Rev. Aug. 19, 2014

The freedom of Ontario doctors to refuse to participate in procedures, for example, birth control, is being challenged again. This is consistent with the policies of the globalist oligarchy.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

Under Ontario law, the College regulates the practice of medicine in order to “serve the public interest”. So if denying rights and freedoms is said to serve the “public interest”–whatever that is–oh well, too bad.

To practise medicine, physicians must be members (http://www.cpso.on.ca/About-Us). So it’s hard to talk about freedom when everyone “must” do this or that.

College’s Review of its Policy

The College reviewed its policy Physicians and the Ontario Human Rights Code and asked the public for input (from July 9 or earlier, to August 5, 2014).

The College’s website poll:

Do you think a physician should be allowed to refuse to provide a patient with a treatment or procedure because it conflicts with the physician’s religious or moral beliefs?

Results as of August 4, 2014:

• Yes: 72%, 19,459 votes.
• No: 28%, 7,456 votes.

You’ll notice that a large percentage of the public still believes people should be “allowed” to live according to their principles. So the propaganda hasn’t conquered us all completely. Rights and freedoms are also “beliefs” that can come in conflict with the authorities. Who is going to stand up for those “beliefs” besides individuals with a conscience?

Media coverage: Don’t bring your conscience to work!

“Debate about doctors’ right to refuse treatment for religious reasons re-ignited”, Ottawa Citizen, July 9, 2014. Includes quote from feedback to College website:

Freedom of conscience is a personal right, but not a professional right. When you project your conscience into your profession, you infringe on the freedom of conscience of those you serve professionally.

Someone thought that was a rational statement.

Leave Your Morals at the Door!

“Should doctors have the right to refuse to treat a patient?”, The Globe and Mail, June 27, 2014.

Whether or not we know all of the doctor’s objections–we think we know but I doubt we do because of information-suppressing propaganda–this article quotes the letter (given to his patients when they arrive) from Ottawa physician Dr. Edmond Kyrillos:

Please be advised that because of reasons of my own medical judgment as well as professional ethical concerns and religious values, I only provide one form of birth control, Natural Family Planning. In addition, I do not provide for vasectomies, abortions nor do I prescribe the morning-after pill or any artificial contraception.

A 25-year-old patient who responded to this is quoted:

I believe if they plan on being in a profession that helps other people, they need to leave their morals at the door.

Not bringing our moral judgment and conscience to work makes this world the wonderful place it is! Right?

If we brought our conscience to work, it would gum up the works. More people would start thinking twice about their involvement in passing on vaccine propaganda memos from the World Health Organization, or telling everyone to observe Earth Hour, or participating in military industrial contracts (those three examples aren’t as inconsistent as they seem).

Questions of conscience are not easy to deal when our jobs are at stake. But all of that goes on in the workplace nowadays–because we are told to be so obedient and compliant. If enough people of the same opinion backed each other up, then things could be different.

Accusations of Bias Against Women

The following article is more balanced: Ottawa doctors chastised for refusing to prescribe birth control, The Interim, May 31, 2014.

The article mentions how a Facebook commenter reacted to the complaint and accused the doctor of having a “deep disrespect for all women” even though the doctor explicitly referred to male birth control–vasectomies–in his letter. Her comment is based on pure prejudice towards religion.

Is this just some random opinion? No. We’re part of a corporate-run system that follows orchestrated talking points and long-term social engineering. These messages are created by academics and distributed to various brainwashed youths and “radicalized” well-funded groups who carry the message enthusiastically.

How far can they push the allegation of “discrimination” based on gender or whatever can be dug up in the Ontario Human Rights Code? This is one of the points that comes up in international policy documents relating to birth control. What are the “barriers” to the efficient delivery of birth control? Well, doctors’ freedom of conscience is one of them.

The College’s Policy is Bad Enough Already

The College’s policy already undermines freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

The existing policy can create a conflict between the conscience of doctors and their means of making a living! Why should anyone be forced into that situation?

Some of us “believe” our freedoms are absolute and guaranteed, but the College insists on setting us straight.

If a doctor feels that some procedure is against their principles, harmful, toxic or mutilating, this is what doctors run into, for example, in the existing policy. Here are some points that really stretch and twist the meaning of words, that really push the limit of words, like “interfere” for example. Most of these barely apply logically to real-life situations. They’re just meant to intimidate doctors and please policy-makers:

Freedom to exercise genuine religious belief does not include the right to interfere with the rights of others; [Who is interfering with anyone else’s rights or freedoms in a situation of conscience?]

Neither the freedom of religion nor the guarantee against discrimination are absolute. [Who says? It is unlimited as long as we don’t infringe on the freedom of others, which should go without saying.] The proper place to draw the line is generally between belief and conduct. The freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them. [Because our behavior is highly regulated. But the moral principle should be taken for granted that our freedom stops where the other person’s nose begins.]

The right to freedom of religion is not unlimited; [First, it’s not just about religion. Second, we’re not allowed to hurt others in the name of religion, we know that already, so what does this have to do with exercising conscience except to defend society’s authoritarian structure.] it is subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals, or the fundamental rights or freedoms of others; [Just comes across as a slur against religious beliefs, implying that religious people are just waiting to pounce on people and destroy rights and freedoms.]

The balancing [This is just the lingo used by servants of the control system to justify taxes, laws, wars, confiscation, surveillance, etc. I don’t use the word “balancing”.] of rights must be done in context. In relation to freedom of religion specifically, Courts will consider how directly the act in question interferes with a core religious belief. Courts will seek to determine whether the act interferes with the religious belief in a ‘manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial.’ The more indirect the impact on a religious belief, the more likely Courts are to find that the freedom of religion should be limited. [limiting religious beliefs that authorities determine to be “trivial”]

. . . Provide information about all clinical options that may be available or appropriate based on the patient’s clinical needs or concerns. Physicians must not withhold information about the existence of a procedure or treatment because providing that procedure or giving advice about it conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs.

So that last point already imposes a threat on physicians. Speech is regulated in many ways in Canada and this is another example. Anything to do with a sensitive area related to the top priorities of birth control and population is under the spotlight. Do you think it applies to any other kinds of information that doctors omit? I doubt it.

This is standardization of the message doctors present to patients. This is the way the system with supposedly non-standard “beliefs” when these come in conflict with important policies.

Certain things matter–birth control–and certain other things–general health and providing proper treatments for illness–don’t matter so much.

This is all consistent with the authoritarian nature of our society. This is a consequence of monopoly power being invested in governments and government-sanctioned monopoly organizations and professions.

Our principles and ideals contradict the reality. We’re limited in our health care options, and doctors are limited also.

Everybody is in the same situation. We are under restrictions with what we say and do, buy and sell. But if one group is losing their freedoms, we can try to empathize and see ourselves in the same situation. If it can apply to doctors, it can apply to us.

Ontario Human Rights Code: Discrimination and Exceptions

Ontario Human Rights Commission
Ontario Human Rights Code

The law that’s being used to attack freedom of conscience is the Ontario Human Rights Code. I don’t even see how it applies to limit the conscience rights of doctors, but it is being used this way. In this Code, there is a long list of exceptions to the so-called anti-discrimination “principles” that interfere with freedom of association and other fundamental freedoms we are supposed to have.

Without the exceptions that allow some discrimination, it looks like society would cease to function–requiring totalitarian “solutions” eventually when we reach the point at which everybody stops pushing for exceptions. I think many people still think these human rights codes are well-intentioned instead of being power-grabs. Just like most legislation, these are just systems of micro-management over our lives–small business for example–and they wear us down slowly.

Example of an exception:

Special interest organizations
The rights under Part I to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities, with or without accommodation, are not infringed where membership or participation in a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institution or organization that is primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination is restricted to persons who are similarly identified. . . .

This is how the “human rights” code is patched together. Another example of a sensible exception which we take for granted:

Restriction of facilities by sex
20. (1) The right under section 1 to equal treatment with respect to services and facilities without discrimination because of sex is not infringed where the use of the services or facilities is restricted to persons of the same sex on the ground of public decency

What’s “public decency”? Federally they are already getting around to this one. You see the point? This is legal “discrimination” because the law creates an exception. Otherwise, you might be charged with discrimination if you insist on keeping one washroom for males and one for females. To create a controlled society, for the lower castes anyway, there has to be no capacity left for independent “discrimination” at all. We are just to follow our assigned programming.

The 2008 Effort to Curtail Freedom of Conscience and the Response

The College had attempted to toughen their policy in 2008. There is an excellent rebuttal here. This document was submitted to the College on September 11, 2008 by the Protection of Conscience Project. This statement goes into depth and is really worth reading.

Examples of procedures discussed include birth control, abortion, sex-selective abortion, participation in capital punishment, participation in torture, euthanasia, sex change surgery, circumcision and unnecessary amputation.

Some are more relevant than others for Canada, but there are plenty of real-world examples in which a doctor might object because of their conscience–if any doctor is allowed to have a conscience.

And who knows how far things will deteriorate in future as we bow to the new “god” of world corporate government.

It’s crazy some of the things doctors are asked to do. It makes sense to empathize with doctors who are holding on to their moral beliefs and finding a way to center themselves.

Supporters of Conscience

This petition came up during the review process and received support from members of the public.

This article from Campaign Life Coalition sums up this situation as a “move that could effectively ban people of faith from a career in medicine”. Also, the author explains some of the health concerns and medical objections to birth control procedures.

We are given simplistic propaganda to discredit those who are seen as threats to the system. It’s very convenient to bury factual objections to medical procedures under comments about “religion” and “beliefs”. This is just a cartoon that clouds the reality. Our buttons get pushed and we start reacting to trigger words and taking sides instead of researching what is really going on.

Some religions and beliefs are considered outmoded because they don’t fit with the agenda that devalues human life.

As far as religion, a new and system-compliant religion was created by the Brave New World dictatorship in Aldous Huxley’s novel.

Religion or otherwise, now is the time to encourage those who exercise independent thought and freedom of conscience.

Continued: Part 2