Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Britain created modern sport -- why was this ignored in the Olympic Opening Ceremony?

Much has been written about the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic Games, most of it overwhelmingly positive. On the whole, I thought it was a tremendous success -- and one which I thoroughly enjoyed. Of course, it is impossible to please everyone and some aspects of it have been criticised both at home and abroad. At home, many critics have complained, rightly or wrongly, that several segments were marred by an overtly left-wing / liberal bias (most notably the focus on the NHS). Abroad, critics have expressed disappointment that so much of the production was bewildering and mystifying to foreign audiences unfamiliar with various aspects of British history and culture.

It is beyond the scope of this blog to cover popular culture -- and there is little point repeating what has already been written -- however, as much as I enjoyed the ceremony (and I certainly do not wish to appear unduly negative -- it was a great show) I thought it profoundly regrettable that the organisers did not seize upon this unique opportunity to highlight what, in the context of the Olympics, should have been the most obvious and relevant British achievement -- the creation of modern sport.

Sport is as much a part of Britain's contribution to global civilisation as the English language, parliament, the common law and the industrial revolution. In their modern forms, football, boxing, tennis, golf, cricket, rugby, field hockey, ice hockey (yes, ice hockey!), baseball (yes, baseball!), table tennis, netball, rounders, modern polo, bowls, curling, snooker and darts were either created or codified by the British. (Britain also created the Paralympic games!) 

With an almost missionary zeal, the British spread these sports, and the general concept of sportsmanship and organised sport as competition and pastime, throughout the British Empire and, subsequently, the wider world. Britain may no longer excel or lead the world in actually winning many of these sports, but no country on the face of the earth has made a greater contribution to the world of modern sport.

The opening ceremony of the Olympic Games is intended in part to focus upon the ideals of the Olympic spirit. How strange, then, that the unique opportunity to celebrate this remarkable British legacy in front of a global audience was ignored. I wager that most citizens of the world, many of whom are no doubt largely ignorant of the extent of Britain's contribution, would have found this enduring legacy considerably more interesting and relevant than the curious focus upon a subject as parochial as the National Health Service.

The great Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, made a splendid cameo appearance in the opening ceremony. He famously gave his invention to the world for free, and the organisers acknowledged this by spelling out the phrase "THIS IS FOR EVERYONE" in LCD lights across half of the stadium. It was a tremendous piece of theatre --- but I could not help but reflect that the same phrase could have been used in reference to the British gift of sport.

In the end, it fell upon an outsider, Count Jacques Rogge, President of the International Olympic Committee, to point out in his speech the fact which should have been a key component of the ceremony:

"In a sense, the Olympic Games are coming home tonight. This great, sports-loving country is widely recognized as the birthplace of modern sport. It was here that the concepts of sportsmanship and fair play were first codified into clear rules and regulations. It was here that sport was included as an educational tool in the school curriculum. 

"The British approach to sport had a profound influence on Pierre de Coubertin, our founder, as he developed the modern Olympic movement at the close of the 19th century."

As much as I enjoyed the spectacular opening ceremony for the world's greatest sporting event, I cannot help but feel a deep sense of regret at this missed opportunity to celebrate Britain's unique and unequalled contribution to the very subject which is the focus of the Olympics.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, 26 July 2012

The Olympic Order

Several symbols are synonymous with the Olympic Games: the Olympic Torch, the Olympic Emblem/Flag, the Olympic Medals, the Olympic Anthem, the Olympic Motto, the Olympic Oath and the Olympic Mascots. 

Rather less familiar is the Olympic Order. 

The Olympic Order was instituted by the International Olympic Committee in 1974. The Order is the premier honour of the Olympics and is conferred upon those who have rendered outstanding service to the Olympic movement or who are deemed to epitomise the essential ideals of the Olympics. The Order originally comprised three grades (gold, silver and bronze) however the lowest grade (bronze) was abolished in 1984. 

At each Olympic games the principal organiser will be invested with the highest grade during the closing ceremony. We can assume that Lord Coe will receive it in this manner.   

Insignia: A collar of gold, silver or bronze (depending on the grade) depicting the Olympic Rings flanked on either side by an olive wreath sprig. Recipients also receive a boutonniere, again of gold, silver or bronze.

Recipients are presented with a certificate. 






List of Recipients (Source: Wikipedia):

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, 13 July 2012

"Even the Duchess of Cambridge Must Bend. HRH may be the crown jewel of the Windsor clan, but she still has to curtsy to Prince William’s cousins"

I was interviewed by Canada's leading Macleans Magazine for the article that appeared in last week's print issue (authored by Mike Rekai on July 10, 2012) and which is reproduced below:


While her life may seem like a paradise of far-flung travels, generous clothing budgets and polo matches, Catherine, duchess of Cambridge, is still, in some circumstances, a second-tier royal.
Last week, the house of Windsor updated its official protocol; Kate, it stipulates, must now curtsy to “blood princesses” when Prince William, her husband, is not present (when they are together, she retains his status). While she may be a future queen consort, she was still born of common blood.
It all boils down to the so-called “order of precedence”—the royal ranking. There are in fact two rankings: one used when William and Kate are together, another when Kate is alone. The latter “places princesses who were born royal above those who were not,” explains Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, co-editor of Burke’s Peerage & Gentry.
According to the document, a William-less Kate is required to curtsy to Beatrice and Eugenie—the party-hardy twentysomething daughters of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson—as well as Anne, Alexandra, a little-known royal, and even Camilla, Charles’s former mistress, who, as wife of the heir to the throne is ahead of Kate on the female pecking order.
While Windsor enthusiasts on both sides of the Atlantic may be surprised to learn that the duchess is afforded less status than the girls best known outside the royal family for wearing outlandish hats to her wedding, Heydel-Mankoo says that precedence is rarely followed by the younger royals, who interact much more casually than previous generations. “In private, the duchess of Cambridge, and all the family, would curtsy to the Queen, of course, and the duke of Edinburgh because he is the patriarch of the family, but you certainly won’t find younger royals curtsying to each other.”
Though precedence is still maintained at public events, there was a time when it was rigidly enforced even behind palace doors. In the ’50s, he says, the Queen’s cousin-in-law, the duchess of Kent, regularly curtsied to the Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret—“but Princess Margaret was a formidable woman,” he explains, “and very particular about these things.” Since then, the rules have become more flexible. Nowadays, you won’t see Alexandra, the Queen’s cousin, curtsying to the Princess Royal, the Queen's daughter; neither will you see Zara curtsy to her "royal highness" cousins Beatrice or Eugenie, he says—“that’s just not going to happen.”
Nor will Kate be relegated to a commoner’s place in the royal family. On the contrary, her high profile throughout the Diamond Jubilee is a testament to how serious the Queen is about the new royal’s place within the Windsor family. It’s clear, says Heydel-Mankoo, “that the duchess of Cambridge is about as close to the heart of the monarchy as it is possible to be.”
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 4 July 2012

July 4 1918 - Churchill's Greeting to the President & People of the United States of America



On this anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence, I post below a speech delivered by Winston Churchill in London on this date in 1918.

A Declaration of interdependence: commemoration in London in 1918 of the 4th of July, 1776: resolutions and Addresses at the Central-Hall, Westminster, with an introductin by George Haven Putnam. New York, [1918]. 32 pp.
THE FIRST RESOLUTION CABLED FROM THE MEETING TO PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON, WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, D. C.
At this representative meeting of Anglo-Saxon fellowship, assembled at the Central Hall, Westminster, London, and presided over by the Right Honourable Viscount Bryce, O.M., the following resolution proposed by the Right Honourable Winston S. Churchill, and seconded by the Honourable A. Meighen, was carried with acclamation:--
"This meeting of Anglo-Saxon Fellowship, assembled in London on July 4th, 1918, send to the President and people of the United States their heartfelt greetings on the 142nd anniversary of the declaration of American Independence.
"They rejoice that the love of liberty and justice on which the American Nation was founded should in the present time of trial have united the whole English-speaking family in a brotherhood of arms. They congratulate the United States and Navy on the marvellous achievement involved in the safe transportation to the battlefields of Europe of the first million soldiers of the American Army. They affirm their devotion to the noble and righteous cause in which we are fighting and their faith that by the help of God a complete and lasting victory will be won for freedom and humanity." 







Hat Tip to Classic Works of Apologetics for the source material.








Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

The Guiding Principles for Effective Reform of the House of Lords

With the Coalition Government tabling its House of Lords reform bill later today, proposing a mainly elected upper chamber of 450 senators, each serving a non-renewable term of 15 years, a dramatic transformation of the House of Lords may be upon us; but we should be mindful that the Lords is Britain's greatest political survivor, the political long grass littered with countless proposals for its reform.

Something certainly needs to be done. For all its value, the House of Lords has become unmanageably large. With the addition of 111 new peers in the six months following the last general election  -- compared with 205 appointments during the entirety of the Thatcher government, the number of peers entitled to sit in the House of Lords has swelled to 792; this makes Britain's upper house by far the largest of any democracy and, after China's, the second largest in the world. 

Fortunately, being unsalaried, our peers are extremely cost-effective. According to an article by Lord Norton on the House of Lords website, in 2006-2007 the total per capita cost of a peer was £108,000 a year against £682,000 for an MP. Nevertheless, given the size of the British population, the continued growth of the House of Lords is unsustainable and, in light of plans to reduce the size of the House of Commons, unjustifiable. A cap on total membership of the House of Lords needs to be set immediately with appointments of further peers suspended until mechanisms for retirement and resignation have been set in place.

Unfortunately the Government's bill fails to correctly identify the strengths and weaknesses of the upper chamber. One of the reasons Lords reform has failed thus far has been the inability of reformers to effectively demonstrate precisely how the introduction of an elected element will improve the performance of the upper house and the general quality of national governance. The quest for better government must be the guiding principle of any reform proposal. Unfortunately the Government's bill fails to do this.

Following the removal of all but 92 of the hereditary peers in 1999 (there is surely some irony that the 92 hereditary peers are the only democratically elected element in the upper house!), the House of Lords has become noticeably more confident and effective. With an increased sense of legitimacy, the Lords has defeated government legislation more than 500 times since 1999 and has become more insistent upon legislative amendment, which is good for democracy and for the quality of legislation. This rise may also be attributed to the lack of a single party majority in the upper chamber, with the Conservatives and Labour broadly equal and the Liberal Democrats and cross-benchers holding the balance of power. Given executive control over the House of Commons, the lack of a party majority in the House of Lords is a positive development which strengthens both Parliament and democracy. 

With a more diverse membership, including more women and ethnic minorities, a greater range of professional expertise and more opportunity for considered political minority dissent, the modern House of Lords is a far better microcosm of Britain than the House of Commons. Whilst the role of the House of Commons is to represent the people, I hold that the role of the modern House of Lords is to be representative of society. By so doing, it fulfils a democratic function and fills a democratic void that an elected House of Commons cannot (for example, the nature of political elections is such that women and ethnic minorities are always under-represented and minority dissent is sidelined).

Any attempt at reform must preserve the House of Lords' complementary relationship with the House of Commons and enable it to fulfil its primary functions of revising legislation, scrutinising the executive, and committee work and studies. Accepting that the House of Lords fulfils a different role to the House of Commons, it also follows that its members should meet a different set of criteria. Peers should complement MPs. Any reform of the composition of the House of Lords must maintain those features that have traditionally distinguished members of the upper house from the lower: independence, professional expertise, diversity and long-term perspective. Elections will make this difficult to achieve and the Government's bill completely fails to demonstrate how these will be preserved.


Whether due to a decline in the proper teaching of civics, increased exposure to American political and popular culture or the desire of politicians and the media to simplify complex concepts, the notion of “democracy” that is on the ascendant in modern Britain is nothing more than crude majoritarianism and poses a significant threat to our constitution, our political institutions and our system of government. 

In the context of Lords reform, advocates of this simplistic notion hold that the democratic legitimacy of all political institutions rests, exclusively, upon election and majority rule. Any institution which fails to meet both of these criteria will be held to lack legitimacy. This interpretation of democracy appears to have achieved dominance in the House of Commons, in the media and with a large portion of the public and is nowhere better illustrated than in calls for a House of Lords that is “wholly or predominantly elected” and therefore “more democratic and representative”.

Liberal democracy is a far more sophisticated and complex concept; it balances the interests of the majority against other important values, such as the protection of human rights, the promotion of social justice and equality, and respect for a variety of beliefs. These values, essentially moral in nature, have long enjoyed legal protection, enhanced through quasi-constitutional legislation and treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. In an advanced democracy these fundamental values will enjoy protection beyond the reach of the majority's will. 

In an important ruling in 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada identified four central tenets of the Canadian constitution, each of equal importance: democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, the protection of minorities and federalism. In the Canadian context all four tenets operate together, none in isolation and none trumping the others. As stated in the preamble to Canada's Constitution Act, 1867, Canada has “a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom”; consequently, with the exception of federalism, and applying the principles of common law by which rulings of Commonwealth courts may be regarded as persuasive, I hold that those same tenets can be deemed equally applicable to the United Kingdom.

The democratic process comprises many different elements including public debate, receipt of expert opinion and the consideration of opposing views. Parliament is far more democratic when it takes dissenting opinion into account. Liberal democracy supports the notion that consideration of political opposition is important. Unbridled majoritarian democracy, being averse to attempts to influence or restrict the will of the majority, is wary of opposition; and this results in an unsatisfactory democratic process yielding inferior results. The House of Lords is a far more comfortable home for political dissent and opposition than the House of Commons.

Accepting the more sophisticated definition of “democracy”, the House of Lords, as the pre-eminent defender of the constitution, the rule of law and human rights, and as the best-suited forum for political dissent, is undeniably democratic and is essential to our democratic system. This brings us to the issue of election. 

Election to the upper house is an acceptable procedure for a congressional system of government based upon the separation of powers but not necessarily for a parliamentary system of government in which the executive is subject to the confidence of the lower house only and in which the two houses are complementary rather than competitive (the upper house serving as a chamber for sober reflection and review). Elected peers would become little more than duplicates of their Commons colleagues, making it difficult to maintain the essential skills and qualities outlined above (independence, professional expertise, diversity and long-term perspective).

A wholly elected House of Lords would challenge the supremacy of the House of Commons enabling it to justifiably claim authority to hold the government to account and to represent the people. In the eyes of the public, this might endow Lords and Commons with equal legitimacy. The houses would cease to complement each other and would start to compete, with the Lords more likely to exercise its full powers. Put simply, two wholly elected chambers runs contrary to the correct operation of our parliamentary system and would require a complete re-evaluation of the function and purpose of the House of Lords.

Election would also weaken the independence of the peers and lead to greater partisanship. Although partisanship exists in the upper house, it is far less prevalent than in the lower house and it is not uncommon to find peers voting against their own party. If elected, and particularly if eligible for re-election, peers will be far more susceptible to pressures from the party Whip, independence would become jeopardized and the quality of work and debate would suffer.

Unfettered by party ties and holding the balance of power in the House, the crossbenchers are a defining feature (and symbol) of the independence of the House of Lords. Able to judge issues on their merits, without party-political constraint, crossbench contributions to debates, legislative review and committee work is invaluable. Given the noticeable lack of independent Members of Parliament, it is highly probable that an elected House of Lords would lose the crossbenchers—the ultimate loser being British democracy.

Electoral systems do not favour women or ethnic minorities and it is therefore very likely that an elected House of Lords would be considerably more impenetrable to members of these groups than it is currently. Reformers must realise that attempts to “democratise” the House of Lords and make it more “representative” will transform it into a much more homogenous and far less representative institution. 

Elections will also deprive Parliament of many of its most learned and respected members. The majority of the eminent scholars, doctors, scientists, social workers, educators, economists, businessmen, musicians and writers who have been elevated to the Lords are not the sort of people who are likely to stand for election. This priceless pool of talent and experience, so critically important to the work of the upper house, will be lost. The only major group likely to remain would be seasoned politicians with election experience.

Elections would impact upon the quality of the Lords' work in other ways too. The work of the Lords in legislative review, executive scrutiny, committee work and investigative studies is unquestionably superior to that of the Commons. This is due not only to the expertise of the peers, many of whom, as noted, are experts in their particular field, but because, freed from the constituency duties and electioneering work that dominates the lives of MPs, peers are able to devote far more time to serious and in-depth study of legislation and policy issues. The length of their period in the House of Lords also enables peers to develop considerable parliamentary and committee experience and affords them a long-term perspective denied to MPs, who tend to have short terms of office and a high turnover rate. 

In short, a wholly or predominantly elected House of Lords would destroy the complementary relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, with the House of Lords able to claim equal right to public representation; it would also lead to a rise in partisanship and increased control by the party machines, a reduction of the institution's independence resulting from the inevitable loss of independent crossbenchers, a reduction in the quality and depth of legislative revision and committee work due to the burden of constituency duties, a severe reduction in the broad range of professional expertise through the departure of many eminent leaders from a wide variety of professions, and it would cause a decline in the diverse range of opinions from a likely reduction in the number of women and ethnic minorities. This is bad for democracy. It is difficult to ascertain precisely how elections would make the house more “representative” or how they would fulfil what must be the primary purpose of reform: to improve the governance of Britain.

Of course this discussion may prove entirely academic. Reform proposals come and go. The Lords remains. Whether the Coalition Government's reform bill will succeed where so many others have failed we cannot know. If history is any guide, we may be debating the future of their Noble Lordships for some time to come.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Monday, 21 May 2012

Royal Tour of Canada 2012 -- What to Expect

My interview with Sun News Network on the day before the arrival in Canada of TRH The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. A discussion about the role and relevance of the Canadian Monarchy. Click video below to watch.


Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, 20 May 2012

"Like a Diamond" Jubilee Anthem to challenge Gary Barlow's Jubilee Anthem

Gary Barlow's Jubilee Anthem, recorded to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the succession to the throne of HM The Queen, has a lovely melody but it has received considerable criticism for failing to mention or depict The Queen once in the entire song and video. It seems remarkable that a song recorded as a tribute to The Queen should ignore here completely. Certainly anyone watching it would be unlikely to think that it was recorded for Her Majesty.

Fortunately, another songwriter and producer, Anton and John Lorien, have rescued the day by producing a stirring Jubilee Anthem dedicated entirely to Her Majesty. The lyrics relate directly to Her Majesty's lifelong service to Britain and the Commonwealth.

This terrific, and stirring Jubilee song, deserves as much exposure as possible in these coming days, as we approach the Jubilee. So please, listen to the song below and, if you like it, please share the link with friends and family -- particularly anyone in the media or the music industry. We would love to have this song in the charts before the Jubilee. It's the most appropriate popular music tribute to The Queen one could possibly hope for.


Posted by at 1 comment:

Friday, 18 May 2012

Charles, Camilla's royal visit sticks to tradition

I'm quoted in this article by Melanie Patten published today by the Canadian Press.


Canada, refine your curtsy and practice your bow. Another royal visit is upon us.
But unlike Prince William and Kate's whirlwind, hands-on tour as newlyweds last year, there is no need to brush up on dragon boating or street hockey...
Headlines remarked on the couple's informal attitude, their outward affection for each other, their willingness to mingle freely with crowds, and their desire to participate in non-traditional events, including facing off in a dragon boat race and playing street hockey.
As newlyweds, their visit was a coming out of sorts before the entire world. Charles and Camilla's tour, however, is meant to focus on the Queen's service to the Commonwealth over six decades, said Rafal Heydel-Mankoo, a royal commentator based in the U.K.
"This tour in Canada is not going to be the celebrity glam tour that we saw with Prince William and Catherine," he said from London.
"Instead, we're going to see a focusing on all those initiatives and projects which aren't fashionable but which the monarchy supports."
Heydel-Mankoo said the decision to send the future king to Canada as part of the Diamond Jubilee festivities speaks volumes of the Royal Family's affection for the country.
"Canada has a very, very strong connection with the Royal Family," he said. "They would never say so in public, but I think secretly it's their favourite realm after the U.K."
Charles and Camilla are set to arrive in New Brunswick on Sunday evening. Their official welcome, replete with a 21-gun salute, is scheduled for the following morning at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown.
The royal couple will meet with members of the military and attend a reception with Gov. Gen. David Johnston before heading to Saint John for a walking tour. They will also take in a citizenship ceremony and Victoria Day celebrations before departing New Brunswick for Toronto on Monday evening.
On Tuesday, Charles will meet with students at Ryerson University before he and Camillia attend a Diamond Jubilee celebration hosted by Premier Dalton McGuinty. Charles will also meet with leaders of the Assembly of First Nations.
The couple's final day in Regina will include a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Heydel-Mankoo said he expects Charles will make many more trips to Canada in the future to give newer generations a chance to know him better.
The prince is already highly regarded in the U.K., he said.
He said Charles successfully emerged from bad press in the 1980s and 1990s and the collapse of his marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, to become "a renaissance man." Deeply spiritual and reflective, Charles is dedicated to issues of sustainable living, education and helping disadvantaged youths, he said.
As for his relationship with Camilla, royal historian Carolyn Harris said it is one of mutual respect.
Camilla was once vilified as an old flame who poisoned Charles's first marriage to Diana, but the 64-year-old duchess is now considered an integral member of the Royal Family.
Harris said observers will note the public relationship between Charles and Camilla shares similarities with that of William and Kate.
"Diana attracted an enormous amount of attention and, to a certain degree at the time, she upstaged her husband and that created tensions within their marriage," Harris said from Toronto.
"Whereas we see with the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall the degree to which they compliment each other as a couple."
Heydel-Mankoo agrees.
"They have a wonderful working relationship. He's very much the ying to her yang," he said.
"There's just a nice, warm happy glow when they're together."
If William and Kate were responsible for reigniting Canada's interest in the monarchy, MacKenzie said Charles and Camilla — and the pomp and ceremony people have come to expect from royal visits —will keep that flame alight.
"There's a little something for everyone of all ages and persuasions in monarchy," he said. "That's what makes it so continually appealing."
© The Canadian Press, 2012


Read it on Global News: Global News | Charles, Camilla's royal visit sticks to tradition 
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, 16 May 2012

Prince of Wales Announces New Canadian Patronages


Press Release: "TORONTO – Prince’s Charities Canada (PCC) is pleased to announce that two new Canadian organizations have been granted a Royal patronage from HRH The Prince of Wales.  Both The Royal Conservatory of Music and Earth Rangers were notified of the honour just ahead of The Prince’s official visit to Canada next week.
“The Prince of Wales has been involved in Canadian public life for 40 years,” said Amanda Sherrington, President and CEO of Prince’s Charities Canada.  “These patronages represent a further deepening of that relationship and honour the good work of these organizations in The Prince’s areas of interest”.
The Prince of Wales currently serves as patron to six Canadian organizations including those announced today as well as acting as Colonel-in-Chief to seven Canadian regiments.
“The Royal Conservatory is extremely proud and grateful to join a select group of organizations reflecting the values and goals of His Royal Highness,” said, Dr. Peter Simon, President of The Royal Conservatory. “We are honoured to announce the patronage relationship as we celebrate 125 years of excellence as one of the world’s largest and most influential music and arts education institutions.”
The Royal Conservatory is also working with Prince’s Charities Canada to take it’s successful “Learning through the Arts” program to the United Kingdom where this Canadian success story will be administered by The Prince’s Foundation for Children and the Arts.  Learning through the Arts (LTTA) is a rigorous, structured curriculum program that uses music, drama and visual art to teach core subjects such as math and science.  His Royal Highness will be meeting representatives of The Royal Conservatory of Music as well as students and teachers who use the LTTA program during an event at First Nations University in Regina.
The Royal Conservatory of Music is one of the largest and most respected music education institutions in the world.  Providing the definitive standard of excellence through its curriculum, assessment, performance and teacher education programs.
Prince’s Charities Canada is currently working with Earth Rangers to explore similar opportunities within The Prince’s global network.  “The Prince of Wales shares our passion for wildlife and the environment and we are thrilled by today’s announcement”, said Peter Kendall, Executive Director and Co-CEO Earth Rangers
Earth Rangers is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating and inspiring children on the importance of protecting biodiversity and adopting more sustainable behaviours.
-30-
For more information:
Daniela Minicucci, NATIONAL Public Relations"
            416-848-1462        dminicucci@national.ca   www.princescharities.ca
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)