How many Canadian Members of Parliament, or Senators, are willing to stand up for Christian values against the pro-homosexual agenda? NONE. Not a one. Not even the Canadian Reformed MPs Arnold Viersen and Tako van Popta!
Last week, on Dec. 2, 2021, the Canadian House of Commons voted unanimously to pass, without debate, Bill C-4. Yesterday (Dec. 7, 2021) the Senate likewise voted it through unanimously, without debate. Bill C-4 now becomes law.
This bill makes it illegal to help a gender-confused person behave according to their biological sex or to help a homosexual person resist same-sex attraction.
What is Bill C-4?
Bill C-4 defines "Conversion therapy" as "any practice, treatment, or service" designed to change a person's orientation to heterosexual, a person's gender identity to cisgender (i.e., normal), a person's gender expression to conform to their biological sex, or to "repress or reduce" a person's homosexual behaviour, non-cis gender identity, or gender expression not conforming to their biological sex." (see the Appendix below for the full text).
This bill will make it a criminal offense to help an LGBT person convert to a Biblical lifestyle. Moreover, those merely exploring or developing a person's identity may not assume that any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression is to be preferred over another. Thus, for example, LGBT behaviour may not be condemned as sinful.
Bill C-4 is stronger than a previous version (Bill C-6), which did not prevent consenting adults from receiving help from their pastor or counselour to reduce LGBT behaviour. Bill C-4 now bans even that.
Anyone providing "conversion therapy" is liable to up to 5 years imprisonment.
It is especially noteworthy that Bill C-4 does not ban “conversion therapy” as such, but only from LGBT to normal - not from normal to LGBT. A blatant promotion of LGBT ideology against Biblical values.
Moreover, this bill is addressed not only to professional therapy and counseling services. According to Justice Minister David Lemetti, the sponsor of Bill C-4, this bill will make it illegal for pastors or parents to pressure their children to stop homosexual behaviour or to force them to dress according to their biological sex. But it does not ban teachers, for example, from pressuring students into LGBT behaviour.
In short, Bill C-4 criminalizes pastors, parents, and counselors striving to instill Biblical sexual values in their charges. Clearly, Bill C-4 presents a great challenge to Christians in Canada.
The Conservative Party’s Leftward Shift
Just last June, the previous Bill C-6 was voted against by most (62) Conservative MPs. So, why, a mere 6 months later did no MP dare speak against Bill C-4, which is worse than Bill C-6? Indeed, it was the Conservatives who made the motion, both in Parliament and Senate, to adopt Bill C-4 unanimously, without debate. Even one vote against this motion would have forced a debate, with the opportunity to make changes to Bill C-4.
A major factor is the recent (Sept.17, 2021) federal election. Erin O’Toole, the Conservative Party leader, had hoped to gain votes by moving the Conservative Party (CP) leftward. This involved, among others things, presenting the CP as pro-LGBT. Consequently, on issues of LGBT, abortion, climate taxes, covid mandates, and the like, there was now little substantial difference between the CP and the Liberals.
The election strategy failed. It may have enticed a few new CP voters, but many former CP voters deserted the CP, sensing that the CP was becoming just another woke left-wing party. The election left the CP in much the same minority position as before.
The CP leadership, however, seems to believe that future CP success depends on further cleansing the CP of any vestiges of its former social-conservative image. Although O’Toole had promised a free vote on Bill C-4, there was no doubt heavy pressure on his MPs and Senators to accept Bill C-4. And they all meekly complied, so that the CP was able to out-liberal the Liberals in their support of LGBT by moving to embrace Bill C-4 without debate.
Our Canadian Reformed MP’s
This brings us to our two Canadian Reformed MP's, Tako Van Popta and Arnold Viersen. MP Van Popta, although he had voted for the previous Bill C-6 in its first reading, ultimately did vote against Bill C-6 in its final reading, to his credit. MP Viersen had consistently opposed the previous Bill C-6.
Their lack of opposition against Bill C-4 is thus a huge disappointment. I emailed them both, asking for clarification and explanation regarding their apparent support of Bill C-4, but received no reply.
Yes, defying CP coercion might have resulted in expulsion from the CP caucus. Yes, it might have cost MP Van Popta his recent promotion to O-Toole's deputy shadow minister of employment.
But where are their ultimate loyalties? As members of the Canadian Reformed Church MPs Viersen and Van Popta surely know that, as MPs, they were ultimately appointed by God, with the important task of protecting those who do good and punishing wrongdoers (Romans 13, Belgic Confession Art.36).
Hence, MPs Viersen and Van Popta should have opposed this evil bill boldly and courageously, like Daniel and his friends, whatever the political cost. Is not their abject failure to stand up for Christian convictions an affront to their Christian supporters, and even to God Himself?
*****
Appendix
Conversion Therapy
Definition of conversion therapy
320.101 In sections 320.102 to 320.104, conversion
therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to
(a) change a person’s
sexual orientation to heterosexual;
(b) change a person’s
gender identity to cisgender;
(c) change a person’s
gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at
birth;
(d) repress or reduce
non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour;
(e) repress a person’s
non-cisgender gender identity; or
(f) repress or reduce a
person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the
person at birth.
For greater certainty, this definition does not
include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration or
development of an integrated personal identity — such as a practice, treatment
or service that relates to a person’s gender transition — and that is not based
on an assumption that a particular sexual orientation, gender identity or
gender expression is to be preferred over another.
Conversion therapy
320.102 Everyone who knowingly
causes another person to undergo conversion therapy — including by providing
conversion therapy to that other person — is
(a) guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five
years; or
(b) guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction.
Promoting or advertising
320.103 Everyone who knowingly
promotes or advertises conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two
years; or
(b) guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction.
Material benefit
320.104 Everyone who receives
a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained or derived
directly or indirectly from the provision of conversion therapy, is
(a) guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two
years; or
(b) guilty of an offence
punishable on summary conviction.
*****
8 comments:
I'm not sure your comments reflect what actually went on with C-4. The truth is it showed up like an explosion. Only those who knew it was happening and who were present were able to vote. But there was no democratic process. It was a trick, calculated to be carried out when it could be considered "unanimous". My source: https://globalnews.ca/news/8417651/conversion-therapy-ban-bill-house-of-commons/ I know of other non-Canadian Reformed MPs who would have opposed this with all their might but they had no opportunity. C-4 had nothing to do with due process.
Hi Steve
Thanks for your comment.
I try to be accurate and fair. Your own source notes that Bill C-4 was introduced earlier that week (Nov. 29, actually) and discussed earlier on the day of the scheduled vote (Dec.2) by the Conservative caucus. So all Conservative MPs knew what was in Bill C-4, when it was coming up, and that the Conservatives planned to give their unanimous consent.
No tricks. Democratic procedure was followed.
MPs Van Popta and Viersen both participated in parliament that day (their names are listed in another vote that day on another issue), and were thus
well aware of what was happening.
When asked if any MP objected to “unanimous consent”, neither MP Van Popta nor MP Viersen said “nay”. Hence, they were deemed to have consented – like all the other MPs. One “nay” would have required the normal procedure of debate, opportunity to make amendments, etc.
I don’t doubt that they were coerced into withholding their “nay”. But that is my point: was this not a case where Christian convictions should have over-ruled party pressure?
By the way, I ask commentators to give their real name. You are most welcome to make further comments, but then you should either state your name, or email me. Thanks.
It should be noted that MP Arnold Viersen has issued an apology for what happened with C-4. He admits that he dropped the ball. We should acknowledge his humility and honesty.
Hi Wes
Thanks for the news update. Yes, this is good to see. We should indeed acknowledge MP Arnold Viersen's humility and honesty in admitting his mistake.
A thought occurs to me:
Definition (f) states the following designation: conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to
(f) repress or reduce a person’s gender expression that does not conform to the sex assigned to the person at birth.
The terms in the definition, “sexual orientation”, “gender identity”, “gender expression”, and “(sexual) attraction or sexual behaviour” all stand in juxtaposition in the definition to “the sex assigned to the person at birth”.
My question is this: does this invalidate the doctoral degrees bestowed on people such as Dr. David Suzuki, whose dissertations were based on their studies of the sexual habits in the animal world; which assumes a direct correlation between observed sexual assignments and biological paradigms?
They did studies. They did not have a “practice, treatment, or service designed to” do anything contrary to this law; but the assumption of “the sex assigned... at birth” is Biology101 in their area of expertise: that’s where you start.
Is conforming to biological fact to become against the law? Is that the intention? Because that’s what’s happening in the U.S. (see Evolutionary Biologists Aghast at Cultural Wokeism, the Dec. 9 posting on Creation Evolution Headlines.) People with doctorate degrees are bounced out of their positions and degrees because they still hold to Biology101 principles.
JohnV
Hi John
Thanks for your comment. Interesting thoughts. The term “sex assigned at birth” certainly reflects the fallacious notion that one’s biological sex is fluid and can be changed as one wishes. Medical procedures cannot change a man into a woman, but only into a mutilated man that may superficially resemble a woman.
As to animal research, Bill C-4 applies specifically to “persons” (which means humans rather than animals) whose gender identity or expression contradicts their “sex assigned at birth”. Animals are not known to suffer from gender dysphoria. So I don't see Bill C-4 as a problem for biologists doing research on animals. But who knows what other woke laws may be coming?
Dr. Byl:
The assumption, it seems to me, is that man is of the animal world, evolved from it. This infers a biological relationship, at least to the point that the precepts of Biology101, the necessary assumptions in biology, include man under a single law of nature. But this newly enacted law, in its definition of conversion therapy, puts orientation and gender-identity opposite that of the biologically appointed sex.
Biology101 assumes that observation and biology are in agreement; this law says they're not. That is, they align for most, but you can't make that the rule for all; so it can't be a law of nature. Biology101 says it is a law of nature; this law says it's not.
There is a contradiction here. Logic tells us it has to be one or the other, but it can’t be both.
As to the moral aspect, “(sexual) attraction or sexual behaviour” are now the norm. Science is supposed to be dispassionate; societal norms are to be guided no longer by objective reality but by the subjective and changeable givens of the passions of the flesh. Along with tossing morals aside, they’re tossing science aside as well.
Which is why I referenced that article: this is already happening. Whole departments in the universities are tossing out real science, replacing it with passion-driven assumptions as basic presuppositions.
JohnV
May I add one more thing?
In the 2019 Canadian federal election the two leaders who got the great majority of the votes distanced themselves from their own conscience as part of their publicized campaigns.
Would you trust someone who says he won't be guided by conscience? Apparently, most Canadians would.
Something is definitely wrong here in Canada. When even elected representatives who are Christian in faith vote in favour of immorality then you have to really wonder what's going on. The major thing, though, is that we're being governed by people who openly and willingly abandon conscience and still want us to put our trust in them. I just don't know how to do that. It isn't enough to just not trust them because they no longer have credibility; it's a no-confidence thing if ever there was one, so they need to be voted out. What are we as voters doing about this?
JohnV
Post a Comment