There’s always more than enough bad news to go around, so here’s some refreshing good news for a change.
In Alberta, Premier Jason Kenney just released three pro-life policies in the Throne Speech. First, patients facing end-of-life decisions must be told about life-affirming options rather than simply offered assisted suicide, with the Albertan government working towards improving palliative care and keeping individuals in their homes and communities for the end of life. Many in Canada are choosing assisted suicide because they feel it is the best of a series of awful options, and so this policy is genuinely meaningful.
Alberta will also be offering three days bereavement leave for those who have suffered the miscarriage or stillbirth of a child, recognizing the grief that accompanies the loss of unborn children. And finally, Kenney will also be working to increase and expand prenatal benefits for mothers. This, too, is a recognition of pre-born children by the Albertan government.
As I noted earlier, Conservative MP Kelly Block has put forward a bill to protect conscience rights for healthcare workers, a law that is desperately needed in Canada. This will create an invaluable discussion that pro-life groups such as Canadian Physicians for Life are eager to contribute to.
And finally, Ontario MPP Sam Oosterhoff has put forward a private member’s bill called the “Protecting Ontario’s Religious Diversity Act.” From his website:
“Adding religious expression to the Ontario Human Rights Code as prohibited grounds for discrimination will provide a meaningful tool for people of faith across Ontario who have been targeted or discriminated against due to their religious expression,” said MPP Oosterhoff.
“The Bill would provide additional protections in a wide variety of contexts, including workplaces, membership in vocational associations, colleges and universities and the public square. The Bill reflects an understanding of religious creed as more than private identity and supports the importance of public expression of faith without fear. As cited in the executive summary of the Human Rights and Creed Research and Consultation Report, published by the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2013, the duty to accommodate creed beliefs and practices is well established in Ontario human rights law, and this Bill will build on that work.”
Organizations governed by the Ontario Human Rights Code have a responsibility to provide services, programs and employment systems inclusively so that all Ontarians can equally benefit and take part in them.
These are a few examples of why it is important to elect Christian politicians. We may not agree with them all the time, but they are working behind the scenes and in public to ensure that conscience rights and religious liberty are protected. Oosterhoff’s bill in particular would be an important protection for people of faith in Ontario.
So, the message for today: Be encouraged. Despite all of the bad that’s happening, there’s good, too. We should be grateful for it.
One thought on “Good news for social conservatives from Alberta and Ontario”
Not Abigot says:
I see you didn’t publish my comment from yesterday. Oh well.
So I’ve taken the time to peruse some of your posts here (I know, I’m a masochist), and while I’m willing to grant that your writing skills are quite good, I do take issue with some of your terminology.
In one post you were lamenting that the media kept including the term “social conservative” when describing the then-newly elected Sam Oosterhoff, as if that isn’t exactly how he defines himself. Almost as if you object to people being lumped together in one category, even though you do precisely that by labelling everyone who doesn’t hold social conservative views as “progressives,” but in a tone as if that’s a bad thing to be.
Your language around abortion is also flawed. The fetus inside a woman’s body (and yes, it IS also about the woman’s body) is not a “baby” and not a “pre-born.” It is a potential life, absolutely, but a potential life cannot ever override the rights and interests of an already existing one. The term “pro-life” is also a misnomer, as “pro-fetus” or even “pro-birth” is more accurate.
Lastly, if you really don’t want Christian organizations to be characterized as hate groups, perhaps they should stop acting like one? Because from what I can see on this site, social conservatives (I won’t call them Christian, and by the way, you do know that Christ himself was a left-leaning revolutionary whom you’d probably label “progressive” were he alive today?) are opposed to women’s rights, anything to do with gay or transgender rights, don’t even want kids to receive a proper sex education (you do know that birth control would eliminate many of the abortions you abhor?), and who knows what else. Oh yeah, people drinking from the white supremacy Koolaid, or however you termed it. As they say, if it looks like, talks like, and acts like…
Please stop accusing others of hatred and bigotry when that is exactly what you’re peddling yourself here. Be and do better.
I see you didn’t publish my comment from yesterday. Oh well.
So I’ve taken the time to peruse some of your posts here (I know, I’m a masochist), and while I’m willing to grant that your writing skills are quite good, I do take issue with some of your terminology.
In one post you were lamenting that the media kept including the term “social conservative” when describing the then-newly elected Sam Oosterhoff, as if that isn’t exactly how he defines himself. Almost as if you object to people being lumped together in one category, even though you do precisely that by labelling everyone who doesn’t hold social conservative views as “progressives,” but in a tone as if that’s a bad thing to be.
Your language around abortion is also flawed. The fetus inside a woman’s body (and yes, it IS also about the woman’s body) is not a “baby” and not a “pre-born.” It is a potential life, absolutely, but a potential life cannot ever override the rights and interests of an already existing one. The term “pro-life” is also a misnomer, as “pro-fetus” or even “pro-birth” is more accurate.
Lastly, if you really don’t want Christian organizations to be characterized as hate groups, perhaps they should stop acting like one? Because from what I can see on this site, social conservatives (I won’t call them Christian, and by the way, you do know that Christ himself was a left-leaning revolutionary whom you’d probably label “progressive” were he alive today?) are opposed to women’s rights, anything to do with gay or transgender rights, don’t even want kids to receive a proper sex education (you do know that birth control would eliminate many of the abortions you abhor?), and who knows what else. Oh yeah, people drinking from the white supremacy Koolaid, or however you termed it. As they say, if it looks like, talks like, and acts like…
Please stop accusing others of hatred and bigotry when that is exactly what you’re peddling yourself here. Be and do better.