Sunday, August 16, 2009

Did Campbell’s Liberal Government Deceive the People?

“Leadership requires for people to be up front.” [1]
Gordon Campbell, Premier of B.C. during televised debate.

Was Gordon Campbell “upfront” before the election about bringing in the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)? I believe the answer is NO. So what kind of “leadership” are we getting from this guy?

Journalist, Kent Spencer, in the Province newspaper of July 28, 2009 said,
“The Liberals provided written statements during the spring campaign to restaurant owners and home builders that they had ‘no plans’ to implement the controversial HST.” [2]

Journalist, Michael Smyth writing in the Province of August 9, 2009 in his article headlined, “How a GST rebel turned into the HST thief” wrote this,
“Remember back when Gordon Campbell was a tax-fighter? The guy who said your money was better off in your own pocket than in the slush funds of government?
Now he's the guy who loves the GST so much that he's merging our provincial sales tax with it and slamming it on dozens of PST-exempt goods and services….
Oh, how the worm has turned! Now he is the tax-grabbing politician turning a deaf ear to the people.”[3]

I believe he is doing more than “turning a deaf ear to the people,” he is going to confiscate more of our hard earned money and savings. But hey, we are told it’s “revenue neutral.” Yeah sure, there is nothing “neutral’ about another tax grab by tax hungry, less than truthful politicians. Why did he not have the courage to bring this HST before the people during the election campaign? Was he afraid he would be defeated? Did he care more about deceiving the people to get their vote, rather than being honest with them on the election trail?

Journalist Tom Fletcher writing in the Abbotsford News of August 12, 2009 had this to say, “Much has been written about Premier Gordon Campbell and Finance Minister Colin Hansen’s bald-faced effort to convince voters that they had a sudden conversion to a harmonized sales tax after the election. This is just as believable as Hansen’s last fart in the elevator….” [4]

I believe this harmonized tax smells of polluted politics, and the people getting suffocated are the taxpayers of BC. We need a mechanism to rid us of untrustworthy politicians who say one thing then do another. Politicians should have to sign a conditions of employment, and if they violate it, they should be instantly dismissed. Waiting four years for another election should not be an option. If you deceived your employer at work you would be fired on the spot; therefore, the people should be able to fire politicians when they deceive them. They are supposed to serve the people, but instead make the people into tax paying serfs. HST may be the name politicians call it to make it sound nice, but the people are not in agreement with it. The real name of this regressive tax is Hit the Suckers Tax (HST) and people are fed up being played for suckers by deceitful politicians.

Stephen J. Gray
August 16, 2009.




[3] ]


Thursday, August 13, 2009

The Red Tories, oops, I mean “Conservatives” Win Media Approval

“The Conservatives have made themselves electable by making themselves indistinguishable from the Liberals.” (Columnist Richard Gwyn, The Toronto Star, 22 March 2005.)

Gee, isn’t it grand to know the Red Tories, oops, I mean the “Conservatives” are now “electable?” So what does it take to get “electable” and media approval? First of all you must state clearly that on the issue of abortion you will not pass a law. Then the abortion supporting media will give you praise for getting rid of an “extremist” principle and being on the proper road to becoming government and being a “mainstream” alternative to the Liberals.

Don’t you love this liberal media? They criticize pro-life people for being “one issue” people yet as soon as Harper and the Red Tories, oops, I mean “Conservatives,” say they will not legislate on abortion they go into ecstasy mode and declare the “Conservative” convention a success. A Quebec paper had this to say about the Tory convention: “They also appeared moderate enough to govern, on most of the contentious issues on the floor, none more so than abortion. Harper supported a resolution that a Conservative government would not introduce abortion legislation, and when it passed, another resolution to ban late term abortions became moot.” (The Gazette, Montreal, March 21, 2005.)

Still it’s not only the liberal media that is back on side, even old Progressive Conservatives are filled with Red Tory joy. A Tory Senator had this to say: “Senator Pierre Claude Nolin boasted that members from Quebec had helped draw the party to the centre of the political spectrum, to a point where it is not far from his former party, the Progressive Conservatives.” He went on to say: "The things we adopted suit me, and I consider myself pretty progressive," he said.” ( National Post, March 21, 2005. )

Wow, it really is a relief to know that the Senator is on side. Can they now expect a “Conservative” landslide in Quebec in the next election after this endorsement? This is starting to sound like a Red Tory love in! Perhaps we’ll get approval from Joe Clark next? Where are you Joe now that they need you? They need your political expertise and confirmation that things are now “pretty progressive.” This would really seal the full meal deal. Anyway it’s good to know Quebec is on side. It was a good idea to hold the convention there, it lets them know that this is not an “intolerant” or “bigoted’ party. A Quebec delegate had this to say: "We've finally put the whole social conservatism thing to rest, and we have a strong, moderate policy platform to build on, this has been a good convention for us all around," said Dany Renauld, a long-time Tory organizer and one of 500 Quebec delegates.” ( The Toronto Star, 21 March 2005 )

Quebec was also at the forefront on the abortion issue: “ Quebec-based Tories were mostly buoyant at the convention's end. The reason? Delegates from the province mustered their troops to lobby hard - and successfully - in ensuring the party opposed legislating on abortion.” (The Toronto Star, March 21, 2005.)

With Quebec on side the next election should be a walkover. Who needs those silly western policies like recall and referendum anyway? Bury them, and they did: A Quebec newspaper article said this: “Two basic tenets of the old Reform movement, recall and referendums, were given an unceremonious burial.” The article went on to say: “The Quebec delegates, mostly remnants of the former PCs, got what they demanded from Harper's office to organize a provincial wing. They also got what they wanted in one resolution recognizing the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, and another supporting official bilingualism.” ( The Gazette, Montreal, March 21, 2005.)

Well, isn’t that nice and good to know that official bilingualism will still be maintained even though its costing the taxpayers billions over the years it has been in operation. Still, it is money well spent, isn’t it? And that’s what counts, eh? Now the Red Tories, oops, I mean “Conservatives” cannot be accused of being fiscal conservatives when they endorse expensive official bilingualism. Heck, the way they are trashing all the “neanderthal” populist policies they used to have; “same-sex marriage” is the only one keeping them from being “mainstream.” The Toronto Star had this to say: “As for his opposition to same-sex marriages, it's fair to guess that Harper has only adopted this stance as a sop to his considerable number of ex-Reform/Alliance social conservatives. In exchange, he's been able to abandon the party's opposition to abortion and to junk all its Reform-type populist notions, such as voter recall and citizen-initiated referendums.” (Toronto Star, 22 March, 2005.)

In summing up these are great days to be a Red Tory, oops, I mean “Conservative.” Everything went almost smoothly at the convention except for a bit of a blow up over “equality of ridings”, but this was solved after the Deputy Leader of the party stuck to his Red Tory “principles.” And a resolution went down to defeat that would have given clout to ridings with more members. This resolution was: “The one the PC wing of the party needed to win, and the one Harper passed the word it must win, was the defeat of a resolution tying riding representation to the number of members, rather than all ridings being equally represented.” ( The Gazette, Montreal, March 21, 2005.)

A cynic might say this was how the West got done, and delivered to the Red Tories.

Anyway the “ Conservative family” is back together again. Brian even sent best wishes and Senator Pat was on stage at the end of the convention. Most of the media are on side and it is all systems go. The Red Tories, oops, I mean “Conservatives” are, according to a media pundit, “indistinguishable from the Liberals.” So the “Conservatives” are in “good” liberal shape, to have won media approval.

Stephen J. Gray

March 29, 2005.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

The Undermining of Faith and Morals From Within The Catholic Church

August 5, 2009.
Please note the article below was written in November 2003 by me. I feel it is pertinent to re-issue it as Lifesite News has done an excellent job recently regarding the controversy regarding Development and Peace. Stephen J. Gray

The Undermining of Faith and Morals From Within The Catholic Church

"One of the most ominous symptoms of decay in the Church today is the increasing acceptance of modern amoralism"
Dietrich von Hildebrand, writing in his book: "Trojan Horse In The City Of God."

For years people in the Catholic church have been writing letters and protesting abortion and homosexuality only to see their efforts undermined by other Catholics within the church. Some Catholics have even been persecuted and criticized by trade unions and special interest groups for standing up for their Catholic faith. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops(CCCB) worked with some of these groups and unions. More on this later in the article.

The Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP) sometimes called Development and Peace solicits funds from the Catholic faithful and some of this money has been handed over to other organizations. One wonders how those unsuspecting Catholics feel about some of their "Share Lent" money being shared with radical groups.

Catholic Insight magazine, June 2001 issue, page 26, stated the following regarding CCODP: "On the heels of the revelation of its $135,000 donation to the World March of Women-2000 event last year, comes the news of a Catholic Development and Peace donation of $140,000 to the Peoples Summit of the Americas held in Quebec City...." One wonders if there are other groups out there who have received money from Development and Peace. Perhaps it’s time this organization has had to detail where all its money has gone over the last number of years.

Regarding The World March of Women: Catholic Insight, June 2000 issue had this to say: "...the Canadian organizers were the usual proponents of abortion, lesbianism and other feminist demands..." The National Post of May 15, 2000, stated: " The Canadian Womens March Committee...includes abortion activist groups such as the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League." The Interim newspaper May 2000 issue had the headline on page 2: "March coordinator says pro-life groups not welcome."

The Catholic Womens League (CWL) which is supposed to uphold the teachings of the church made a submission to a government committee on so-called "same sex marriage" that undermines Catholic teaching. Life site news of April 16, 2003, stated that: "CWL National President Marie Cameron, who in her own presentation before the committee demanded the legal recognition of homosexual civil unions." Still the leadership of the CWL is no stranger to controversy. B.C. Report magazine of Aug. 26, 1996 had an article headlined, "No friend of Catholicism." The subject of the article was Hedy Fry who was "the federal minister responsible for the status of women" at the time and had been invited by the "CWL’s national executive" to address their convention.

The article went on to say: "Dr. Fry,... is a noted champion of pro-abortion and homosexual-rights policies, both of which explicitly contradict basic church doctrine."
Ms. Fry is also a supporter of same sex marriage and was on the committee hearing submissions on this insane proposal. One wonders if there is a virus out there eating brain cells. Why else would supposedly intelligent politicians be discussing such nonsense?!

In the annual report of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women (CACSW), (1989-1990), its new president Glenda Sims had this to say: "the federal government, among others, has acknowledged that sexual orientation should be read into the general open-ended language of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms..." and of course a judge did "read in" this a few years later. One is reminded of that old saying: Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Didn’t the politicians blame the judges for "reading in" sexual orientation? Yet Ms. Sims tells us "the federal government... acknowledged" it should be read in. Obviously there was discussion around this and it eventually came to fruition in the courts. This report goes on to say: "abortion is a health issue." One wonders when people began thinking pregnancy was a disease? A CWL member is listed as belonging and being a council member in this CACSW annual report.

Less anyone thinks this undermining of Catholic teaching is a recent phenomenon it is worth checking out the book " Behind The Mitre" by Tony Clarke. Mr. Clarke was "social policy adviser for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops [CCCB] for 21 years." He was eventually dismissed.

We are told in his book page 101, how a "Social Solidarity project" was formed and "endorsed in principle... by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Confederation of Canadian Unions,... the National Action Committee on the Status of Women,..." and others. Which raises the question, why would the CCCB be endorsing or working with pro-abortion organizations like the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) or the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC)?

The B.C. Catholic of Dec. 15, 1996 had the headline, "CCCB secretary defends NAC donation." The article says, "The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops gladly donated $2000..." to NAC for a "March against Poverty." Interestingly enough this march was also "co-sponsored by the Canadian Labour Congress." Trade unions have been financial supporters of NAC and many other groups over the years with their memberships compulsory union dues. In fact, the National Post of June 7, 1999, stated: "NAC expects to receive $741,692 in revenue next year, of which $642,892 is in the form of government and labour union grants as well as from direct mail campaigns..."

I headed an organization called Save the Union Movement and published a newsletter for 11 years, exposing the misuse of trade union time and money. The connections between the CCCB, trade unions and special interest groups a few years ago was quite common according to Mr. Clarke in his book "Behind The Mitre." In fact, the CCCB put out a pamphlet called "Supporting Labour Unions." On Feb. 22, 1994, I wrote the CCCB (at the time their Chairman was Bishop Faber MacDonald). I explained how trade unions were funding abortion clinics, homosexuality and other special interest groups and asked the CCCB to put out a pastoral letter informing Catholic union members about the misuse of their union dues. The CCCB would not do it, even though some Catholic union members had been persecuted for standing up for their faith and for speaking out against union support of abortion and homosexuality. Some had even spent their own money fighting the unions on these issues.

I had also written the CCCB as far back as 1992 when Archbishop Gervais was President, and was told: "The issue you raise is, of course, of great importance to Canadian society, and it will be given attention." The letter was signed by Msgr. James Weisgerber, General Secretary. I am still waiting for this "attention" from the CCCB.

I had also written Bishop Remi De Roo, and in a letter dated Jan.7, 1992, from his executive assistant these words were written: "Bishop Remi De Roo has asked me to acknowledge receipt of your Dec. 30th letter." 1992 was the year Bishop De Roo was addressing his union and special interest friends in Action Canada Network (see his quote later on in this article). Perhaps asking him to speak out was to near the mark as he was involved with these groups I was exposing.

I had also written Archbishop Ambrozic of Toronto, who wrote me on Sept. 16, 1992, and said: "I received the information you had sent me and apologize for my failure to acknowledge it. One reason for this failure is my inability to see clearly what can be done about it all and whether your prescription is the correct way to go about it."

I had also had a meeting in 1992 with Archbishop Exner of Vancouver and informed him about the trade unions involvement in abortion and homosexuality; I also had correspondence with him over a period of time. In one of my letters I informed Archbishop Exner that the B.C Federation of Labour had said that, "Public funds should not be used to finance private education or private institutions." Archbishop Exner in a letter to me of Nov. 14, 1992 said he "raised the concerns of the Save the Union Movement at the most recent Ecumenical Bishops meeting on October 19, 1992." The Archbishop wrote me on October 30,1993, and referred me to a Mr. Farrell who was Executive Director of Catholic Charities Central Office. I did meet with Mr. Farrell on Dec. 1, 1993. On Feb. 21, 1994, I had a phone call from Mr. Farrell saying that Archbishop Exner had written Archbishop Faber MacDonald of the CCCB with the concerns I had raised. All that was ever asked of all these Bishops was a pastoral letter informing Catholic union members of the misuse of their union dues or to speak out. Yet none of these Bishops would do it. Yet as I mentioned earlier, the CCCB has no problem putting out a pamphlet in support of unions but would not speak out when these same unions were involved in immoral activities. One wonders why? If the Bishops had had the courage to speak out and taken action and mobilized the Catholic faithful in 1992, would we have had the problems that we have today.... problems such as unions like the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) interfering in Catholic education with the Marc Hall case, and unions objecting to a Catholicity clause at a Catholic school in B.C.

We can also see the undermining of Catholic beliefs in the affiliation of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) with the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC). (The affiliation was reported in the communist newspaper The Peoples Voice April 1996 issue.) In fact the present Boss of the CLC, Ken Georgetti, sent out a letter soliciting funds for abortion clinics when he was president of the B.C. Federation of Labour (BCFL). He stated in this letter that "in a short time, funds have been raised to pay the down payment on the $237,000 medical clinic." He goes on to say: "the Executive Council urges all affiliates to send donations, consider loans or monthly pledges." The B.C. Coalition for Abortion Clinics stated in a brochure that " the B.C. Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress, along with other labour organizations have long supported womens right to choice on abortion, free standing abortion clinics and medicare coverage for abortion." The Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics (OCAC) has also received money from trade unions. It is stated in the book, Social Movements, Social Change, The Politics and Practice of Organizing that "at various labour conventions in 1982 and 1983, OCAC activists were involved in garnering support for choice." This book also states that "many unions have contributed financial and material support to OCAC." Abortionist Henry Morgentaler, that great supporter of "freedom of choice" has also had his share of compulsory union dues. The book, The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada, page 301, states that "... the Ontario Federation of Labour has donated thousands of dollars to the Morgentaler defence..." OECTA is also a member of the Ontario Federation of Labour. This makes catholic union members brothers and sisters in solidarity with abortionists, and of course their affiliation fees will help pay for the special interest groups funded by the CLC.

The radical feminists also boast about the power they have in trade unions. The book, Union Sisters states: "We have pushed unions to be more responsive to the needs and concerns of women; to fight on issues they have traditionally shied away from - issues of lesbian and gay rights and abortion..."

B.C. Report magazine of April 10, 2000, page18, gives an example of these radical feminists in action. A group called "Collectif Autnome Feministe" were protesting in front of Cathedral of Mary Queen of the World in Montreal. They were protesting, "about the church’s anti-abortion , anti-sex-education, anti-homosexuality tendencies." The article goes on to say a number of people "entered the church. They spray painted Religion a trap for fools on the facade and No Gods, no masters on the altar itself. Condoms and underwear were strewn everywhere....Soiled tampons were stuck to paintings. The missal and two altar cloths were taken; hundreds of hymn books were shredded." The article also states, "The police will not say whether the vandalism within the church was connected to the protest by the Collectif..."

There is an old hymn called "Onward Christian soldiers marching off to war": make no mistake, war is being waged in Canada today on Catholics and other Christians. Our schools, our beliefs, our churches are under attack and many of our Catholic and Christian leaders have fled the battlefield. This war is financed by our own tax dollars, our own compulsory union dues, some of our own church donations and some of our leaders are co-operating with the enemy. The weapons being used are the courts, so called human rights commissions, trade union bureaucracies controlled by special interests, and political parties with no principles.

One party, the NDP, has been the recipient of millions of dollars over the years in compulsory union dues; this is the socialists captive financial support base in this war. This is also the party that helped start the war on traditional family life. It led the charge for abortion and homosexuality and has been joined by most of the other political parties.

According to Statistics Canada, 1991 census, over 80% of the people in Canada claim Christian affiliation. If this is true, the time has come to get out of our pews and into our marching shoes. Nobody attacks our Jewish brethren with impunity. Why should we surrender to this virulent minority who are attacking all that we hold dear? Though it would appear some are not prepared to fight.

In fact, in a letter dated April 7, 1994 to Archbishop Exner of Vancouver, Bishop MacDonald stated, "Organizations like the Save the Union Movement May Well play into the Hands of Forces in Society that Favour Laissez-Faire Capitalism." He also says in this letter, "It needs to be stressed that every union measure supporting abortion or other activities offensive to Catholics was the result of a democratic vote of the membership." (the underlining was in the quote.) He goes on to say that Save the Union Movement "would in fact end up assisting the enemies of free trade unionism." Union dues are compulsory, as is membership, so "free trade unionism" is a misnomer. Also how can you have compulsory democracy? Bishop MacDonald also stated in his letter, "When this whole issue came up in 1985, the Social Affairs Commission of the Ontario Bishops debated it. At that time, the labour union advisers to the Commission advised against a frontal attack on the offensive resolutions..." The Bishops are supposed to be teachers of faith and morals yet they defer to "labour union advisers." All that was ever asked of the CCCB was to write a pastoral letter about unions supporting abortion and homosexuality. The question needs to be asked of the CCCB: just who is playing into "the hands of forces in society" by not speaking out when members of the Catholic faith are attacked for living up to their faith? Was it because the CCCB had already been a part of these union and special interest group projects? Were they already compromised and perhaps were now afraid to criticize trade unions and some of these special interest groups? Which makes one wonder, does solidarity come before morality?

Perhaps some in these coalitions would also point out the role of the CCCB in their "Social Solidarity project." For as Mr. Clarke writes on page 102, of "Behind The Mitre," "the Social Solidarity project provided a unique opportunity to forge links between progressive social movements in Quebec and the rest of Canada." The quote below by Bishop Remi De Roo shows that he was in favour of "developing alliances."

" it is only by developing alliances between peoples organizations and building a broad based social movement in this country that we have any chance of effectively replacing the corporate agenda with our own dynamic peoples agenda."
Bishop Remi De Roo quoted in Accent magazine March 1992. PEI, Union of Public Sector Employees.
Note: The bishop was speaking at an event sponsored by Action Canada Network (ACN) and the Canadian Labour Congress. ACN was a coalition of unions and special interest groups headed up by Tony Clarke. Mr. Clarke was chair of the ACN while he was still working for the CCCB. Many of these groups were pro-abortion and supporters of the lesbian and homosexual lifestyle.

Mr. Clarke states in the preface of his book: "As co-director of the social affairs department of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops from the late seventies to the early nineties, I was responsible for working with a team of bishops and staff in developing a plan of action for taking moral leadership [emphasis added] on national economic and social policy issues." Oh really? One would have thought only the Bishops would be in charge of "moral leadership." Instead Catholics had 21 years of Mr. Clarke helping with "moral leadership."
Mr. Clarke goes on to write in his book on page 102: "the Social Solidarity project helped to lay the groundwork for the building of a broad-based social movement..." The World March of Women consisted of some of these so-called "broad based social movements" including NAC and the CLC; this twosome pops up all the time. The March was also supported by the CWL. This was done by the CWL "without consulting its members."(Catholic Insight, page 7, June 2000 issue.) And of course the CWL never consulted its members when it made its submission to the committee on so called, "same sex marriage" but "demanded the legal recognition of homosexual civil unions" as stated earlier in this article.

Mr. Clarke has this to say on page 194 of his book regarding a "prophetic alliance," "the active participation of Development and Peace would be essential, not only because it has a relatively strong network of Catholic activists and significant resources for campaign activities, but for the key role it could play in forging active links with partners in Central and Latin America." Development and Peace obviously has "significant resources" when as mentioned earlier they contributed $135,000 and $140,000 to the World March of Women and The Peoples Summit of the Americas respectively. In fact Development and Peace had a Total Revenue of $23,870,755 for 2001-2002; this information comes from their own publication.

Mr. Clarke is now director of an organization called the Polaris Institute and his organization is a participating member of the Solidarity Network ( as is Development and Peace. Other notable member organizations are: Canadian Religious Conference, National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) - it seems you can’t have one without the other- a whole bunch of unions and other special interest groups, some of whom also receive government grants. It reads like a "whose-who" of the social and political left. Many of the groups listed are the same ones that were members of the ACN of which Mr. Clarke was chair.

The website states, "Our National Solidarity Assemblies and workshops bring together equality-seeking groups including public and private sector unions and Aboriginal/First Nations, anti-poverty, anti-racist, cultural, environmental, faith, farming, health, immigrant and refugee, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, peace, seniors and pensioners, students, women, and youth organizations." I wonder how many people out there know they are being counted as members. The website also states: "organizations are asked to commit monthly or annual financial contributions to the Solidarity Network..." Which raises the question: how much money, if any, has Development and Peace given to this Solidarity Network? Does the CCCB know, and does it condone Development and Peace associating and working with pro-abortion and pro-homosexual organizations?

"For thirty years pro-life activists have battled one government after another while a politically - correct Bishops Conference remained silent. As for individual bishops, with very few exceptions they haven’t so much as dared question, let alone oppose, pro-abortion or pro-sodomite Catholic politicians and deny them Catholic institutional support."
-Father Alphonse de Valk, writing in Catholic Insight magazine November 2000.

To the above quote by Father de Valk I would add trade unions and their special interest group allies. The Bishops haven’t dared question or oppose them either. In fact the CCCB gave them "institutional support." Could this be a case of "Solidarity Forever?" An editorial in Catholic New Times of October 5, 2003. had this to say about the CCCB statement on marriage: "The bishops' statement does not repeat Vatican language like 'homosexual practices are sins gravely contrary to chastity,'" the editorial goes on to say about homosexual relationships; 'Might this not be a road to holiness?' We have now reached a critical stage in this country where religious people are under constant attack and their beliefs trashed from within and without. The undermining of society and the anti-social agenda has also been achieved in big part by trade unions using compulsory union dues and special interest groups using our tax dollars; some of these groups also receive union funding. Their networks are extensive and their connections are interwoven.

Catholic politicians and other politicians seem to be afraid to stand up for what is right and put an end to this perversion of the system. Though there are a few exceptions among the politicians.

The question has to be asked: were some of our religious leaders and their organizations duped into consorting with some of these groups, giving some of them money and giving them legitimacy by taking part in their "Social Solidarity project"? Or were they in fact, in Lenin’s words, "useful idiots." Meanwhile, people who stood up for their faith got very little support, if any, from the CCCB and were hung out to dry as the saying goes. I myself spent 11 years and thousands of dollars of my own money fighting and exposing these injustices. Then I realized it was futile to ask the CCCB to take a stand for they were part of the problem. Answers are needed and perhaps even an inquiry on this undermining of faith and morals in the Catholic Church in Canada.

Stephen J. Gray
Nov. 15, 2003.

Some Info on the Author: Stephen Gray is a writer and researcher on various topics. He published a newsletter for 11 years exposing the misuse of trade union time and money.