June 24th, 2024

Harder’s vote denies people the right to live their own identity

By Letter to the Editor on June 25, 2021.

I’m finding it difficult to believe that Rachael Harder, Conservative MP for Lethbridge, has voted against the federal bill to ban conversion therapy.
In doing so, she aligned herself with those who believe that sexual orientation is a choice and can be changed, or that it is evil and must be driven out.
Instead, she has declared herself to be against the positions taken by The American Psychiatric Association (publisher of the DSM), the Surgeon General of the United States, and most medical, scientific, and governmental organizations across the world, that conversion therapy is ineffective at best and often dangerous.
In choosing to vote as she did, she has denied the right of my grandson, my niece, my nephew, several of my friends, and anyone else who identifies as LGBTQ2s to acknowledge and live their non-binary identity.
It doesn’t matter if she really believes in conversion therapy or if she is trying to placate a specific group of voters. She has a responsibility to represent everyone in her constituency.
Shame on her for taking this thoughtless, outmoded, outdated, and ultimately harmful position on this vote.
Ian Hepher

Share this story:

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Thinks she voted against the wording of the bill.

John P Nightingale

Are you really surprised by her response? (I agree with your observations and conclusions BTW.)

Last edited 2 years ago by John P Nightingale
Fedup Conservative

I certainly agree with both of you. Poor old Buckwheat still doesn’t get it. These ignorant seniors will support anyone who attaches the word conservative to the name and make up idiotic excuses to defend them.
He doesn’t care that Kenney is a Liberal, turned Reformer, who has never been a true conservative, just like Klein was. Dad would say he votes for the name conservative and that makes him a lot smarter. No it doesn’t.

Harder obviously isn’t a conservative. Don’t forget these Reformers have always bashed gays and same sex marriages and thought they could be fixed with conversion therapy.


why does one’s sexual preference and comfort need to be qualified as acceptable only in the realm of being a non-choice, a force of nature? why is it “bad” if it is a choice? in fact, it is often a choice, if only when one is “experimenting.” however, it is neither the realm nor the business of anyone how one represents, or interacts with oneself or others, so long as the rights of another are not infringed upon. yet another example of some forcing their preferences – issues, in fact – on others and how they must live.
as for conversion therapy – any therapy, for that matter – once again, we have some forcing their issues on others: if one is an adult, and one wishes to pursue conversion therapy, that must be entirely their choice: it is not the business of laws or society to determine what an adult wishes to try.
get the H out of other peoples’ lives, people. i am sure we each have enough on our plates tending to our own issues.

John P Nightingale

Indeed. As far as I know, the Bill does not apply to adults. (Whatever an “adult” is defined as.)


thanks for the clarification – conversion therapy should not be available to youth.


Shame on her. Conversion therapy is the equivalent of burning witches at the stake in the 1600’s.

Seth Anthony

What if the person wants conversion therapy?

Also, what of Buckwheat’s point(?) that she voted against the wording of the bill and not the bill itself?

Last edited 2 years ago by Seth Anthony
John P Nightingale

Yes, I have heard that argument (re “wording”). Over the last few years, whenever this subject has surfaced, she has pushed back against legislation. I think in her case, this wording matter is a proverbial “red herring”.
It would be interesting to hear from her directly as the reasons she voted “nay”. One TV outlet (Global) has reached out to her office but she was “not available”. 🤔

Seth Anthony

It could very well be a red herring. I don’t know for sure.

I don’t personally believe Ms.Harder condones conversion therapy (at least not nearly to the degree that she has been accused of). I’m thinking she’s just doing what her constituents want. Then again, that would be assuming that the majority of her constituents agree with conversion therapy in some cases.

Let’s also keep in mind that “conversion therapy” is basically trying to verbally change people from being gay because they think it’s unnatural, and thus wrong. Most people seem to think conversion therapy involves whips and chains lol Granted, that actually has occurred, but those are isolated extreme examples that can be found in just about anything.

There is still the question of the adults who want this type of intervention. If such people exist, and I’m sure they do, then no one has the right to deny them that intervention. Is that what Harder is getting at?

Last edited 2 years ago by Seth Anthony

while i absolutely believe that adults have every right to their choices, so long as those choices do not infringe on the rights of another, it is highly doubtful the likes of harder or the party embraced by the christian right cares a hoot about the sole right of the individual to their body/choices. heck, we cannot even get those rights from the “liberal” idiots.

John P Nightingale

In the interest of “full disclosure” , I have received a reply to an email submitted to our MP.
Because of “liability” issues contained within the email (sharing contents), I cannot go into detail.
Suffice to say, I appreciated the in-depth reply addressing the Bill’s details and her own thoughts on the matter.

Seth Anthony

Oh wow. You can’t leave us hanging like that! 🙂

Can you at least tell us if you were satisfied with her position?