Sunday, September 11, 2005

Ontario Liberals Bring the End of Religious Freedom in Canada One Step Closer

The liberal assault on religious freedom in Canada has made another gain. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced that he would move quickly to abolish religious tribunals used for years by Christians and Jews under Ontario's Arbitration Act. The announcement was made while speaking to the Canadian Press, a left-wing national news wire service.

Under the Arbitration Act, people of faith that wanted to resolve marriage disputes or seek a divorce could enlist the help of their local church or synagogue. This allowed Canadians the option of avoiding the long drawn out legal process of using a divorce court. Any decision by these faith based tribunals was only binding if both parties agreed to the terms. When either party felt the decision was unfair to them, then the courts were still the final arbiter.

This decision will only serve to increase the roll that government plays in our lives. By abolishing these tribunals, the liberals have made government and government run courts the only option people have to resolve their differences in a marriage. This is great news if you are a government bureaucrat or a lawyer, but it is one more nail in the coffin of religious freedom in Canada.

This latest anti-Jewish/anti-Christian liberal initiative follows a long list of other policies that are beginning to spell the end of religion in Canada. The two most high profile liberal victories in the war on religion were bill C-250 and bill C-38, both of which came in the last few years.

Bill C-250 was the private members bill introduced by convicted jewel thief and socialist NDP politician, Svend Robinson. This bill amended the criminal code and made it a crime to say anything negative about the practice of homosexuality. Anyone who now quotes bible passages that refer to homosexuality as a sin or even quotes the verse where those passages can be found may be found guilty of inciting hatred and thrown in jail.

Bill C-38 was the same-sex marriage bill that redefined the word marriage to included homosexual couples. The institution of marriage and the definition of the term were both creations of religion. Governments adopted and promoted traditional marriage, because the traditional family has long been considered the cornerstone of civilization. Even though homosexuality is considered a sin in all three major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the time is fast approaching when these religions will face discrimination charges for refusing to marry people of the same sex.

Pretty soon secular liberalism will be the only religion left in our country.


At 11:29 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice bait and switch.

We didn't get Sharia after all, but how about another helping of 'equality'?

"Why, thank you!"

Did anyone see this coming? I didn't.

Was hunting dinosaur.


At 6:08 a.m., Blogger Mark said...

I agree, Michael, it's the next step towards the abolishment of religious freedom (period) in Canada. I tried to evoke discussion on the matter with my post yesterday but little was to be had.

I saw this coming a couple months ago when Quebec was entertaining Sharia. It stood (and stands) to reason that, rather than appear discriminatory by disallowing Muslim tribunals based on Sharia when Christians and Jews have tribunals based on Judeo-Christian principles, the solution would be to abolish all tribunals. Appearing tolerant is the political key.

The threat to "common law", as McGuinty says, is a weak argument to make towards justification. Certainly if Christian and Jewish tribunals had threatened the established laws they would not have been allowed in the first place. Since they do not threaten the common law establishment they should be allowed to continue.

Canadians should not be surprised that the solution to any sort of crisis or indecision is to relinquish rights and privileges of the citizenry: it's a hallmark of big, over powered government. It is for this reason that people should aim to keep government small and decentralized.

At 12:56 p.m., Anonymous wiseprince said...

Did I miss something here? You are acting as if this was an attack on Christianity and Judaism. Lest you forget this all started because a few people were upset at the idea that Muslims can practice the same rights as Christians and Jews. I am all for religious arbitration but that should not exclude Islam. If anything this was a blatant attack on Islam and Sharia law. If you want to stand up for religious freedoms by all means do so but don't expect that other religious won't want the same rights that "mainstream" religions have

At 1:55 p.m., Blogger Mark said...


The salient point is that Muslims tribunals with Sharia as the standard are not compatible with Canadian law, whereas Christian and Jewish tribunal processes are and were.

What we have witnessed here is the relinquishing of privileges because politicians lack the moral clarity to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable religious tribunals. Rather than disallow that which is incongruent with Canadian law and thereby telegraph that, contrary to popular multiculturalist dogma, not all religions are morally equivalent, McGuinty chose instead to revoke a privilege for no other reason than the fact that not all principles of all faiths are reconcileable with common law.

At 5:24 p.m., Anonymous wiseprince said...

The salient point is that Muslims tribunals with Sharia as the standard are not compatible with Canadian law, whereas Christian and Jewish tribunal processes are and were.

I can pull a bible out and show you where Canadian law in not compatible with it plain and simple. I understand your frustration but I think you need to open your mind and understand the frustration of muslims aswell. I am confident that there are "liberal" muslims who could interpret the Koran in a fashion that fits into Canadian law as Jews and Christians have obviously been doing.

I believe that there is one interpretation of the bible and to try to fit biblical teachings into secular Canada is foolish. That being said I am sure many people have different interpretations. Some may fit into Canadian law and some may not but each case is no doubt different. In any event these rulings are completly voluntary so if Muslim women have no problem with it then why should it bother you? Yes, the same goes for Christianity. If a good Christian woman is willing to abide by its teachings then I see no problem with that.

I conclude by saying that the government is wrong to supress religious arbitration for Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion but to simply supress one out of many is unfair. We can do worst...We can apply Canadian law for divorces and child custody decisions

At 5:32 a.m., Anonymous Paul said...

When religious freedom is attacked the foundation of civilization is attacked and Leftists and their ilk know this very well. They claim to be liberal and open-minded but in fact are nothing of the sort! And they do not tolerate dissent.


Post a Comment

<< Home