Printer Friendly

Why Paul Martin should be replaced.

At the time of writing this, April 5, the next federal election date is up in the air. However, we should think about our vote.

The Martin government took over on December 12, 2003, and therefore has had four months to validate its claim to govern. I am neither impressed, nor surprised at his poor performance.

In the analysis "Paul Martin: Faith without works?," (February edition), it became clear that Martin is committed to Jean Chretien's pro-abortion, pro same-sex "marriage," anti-life, anti-family program. He has ratified this policy already.

Most political commentators believe that not being pro-life is a wise thing. They, like columnist Doug Fisher in the Sun newspapers of April 4, think that candidates who embrace a "social conservative" program will tie a millstone around their necks and sink accordingly. I believe the opposite. Three out of four Canadians are disgusted at the threat of throwing traditional marriage onto the legal garbage heap to make way for the farce of homosexual "marriage" (homogamy). Yet this is precisely what Mr. Martin intends to do. Justice Minister Irwin Cotler recently confirmed it ("Denying marriage to gays unfair, Ottawa tells court," Globe, April 1).

The Canadian media don't want homogamy to be an election issue, but same-sex events in the U.S. undercut their intended silence. So the foolish and unseemly photos of two men kissing one another on the lips continued to appear in our newspapers throughout the first three months of the year, together with accounts that Americans vigorously oppose this perversion.

In place of discussing threats to family life, the media grappled with the Chretien legacy of scandals: the 100 million or more "sponsorship" deal leading to the dismissal of the heads of Via Rail and Canada Post corporations; the unsavoury affair at the Canadian Development Bank; the PM's secret national unity reserve, the "honey pot" of $50 million annually; the disappearance of $150 million in the Defence Department for goods supposedly delivered by Hewlett-Packard but never received; not to mention the $3 billion spending spree of the the Public Works Department of two years ago which was never pursued in depth.

The new Prime Minister should given some credit for initiating the clean-up but that is all. He deserves demerits for failing to provide the tools for others to do the job: the new powerless Commons Committee facing stonewalling civil servants has become a farce, while a judicial inquiry with teeth is not due to start until months from now.

As for the promises of dealing with the so-called democratic deficit created by previous Liberal arrogance in the first place, Martin has abandoned it already: three Vancouver Liberal candidates appointed by him instead of being elected through the nomination process; no free vote in the Commons on the wasteful gun registry (soon to cost $2 billion); no application of the Notwithstanding clause to recover Parliament's power against judicial activism; and nothing bout changing our non-elected Senate.

While each item above has its own importance, together they do not compare to the essential need to defend the family. The family is the cornerstone of our society and cannot e sacrificed to hedonistic fads. But instead of defending the family, Paul Martin undermines it.

On March 11, 2004, the government triumphed in getting Bill C-6, the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, through Parliament. It ended a three-year-long battle against it by the pro-life movement and pro-life Members of Parliament, especially Paul Szabo (Mississauga-South). The act reinforces the abortion mentality with its sanction to grow human embryos for research and then kill them. Also, the destructive anti-marriage in-vitro fertilization technique is further enhanced, while even certain forms of cloning are still permitted. These three features are intrinsically evil (see Vatican under News in Brief).

On March 25, the Senate Committee on Constitutional Affairs approved Bill C-250. This bill directly threatens freedom of speech and religion (see under Canada, p. 29). Meanwhile, Canadian representatives at the United Nations, in New York as well as Geneva, are browbeating unwilling poor nations to submit to abortion, contraception and homogamy (see under U.N., p. 27).

And, of course, there is same-sex "marriage" in the pipeline for after the election.

In order to stop this assault, people in Ontario, with its 100 Liberal MPs should vote against Liberal incumbents, except for the handful of committed pro-life MPs: Dan McTeague (Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge); Patrick O'Brien (London-Fanshawe); John O'Reilly (Haliburton-Victoria-Brock); Janko Peric (Cambridge); Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce); Paul Szabo (Mississauga South); Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest); and Rosemary Ur (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex). (For their voting record, see February edition).

Make an impact. Vote against all anti-family MP's.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Catholic Insight
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:de Valk, Alphonse
Publication:Catholic Insight
Article Type:Letter to the Editor
Date:May 1, 2004
Words:764
Previous Article:An Exorcist Tells His Story.
Next Article:McPhail letter, Jan. 2004.


Related Articles
Charge viewed as "cash grab".
Missile defence.
Bishops face threat to freedom.
The catholic community battles same-sex 'marriage'.
The Catholic rebellion: politicians and Communion.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |