The Canadian point of view at a recent UN meeting preparing for the Beijing Women’s Conference held that men, in particular, are responsible for all violence, injustices and oppression against women

In 1924, The Department of Health for the Dominion of Canada published The Canadian Mother’s Book. Consider the high esteem in which the government used to regard the family:

“The greatest gift is a child, and the greatest honour is to be a mother.”

“The Government of Canada, knowing that the nation is made of homes, and that the homes are made by the Father and Mother, recognizes you as one of the Makers of Canada.”

“No National Service is greater or better than the work of the Mother in her own home.”

“We must purify, glorify and dignify motherhood by every means in our power.”

“Children are the security of the home and nation.”

“A home without children is a sad contrast.  It lacks interest, happiness, reality and stability.  Its end is in sight.  It has lost the greatest loveliness and usefulness of the normal home.”

“No Babies – No Nation.”

Unfortunately, it has been many years since the Canadian government has held the family in such high esteem.  In the time it took for the average Canadian citizen to be born, grow up and reach old age, the government has gone from supporting, dignifying and exalting the family to criticizing, discouraging and denigrating it.

Unfriendly social and economic policies have taken their toll on the families of the True, North, Strong and Free – resulting in increasing divorce and crime, sexually transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancy, abortion, and bankruptcy of the welfare system.

But the fact that Canada is now reaping the poisonous harvest of her own failed policies seems not to matter.  She is now intent on forcing these same failed policies onto the rest of the world.  This was never more apparent than at the recent Status of Women pre-conference meeting at the United Nations where Canada promoted abortion on demand, contraception for children, special rights for homosexuals, gender quotas, redefinition of the family, and all women working outside the home.

For many of the Canadians present at the conference, it was heartbreaking to see their home and native land abuse its unique position of honour and respect on the world stage by promoting homosexuality – making Canada the first nation to introduce “sexual orientation” into a legal document at the international level.

One Canadian woman, Ann Marie Tomlins, said she was “shocked” to hear that her government was going to introduce lesbian language into the Platform for Action (the document for the Beijing conference slated for September 1995).  But she added that “the real shocker” was when she and others realized that “many developing countries had never heard the term sexual orientation before.”

“Most were confused by Canada’s amendment.  They thought it referred to some sort of sex education program,” she explained.  “And of those who understood the true meaning, few realized that sexual orientation also encompasses bestiality, paedophilia and sado-masochism.  When the true meaning was explained to them 0 they were disgusted,” she added.

But “sexual orientation” was not the only Canadian term that caused confusion at the conference.  Evidently, the Canadian delegation – composed of hand-picked radical feminists – went to the conference prepared with an anti-family “goody-bag” loaded with dozens of code words and cryptic phrases.  One of the big stumpers was “gender.”  Canada continually substituted the word “gender” for “sex” wherever it appeared in the Platform.  The strategy was simple.  Gender is more all-encompassing than sex – for while there are only two sexes – there are in fact, five “genders” – or so delegates were told.

“Gender perspective” – an American term used by the Canadian team – forces diagnosis of real (and created) problems from a radical feminist position.  From this perspective, the family in general and men in particular, are held responsible for all violence, injustice and oppression against women.  More than any other nation, Canada took charge of positioning the words “men” or “male” and “family” or “home” before the words “violence” or “oppression” in the document.

By the time the platform was in its final stages, the word “family” had been largely replaced by “household.”  The enemies of the family had done their “dirty work”, the basic unit of society – father, mother and children – was replaced by the notion that family is any group of individuals living together under one roof.  All remaining references to family were derogatory.

Most of Canada’s amendments were a mean-spirited tangle of conflicting and irrational economic and social policies that if implemented will destroy not only the family but all of society.  One of the solutions to “the feminization of poverty” – another American term picked up by Canada – was that men must be forced to do more housework!

Another equally silly and offensive policy is to push women into 50% of all high-level positions by the year 2000.  But even this policy was not radical enough for the Canadian delegation.  Taking it a step further, they claimed that there was “too much emphasis simply on getting women into high-level positions,” and pushed for “radical change within existing power structures.”  Read: Only radical feminists need apply.

Keeping in mind that more than 100 nations still protect their youngest and most vulnerable citizens, Canada promoted the concept that abortion should be established as an inalienable human right.  Using the code words, “reproductive health,” Canada signed an amendment which read, “Countries should, where appropriate, remove legal, regulatory and social barriers to reproductive health information and care for adolescents.”  At previous UN Conferences in Cairo and Copenhagen, Canada has made it very clear that the term “reproductive health” includes abortion.  Therefore, if this language is adopted in Beijing, the entire world will be forced to bring in liberal abortion laws or face being charged with human rights’ abuses.

Whether these charges will take the form of economic and social pressure, like the kind that broke the back of apartheid in South Africa, or whether they will evolve into actual prosecution before the World Court is unclear.

But the Glorious and Free appeared to be covering all the bases, recommending “strengthening of United Nations machinery for the advancement of women and improving effective co-ordination and functioning of system-wide UN activities and programming.”  The “gender police” will soon be peeking in every window to make sure that men are doing their housework!

The fact that Canada neglected the real and pressing problems of women, while using the United Nations to advance an evil agenda world-wide, should serve as a wake up call for all Canadian Christians.  For while God punishes individual sin, His harshest judgment is always reserved for those who are bent on spreading their personal immorality into the larger community.  Canada seems to think this is her duty.