Friday, April 19, 2024

Top 5 This Week

spot_img

Related Posts

MUST READ: Lorne Gunter column today

I liked Lorne Gunter’s latest column at the NatPo.  It starts out like this:

A handmaid’s tale

Will Ontario doctors be forced to ignore personal beliefs just to please a pompous human rights commission?

The sheer arrogance of human rights commissions will be their downfall: their conviction that they have a superior understanding of rights compared to anyone else and that once they have pronounced how rights shall be interpreted, the rest of us should fall in lockstep with smiles on our faces and cheery tunes on our tongues, content that our intellectual betters have shown us the error of our ways and revealed the path to true enlightenment.

Consider the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s submission to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) on doctors’ ability to practise medicine according to their consciences. It drips and oozes with the kind of sanctimonious condescension to differing views that has become a hallmark of such commissions.

The OHRC’s conclusion, though couched as mere friendly advice, states barefaced that “doctors, as providers of services that are not religious in nature, must essentially ‘check their personal views at the door’ in providing medical care.”

The gall of such a statement is stunning. Abortion? Contraception? Fertility counselling for same-sex couples? How are those not services that are “religious in nature”? Every one of the world’s major religions has had views on these actions for hundreds of years.

They could only be considered non-religious in nature if you were a detached, disconnected, pompous human rights twit who was convinced you had the power to provide written-in-stone, immutable definitions that were binding on all concerned.

 

Joel Johannesen
Follow Joel
Latest posts by Joel Johannesen (see all)

Popular Articles