiscal plans for the next four years on the projection of a balanced budget for this year. The Liberal platform lamely explained: "The budget assumptions (of the Eves government) have been maintained in the interest of comparability between the government's budget and the proposed Liberal program."

In short, the Liberals deliberately misled Ontario voters during the election campaign, albeit not to the same extent as the Progressive Conservatives. Both parties are guilty of the most brazen and cynical political manipulation.

Now the Ontario Liberals have to cope with reality. For starters, Premier Dalton McGuinty has promised to save hundreds of millions of dollars in annual expenditure for the Ontario treasury, by increasing the electricity cap of 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour that the Eves government adopted last December. Yet these are the same Liberals who clamoured for this misconceived cap in the first place and promised during the election campaign to retain it.

Instead of just lifting the cap, the McGuinty Liberals should abolish it altogether. Otherwise, they are going to find it extremely difficult to attract the amount of private investment in expanded electricity generation that will be necessary to hold down costs and reduce the risks of more, disastrous power blackouts for the province.

As another interim measure, the McGuinty government has announced plans to forgo $376 million a year in increased spending, by postponing the introduction of a maximum class size of 20 in junior kindergarten through Grade Three. However, as in the case of the cap on electricity rates, the Liberals would do better also utterly to abandon this foolish promise.

However much lower class sizes appeal to teachers' unions, independent research organizations, including the Ontario-based Organization for Quality Education, persuasively argue there are other, much better ways to improve the quality of elementary school education.

In the midst of the current political mess, there is one consolation for Ontario taxpayers: The Ontario Liberals are standing by their election promise not to raise personal income taxes. That's prudent. The McGuinty government is certain to end up as a one-term wonder if it ever gives in to the bad old Liberal habit of combining ever more extravagant spending with ever higher taxes.

Clearing the way for a conservative revival in Ontario

The London Free Press, October 28, 2003
By Rory Leishman

People who think right have taken quite a drubbing in the Ontario election, but should not despair: The left-wing Liberal government led by Ontario's trendy new premier, Dalton McGuinty, is bound to fail spectacularly over the next three to four years, clearing the way for a majority of the voters of Ontario to embrace a genuinely conservative, alternative government.

Take McGuinty's first announced policy initiative -- an immediate freeze on automobile insurance rates. For once, New Democratic Party leader Howard Hampton is right -- this policy cannot work. At best, it can provide only short-term relief to consumers at the expense of a long-term hike in the costs of automobile insurance in relation to benefits.

Let us use our common sense: The automobile insurance industry in Ontario and Atlantic Canada is hotly competitive. Premiums have risen sharply in both regions over the past year, because the cost of providing benefits has risen faster than projected income for the industry.

Under these circumstances, McGuinty's freeze on premiums will drive automobile insurance firms into bankruptcy. To head off this disaster, his government must quickly come up with regulations that will reduce benefits for consumers and increase profits for insurance companies by enough to compensate for the risks of incurring additional price freezes by continuing to operate in Ontario.

Instead of imposing a temporary freeze on automobile insurance premiums, Hampton would turn the entire industry over to a public-sector monopoly. At the same time, he would also revive the defunct Ontario Hydro monopoly that has already saddled Ontario taxpayers with a net debt of more than $20 billion. Die-hard socialists seem utterly incapable of learning from their previous policy disasters.

While McGuinty is not so foolish as to nationalize the automobile insurance, he and his designated health minister, the infamous George Smitherman, are dead-set against the kind of private-sector reforms to the public-sector medicare monopoly that would spare Ontario patients from ever more medicare rationing and ever longer waits for all but the most essential, live-saving medicare services.

In contrast, the British Conservative Party is promising to extend patient's choice over health care, by subsidizing the costs of services in the private sector. To illustrate the plan, Liam Fox, the party's health critic, points out that a hip replacement costs the public-sector National Health Service (NHS) about £5,000. Under the Conservative plan, patients who choose to have the operation performed promptly in a private hospital rather than wait up to a year for NHS service would be given £3,000 to offset the cost. "They would leave £2,000 behind to help the NHS," notes Fox, "and the queue would have got shorter."

In Ontario, the McGuinty Liberals are so infatuated with the public sector that they plan to cozy up to the teachers' unions, by doing away with even modest tax breaks for parents who choose to send their children to an independent school. This is a sure formula for maintaining a predominantly state-run education system that is no less inefficient than other Soviet-style monopolies.

In Britain, Damian Green, education critic for the Conservatives, has proposed a £400 million "better schools passport." Under this Conservative plan, parents living in inner cities will be given vouchers worth about $7,700 (Cdn) for primary school and $11,000 for secondary to cover the costs of sending their children to independent schools run by charities and other community organizations.

The Conservatives aim eventually to extend this plan nation-wide. Green says: "We believe that parents know what is best for their children, not (Prime Minister) Tony Blair or (Education Minister) Charles Clarke or me."

The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party should adopt similar far-reaching reforms. Once all the failures of quasi-socialist misrule by the McGuinty Liberals set in, most voters will be ready for fundamental change.

First, though, Ontario Conservatives, like their British counterparts, will have to come up with an effective, new leader. They should not make the mistake of opting for another inept political opportunist or anarchistic libertarian. What the people of Ontario urgently need is a genuinely conservative leader who can be counted upon to help liberate the province from the sleazy, freedom-stifling, nanny state preferred by the Liberals.

Even Christian judges are vulnerable to persecution

The London Free Press, October 21, 2003
By Rory Leishman

At a special mass for Catholic lawyers, judges and legislators on Sept. 18, Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic, Archbishop of Toronto, reminded his audience that Catholics in public life must be willing to suffer and even die for the faith. "There are things greater than ourselves for which we must be ready to die," he said. "If nothing is worth dying for, then I am not truly free."

Having grown up under communism in Slovenia, Cardinal Ambrozic has first-hand knowledge of anti-Christian oppression by the state. Today, he fears a deterioration of relations between church and state in Canada. Within the Canadian context, he warned: "Separation of Church and state now means the separation of conscience from politics" -- a separation forbidden to all conscientious Christians.

Norm Cafik, a former cabinet minister under prime minister John Diefenbaker, was the featured speaker at a formal dinner for Catholic lawyers and legislators following the mass. He recalled how both John the Baptist and St. Thomas More lost their heads over the definition of marriage. Today, Cafik noted, Catholic judges and lawyers are compelle