Wherein Freedoms of Religion & Conscience Are Abolished

Jeroen Bosch (Here: “Hell” from the tryptich “Garden of delights”)

I am now convinced that draconian powers granted to human rights commissions, the disregard of due process allowed the accused and the politically correct mentality of the commission staff constitute a grave threat to the human rights of Canadians.

Any reasonable person observing the auto da fey proceedings against Maclean''s magazine (referencing Mark Steyn's book America Alone) replete with a drive by smear by Ontario's Human Rights Czar Barbara Hall, the undemocratic silencing of Pastor Steve Boisson, the sordid and costly persecution by process of Father Alphonse De Valk at Catholic Insight magazine, must understand something is seriously amiss.

Now we have the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons (OCPS), the governing body for medical doctors in the Province of Ontario, considering adoptimg a new policy, based on case law brought to us by our unelected, unaccountable judiciary and the newly expanded mandate of the Ontario Human Rights Commission brought to us by the elected government of the province.

According to Lifesite News:

"Refusal on conscientious or religious grounds to refer a woman for an abortion could be deemed professional misconduct under this new policy," said Dr. Will Johnston, president of Canadian Physicians for Life. Johnston was describing the likely outcome of a draft policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for which the public comment period officially ended today.

How very totalitarian. And how consistent with the mentality underlying human rights commissions. Behold our brave new world where the most profound human rights are routinely violated by the very body named to protect them.

Here is the proposed OCPS policy (hat tip to Lifesite News). An excerpt.

ii) Moral or Religious Beliefs

If physicians have moral or religious beliefs which affect or may affect the provision of medical services, the College advises physicians to proceed cautiously.

Personal beliefs and values and cultural and religious practices are central to the lives of physicians and their patients. However, as a physician’s responsibility is to place the needs of the patient first, there will be times when it may be necessary for physicians to set aside their personal beliefs in order to ensure that patients or potential patients are provided with the medical treatment and

services they require.

Physicians should be aware that decisions to restrict medical services offered, to accept individuals as patients or to end physician-patient relationships that are based on moral or religious belief may contravene the Code, and/or constitute professional misconduct.

A bit later the draft policy has this to offer.

Within the Code, there is no defence for refusing to provide a service on the basis of one of the prohibited grounds. This means that a physician who refuses to provide a service or refuses to accept a patient on the basis of a prohibited ground such as sex or sexual orientation may be acting contrary to the Code, even if the refusal is based on the physician’s moral or religious belief.5

And what is note 5 at the end of this excerpt? It is this.

5. This could occur if the physician’s decision to refuse to provide a service, though motivated by religious belief, has the effect of denying an individual access to medical services on one of the protected grounds. For example, a physician who is opposed to same sex procreation for religious reasons and therefore refuses to refer a homosexual couple for fertility treatment may be

in breach of the Code.

We are hurtling over the precipice without even realizing it is there. There is none so blind as them that will not see.