Martin's legacy ó a decline in moral values
Arthur Weinreb   Canada Free Press   Tuesday, January 17, 2006

"Incest?  INCEST?  Who said ever said anything about incest?  It looks like Cotler knows something that we donít." ó Arthur Weinreb

Martin's legacy ó a decline in moral values
Arthur Weinreb

Canada Free Press

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

There are still a few days left before next Mondayís election and anything can happen.  But barring some serious revelation or a huge faux pas on the part of the Conservative Party of Canada, "Scary Stephen" will be transformed into the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada.

Even if the Liberals do manage to squeak through with another minority government, the Liberal Party will work hard to show him the door of 24 Sussex Drive.

In his short tenure at the helm so far, Paul Martin has presided over the decline of Canadian morality.  This will be the legacy that he will leave to Canadians; and legacies are usually not left by prime ministers who hold office in the short period of time that Paul Martin seems destined for.

First there was same sex marriage legislation.  To paraphrase Andrew Coyne of the National Post, Martin became its staunchest defender after deciding that he was no longer opposed to the idea of marriage between same sex couples.  Martin and the other "enlightened" members of Canadaís left assumed that they were broadening the definition of marriage and, to use one of their favourite words, were making the institution of marriage more "inclusive".  The reality is that they have made the concept of marriage not more inclusive but utterly meaningless.  After the bill became law many people pondered that it would lead to a slippery slope that would see the legalization and acceptance of such practices as polygamy.  "Never!!!" cried the Prime Minister and his trusty sidekick, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

In early 2005, the Department of Justice paid $150,000 for a study of polygamy by three professors at Queenís University.  The government had intended that the report wasnít made public but as with so many other things, it was leaked to the media during the election campaign.  The report recommends that the section in the Criminal Code that makes the practice of polygamy an offence be repealed.  Considering the fact that these sections are hardly ever resorted to, not even in Bountiful B.C. where the practice is done openly, abolishing the penal sanctions would have very little impact.  But the reportís authors, although they somewhat couched their language, speculated that the prohibition against multiple marriages could be found to be unconstitutional.

As far as whether or not the prohibition against polygamy is a breach of the Charter of Rights, now that the requirement for marriage has been changed from a man and a woman to two persons, it is difficult to understand how polygamous marriages cannot end up as a right.  If there is no requirement that marriage consist of a man and a woman how can there be some magic in the number "2"?  Why not 3, 4 or more persons?

Sayd Mumtaz Ali, the president of the Canadian Society of Muslims, gave a cogent argument for allowing polygamy.  He said that he and his organization are against same sex marriage but said that now that it is legalized, those who wish to enter into polygamous relationships should be allowed the same rights.

The most surprising comment came from Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.  Cotler was quoted as saying, "At this point, the practice of polygamy, bigamy and incest are criminal offences in Canada and will continue to be".

Incest?  INCEST?  Who said ever said anything about incest?  It looks like Cotler knows something that we donít.  Could it be that there is another report out there somewhere that has yet to be leaked?  Although most cases of incest that are reported are acts which involve children, in light of the Justice Ministerís reference to it, someone must think that prohibiting acts of incest between consenting adults might also be found to be unconstitutional.

Not to worry.  If prohibitions against these types of practices are found to be unconstitutional, then the government can simply use the notwithstanding clause in the Charter.  Uh oh!  Paul Martin wants to remove that clause to prevent Parliament from overriding the courts.  Martin must have looked in the mirror and concluded that Parliamentarians simply arenít bright enough to be allowed to overrule the Courts.  Itís hard to fault him for that.

If the Martin Liberals are re-elected we can look to the legalization and acceptance of polygamy and possibly incest.  If we are to retain any concept of morality, these guys have to go.

And if Martin goes, at least heíll leave a legacy.

Arthur Weinreb is an author, columnist and Associate Editor of Canada Free Press.  His work as appeared on Newsmax.com, Men's News Daily, the Drudge Report, Foxnews.com and The Rant.  He can be reached at [email protected]

©  Canada Free Press  2006

Canada Free Press  www.canadafreepress.com/2006/weinreb011706.htm