By Lighthouse News
A law to restrict speech, persuasion, and protests near abortion clinics in Alberta continues to move through the legislature. Bill 9 received second reading last week. Not only will the bill substantially interfere with freedom of expression of pro-lifers, it will obliterate the opportunity for any alternative help for pregnant women.
Alberta’s opposition United Conservative Party is following through on a pledge not to vote on the proposal – either for or against. Leader Jason Kenney has labelled it a piece of “political mischief” from the governing NDP, designed to distract voters from apparently more important economic issues.
UCP members walked out of the legislature during both first and second reading votes on the bill.
ARPA Canada lawyer, John Sikkema
ARPA lawyer John Sikkema says in one sense Kenney’s strategy is understandable, but it’s not in line with the way a legislature is supposed to operate. “It’s the job of the opposition to ask questions, but we’re in an environment where (when) the opposition asks questions – which they’re supposed to do – they’re met with accusations of not caring about women (and) being pro-harassment.”
He says that paradigm is “very damaging to our politics. Rather than the opposition being shamed into not opposing the bill, they need to be pressured into opposing it for the sake of principle. For them to oppose it isn’t the offensive thing, for them not to oppose it (is). “Even if they share the concern about the potential for harassment, it’s their job to ask the tough questions. They’re supposed to do that.”
Sikkema says history will not be kind to politicians who don’t do their jobs. “When things like freedom of expression are left to the courts to deal with, we end up with somewhat degraded politics.”
ARPA has launched an email campaign to put pressure on the UCP caucus to speak out against the bill. You can send your email from this link.
You can listen to the full interview with John as featured on our Lighthouse News broadcast here.
ARPA Canada routinely asks for you, our supporters, to submit respectful letters to our elected representatives. Every once in a while we see a fantastic example of winsome, principled, and respectful engagement. Below is one such example.
Dear Mr. Kenney,
I hope this message finds you well. It is with some trepidation that I write to you on the subject of your abstention from the NDP’s abortion clinic bubble zone Bill. Though I balk at the thought of sidestepping the opportunity to publicly question and critique such a law, your appraisal of the politics underlying the timing and nature of this vote (that it is merely bait intended to distract) is not without merit. I do not envy your position as an elected official in times such as these. As such, my purpose here is not to harangue you for the abstention, but to encourage and appeal to your conscience over the longer run. Like many others, I expect a UCP majority is forthcoming.
However, my question for you is: what then?
The popular myth in contemporary politics, that economics and morality are somehow distinct categories, is just that, a myth, and a pernicious one at that. While this common canard allows many a so-called progressive-conservative to pander some percentage of votes from both sides on the more contentious moral issues of our day, more often than not it facilitates compromise where there should be none. The myth of State neutrality on questions of fundamental morality leaves those striving to conserve the great institutions of our civilization – the Family, the local Church, the University, and the Rule of Law – at odds with the very government that purports to serve them. It is often said that politics is downstream from culture, and law from politics. There is no escaping the moral dimension of government and legislation; it is simply a question of whose morality shall govern.
My point here is that while I can see the tactical wisdom behind your abstention, the language by which you’ve justified it – which suggests precisely the mythical dichotomy described above – could hardly be more Philistine. Economics is not a distinct category from morality in the political realm. A government concerned only with dollars and cents is as base and indolent as a man concerned only with his stomach.
My concern in all of this being that your language in the handliing of this Bubble Zone affair suggests that you have or soon will forget the so-called “social conservative elements” who continue support of you financially and otherwise on the premise that you are in fact morally principled, if not God fearing. There is no neutrality Mr. Kenney, not even in the affairs of State. The creation and giving of law itself is an inherently religious exercise. Every law and every intentional lacuna in the law is an institutionalization of somebody’s morality or immorality and has inescapable moral consequences for both society at large and its various elements.
I take you as one who recognizes that the depravities of Man which render civil government just and necessary are the same depravities which require that it be limited in scope and sphere. However, to the extent that civil laws are made and enforced, they must conform to what is good and right and beautiful before God (the ultimate moral reality written upon every heart of man, if you will) – lest our legislation cease in the authority of law and serve only to further corrupt our people. Our great civilization has flourished and, sadly, declined, in direct proportion to its adherence to this ancient dogma.
The NDP’s bill concerning the Bubble zone may not be stopped by a UCP vote at the present time, the makeup of seats being what it is. But anyone who has given serious thought to the issue – to the pastoral and benign nature of nearly all pro-life counseling (notwithstanding our disingenuous media) and the ample safeguards for purveyors and consumers in the abortion industry under existing law – can see this bill is an affront to both reason and morality. The catastrophic frequency with which our society violently dismembers it’s young, often for no other cause than convenience, is perhaps the most vivid demonstration of our commitment to the idol of callous and narcissistic self. To prohibit the right-minded from pleading and exhorting, however peaceably and compassionately, with those about to engage in this mortifying ritual, that they might choose another way, is an unspeakable betrayal of justice.
The language of this bill is overbroad and it will undoubtedly harm the many individuals and groups who invest time, treasure and talent in the noble cause of life. What will become of those care centres located in proximity to abortion clinics? What will become of those who wish to pray silently for the nascent lives about to be snuffed out and the hands by which the act will be done? Who will be there to offer women the alternative, the choice, of adoption or motherhood at the brink? Who will raise these questions to the NDP in your absence?
With this in mind I pray your conscience would be set immovably on the immediate repeal (or whatever functionally equivalent “amendment” may appease both justice and rhetoric at that time) of such legislation as may come to pass post-election. There is no neutrality on issues of life and justice.
I will continue supporting you in hopes that you will not abandon what is good and beautiful and right for all Albertans. It is possible for the state to legislate in ways that promote family, liberty, education and piety while tolerating those who choose to go a lesser way. I submit that such is the better road. Tolerance, that lost art, does not require us to be nihilist in our public pursuits. Legislate towards what is right and remove all state and legislative incentives to what is abhorrent. Our laws enshrine and perpetuate our values, whatever they may be..
May your conscience compel you, and may you have the courage to fear God and love mercy more than you fear man and love security in the coming months and years. May God bless you and yours as you undertake to administer the common good of us all.
Yours Very Truly,
Benjamin J. Ferland
Take Action: Send an EasyMail letter to share your concerns with your MLA
On April 5, the Alberta government introduced Bill 9: Protecting Choice for Women Accessing Health Care Act. The bill would create “access zones” around abortion clinics in which it would be illegal to attempt to persuade someone not to get an abortion, to attempt to inform someone about issues related to abortion or alternatives to abortion, or to merely express disapproval of abortion in any way.
Beyond “access zones”, the bill makes it an offence to “persistently request” someone not to provide abortion or to even try dissuading him or her “from becoming a physician who provides abortion services.”
These offences are all punishable by hefty fines and prison.
This is a bad law. It is a betrayal of the most fundamental principles of a free society. It ought to be vigorously opposed, especially by MLAs, who have been entrusted as stewards of Alberta’s democracy.
A woman in Ottawa holds a sign within an “access zone”. Remove the word “NOT” and she would be arrested.
Despite the rhetoric about putting a stop to harassment and threatening conduct, this bill is really about censorship. Harassment, intimidation, uttering threats, obstruction, and causing public disturbances are, among other reprehensible actions, already illegal under criminal law. ARPA is strongly opposed to any threatening or intimidating conduct. The way to prevent that is to enforce existing laws. Bill 9 is designed to prohibit peaceful pro-life outreach.
This law is especially unjust and dangerous as a legal precedent because it censors one side of the debate on an important social and moral issue, while permitting the other side to speak freely. As we’ve seen in Ontario, pro-choice activists can demonstrate inside bubble zones.
Pregnant women (and their pre-born children!) deserve better. They deserve to be free to take a pamphlet from a concerned neighbour that informs them about pregnancy care and childcare support. Pre-born children are living members of the human family, and we should be allowed to advocate for them and have an opportunity to offer life-affirming options to women considering abortion.
If you agree take just five minutes right now and send this EasyMail letter to your Alberta MLA, urging them to vote against this unconstitutional piece of legislation.