As a number of my print readers enjoyed the following interview I conducted with Paul Tuns, editor of the Interim (Canada’s national pro-life newspaper) for the Wanderer, I thought I would share it with my cyber-readership as well. Enjoy!
Inside Canadas Culture War
The Wanderer Interviews Paul Tuns
by Pete Vere
While the majority of our readership is of American nationality, Canada continues to provide our nation with an important barometer concerning the culture war. This is because after each victory gained in Canada, the culture of death will often seek to replicate their advance in the United States of America. Thus the Wanderer has featured many stories over the past year that concern the culture war in Canada.
At the forefront of Canadas culture war stands Paul Tuns. Our Canadian readers will recognize Paul as the editor of the Interim, which happens to be Canadas national pro-life newspaper. For the rest of our readers, the Interim is also a sister organization to LifeSite News, whose timely press-releases regularly find their way into the pages of the Wanderer. Recently, Wanderer correspondent Pete Vere had the opportunity to interview Paul concerning the culture war in Canada.
For our American readers, could you please tell us a little bit about the Interim?
The Interim is Canada’s largest (more than 20,000 circulation) pro-life, pro-family newspaper. A non-partisan paper without formal ties to any religion or religious organization, it has published monthly since March 1983 with the support of our advertisers, parish sponsors and the generousity of Campaign Life Coalition (CLC). CLC is the political lobbying arm of the Canadian pro-life movement.
CLC started The Interim in 1983 when the media refused to cover a Bernard Nathansan press conference in Toronto. CLC decided that if the media was not going to cover pro-life stories, it had to get into the business of journalism. Shortly afterward, The Interim was incorporated as an independent entity.
We cover news from Canada, the United States and around the world on issues such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, the family, homosexuality, education, religious and free speech rights, the United Nations and numerous issues that would fall under the rubric of social/cultural conservatism.
What are some of the major pro-life issues facing Canadians?
We recently fought against Bill C-13, the government’s reproductive and experimental technologies bill. Normally government legislation is rammed through Parliament quickly but not this bill. Originally introduced in May 2001, it took nearly three years to pass, mostly because of the work of pro-life Canadians lobbying their Members of Parliament.
In the end, the government had to make a deal with one of the opposition parties to ensure passage of this fundamentally flawed bill that allows embryonic stem cell research and, because of the faulty language the bill uses, human cloning. Despite having a majority, the government had no idea if the bill would pass without their deal with the NDP [Canadas socialist party] because numerous Liberals opposed their own government’s anti-life legislation.
Right now, pro-life Canadians are getting ready for a federal election in which no major party leader or platform is pro-life, leading most social conservative voters to closely examine the local candidates. In terms of specific issues, some provincial groups are trying to raise awareness about public funding of abortion and on Parliament Hill last week, several Members of Parliament began talking about the need for conscience protection for health care workers and other professionals. Unfortunately, a media-imposed silence on the issue makes it very difficult to begin any national pro-life campaign.
How is the culture war in Canada different than that of the United States?
It is very different and for many reasons. First, the abortion issue hardly reaches the surface of political debate in Canada. In the 2000 federal election, Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien said Canada had social peace on abortion. If it does, it is paid for by the blood of at least 106,000 unborn babies each year.
But I think Chretien confused forced silence with social peace; the major parties, the major papers, the three major broadcasters and the single national news magazine are all silent but the fact is there are more Canadians who are members of pro-life groups in Canada than there are members of political parties (in non-election years). Obviously many Canadians haven’t got the memo that they were supposed to surrender their principles.
Secondly, as bad as judicial activism is in the United States, it is worse in Canada. For 15 years, Canada has had no abortion law because the Supreme Court struck it down. Only twice since has the federal government considered any legislation or motions on the issue. To make matters worse, on abortion and the gay rights agenda, legislators defer to the courts and claim it is out of their hands to address the issue because the courts have spoken. Weak-kneed politicians have surrendered their rights and responsibilities to the robed dictators.
The culture wars in Canada operate almost entirely in cyberspace. Because the media and political elite are overwhelmingly socially liberal even more so than in the United States, it is almost the only place any debate on the issue occurs. We have no Fox News, no National Review. If you don’t count The Interim, there is only one major conservative magazine (the Western Standard) and one nominally non-liberal newspaper (the National Post).
Furthermore, our Catholic colleges harbour numerous heretics and there are few who challenge them. There is no Ave Maria law school, just a collection of Georgetowns. Our biggest Catholic newspaper is more likely to editorialize on poverty than abortion, homosexuality or the filth that passes as culture. There is no broadly conservative think tank. In short, the conservative movement is a loosely connected grassroots movement that does not have the trappings of a movement publications, research centers, anything really that develops ideas or encourages debate.
This is slowly beginning to change. My friend Tristan Emmanuel, a Presbyterian minister, has begun a publishing house, Freedom Press (Canada) Inc., that hopes to publish several titles a year by new conservative voices. But it will take a lot of work.
Should Americans pay attention to the struggles of the pro-life movement in Canada? Why?
Yes, and we what happens in the United States. I say this for three reasons. The first and obvious is that what happens in one country does affect the other. Our media, politicians and academics get ideas from one another. The border is very porous when it comes to ideas.
The second is that the Left uses the same bullying tactics and arguments north and south of the border. Watching each other’s struggles we can learn to anticipate their next moves and what does and does not work to counter them.
Lastly and most significantly in recent years are the court decisions in our two countries. Following last year’s Lawrence decision, several members of the Supreme Court admitted to having consulted international and foreign law; that is, the legal decisions of other nations, including the Ontario (provincial) Superior Court that legalized same-sex marriage in one part of Canada was cited as evidence of a growing tolerance of homosexuality. If Canadian precedents are going influence American law (and presumably vice versa), we should be aware of those decisions and the arguments used in winning and losing cases.
How difficult is it to be a pro-life politician in Canada?
Extremely. The political mythology has it that pro-lifers are all bigoted Christians and that merely courting their support is a political albatross, a signal to Canadians that one is little more than a neanderthal with a tie. Pro-life Conservatives have faced media ridicule as unenlightened religious fanatics trying to take over the party. Pro-life Liberals [Canadas closest equivalent to Casey Democrats] face the scorn of their caucus colleagues and a severely diminished chance of ever being promoted to the cabinet. Canada has moved from the idea that one does not have the right to impose their personal beliefs on abortion on the rest of the country to the idea that people who hold pro-life views ought not run for political office at all.
Recently, the Globe and Mail, Canada’s oldest national paper, claimed the Conservative Party was being taken over by evangelical social conservatives because three candidates (out of 308) had histories with evangelical organizations. Even many in the Conservative Party are uncomfortable with pro-lifers running under their banner. Of course, they want our votes, but the party doesn’t want to do a lot to earn it. At most, they offer a seat at the table to raise our issues but they don’t realize that politics is about more than airing grievances; political debate is about trying to persuade others of the superiority of your views over another. Pro-lifers are increasingly denied that opportunity in the political arena.
Any concluding thoughts you wish to share with our readers?
As much as I have sounded that the cause is hopeless, I do not believe all is lost. Five or six years ago when President Bill Clinton was vetoing the partial-birth abortion ban, I am sure many pro-life Americans were wondering when the madness would stop. If an almost fully delivered infant can be aborted , what limits could there possibly be? But pro-life legislation has been passed and signed at the federal and state levels in the US.
I am hopeful that eventually the tide will turn in Canada, too. Abortion is propped up by nothing but lies and lies cannot withstand the force of truth forever. As more Canadians learn the truth about abortion that is kills an unborn human being, that it harms women, that is costs taxpayers untold tens of millions of dollars, that doctors are not being graduated from med schools because they refuse to participate in abortions Canadians will turn against abortion-on-demand. It might take 5 or 10 or 20 years, but it will happen. To despair is a sin; we place our trust in God and continue to do his work. Through us, the seeds of a culture of life are being sewn. I hope that I will see that tree blossom some day.
Author: Pete Vere
Tory Majority and Other Canadian Election Predictions
Among Canada’s middle class, elections are a sport whose popularity — as we are now seeing — surpasses even hockey. (Which is good since Calgary has always been my team back in Canada, whereas Tampa is the local team.) This is why blog activity is down among Canadians at St. Blog, except to comment on the election slated for the end of June. Anyway, since everyone else has weighed in with their predictions, I thought I should do the same.
First off, I think Stephen Harper will pull off a bare majority, hovering at the 160 seat range. Basically, I see the Conservative Party of Canada sweeping the Prairies, doing well in BC, holding their own Ontario (taking about fifty seats), establishing a beach-head in Quebec (5-10 seats), and probably scoring about a third of the seats in the Atlantic provinces. Of all the major party leaders, Harper has run the best campaign thus far, keeping expectations low, snipping problems in the bud before the other parties can capitalize on them, and not deviating from the script.
While he comes across as somewhat dull, this is good given that the initial game-plan of his opponents was to paint him as a right-wing extremist. In short, Canadians find him boring, but not scary. Neverless, this continues to keep expectations low, and to maintain the slow and steady upward momentum, Harper only needs to hold his own in the English debate and avoid any major stumbles in the French. Since he’s a phenomenal debater, he should exceed expectations and boost his momentum going into the election.
Secondly, the Bloc will form the Official Opposition. Duceppe actually seems to have learned from his previous elections and is running a solid campaign. If he can avoid the temptation to cross from soft separatist to hard, he should have no problem winning 60 of Quebec’s 75 seats.
In third place, I see the Liberals squeaking just behind the Bloc. The West will shut them out completely. Ontario will yield about 30 to 40 seats, meaning that Ontario will continue to give the Liberals the bulk of their seats, however, both the seat count and support base in Ontario will be greatly reduced. With a renewed Conservative Party, I doubt Quebec will cough up any more than 5-10 seats. The only region I see the Liberals winning is the Atlantic provinces. That being said, I think Martin sending out his Ministers of State to crash Harper’s campaign events backfired into a defining “kitten-eating-alien” moment.
So this leaves Jack Layton and the socialist NDP in fourth. Jack looked good going into this campaign, having renewed the NDP and pushed their momentum upward. For our American readers, a strong performance from the socialists generally helps the conservative in national elections since the socialists draw their vote from the Liberals. In other words, think Ralph Nader syphoning off 10-20% of the Democrat vote. However, and this is the only thing the Liberals have said during this campaign with which I agree, Jack couldn’t resist shooting off his mouth and becoming the Howard Dean of Canadian politics.
It remains to be seen whether his ludicrous accusations against Martin concerning the death of a number of homeless in Toronto will prove to be Layton’s “Dean Scream” moment. While Layton hasn’t yet crashed as a result of those comments, people were turned off, his momentum has reversed, and he’s now lost a couple points in the polls. But I still think he will hold enough support together to retain official party status. I give Layton 15-20 seats, but not his own. Mills is one of the few Liberals running a good campaign, so I don’t see Layton knocking him off. Nevertheless, Layton can then pass the socialist leadership off to his wife unless Broadbent wins in Ottawa.
Okay, some of you noticed are now thinking the math falls a little short since there are still a few seats I have not accounted for. This brings me to a prediction many will no doubt find surprising. I think this will be a breakout election for the Green Party. Although many would have thought this impossible, Harris has actually done a credible job of fleshing out the Green Party platform and moving the party closer to the center.
As a small businessman, he may not be as exciting as previous Green leaders, but his dull blue suits and moderated tone are breaking down the anarchist-enviro-wacko-tree-hugger stereotype common to Green Party activists. He’s also building a strong youth following, which will help the party in the future. So in many ways, albeit on a smaller scale, he’s proving himself to be a Stephen Harper of the left. I don’t think Harris can win Official Party Status this time around, but with the angry political mood among Canadians and Jack Layton running a reckless campaign, I can see the Green Party establishing a beach-head in Parliament with up to five seats. These will likely come from BC and the territories. Additionally, if Martin loses the election and control over the Liberal party reverts to the left, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Green Party displaces the NDP within the next ten years as Canada’s third major party
Why aren’t there more annulments?
And people ask me why the Church grants so many annulments?
As some of you know, I work full-time for a diocesan tribunal. Like most lay canonists, I also work part-time for several (about a half-dozen) Catholic tribunals on the side. A package arrived from one of these today that contained about a dozen cases. Of course I cannot name the tribunal or share any detailed information, but here’s a quick breakdown based upon the length of the marriage in question:
Over 15 yrs: 1
10 to 15 yrs: 2
7 to 9 yrs: 1
4 to 6 yrs: 2
1 to 3 yrs: 4
Under a year: 2
Exactly half these cases concern marriages between two individuals who were
not Catholic at the time of marriage. Four of the cases concern mixed marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics. Only two concerned a marriage between two Catholics.
I’m still alive!
Hi folks, although I haven’t been blogging much lately, I’m still alive! Sonya and the girls are back in Canada now, so I wanted to spend as much time with them as I could before they went back. I’m scheduled to drive back in another five weeks with all our stuff…
On another note, I’ve now finished two of three book I have coming out in the fall. So between packing and watching vampire movies (more on that later), I’ve been doing a lot of writing and editing. The first book I have coming out this fall is co-authored with Patrick Madrid, and concerns the SSPX schism. Our Sunday Visitor is publishing it.
The second, which was also a lot of fun, is called Surprised by Canon Law. My buddy Michael Trueman (another lay canonist) and I slapped together 150 of the most common questions we receive from fellow laity concerning canon law. So it is very much a canon law Q&A for the Catholic working man. It was a lot of fun to do so nobody, to our knowledge, has ever set out to write a canon law book for Catholic laity before, except on the topic of annulments. (We covered it, but we also cover a heck of a lot of other areas of interest to the laity as well).
Anyway, about the vampire movies. I’m thinking of doing another Catholic horror novel. Basically, one concerning the culture of death. Since vampires are an ancient literary metaphor for sexual immorality, I figured I would start there.
Terri’s in trouble again
Some very bad news in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo situation. It appears that Judge Baird, acting in a manner consistent with his previous rulings concerning Terri’s case, has ruled Terri’s Law unconstitutional. Here’s a sample of Fr. Rob Johansen’s appropriately biting commentary:
What this ruling is really all about is apparent further on, where Judge Baird once again rules that Governor Bush may not introduce new testimony or new evidence in this case. Above all, Baird does not want his and Judge Greer’s dubious deliberations subjected to impartial scrutiny. They do not want the evidence that Greer ignored in previous hearings, and advances in the understanding and treatment of brain-injured patients, to come out into the light of day. They do not want another court to consider facts such as the 43% error rate in diagnosing PVS patients. Because if they were, it might become apparent that they are wrong, and have been culpably wrong all along.
This case is, at the legal level, about more (and less) than Terri Schiavo. It is about judges protecting their power to decide who may live and who may die. They will do almost anything to protect that power.
And if the price of protecting their god-like power is Terri Schiavo’s life, that’s a price they’re willing to pay.
Being both a judge myself, albeit in the canonical rather than the civil realm, and the son of a judge, I wish I could disagree with Fr. Rob. But I cannot. I fear Fr. Rob is right and Terri is about to become the next life sacrificed on the altar of judicial activism. Please keep Terri and her family in prayer, and please pray for judges everywhere.