Re: Pride proponent not proud of Surrey MP, Leader letters, July 11)
I would like to thank Mr. Mbaho, for quoting from Mr. Hiebert’s excellent defence in favour of the traditional definition of marriage.
Reading it has helped me better understand and appreciate Mr. Hiebert’s absence from the pride festival and his adherence to the traditional definition of marriage.
I would like to point out that Mbaho’s claim that “Mr. Hiebert is ignorant of what the word negative really means” is seriously flawed.
In the speech, Hiebert capably pointed out at least four negatives flowing from Bill C-38. First, social sciences support the reality that children do better in the home of a married father and mother, as compared to children in a homosexual living arrangement. Second, an educational curriculum, aligned with Bill C-38, threatens to extinguish the right of parents holding to the definition of traditional marriage.
Third, Bill C-38 continues to threaten the rights of faith-based groups by the redefinition of marriage. Fourth, the provinces threaten to violate the rights of marriage commissioners. These are negative outcomes, correctly identified by Mr. Hiebert, as I am sure Mr. Mbaho will agree.
Based on the above, I submit that Mr. Hiebert presents himself as a hard-working MP who is intentional about respecting and protecting the interests of all contributors to society.
He does not deserve to be criticized for being absent from an event that expresses values contrary to his own deeply held convictions. Hiebert’s care for and understanding of the Charter is evident.
His recent absence from Holland Park expresses the reality that the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of consciences is also extended to politicians. Good for you, Russ Hiebert – and keep up the excellent work.