It sounds like there are many people who are upset about the Conservative government’s decision to prorogue parliament until after the Winter Olympics are over. Looking at the comments, it seems many people are making the argument, “It’s not so much that they are proroguing that’s the problem as to the length. Proroguing is almost always for a period of one day, and sometimes only an hour. Do some research, and you’ll see.”

So, I looked for the information. It’s not all that easy to find, but with a bit of work, I worked out all the values from the Wikipedia session information and came up with the following list:



Kings Glory Fellowship received a letter from Canada Revenue Agency informing them that they are no longer eligible, after over thirty years of having charity status, to keep their status.  The agency cited that “members of the Board of Directors espouse strong negative views about sensitive and controversial issues, which may also be viewed as political, such as abortion, homosexuality, divorce, etc” as the reason for denial.

The head pastor, Artur Pawlowski, from Kings Glory Fellowship, is also involved in running Street Church Ministries in Calgary.  CRA made a connection between the two separate organizations and their directors and made a ruling against Kings Glory on that basis.  The thrust of their decision penalizes Pawlowski, and Kings Glory, for speech and activities outside of the organization.  Government is once again, through yet another branch, interfering with freedom of speech, expression and religion.

“This is simply a way of punishing me for defending our rights, and for standing up to bureaucracy, and speaking out against corruption and abuse of power.  Speaking about different sins is not a political behaviour but is rather a God and state given right.  We are a church, and I am a pastor, what is the government expecting me to talk about if not moral issues and God’s laws?”, stated Pawlowski…

More… (source)

Note: Part of the Canadian Revenue Agency letter has been reproduced here.

OTTAWA, Ontario, September 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled today that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Canada’s human rights legislation against hate messages, unreasonably limits the Charter right to freedom of expression…

The hate message section of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) has been the subject of growing criticism, having been accused of placing limits on the Charter right to freedom of expression.  High profile cases have been brought against conservative publisher Ezra Levant and columnist Mark Steyn, as well as numerous cases against Christians who have expressed their convictions against the homosexualist agenda.

The CHRC has admitted to using unethical methods within their investigations.  Notably, in a hearing during Lemire’s case, CHRC employee Dean Steacy testified that he and a number of colleagues regularly used an alias to post racist messages on radical “far-right” websites.  The CHRC was also investigated by the RCMP regarding allegations that they had hacked into a private citizen’s internet connection, though that case was dropped when it led the police to the American jurisdiction…

While bound by the 1990 Supreme Court decision which upheld section 13, CHRC v. Taylor, Hadjis observed that that decision was made “on the belief that the process itself was not only structured, but actually functioned in as conciliatory a manner as possible.”  According to him, the Supreme Court decision “hinged on the absence of any penal provision akin to the one now found at s. 54(1)(c),” which is the clause that allows the Tribunal to impose fines of up to $10,000…

For these reasons, he said, “I have…concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.

“The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter.”

Hadjis said that because the Tribunal is not capable of actually repealing section 13, “I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him.”…

More… (source)

As per the inaugural address:

But the nod to open science will be most welcome, given the political and ideological interference of his predecessor, who obstructed stem cell research and only grudgingly accepted that humans are driving climate change.

“We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost,” said Obama.

In his next sentence, he committed Americans to break their love affair with oil. “We will harness the Sun and the winds and soil to fuel our cars and run our factories,” he said.


So does that mean, then that the rightful place of science is over and above ethics? Is that (the ethics [or lack thereof] relating to the use of embryonic stem cells, etc.) one of the “petty grievances” that are mentioned earlier on in the speech? I have no problem with wishing to get away from a dependence on oil (although, not because of some worry about carbon emissions), but when science trumps ethics the idea of “freedom” can quickly lose all meaning.

Some other quotes:

“We come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations, and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

“The world has changed, and we must change with it.”

“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers.”

And a few links:

Inaguration Thoughts
White House Agenda

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 3, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Obama campaign threw their vehemently pro-abortion stance into relief by investing in radio ads attacking pro-life Sen. McCain for threatening to take away women’s “right to choose.”

The ads feature the voice of a “nurse-practitioner with Planned Parenthood” warning her listeners that McCain will seek to have Roe v. Wade overturned and ban abortion.

“I know abortion is one of most difficult decisions a woman will ever make,” says the woman’s voice.  “Let me tell you – if Roe v Wade is overturned, the lives and health of women will be put at risk. That’s why this election is so important. John McCain’s out of touch with women today. McCain wants to take away our right to choose.”…

The McCain campaign has made no secret of the Republican presidential nominee’s rejection of “abortion rights.” His surprise choice of pro-life and pro-family Gov. Sarah Palin for his running mate offered values voters even more reason to trust the Republican leader to champion the rights of the unborn upon election to the White House.  Some have even suggested that the Obama ad will help McCain, whose unapologetic stance on the issue is considered a strength by many in the conservative camp…

More… (source)

BIRMINGHAM, United Kingdom, June 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – UK police have refused to apologise for the actions of a Muslim community support officer, who threatened to arrest two Christian ministers for “hate crimes,” because they were preaching Christianity in a Muslim area according to British media reports.

Christian ministers Arthur Cunningham, 48, and Joseph Abraham, 65, were handing out leaflets and speaking with four Muslim youths about Christianity in Birmingham on February 19, when Naeem Naguthney, 30, a Muslim police community support officer (PCSO) told them to cease-and-desist from preaching to Muslims…

When he left, Naguthney made clear that the preachers could not count on the police for their safety.

“You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned,” he said.

“I am dumfounded that the police seem so nonchalant,” Cunningham told the Daily Mail. “They seem content not to make it clear that what we were doing was perfectly legal. This is a free country and to suggest we were guilty of a hate crime for spreading God’s word is outrageous.”…

The Baptist ministers, represented by the UK Christian Institute, have launched a legal action against West Midlands Police, saying their treatment violated articles 9 and 10 of the 1998 Human Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of religious expression. They have asked for an apology and compensation.

West Midlands Police has refused to apologise and instead claimed the incident had been “fully investigated,” and Naguthney would be given training in understanding hate crime and communication…

More… (source)

The book is titled “Black Theology & Black Power”. I don’t even know what to say…

The Dividing Line (mp3)

More… (source)

Next Page »