Ontario pro-lifers must look at the electoral change in the province from their own perspective; i.e., the protection of life and the family. In this light, several points are wroth mentioning.
Firstly, the electoral upset was the result – so it seems agreed upon by many – of a general anti-government anger which may very well continue to grow. The NDP happened to be in the right position to benefit from this trend. In other words, the electoral vote is more “volatile” and less committed to any of the three “old” parties than ever.
Secondly, the NDP federally as well as in Ontario, is aggressively opposed to pro-life; yet, in general, it is difficult to see how they can be much worse than their predecessor. During their five years in power the Peterson-Scott Liberals did massive damage to the pro-life cause, undermining it in almost every aspect. (See “Liberal’s anti-life record,” September Interim).
Thirdly, NDP policies on stricter environmental protection, better public transportation and perhaps, even Sunday protection, all secondary matters affecting the family, may prove to be an improvement over the Liberals.
Finally, there remains the fact that intellectually, the NDP is more fully committed to the feminist agenda than any other political group. This includes every woman’s “right” to kill her baby, ideologically (amoral) sex education and public health policies, and open hostility to traditional religious morality. In other words, the NDP is the most “secular” of all. Yet, as noted, the Liberals have already put all these policies into practice (as, of course, have the federal Conservatives under Brian Mulroney,) despite sycophantic professions of faith to the contrary by their members in the legislature.
In the end the pro-life strategy must recognize that in Ontario all three parties take for granted a ruthless and aggressive secularism as the intellectual framework for their policies. Sad to say, Christians who vote for them don’t seem to have the faintest idea what damage this is doing. Many of them will continue to vote for one or the other until a clear alternative is set before them. Even then, they may choose to carry on with the familiar secularism, simply because it is well established. They cannot envisage any other society than the one we have now.
After all, this process has been underway for 25 years or more without any leaders, political or religious, other than pro-lifers, insisting that it must stop.
In the future as in the immediate past, pro-lifers have to rely on the spiritual resources at their own disposal to bring about change. God must be brought back into politics in a meaningful way to celebrate life instead of killing it. Because of confusion, dissent and cowardice in Christian ranks, this won’t be easy. But the task must be faced. Secularism, contrary to what people believe, is not neutral. Its growing aggressiveness is ore and more visible every day.