Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life do not take a position on the Referendum. The following editorial, therefore, is the opinion of the editor.
Since 1980 Canadians have faced half a dozen government- manufactured “crises” about taxes, trade and unity. With a gun to the head, voters are told to say “Yes” or else they are accused of destroying the country. This editor says yes to a unified Canada as much as anyone because I love it, but I will vote “No” on October 26.

Under pressure of another artificial crisis, voters are asked to hold their noses, write out a blank cheque, approve a patchwork of power plays full of contradictions, unexplained claims, undefined terms, open-ended arrangements, the costs of which are never mentioned though obviously they will be enormous. This alone should move Canadians to vote No.

But there is more urgent reason for voting No. Despite requests, the “package” contains nothing in defense of family values and innocent human life such as that of the unborn. It actually worsens the situation by re-affirming the 1981 Constitution- which includes the infamous Charter of Rights.

The 1981 “deal” was conceived by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau at the time of “repatriating” from Britain to Canada all final appeals. Done in the same hasty manner as the current product, this 1981 Constitution introduced two unnecessary, damaging features into Canadian political life, namely an ideological Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and its corollary, an Activist Supreme Court on the American model. The current P.P., Mr. Brian Mulroney, wants to preserve these features. I believe that unless the Charter is amended, we must get id of it. The old Bill of Rights is just fine. Without a change in the behaviour of the Supreme Court and the judiciary, progress in defense of the family is illusory.

Today there is hardly a student of government who would not agree that since 1982 the machinery of Canadian politics has been rearranged to the advantage of non-elected parties and to the detriment of elected legislators. Not only have judges struck down legislation as unconstitutional- that is, contrary to some clause in the charter- but they have given themselves the contrary to some clause in the Charter- but they have given themselves the rights to make legislation, either by ordering governments to halt projects or change policies, or to “read into” existing legislation what they deem necessary

Meanwhile the Charter, with its individualistic and feminist ideology, has increased the opportunity and strengthened the ability of those ready to demolish the heart of society: the family. As judges and their pseudo-legal substitutes, the Human Rights Commissions, no longer adhere to objective moral standards, their rulings represent private biases or the local opinion poll. Yet these are enshrined as the laws of the land, while we are asked to bow before them and forget Reason and Revelation.

Legal precedents, too, are being thrown to the wind, As a former Supreme Court Justice Madam bertha Wilson put it, “Let’s ignore precedents and be creative.” And so they have been, with abortion, suicide, marriage, the family, obscenity, homosexuality and recently, too, with euthanasia (acquitting murderess who administer chloride potassium to their patients “out of compassion”)

In 1981, Campaign life and pro-life representatives were among the very few who opposed the Charter as a threat to parliamentary democracy. They  were the only ones to insist on a clause to protect innocent human life from conception to natural death. But they were rebuffed, deliberately  and willfully. At the time Canadians were not asked to express their opinion by vote.

Today the 1981 pro-life reasoning has been vindicated. But once more the plea for protection of Life itself, coming from the pro-life movement, Catholic bishops, and unnumbered individuals, has been rejected. This time, however, we have a chance to express our opinion and not merely on the Charlottetown “deal” but on the entire Constitution which it presupposes, including the Charter.

The pro-life movement said No in 1981; I am voting No on October 26.