Christian Times Article

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
Post Reply
Hats Off
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:42 pm
Affiliation: Plain Menno OO

Christian Times Article

Post by Hats Off »

The Canadian province of Ontario has passed a legislation that allows the government to seize children from families who do not accept gender ideology. Under the legislation, "gender identity" and "gender expression" are included as factors to be considered "in the best interests of the child." However, the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child is removed from consideration in assessing the child's bests interest.
Christian Times

Interesting news from a province whose political leader is a female, married to another woman.
0 x
temporal1
Posts: 16277
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Christian Times Article

Post by temporal1 »

Hats Off hasn’t posted recently.
Would love to hear from him, and/or of him. :)

This is a link to the OP report he refers to.

2017 / Christian Times
Ontario approves measure that allows government to take children from parents who oppose gender ideology
https://www.christiantimes.com/news/ont ... ology.html
The Canadian province of Ontario has passed a legislation that has been described by critics as "totalitarian" as it allows the government to seize children from families who do not accept gender ideology.

Bill 89, or the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, was passed by a vote of 63–23 on June 1, the last day before Queen's Park adjourns for the summer, Life Site News reported.

The measure repeals and replaces the Child and Family Services Act, which governs child protection services, as well as adoption and foster care services.

Under the legislation, "gender identity" and "gender expression" are included as factors to be considered "in the best interests of the child." However, the religious faith in which the parents are raising the child is removed from consideration in assessing the child's bests interest.

"With the passage of Bill 89, we've entered an era of totalitarian power by the state, such as never witnessed before in Canada's history," said Jack Fonseca, senior political strategist for Campaign Life Coalition.

"Make no mistake, Bill 89 is a grave threat to Christians and all people of faith who have children, or who hope to grow their family through adoption," he added.

Fonseca asserted that the measure would give government workers the legal means to discriminate against Christians who want to adopt or foster children.

He claimed that there were several Christian couples who were turned down for adoption because of their religious beliefs about marriage and human sexuality even before Bill 89 was passed.

Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) was the first pro-family group to express concerns about the bill.

While the former law states that the Children's Aid Society should take the "least disruptive course of action," Bill 89 includes a provision that calls for "early intervention services and community support services," according to an ARPA analysis.

At the second reading of the bill in March, 83 of Ontario's 107 MPPs voted unanimously to advance the legislation. But Conservative MPP's who were present at Queen's Park for the vote on June 1 opposed the measure, which was in stark contrast to their position in March.

No Liberal broke ranks to vote against the bill, and several New Democratic Party MPPs voted in favor of the legislation as well.

Fonseca lauded the MPPs who voted against Bill 89, and he called on Christian leaders, particularly Catholic Bishops, to voice their opposition to the bill.

The bill was introduced by Minister of Child and Family Services Michael Coteau, who has previously stated that he considers questioning a teenagers' self-identification as LGBTQI or telling them to change as abuse.

"I would consider that a form of abuse, when a child identifies one way and a caregiver is saying no, you need to do this differently," Coteau said.

"If it's abuse, and if it's within the definition, a child can be removed from that environment and placed into protection where the abuse stops," he continued.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
Post Reply