Tag archives: Canada

Attacking Canada’s Parliament: “This Changes Everything”

by Robert Morrison

October 23, 2014

John McKay is a Member of Parliament in Canada. Of yesterday’s attack by a recent Muslim convert on the House of Commons, Mr. McKay said “This changes everything.” Just before he entered the Parliament building, the killer had murdered a Canadian Forces soldier at the Ottawa war memorial.

Parliament’s Sergeant-at-Arms, Kevin Vickers, is being hailed as a hero. On a normal day, Vickers’ largely ceremonial role would pass outside the view of Canada and the world. On special occasions, Vickers, a 28-year veteran of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), could be seen bearing the great mace, a symbol of the authority of the people’s elected representatives in North America’s second oldest democracy.

That war memorial is a tribute to Canada’s outstanding contribution to the Allies’strength in the First World War. Just one hundred years ago—while President Woodrow Wilson urged Americans to remain “neutral in thought as well as deed— Canadian soldiers rushed into action Over There. They helped to stave off the brutal German invasion of France. Canada had rallied to the Allied cause within just days of Britain’s declaration of war against Kaiser Germany in August 1914.

When at last President Wilson led America into World War I, he said our effort was “to make the world safe for democracy.” One hundred years later, Sergeant-at-Arms Vickers risked his life to make Canada safe for democracy—Canada and the United States.

What these Islamist killers are seeking is nothing less than an end to freedom in the world. They must be resisted—wherever and whenever necessary. The symbolism of a Sergeant-at-Arms actually using his weapon to take down a determined murderer should not be lost in the media buzz. Freedom must be defended not with words alone, but with deadly force.

That a determined killer could get into the halls of Parliament should force Canadians to consider how better to secure the seat of government. Congress was attacked in July, 1998, by a crazed gunman who shot and killed two Capitol policemen. That attack and the subsequent 9/11 terrorist attacks led to the building of a vast Capitol Visitors Center complex to restrict access to Congress.

But we need to remember that security barriers and guards alone cannot make us safe. There is probably no more heavily guarded place in America than the White House, and yet an intruder got inside the Executive Mansion several weeks ago when someone failed to lock the front door!

This administration has had an appalling record on national security. President Obama told the world we have 5,113 nuclear weapons. Many of us with military experience were prepared to lay down our lives to keep hostile powers from getting that kind of sensitive information.

As former Sec. of Defense Robert Gates has written, Mr. Obama only seemed interested in the military when he could use it to advance his agenda of radical social experimentation. Sec. Gates cited our Commander-in-Chief’s “absence of passion” about the armed services except when he pressed the Pentagon to recruit gays and persons seeking sex changes.

That “absence of passion” was surely on display yesterday when President Obama coolly and dispassionately spoke of the attack on Canada’s Parliament. He repeated only his time-worn bromides in a world-weary way. His deadpan expression and monotone remarks suggested he didn’t want to do anything that might dampen the ardor of his pacifist base two weeks before a critical mid-term election.

Let us remember: He won the crucial opening chapter in the race for the Democratic nomination for President by appealing to Iowa’s Peace Caucus delegates. Afterward, in state after state, candidate Obama beat Sen. Hillary Clinton by outbidding her in pledges to weaken the U.S. military and to soften the image of the U.S. in the world.

Once elected, he promised to approach the Mullahs of Iran “with an open hand, not a clenched fist.” These Mullahs—whom our own State Department have labeled the Number One state sponsors of terrorism in the world—spurned President Obama’s outstretched hand.

But that hardly seemed to matter. He already had his Nobel Peace Prize.

Let us hope that John McKay, the Canadian Member of Parliament, was correct: This attack in Ottawa should change everything.

World Family Map maps the world of the family

by Family Research Council

February 28, 2013

While there are many societal differences between the U.S. and Canada, the need for strong families to maintain society is one area in which researchers in the two countries can agree. The Institute of Marriage and Family Canada this year has launched a new annual study of family well-being around the world. The World Family Map 2013 looks at the family as the core institution of society and examines four indicators of family well-being: family structure, family socioeconomics, family process, and family culture, as well as how family structures relate to children’s educational attainments. The report includes data on these categories in different countries representing all regions of the globe.

Much of the data revealed in this report supports the research published by the Marriage and Religion Research Institute. For example, data published by MARRI highlights the association between living in an intact, married family and higher GPAs in school.

And this same sort of data is found in the “World Family Map.” An article by the Toronto Sun reports that

A new, international report makes the claim that Canadian children score higher on literacy tests and are less likely to repeat a grade if — wait for it — raised by two parents.

According to the World Family Map Project, released last week, “children living with two parents had higher reading literacy scores and were less likely to repeat a grade compared to those living with either one parent or neither parent in all three North American countries included in the report.”

The researchers go on: “This pattern is found even after accounting for the higher levels of poverty and lower levels of parental education among single-parent families.”

The author of the article goes one step further to point out that government would do well to pay attention to this research:

Now this is awkward. Governments can pour money into education, but if children are not coming from stable homes, it’s like throwing money into the cold, Canadian wind. There is no quick government fix for family breakdown. But neither should politicians go to great lengths to avoid this research.”

Here at MARRI and the Family Research Council, we couldn’t agree more.

Classic Infanticide Case No Big Deal in Canada

by Family Research Council

September 16, 2011

Last week in Edmonton, Alberta, appellate court judge Joanne Veit issued a shocking decision regarding the fate of Katrina Effert who killed her newly born baby in 2005.

By law, the maximum amount of sentencing time in prison for infanticide is five years however the local media reported that Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.

In 2005, Effert, who was nineteen at the time, gave birth to a baby boy, strangled him with her underwear and then threw his body over the fence into a neighbors yard. Mark Steyn from National Review Online appropriately labeled this act a Fourth Trimester Abortion in a post earlier this week.

The Calgary Herald reports that Veit called it a classic infanticide case and sentenced her to a three-year suspended sentence with probation. Judge Joanne Veit also expressed sympathy for Effert. [M]any Canadians … generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support…Canadians are grieved by an infants death, especially at the hands of the infants mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.

Ethicist Wesley Smith pointed out the irony that had Effert strangled a dog, she would have received no sympathy whatsoever. Hes right. Michael Vick received 23 months in jail for participating in dog fighting. So, in our culture as it stands you can participate in dog fighting (which I am not advocating, by the way I love animals) and end up in the slammer for close to two years. But strangle your baby and you might be able to get off with a little community service time.

O Canada, the True North Strong and Free!

by Robert Morrison

May 4, 2011

Each morning, as I drive into Washington, D.C. along the John Hanson Highway from Annapolis, I read the road sign that says Bladensburg, Upper Marlborough, Washington. Most commuters, Im sure, dont pay much attention. We all know the route.

But I never fail to be reminded of the engravings outside the Library of Parliament in Ottawa, Canada. They list the same three names. And they are monuments to British victories in the War of 1812. Our Virginia and Maryland militiamen ran away when the British fired off their Congreve rockets. And the British burned the White House, the Capitol, and the Library of Congress. Former President Thomas Jefferson had said that conquering British Canada would be a mere matter of marching for the far more numerous Americans. Not so fast, Mr. Jefferson. Its not one of his better predictions.

Thanks to British victories in Canada in the War of 1812, our northern neighbor is a very different country. For starters, their Conservatives are blue and their Liberals are red. Now, thats the way it ought to be. And they can stage an election whenever the Prime Minister thinks it would be advantageous to do so.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the first Conservative Prime Minister in a generation is arguably the first truly conservative party leader since the 1960s. He probably didnt think when he chose his May 2nd election date that his great victory would be almost completely overshadowed by the Royal Wedding and the dispatch of Osama bin Laden.

Still, despite being nearly eclipsed by other world news, Canadas election is a big deal. For one thing, Canadas political system has been beset by odd quirks of multi-party factionalism. At least five partiesConservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Green Partyhave seats in Parliament. Stephen Harper has had to govern for the past five years with a minority government. Thats always unstable in a parliamentary system.

This weeks election saw the Liberal Party nearly collapse. This party ruled Canada for most of its history. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff was defeated in his own riding (district). Thats like Nancy Pelosi being defeated in San Francisco! He resigned as leader. He had no choice. Liberal MP Ken Dryden also lost. Yes, in hockey-mad Canada, this Hall-of-Famer, this six-time Stanley Cup winner with the Montreal Canadiens, lost his seat as a Member of Parliament. Now, thats a shellacking.

Also ousted on Monday was Gilles Duceppe, the longtime leader of the separatist group, the Bloc Quebecois. This party routinely sat in the federal parliament while formally committed to Quebec secession. Try to imagine Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee sitting as members of the U.S. Senate! Maybe M. Duceppe will now reconsider the big bash he threw to celebrate his twenty years of causing mischief in Ottawa!

The Bloc nearly collapsed in Quebec. Voters there apparently tired of these manipulators. They didnt go for the Conservatives, though. They also dumped the Conservatives in their French-speaking province and went heavily for the New Democratic Party (NDP).

Jack Layton, the NDP leader, was Mondays other big winner. If Stephen Harper is happy to have a majority government for the first time, Layton is happy to win the coveted title of Leader of the Opposition, as the Liberals sink to third place in Canadas House of Commons.

The NDP is unapologetically socialist. Can this be good? It does clarify the choices that voters must make. Conservatives generally do better when voters realize what the stark alternative is. And so it seemed on Monday in Canada.

The Harper government controlled spending, kept down taxes, and stressed competent and clean governance. Stephen Harper went to the New Canadiansthe large immigrant populationand pitched common sense values of conservatism to these hard-working voters. It paid big dividends on election day.

Prime Minister Harper has pledged no radical moves. Thats almost reassuring. But the prior Liberal Party majorities, when they werent busily enriching themselves at public expense, made plenty of radical moves. Will Stephen Harper even try to scale some of these back? He pledged no change on abortion. That cannot be good news. He also has not promised to roll back Canadas radical laws on marriage.

Still, there have been small but important changes in Canadas direction under Stephen Harper. He braved liberal scorn when he ended his speeches with God bless Canada.

Good grief, they cried, another George W. Bush! Harper has announced a pullout from Afghanistan, but there, too, he has marched with his U.S. ally. The Harper government has promoted a compassionate aid effort in Africa to help young mothers combat dangerous diseases.

How do social conservatives south of the 49th parallel know Mr. Harpers policy is a good policy? Thats easy: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Ottawa and publicly attacked the Harper government for not pushing abortion on the Africans.

Finally, some of the socially liberal Conservative Party members were defeated. Do they call them CINOs, like we have RINOs? These social liberal losses were made up for by True Blue Conservatives elected in other ridings, in other provinces. This could be the most pro-family Conservative Party in Canada, ever.

We who are American social conservatives need friends across the border and around the world. We care about faith, family, and freedom. And in praying for our Canadian friends, we show that a conservatism of heart and hearth is truly international.