Public Service Announcement for Canadian Expats

Canadian Citizenship rules are changing, and your children born outside of Canada may not be Canadian citizens!

Canadian Expat:

New Canadian citizenship rules impact children of Canadian Expats

On April 17th a new law will come into effect that will have a profound impact on the children of Canadian Expats. If the parents of children born outside of Canada were also born abroad, those children will no longer be entitled to gain Canadian citizenship.

The new rule was created with the intention of stopping people, with no ties nor any interest in Canada, from gaining Canadian citizenship. The effect however is that hundreds of thousands of Canadian Expats that make legitimate and significant contributions to Canada will be denied the right to pass on citizenship to their children.

Read these new rules carefully. To help you along, here is a key phrase you should look for in the section about 'Persons born or adopted outside of Canada' after the new rules go into effect:

"This means that children born in another country after the new law comes into effect will not be Canadian citizens by birth if they were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent who was also born outside Canada to a Canadian parent."

Here is a simple PowerPoint presentation to help illustrate where you, your children or your grandchildren might stand. CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP PRESENTATION

It seems that no one is exempt from this law. To get clarity, I called Ottawa yesterday and was told that even diplomatic families will not be immune if one of the spouses was born outside of Canada. If this is indeed true (they are so confused it would seem in Ottawa) it would mean that a Canadian foreign service officer, a Canadian ambassador, indeed anyone who served Canada abroad but chose to marry a non-Canadian, may not have Canadian grandchildren!

What should you do?

First, forward this email to any Canadian you know that is currently living abroad or has children that were born outside of Canada.

Next, watch for updates. Robin Pascoe, the president of Expat Experts and I are in contact with Ottawa to get clarity. Check the website at www.thecanadianexpat.com frequently for updates. If you have not already subscribed to the newsletter then click here: Subscribe

Third, and most important: Write to the Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, right now and demand clarity and answers. His e-mail address is Minister@cic.gc.ca and the mailing address is The Honourable Jason Kenney, P.C.,M.P, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1L1. Remember this goes into affect on April 17th so write to him now! Time is of the essence.

I explain in the presentation why the government is changing the existing laws, but it is clear, that innocent fish are being caught in a net designed to close loopholes. More to come a we know it, but please, act now.

The Canadian Expat Association
Allan Nichols
Executive Director

(site has further links)

"Were Nancy Pelosi And Benedict XVI At The Same Meeting?"

George Weigel wonders about the contrast in press releases between the pontiff and the senator.

From the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

"It is with great joy that my husband, Paul, and I met with His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, today. In our conversation, I had the opportunity to praise the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming, as well as the Holy Father’s dedication to religious freedom and his upcoming trip and message to Israel. I was proud to show His Holiness a photograph of my family’s papal visit in the 1950s, as well as a recent picture of our children and grandchildren."

From the Press Office of the Holy See:

"Following the General Audience, the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage. His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception until natural death, which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists, and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of development"...

...her office’s statement on today’s meeting makes it clear something else was afoot: that Pelosi....was trying to recruit Benedict XVI (“Joseph Ratzinger, D., Bavaria”?) to Team Nancy....

...His Holiness wasn’t buying it.

He told Pelosi, politely but unmistakably, that her relentlessly pro-abortion politics put her in serious difficulties as a Catholic, which was his obligation as a pastor. He also underscored — for Pelosi, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, Rose DeLauro, Kathleen Sebelius, and everyone else — that the Church’s opposition to the taking of innocent human life, at any stage of the human journey, is not some weird Catholic hocus-pocus; it’s a first principle of justice than can be known by reason. It is a “requirement of the natural moral law” — that is, the moral truths we can know by thinking about what is right and what is wrong — to defend the inviolability of innocent human life. You don’t have to believe in papal primacy to know that; you don’t have do believe in seven sacraments, or the episcopal structure of the Church, or the divinity of Christ, to know that. You don’t even have to believe in God to know that. You only have to be a morally serious human being, willing to work through a moral argument — which, of course, means being the kind of person who understands that moral truth cannot be reduced to questions of feminist political correctness or partisan political advantage...

A think a 'rogue's gallery' of prominent dissident 'Catholics' who push anti-Catholic dogma is in order. The above names would an obvious beginning...


Catholics Compelled To Act

California Catholic:
...Pewsitter.com, a Catholic news portal, is launching the nationwide “Withholding Communion” petition. The goal of the petition drive is to gather a least 1 million petitions for presentation to the U.S. Bishops and the Vatican, Pewsitter.com said in a news release....

....While the Catholic faithful understand and support the behind-the-scenes dialogue and diplomacy that goes on with prominent Catholics by the bishops to reconcile them with the Church, when such dissent continues for years and in some cases decades in spite of the actions and activities that have been undertaken by past and present bishops, then it becomes necessary for a bishop to take a formal public stand to prevent further scandal, said Pewsitter.

“Unfortunately what has happened is that dissenting Catholics have continued to receive Holy Communion with impunity -- and this has led to the false impression that the Church condones or at least tolerates such dissenting opinions on serious moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research, to name a few,” said the Pewsitter statement. “Not only do these prominent Catholics disregard the Church’s teachings, but in many cases they actively and publicly promote policies and legislation that undermines, opposes and contradicts the Church’s teachings. An example of two such Catholics would be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joseph Biden.

Primer on Canon 915

Obligations of all Christian Faithful

I'm pretty sure these Canons apply universally, which would include Canada. Canada has been plagued with 'nominally' catholic politicians in (high) gov't positions implementing the antithesis of justice . Off the top of my head, I can think of about 15 who are primarily responsible for the moral decay and the decline of Canadian society.

Oh Canada!!

Pelosi And The Pope

Nancy Pelosi, the prominent US Senator, well known by Catholics as a dissident at best, has visited the Pope this week. It couldn't have been too much fun to be publicly rebuked by the Pope, for things she repeatedly tells us are not a contradiction to her claim of being an 'ardent Catholic'.

...The Vatican Press Office released a note this morning detailing part of the conversation which Pope Benedict XVI had with Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The note reads: "His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development."

Vatican insiders stressed to LifeSiteNews.com that such releases are always phrased in diplomatic language and thus the correction of the Speaker who describes herself as a "faithful Catholic," despite her abortion advocacy, should be taken as a firm rebuke....

They also declined to give her a photo opportunity.

Meanwhile, at home the media hacks are falling all over themselves to ignore reality. Practically shedding tears, telling tales of Pelosi's youthful Catholic practices, they present her well known differences with authentic Catholicism as though they were typical of Catholic worship. As though Catholics had a catechetical menu off of which they could CHOOSE from opposing options. As if there were no Truth.

There is Truth.

Nancy Pelosi wouldn't know Truth , if it refused to get its picture taken with her.

Catholics On The March

Not too many of us sing 'Onward Christian Soldiers' these days, but it is still a great rallying cry. Kathryn Jean Lopez uses the scandalous example of Nancy Pelosi's persistent heretical pronouncements as a reminder of what we're marching about.

Dissident 'Catholics' deserve our pity and need our charity.

Pelosi and her ilk cannot make headway in opposition to the Truth. Pray for her, and be glad of your faith.

Catholic Carnival #212

Up at Living Catholicism.
Variety in Catholic culture, 'Diversity in God'.


Students For Free Speech

Some university campuses in Canada are more in favour of free speech than they are against the culture of life. That's good!

Pro-life advocates are celebrating the fact that freedom of speech has been upheld on two Canadian university campuses in the past week, as two student unions have decided to treat pro-life clubs fairly despite opposition to giving the clubs official status.

Choose Life McGill, the pro-life club at McGill University in Montreal Quebec, received full accreditation as a campus club at the student union's board meeting on February 12th. The final vote after a more than 2 hour debate was in favor of ratifying the club. The vote came after Choose Life operated as an interim club for 3 months.

Meanwhile, at the University of Victoria, pro-life students had been fighting for fair treatment from their student union since October 2008, when they were denied the same funding as all other campus clubs. On February 10th, the student union board voted to grant the pro-life club, Youth Protecting Youth, the same funding that is applicable to other campus groups.

Both of these decisions come shortly after the campus pro-life club at the University of Guelph had their club status restored in a January 27th meeting. All allegations against Guelph Life Choice were dropped after a term of battling with their student union...

Perhaps the 'grownups' will learn a thing or two about what 'freedom' means, why its important, and how to stand up for it! Canada is facing repression of free speech on several fronts right now. Who cares?

Hey Doug #8 - We're Watching You!

Lapdog update at American Papist. Thomas Peters does a pretty good job reviewing the latest Kmiec adventures in equivocating.

And In Canada, Will They Fight?

Will the people of Canada waken from their somnolent stupor and give chase to Barbara Hall and her bureaucratic idiocy that threatens Canadians underappreciated freedoms? Doubtful. But the media may try to stir them...

Montreal Gazette:
...a preposterous suggestion that every publication in the country, including "media services" websites, be required by law to belong to a national press council that could adjudicate breaches of professional standards and complaints of discrimination. Chillingly, the council would have the power to order offending media to publish its findings, along with counterarguments from complainants. And in a bit of verbal legerdemain that would make Big Brother wince, the commission claimed that this would not constitute censorship.

The most frightening thing about this bit of nonsense is that it's hard to see what possible reason the commission has for proposing such a draconian measure. Scan Canadian media from, say, This Magazine on the left to blogger Ezra Levant on the right, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anything that pushes the boundaries of reasonable discourse...

...Commissioner Hall also claims that the media have a responsibility to "engage in fair and unbiased journalism." Those are certainly ideals The Gazette and most other Canadian publications strive to achieve, with admittedly imperfect success. But that responsibility, like membership in the Quebec Press Council, is voluntary. If someone wants to start a rabidly partisan, scurrilous scandal sheet, that's fine with us, too. State-compelled norms of behaviour are censorship, not idealism.

The underlying problem here might be that liberty has once again run into one of its most formidable foes - the bureaucratic mind. Such minds recoil at the unruliness of the media - among other things - and won't rest until all participants in public discourse are fully regulated by government. They do all this "for the common good," of course.

But when they succeed, we can all kiss our precious freedoms goodbye.

(h/t Dr. Roy)

"It's Going To Be Quite A Fight!"

The so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' is not going to be put in place without a battle, but Americans believe it will be done. Who can blame their resignation, after witnessing the passing of the stimulus 'plan' without any regard for truth or cooperation.... the style of this gov't is 'cave or be vilified by our media stooges' and the 'gov't control of all media doctrine' will be just the tool POTUS can truly appreciate

...Only 26% of voters believe conservatives have an unfair advantage in the media, the argument several senior congressional Democrats use in pushing for the restoration of the Fairness Doctrine. Sixty-four percent (64%) disagree.

Most (52%) liberals say conservatives have an unfair advantage, while 79% of conservatives and 64% of moderates disagree.

Even a majority of Democratic voters (53%) say that conservatives do not have an unfair advantage in the media.

Seventy-four percent (74%) of voters overall say it is possible for just about any political view to be heard in today’s media with the Internet, cable networks, satellite radio, newspapers, radio and TV available. Just 19% disagree.

But 51% say it is at least somewhat likely that the Democratic-controlled Congress will restore the Fairness Doctrine, which requires holders of broadcast licenses to present balanced political coverage of important issues, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Fourteen percent (14%) believe it is Very Likely....

... In a survey just before Election Day in November, 68% of voters said reporters covering a political campaign try to help the candidate they want to win, and 51% thought they were trying to help Democratic candidate Barack Obama in 2008. Only seven percent (7%) said reporters were trying to help Republican candidate John McCain.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Republicans oppose government-mandated political balance on all radio stations, while the plurality of Democrats (49%) support it. Voters not affiliated with either major party also are opposed by a two-to-one margin....

So as Pelosi and POTUS like to remind us, they won, and they can (and will) do whatever they want. I don't have a problem with the 'winners' being the gov't, but I do have a problem with them taking over the media.... something all Americans should be wary of. I don't want my independent search for voices I want to hear , interrupted by the voices of those I don't. The gov't should not be telling me I HAVE TO LISTEN! That is UNAMERICAN.


Amnesty International - Off The Deep End

In case you've been reserving judgement, waiting for further proof that Amnesty International has joined the ranks of the 'Culture of Death Squad', here they are demanding that doctors in Mexico be FORCED to perform abortions!

Amnesty International, a "human rights" organization that opposes the right to life of unborn children, is now demanding that Mexico force doctors to do abortions.

In simultaneous protests held last Friday in Mexico City and Madrid, Amnesty International and other pro-abortion organizations denounced the Mexican government for refusing to require physicians to perform abortions on rape victims and provide abortifacient "emergency contraception."

The protests were held in response to the decision to alter Mexico's Official Norm 046 on treating victims of sexual violence. The original text, approved by the government last July, required health professionals to perform abortions on rape victims. The final version, however, was altered by Mexico's Secretary of Health Jose Angel Cordova Villalobos, to protect the right of doctors to refuse to participate in abortions....

I'm sure their protests are as effective as always (as in NOT), but all the same, do people really give them money to pull off stunts like this?

What can I say. This world is a looney bin.

Does Religion Influence Morality?

A Pew survey has some interesting results. When asked what most influenced their morality, 57% of Catholics answered 'practical experience and common sense'. The poster at 'Gene Expression' concluded that 'right and wrong is not about religion'. I beg to differ.

Firstly, someone's ignorance of right and wrong doesn't influence WHAT IS right and wrong.

Secondly, taking Catholics as an example, I would conclude that a person's ignorance of right and wrong is greatly influenced by their environment. Isn't that where we gain our 'practical experience and common sense'?

Badly formed Catholics have different ideas of what 'morality' even means, whether 'truth' even exists. and what it even means to be human. Those brought up in faithful, Christ centered homes have a totally different 'practical experience' from those brought up in dissident parishes with failing or non-existent Catholic schools. Its not surprising that a percentage of nominally Catholic people are secular humanists in reality, and base most of their choices, moral or not, on self-centered 'reasoning'.

Another factor which likely made an impact on the survey results, is the social attitude towards religion today, where 'common knowledge' tells us that religion is unreasonable. Asked whether religion or common sense guides our morality, some religious people may have opted for seeming reasonable, since the survey itself put religion in opposition to reason.

Also, if a Catholic person's 'practical experience' is a truly Catholic experience, and their 'common sense' is informed by their faithful Catholic upbringing, then religion IS influencing their morality!

What is the purpose of a survey? To make individual interpretation of 'not really facts' seem somewhat legitimate?


"Abort This Debate" - Free Speech

Michael Coren in the Ottawa Sun:

...Canada? It's a free country, or at least it's supposed to be. But not, it seems, if you hold a view on the abortion issue that is contrary to that of the establishment.

The abortion debate should not, however, be the point here. Any more than a discussion of free expression should be framed around party politics, religion, sports or favourite cheese.

We have the right to disagree, to argue and, short of violence, to be passionate and committed.

It's the lifeblood that should flow through any healthy body politic.

Yet abortion has become a topic that is different from any other in the world. And the examples are legion....

Of course its not just Canada that is experiencing a reduction in free speech. The US is considering the same kind of gov't control over the media that the HRC members were discusssing in Canada this week. Many European states are becoming more and more repressive. Britain is practically insane with more and more ridiculous 'rules' of 'appropriate behaviour'!

When there is no basis for justice, no belief in right and wrong, good and evil, then determination of 'appropriate behaviour' becomes subject to the whim of those with power, and more and more arbitrary. Good bye democracy.

Ever hear someone express their opinion that something said or done was inappropriate and a violation of someone's individual right not to be offended? Did they justify this opinion by saying ' free speech is important, but...'?

Everyone who understands that EVERYONE's freedom is undermined by this kind of 'fuzzy logic', needs to speak up .

Free speech - Use it or Lose it!

Interesting side-note: The Cayman Islands has finally come to an agreement with Britain and amongst its own leaders, to a draft of its new 'modernized' constitution and a bill of rights. In the process of negotiating an acceptable draft, (one where the bill of rights refers to the gov't responsibilities to its people, NOT between the people - vertical, not horizontal- and where the courts are restricted from 'interpreting' against the laws of the Cayman Islands) Canada was used frequently as an example of how it can all go SOOO wrong. It remains to be seen what Britain actually allows to be signed as the final document, but at least we hope to not repeat EVERY mistake! Not surprisingly, our HRC (why does it exist again?) is crying foul and criticizing the draft bill for not providing enough specific 'special' rights. Perhaps Cayman's HRC has the same problem as Canada's in understanding the meaning of freedom.