Attestations force people to agree with odious practices
In the recent controversy over the summer jobs attestation issue, several facts are still being willfully ignored by those who claim it is non-discriminatory, fair or harmless.
First, there is indeed an attempt to force those with religious convictions to comply to an ideology they are ethically compelled to resist, and to “check the box.” In 2017 126 charities were denied funding. This year, since the attestation took effect, the number is 1,500. All of these groups have been forced to support the political and social ideology of the present government or lose funding.
Incidentally, a recent poll revealed that over 40 per cent of both Liberal and NDP party members also feel the attestation is unfair. Even the B.C. Civil Liberties Association now believes the attestation to be questionable and has been granted an audience in court to present their findings. In the sense that religious groups consider life to begin at conception, their beliefs have certainly been singled out for prejudicial action. They cannot be expected to agree with legislation that directly contradicts one of their deepest held convictions.
This would be like saying to devout Jews, “Yes, you can have money to support your educational programs, as long as you check the box saying that you believe in polytheism and you will endorse the eating of pork at all your religious events, and you agree that your Old Testament beliefs are mythological nonsense at best.” And then saying, “Why are you so upset?” Why are people incapable of understanding how bizarre this would be, and how wrong the attestations demands are?
This issue is, indeed, not about preventing people from holding beliefs, but it is about preventing them from practicing the tenets and convictions of their faith and then forcing them to agree with practices that they find immoral and odious. That is clearly wrong both in practice and intent.
The transparent example recently given of “a group that dedicates itself to distributing graphic images of aborted fetuses…etc.” is a distractor at best, and obviously meant to point to certain religious groups. Our existing laws prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, discrimination or hate-based ideology, so if a person feels they have been treated unfairly they are free to pursue legal action. We don’t need a separate piece of legislation forcing people to comply with liberal progressive ideology.
Lastly, the faith based groups mentioned do not “actively work to undermine rights written into our law.” They comply with the laws and the framework given them as much as they can. At a certain point, though, they cannot, any more than a parent would be able to agree with child abuse. The government is not simply asking them to comply with the Charter. (Which is, by the way, an imperfect document.) It is asking them to go against their most sacred moral and religious convictions, and smile while they are doing so. That is coercion, not legislation.
Let’s face it. Millions of Canadians feel that the attestation is offensive and an encroachment on their rights. If it were self-evident that it was not, they would hardly be so upset.
Perry Foster
Duncan