Gladu’s ‘war on faith’ is a toxic defense of coercion and deception

In Nathan’s latest column, he argues that Marilyn Gladu’s alarmist rhetoric about religious freedom and Bill C-9 is a self-serving attempt to protect groups that rely on abusive, coercive practices like conversion therapy and misleading pregnancy crisis centres.

Federal politics is rarely clean, but Sarnia-Lambton MP Marilyn Gladu’s latest rhetorical chirping is a new low. Gladu is waving the flag of "religious freedom" to rally her base, painting herself as the victim of a supposed "continuing war on people of faith".

Look closely at what she's actually defending: the right of certain groups to actively cause harm and the ability to claim taxpayer-subsidized status for coercive practices.

This isn't about protecting the honest, community-driven faith groups in Sarnia that do genuine good. This is about defending an ideology that prioritizes its own power over the safety and autonomy of the most vulnerable people in our community—and Gladu has a long, clear record of doing exactly that.

The Price of "Choice": State-Funded Coercion

Gladu recently expressed relief that the 2025 federal budget did not adopt recommendations to revoke the charitable status of pregnancy crisis centres.

She framed her defense by claiming that if a woman has a "right to choose," she must have access to these centres' supports if she chooses to carry a baby. This is a deliberately misleading argument:

• Coercion as a Charitable Act: These centres, often run by pro-life religious organizations, are widely criticized for providing dishonest counselling and using deceptive practices—such as presenting themselves as neutral health clinics—to discourage pregnant people from getting abortions.

• The Problem is Deception: The actual debate over removing their charitable status was aimed at stopping state-subsidized coercion. Gladu isn't fighting for compassionate choice; she's fighting for the right of groups to use tax benefits to fund a non-transparent, anti-autonomy mission.

• Contradiction on Values: Sarnia-Lambton deserves honest representation. Gladu’s vote history shows she's willing to champion local causes while voting against the funding for them in Ottawa. This is a similar act of political double-talk: she claims to support community service but specifically advocates for a model of "help" that relies on manipulation and shame.

The Gladu Pattern: Defending Harm Under God’s Name

The attempt to protect these crisis centres is part of a recurring pattern in Gladu's political career: fighting to protect fundamentalist religious ideology, even if it means upholding abusive practices or denying basic rights.

• Protecting Conversion Therapy: Gladu’s rhetoric on the new Bill C-9 amendment—which would remove a loophole protecting "opinions on a religious subject" from hate speech prosecution—is almost identical to her previous stance on conversion therapy.

• Voting Against Protection: Gladu was one of the Conservative MPs who voted against Bill C-6, the legislation that banned the abhorrent practice of conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is an abusive, discredited practice used to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, overwhelmingly rooted in religious belief.

• The Power-Flip Strategy: By opposing the conversion therapy ban and now opposing the closing of a hate speech loophole, Gladu flips the script. She portrays the powerful—religious groups seeking to maintain control over public discourse and individual bodies—as the oppressed victims of the state. This strategy deflects criticism from the actual violence and harm being inflicted on marginalized communities, prioritizing the protection of archaic religious texts over the safety of Sarnians.

• Ignoring Facts for Fear: Her tendency to use fear-mongering rhetoric—previously demonstrated by linking immigrants to crime—is now focused on scaring "people of faith" into believing the government is coming for their scriptures.

Gladu’s priorities demonstrate that her concept of "religious freedom" is not about universal liberty and dignity—the values that should guide a representative. It is about preserving the power structure of a narrow, exclusive worldview.

The work of a Member of Parliament isn't political theatre; it's the work of caring for everyone in the riding. When a representative consistently uses their position to fight for exemptions that allow harm, all while claiming credit for community wins they voted against, it’s not just hypocritical. It’s a warning that they are unqualified to lead. Sarnia-Lambton deserves a representative who fights for the genuine freedom and safety of everyone, not just a select, powerful few.