The Unstated Agenda Of The CPC

I've said it for years on this blog, and I'll say it again - Harper's base wants to impose their religiously driven morality on women and minorities in Canada.

They've been signalling this repeatedly with a series of ugly little bills like Jake Epp's Bill C-484, which attempted to create legal recognition of a Fetus as a person by the back door of our criminal laws or Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 which attempted to criminalize "coercion" with respect to an abortion. (and was so atrociously written that even providing a woman information about abortion could be construed as coercihttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifon) and Vellacott's Bill C-537 which tried to establish bogus "conscience" rights so that

Make no mistake about it, Harper's enough of a control freak that if he didn't like something his backbenchers were doing, it would have long ago been stifled. Consider for a moment what happened to Dianne Ablonczy for daring to channel funding to Toronto's Pride Festival a couple of years ago. By allowing his backbenchers to table those bills, Harper is tacitly supporting them. (and I'd http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifwager that he voted for each of them ... if he happened to be in the House the days that they were voted on ... he certainly voted against C-389 on its third reading)

So, when Brad Trost brags about defunding Planned Parenthood on the campaign trail, it comes as no big surprise. (In fact, it was Mr. Trost who seemed to act as party mouthpiece when Ablonczy was muzzled - interesting) For those of you not paying attention, Planned Parenthood is an organization focusing on reproductive health - including, but not exclusively, safe access to abortion. Trost is busy bragging about his petition campaign against Planned Parenthood in 2009. This because Planned Parenthood has the temerity to actually advocate that safe access to abortion is a legitimate part of women's reproductive health.

Stephen Harper himself refused to include abortion - or even contraception - in the so-called Maternal Health Initiative he put before the G8 in 2010. So, when MPs like Trost start flapping their gums about something, chances are pretty darn good that there's more unwritten policy being executed than it appears on the surface. I shudder to think what will happen if Harper gets anywhere near majority territory in the House Of Commons.

Predictable: Vellacott's Tirade

Following up further on the recent Saskatchewan Court of Appeals ruling, we find MP Maurice Vellacott whining about how this ruling impinges upon his right to inflict his particular morality on everybody else:

The Court has hereby belittled religious faith by writing it off as something “you do in your head or on weekends” without it impacting all of a person’s life. This crowding it into a corner or to the edge of the gangplank is a secularist push premised on a false dichotomy.

No, Mr. Vellacott, you arrogant little arse, that isn't what the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals has done at all. The Saskatchewan Court of Appeals quite specifically says that government services must be equally available to all citizens.

Back in July of 2005, I suggested that, as an analogy on this matter, we look at how official bilingualism policy is implemented. When it comes to bilingualism requirements, federal government services must be available in both official languages, but not necessarily by the same person. Bilingualism is rooted in the Charter, yet attempts have been made to implement policies in a fair-minded fashion.

This is arguably an apples-and-oranges comparison. There is a huge difference between someone being able to speak French adequately to provide services to a citizen requiring them and choosing not to provide services to someone based on beliefs. What the marriage commissioners who are complaining need to realize is that they are solemnizing CIVIL MARRIAGES, not religious matrimony. Quite frankly, what they believe from a religious perspective is utterly irrelevant to the conduct of their job.

It is not as if there is some real impediment to carrying out their job (such as not speaking the language or physical obstacle). If providing services is "that immoral" to them, then it's high time they got another job. I will note that there are certain industries where I would not work simply because I think what those businesses do is immoral or unethical. Simply put, the responsibility is mine - I have to take ownership of that aspect of my life and find alternatives.

Commissioners who hold a "traditional or heterosexual" definition of marriage should not be forced to find another career or be subjected to fines and punishment, Vellacott said.

"We talk about people being in the closet, well now they are saying somebody of a faith perspective is supposed to keep it in the closet," he said.

Yes, I realize that one's faith can be seen as permeating all aspects of your life. That's just fine with me - until someone tries to demand that I live by their rules in order to be served. I'm sorry, but at that point, individual freedom is now being used to limit others in the lawful, peaceful conduct of their lives - and that is wrong.

Had I encountered Mr. Vellacott's attitude when I was dealing with a branch of the Saskatchewan Government this past year, I would have cheerfully sued the government (and the official involved) because their actions would have stood in the way of my ability to live my life peacefully.