Activate CFPL Blog

Is the census really an evangelical issue?

Activate CFPL — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:59:25 +0000

The census causes marginalized groups to be visible to governments who might otherwise ignore them because they aren’t powerful.

by Guest Blogger, Rick Hiemstra

Is the census really an evangelical issue? It depends on how the census question is framed. Right now the government is framing it as an issue of privacy. If you ask me “Are you for privacy?” I’ll say, “Yes, how can you be against privacy? It’s like being against motherhood.”

There is a lot of heated talk about the census asking how many bathrooms you have in your house. It doesn’t; it never did. Here are links to the census long forms for 2001 and 2006. These questions are very important so we should be on the same page about what is and isn’t being asked. This is a big form. Some of the questions could easily be construed as intrusive. So why might anyone advocate for the government to continue to collect this kind information, if not exactly the same information?

Before dealing with that let’s address the privacy issue head on. We have two federal privacy laws in Canada, the Privacy Act that governs how federal government departments and agencies use data, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) that governs how the private sector uses data. Statistics Canada and all other users of census data are bound by this legislation. Statistics Canada also posts extensive information about how it makes privacy decisions. There are strong privacy protections around Canadian census data.

Let’s reframe the question as “Who benefits from census data?” We all do, especially minority groups like Evangelicals.

Numbers talk, especially when a non-partisan, respected, independent agency like Statistics Canada is doing the talking. People trust Statscan to produce numbers; people trust the accuracy of their numbers. So in a society that is increasingly polarized we can still talk with each other using Statscan’s numbers.

The EFC intervenes in court cases about religious freedom. One of the things that is expected in our briefs is a statement about how large our constituency is. Size matters, and whether we’re quoting the census or independent research, each time we go to court our numbers need to be verifiable with the census numbers – the gold standard, as it were – so the court is satisfied that we aren’t claiming an influence for ourselves as Evangelicals that we don’t have. The courts don’t allow just anybody to intervene. Census numbers help the EFC be present to present biblical principles on issues that Evangelicals care about. Without that kind of data the EFC’s job of representing Evangelical’s concerns in the courts and on parliament hill will become more difficult.

There are other ways Evangelicals benefit. Denominations assess the trajectories of their growth. We can analyze trends in marriage and divorce in Canada – yes even among Evangelicals – and, we don’t get our perspective fogged by data floating up from the United States.

Using census data, we do a better job serving our communities because we can identify community service needs on a census tract by census tract basis. Census data has become crucial to both planning and planting churches as one way we learn about the people we’d like to share the gospel with, in deeds and words. Here is a link to census tract data your church can use now.

There are other ways we benefit. Questions about commuting are used to plan municipal and provincial infrastructure improvements (so maybe your commute gets shorter). Demographic information is used to decide where and when to build schools and hospitals. Immigration data is used to make sure that ESL and integration services are available to the people who need them. Federal and provincial governments use the data as a basis on which to calculate transfers and program funding.

The list goes on and on. The data itself is neutral. Without it, these decisions will tend to be politicized. When government spending decisions are made – at the municipal, provincial or federal level – they will almost certainly be more expensive without the reliability of census data because they will be less effectively targeted.

Why is this an evangelical issue? We all care about good government. The census is a tool that facilitates good government. It facilitates discussion between different groups. It helps open doors for Evangelicals to participate in the public square. But these aren’t the most important reasons the census is an evangelical issue.

The evangelical movement is an association of different minority groups. Some of our families came here as immigrants and our ethnic groups started churches. Today, new immigrant and ethnic evangelical churches are some of the fastest growing parts of our movement. Then, and now, we represent some of those who have been heavily marginalized in our society.

Think of marginalization this way. As a boy, I spent summers on a relative’s turkey farm. They had 10,000 range birds that were fed from rows of feeders and waters in the centre of the field. The weaker birds were pecked and forced to exist along the fences of the field. There they lost weight, weakened and were vulnerable to skunks and foxes – not to mention the other turkeys – that might kill them. Coming into the field you might not see them because their feathers were grey, dirty and ragged instead of the bright white of the breed. A daily chore was to pick up the dead birds on the margins for burial.

Marginalization is what happens to the weak. It’s not that it’s intentional, planned, or malicious. The strong take care of themselves, protect their place at the feeders and waters, and the weak grow weaker.

As Evangelicals we’ve been there. Some, in many ways, still are. Our experiences of marginalization, and Christ’s call to love our neighbours, compels us to be concerned for those now at the margins. The census causes marginalized groups to be visible to governments who might otherwise ignore them because they aren’t powerful. It also allows us and others to advocate on their behalf. Perhaps, you think those groups should take the initiative to stand up for themselves. Remember, sometimes we all find ourselves in situations where we need others to help us bear our burdens. If you haven’t been there yet, just wait.

Could this information be put to evil use by governments and others? Yes, but Canada isn’t the Sudan or Iran. If we stay engaged through the efforts of groups like the EFC then census data are less likely to be used for improper purposes. A strong presence in the public square, demonstrating that we care about our neighbours and our nation, is the best way to preserve our freedoms.

The census is an evangelical issue because it touches a whole range of issues that we care about. This is why the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is calling on the federal government to retain the long form of the 2011 census.

It's good, it's just, it works...And we should follow suit

Julia Beazley — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:13:15 +0000

As part of my ongoing research, I subscribe to a number of ‘google alerts’. A handy tool for getting a quick look each day at what’s out there in cyberspace on issues of interest to you. At a glance, I can scour headlines from around the world on issues of poverty, homelessness, human trafficking. And prostitution.

And so each day, I scan headline after headline, the likes of “Police go undercover to arrest prostitutes”, or “Six women arrested in prostitution sting.” And more often than not, what I read makes my heart sink at just how backwards it all is. How can it be that in so many places around the world – including right here at home in Canada - it is still thought that the “solution” to the problem of prostitution is simply to clear the streets of the 'unwanted' prostitutes? Can’t we do better than that?

But the other day, I found a headline that brought some measure of hope. A measure of affirmation for a different way, an approach that is as just as it is logical.

In January, 1999, Sweden enacted a new law governing prostitution – at the time, the first of its kind - which criminalized the purchase of sexual services.

For a nation that believed prostitution to be harmful both to individuals and to society, the law was the latest leg in a journey that began in 1970 of seeking to address the country’s flourishing sex trade. Sweden takes pride in its strong belief in gender equity, and correspondingly takes the view that prostitution can only ever be considered a form of (often violent) exploitation against women. The original legislative proposal suggested it was shameful and unacceptable that, in a gender equal society, men obtain sexual relations with women in return for payment.

Prostitution was therefore not considered something to be managed or controlled, but rather eradicated, because it was fundamentally exploitive, demeaning and contrary to objectives of gender equality and freedom on the individual.

They also recognized that in order to eradicate prostitution, it was essential to hit the demand side - those who purchase sexual services. A simple equation of supply and demand: if there’s no demand, there will be no prostitution. The focus was necessarily punitive – but not towards the prostituted women, rather towards the pimps and johns.

Since the law was enacted, the approach has been subject to a great deal of criticism from ‘pro-prostitution’ advocates, and from those who argued it would never work, and would just drive the industry underground.

Well, more than ten years later, the results of an independent inquiry on the evaluation of the ban of the purchase of sexual services put many of those criticisms to rest. The independent inquiry was established to study how well the prohibition has worked and the effects it has had on rates of prostitution and human trafficking for sexual purposes in Sweden.

The evaluation shows that the ban has been a “success.” Shortly after its introduction, street prostitution in Sweden was reduced by half, and has not shown any bounce-back. Before the ban, rates of street prostitution in the capital cities of Norway, Denmark and Sweden had been comparable. But while rates in Sweden decreased by half, the other countries have shown dramatic increases over the ten year period. The assertion that the decrease is a direct result of the ban is further supported by the dramatic reduction in street prostitution seen in Norway since a similar legislative scheme was introduced in 2009.

Also significant is the noted impact on the establishment and operation of organized crime and human trafficking for sexual purposes in Sweden since the ban was implemented. Again, the same result has been observed in Norway since it adopted its own prohibitive legislation.

There has been an increase in selling of sexual services over internet – but proportionally, this increase has been much less than in neighbouring countries, and is likely more of a reflection of the increase in these activities over the internet everywhere than of the law’s effectiveness.

Importantly, there has also been a change in public attitude, with strong public support for the ban. Children in Sweden are growing up with the understanding that it is not okay to purchase sexual services from another person. That men and women are considered equals and each individual is worthy of respect and personal freedom, and that the very idea of one paying to be serviced by another sexually flies in the face of those fundamentals. And this maybe the greatest victory of the ban, one whose effects have not yet even been realized.

And amidst all of these positive results, there was no evidence found of negative impact on prostituted women. Prostitution and human trafficking rates have been dramatically reduced without criminalizing or further victimizing prostituted women, which leads me to believe that the model is both effective and just.

Sweden is to be commended for its longstanding commitment and determination to 'get it right.' The results of the inquiry show they are on the right track. And the inquiry itself demonstrates that they will continue to expand and improve upon the ban and its’ related support structures and services for women until they've got it as 'right' as possible.

And so today, we say (as we have already in our report, Selling Ourselves), with even greater conviction, that we believe the Canadian government should take a close look at the approach, perspective and commitment of Sweden and lead the way here in North America.

Out for the Count: Statistics Canada Drops the Religion Question from Census

Activate CFPL — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:49:39 +0000

Guest Blogger, Rick Heimstra, Director, Centre for Research on Canadian Evangelicalism

For over a century, Statistics Canada (StatsCan) and its predecessor have collected religious affiliation information once every decade through the Canadian census, but not anymore. Starting in 2011, religious affiliation and other demographic information will be collected by a new National Household Survey (NHS). The NHS will replace the long form of the Canadian census that to date was sent to 20% of Canadian households. The new NHS will be sent to a little over a third of Canadian households, but unlike the census, the NHS will be completely voluntary. StatsCan says they’re “ counting on Canadians who receive this survey to recognize the importance of this information and to respond to the survey.”

A voluntary multi-page form to be completed for the government of Canada ... would you complete it? I think StatsCan’s confidence may be misplaced.

Canadians may ignore the survey for a variety of reasons. Three reasons religious data may be seriously undercounted are:

Time. People are busy, and, increasingly, pollsters of all descriptions are seeing falling response rates.
Experience of persecution. Some religious groups, such as Mennonites, have experienced government persecution (yes, even in Canada, and most recently last year when a community religious school was ordered closed in Québec) and are not anxious to report their religious affiliation.
Theological reasons. Some groups have theological reasons for opting out of census gathering.

Can a national survey that substantially misses or undercounts religious groups really provide an accurate national religious portrait? Of course, good statisticians always estimate and compensate for error in their data, but there is good evidence that when it comes to religion generally, and Evangelicals in particular, StatsCan has not done their homework. There have been ongoing problems with how the Canadian census has counted and reported on Canadian evangelicals, and due to changes in the 2001 religion question there were serious historical comparability issues with the 2001 census data. With the voluntary NHS, we will have larger and uneven religious undercounting errors introduced, further impairing the historical comparability of the data.

Rather than moving the religious affiliation question out of the census it should have been kept where it was and strengthened with a companion religious participation question. Unlike in the past, religious affiliation is no longer a reliable correlate of religious participation. Just because I say “church x is my church,” doesn’t mean I go there. If there is one thing sociologists have told us time and again it is that religious participation, far more than religious affiliation, shapes who people are and how they behave. Canadian census takers have not kept pace with this societal change by strengthening their religious affiliation question with one on religious participation.

Historically census numbers have been viewed as an objective count of a religious group’s numerical strength. Census numbers are one potential measure of influence, and sometimes create influence. If a religious group doesn’t show up in StatsCan’s numbers, will they have influence in the public square? Or, will their influence potentially go unnoticed? Will they be afforded the same religious liberties as other groups? Distortions in StatsCan’s data will inevitably produce distortions in the Canadian socio-political landscape while potentially compromising the formation of good public policy. This is a sad day for Canada, and it is one that could dramatically affect religious liberties.

StatsCan made the results of the last two censuses available online. This has been enormously helpful to public policy makers and to ministry leaders who want to more intelligently serve their communities. Currently General Social Survey (GSS) data isn’t made so freely available. Will the new NHS - which appears to be a very large GSS - be as openly and widely distributed as the census was? Who loses and what community ministries and charitable works get hurt when this information gets withheld?

Moving the religious affiliation question off the census and into a voluntary survey is a disappointing proposal. It is one that will hamper Canadians’ ability to understand the impact of religion on our private lives and our public square. StatsCan, in one decision that ignores both history and the future, may have removed government data from its place on the social landscape of our country.

No Small Accomplishment: Human Trafficking Bill Becomes Law

Julia Beazley — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 19:31:39 +0000

On Tuesday, June 29, Bill C-268 was signed by Justice Rothstein and read by the Speaker of the Canadian Senate, receiving Royal Assent by written declaration, and thereby becoming law in Canada. This is good news!

C-268 is a private member’s bill that was introduced by MP Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul), amending the Criminal Code to enact minimum sentences for persons involved in trafficking children under 18 years of age.

Successful passage of any private member’s bill is no small accomplishment, but for MP Smith it is the rarer occasion of an amendment to the Criminal Code that was not a government initiative. Bill C-268 is the only private member’s bill passed in the current session of Parliament. Last to pass was MP John McKay’s (Scarborough – Guildwood) Bill C-293, the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, in May 2008. In the last ten years, just 34 private member’s bills have been passed by Parliament.

But C-268 is significant not simply because it toughens existing Criminal Code provisions relating to child trafficking, or because it is one of those rare private member’s bills that makes it to the finish line. This bill has already proven terribly important because it – or more accurately MP Smith’s seemingly tireless efforts in promoting it – has brought much-needed attention and profile to the issue of human trafficking across and within Canada’s borders.

Estimates from the RCMP suggest that approximately 600 women and children are trafficked into Canada for exploitation in the sex trade alone, and at least 800 are trafficked within our borders for exploitation in the drug trade, domestic work and forced labour. Perhaps even more shocking, the RCMP estimate that between 1,500 and 2,000 people are trafficked from Canada into the US each year, making Canada a net exporter of trafficked human beings.

These numbers may be just the tip of the iceberg. The trafficking of persons has become nearly as lucrative internationally as drug and weapons trafficking. Trafficking is, for the most part, well hidden and poorly understood. We hear mostly of women and children trafficked in and through Canada for exploitation in the sex trade, but many more are lured with the promise of work or education only to find themselves trapped in highly exploitive forms of labour – in previous times referred to as “slave” labour or “sweat shops.”

Trafficking does not require an international border to be crossed, or even necessarily movement across any border. It can take place within communities, within and across provinces as well as across international borders. Simply, the trafficking in humans is about the exploitation of one person for the financial gain of another.

Trafficking in persons first became a recognized offence in Canada during the fall of 2005, when then Justice Minister Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal) introduced amendments to the Criminal Code. The following year, Citizenship and Immigration Canada introduced measures to protect foreign victims of human trafficking by providing them with temporary residence permits and access to health care. And now, MP Smith’s bill introduces mandatory minimum sentencing for those who traffic children under the age of 18, unfortunately an age group for which traffickers have already been arrested in several Canadian cities.

But this is and can only be the beginning. There is much yet to be done. C-268 has opened the door for the government to begin to look seriously at the issue of human trafficking and the role that Canada must play in responding to this ‘modern day slavery’ that is taking place within and across our borders.

There are other private member’s bills to consider, such as the Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grace—Lachine) Bill C-269, which seeks to unhinge the issuing of a temporary resident permit to victims of human trafficking from their participation in an investigation or legal proceedings.

A coordinated, multi-level strategy is required to identify and prosecute perpetrators, identify, rescue and support victims, and to curb the demand for human servitude, sexual or otherwise. Curbing this demand will require a serious look at additional measures to combat human trafficking (see Human Trafficking: A Report on Modern Day Slavery in Canada) and Canada’s existing laws on prostitution, because the close linkages between human sex trafficking and prostitution are undeniable. This is a topic for another blog to come, but you can read more in Selling Ourselves: Prostitution in Canada – Where Are We Headed?.

Bill C-268 has provided a gathering place and focal point for a broad range of groups and agencies that are actively working to fight human trafficking or seeking to find ways of doing so. It has put this important issue on the parliamentary agenda, and provided Canadians a push to let Parliamentarians know we are concerned and want our government to take action and show leadership on this issue. This is perhaps the greatest victory of Bill C-268. Thanks Joy, for your persistence.

Behind the Blog with Faye Sonier: Abortion, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Faye Sonier — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:03:58 +0000

As a follow-up to the webitorial that was published at Christanity.ca, this video captures some of Faye's personal thoughts and experiences relating to the dignity of human life.

On a Personal Note with Faye Sonier from EFC on Vimeo.

A Heart of Forgiveness

Don Hutchinson — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:21:22 +0000

Two years ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an official apology to the former students and succeeding generations impacted by Canada’s Indian residential schools. As the apology concluded, he stated, “The government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly.”

This apology on behalf of the government of Canada was issued to remove “an impediment to healing and reconciliation” and was added to the succession of apologies that had been made by the RCMP who removed the children from their homes and the churches that operated many of the schools.

Over this past weekend, I was privileged to attend some of the National Forgiven Summit that took place in Ottawa in person, via live streaming and watching a DVD of a portion I missed. Several chiefs and other First Nations, Metis and Inuit leaders organized a cross Canada tour called the Journey of Freedom that culminated with the weekend of individual substitutional response to the request for forgiveness made by the churches and the Prime Minister.

Some have difficulty with the concept of such a substitutional response. At the Forgiveness Summit it was repeatedly and clearly noted this expression of forgiveness was not a conclusion to a process but a step in the process that may prove helpful to many, and an invitation was extended for others to join in. Substitutional forgiveness is based on the biblical concepts of substitutional atonement – I like the word atonement because it breaks down simply into its component parts about a restoration of “at one ment,” i.e. being one again – and the process for relational restoration outlined in the New Testament, particularly Matthew 18:15-19. For example, Jesus was a substitutional atonement for sin for those who accept His atonement. Repentance for sin (or apology) is required, as is forgiveness (releasing the victim from the continuing power of the sin and the sinner, while freeing the sinner to engage in additional steps of reconciliation to restore the relationship if the victim is willing).

On the Friday evening, several individuals in leadership positions within the church – the Body of Christ – in Canada offered a substitutional statement of repentance on behalf of the church, of which several component denominations had operated residential schools. This was followed by a moving expression of forgiveness from several residential school survivors and aboriginal leaders, including Chiefs Elijah Harper and Billy Diamond.

Earlier in the evening, the audience had heard the stirring story of Chief Harper’s standing against the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord while a member of the Manitoba legislature because it had only recognized the British and French as Canada’s founding peoples, failing to acknowledge Canada’s First Nations.

On Saturday, there was a ceremony of forgiveness – including presentation of a Charter of Forgiveness and Freedom – to Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Chuck Strahl. The Prime Minister made an appearance by video, acknowledging the benefit of forgiveness in the healing process and the continuing responsibility of the government to pursue reconciliation with the First Nations, Metis and Inuit peoples.

A First Nations’ friend of mine has taught me that while my European cultural positioning often encourages looking forward and moving forward, the aboriginal cultural positioning encourages looking back, learning from the past, and seeking the healing of past pains in order to have the freedom and the wisdom to move forward while remembering the lessons of the past in the process.

The concept of the weekend was that the substitutional exchange that took place would open the door for those who participated to experience the freedom of forgiveness, release from being bound by the paralyzing pain of the residential schools’ impact, and the freedom to remember from a place of acceptance as equals in relationship with the churches and government in the process of reconciliation. It was also intended as an open invitation for others to join in the experience.

Time will tell whether this summit has its desired effect. I hope so. Whether or not it does, it presents a fitting introduction to the long awaited first meetings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission scheduled to take place just days from now in Winnipeg.

Heintz v Christian Horizons: Solomon would not approve

Don Hutchinson — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 01:49:49 +0000

EFC's Team at the Christian Horizons Appeal, Bruce Clemenger, Peter Jervis, Faye Sonier, Don HutchinsonEven those not familiar with the Bible have some awareness of the famous “split the baby” decision of King Solomon. Two women came before the king claiming to be the mother of one child. Solomon called for a sword to split the child in two, knowing that the true mother would give up the child to spare its life.

The Ontario Divisional Court appears to have made a similar attempt in its decision in Heintz v Christian Horizons. However, in today’s world, rather than that of Solomon’s, they have taken the baby away for five months and returned with two halves.

In the fall of 2000 Connie Heintz left her employment with Christian Horizons after five years as a community living support worker providing care and support for individuals with developmental disabilities. Ms. Heintz self-identifies as an evangelical Christian who, shortly before she left Christian Horizons, entered into a same-sex relationship in violation of the morality and lifestyle statement she had agreed to prior to accepting employment with the Christian ministry.

Eight years later the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ordered that Christian Horizons could be organized as a religious entity, selective of co-religionists in its hiring practices, but only if it restricted providing its services to those who shared the same faith. In other words, to serve the broader general public, Christian Horizons would have to give up its Christian identity and simply refer to itself as a formerly Christian organization.

In coming to its decision the tribunal had pretzeled its way through existing decisions of the courts — the real courts, from judges sitting alone on a hearing to nine sitting together at the Supreme Court of Canada — to come to a conclusion that flew in the face of Canadian law.

So in that spirit of earlier court decisions, the Ontario Divisional Court, in its decision released this week, said the tribunal had erred. Christian Horizons, and other similar groups, could maintain a religious identity even though the people they served were not co-religionists.

For Christian ministries, this has the potential to be positive. The court decided that Christian Horizons is an organization of co-religionists associated to engage in common action for the good of others, which action would not take place without their association —an association established through a common statement of faith and a lifestyle and morality policy based on those beliefs.

The court noted that in addition to the statement of faith of this ministry organization, the lifestyle and morality policy, referred to in Supreme Court of Canada decisions as the practices that have a nexus with sincerely held religious beliefs, was also acceptable.

So far, so good. But then out came the sword. The Ontario Divisional Court concluded that the job Ms. Heintz was doing was not impacted by her being involved in a same-sex relationship, contrary to the accepted practices of the faith community with which she was serving and contrary to her own signed acceptance of those practices before she started working there. Accordingly, they struck the “same sex relationship” provision from the lifestyle and morality policy of Christian Horizons, concluding Ms. Heintz had every right to work there.

Solomon, at least, never intended to use the sword on the baby. This fine point is missed by the justices in their decision. They have just issued a remedy that violates the very concepts they supported earlier in the decision when they approved of religious communities deciding what they believe and the practices that line up with those beliefs. They have also decided to ignore decisions issued by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001 (Trinity Western University), 2002 (Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem) and 2009 (Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony) which clearly state that once the court establishes that a practice has a nexus with a sincerely held religious belief it’s time to stop.

Solomon’s efforts resulted in a clear solution. This decision does not.

As originally published at the National Post Holy Post on May 20, 2010 and the National Post Life on May 20, 2010.

Defying Common Sense: The Criminal Code and the Being-Born, Newly-Born and Unborn Child

Activate CFPL — Mon, 31 May 2010 13:55:26 +0000

Guest Blogger: André Schutten, Student-at-Law, Former CFPL Intern

In conversation with a friend, the topic of the legality of abortion came up. Although my friend has been a licensed practicing nurse for a few years, he was shocked to find out that in Canada an abortion can be legally procured throughout all three trimesters, up until the moment of birth. It took a few minutes to convince him that I was deadly serious (pardon the pun). I think my friend’s ignorance of the reality that is Canada’s refusal to protect its unborn citizens is indicative of the vast majority of Canadians’ understanding on this point. Perhaps, that “misunderstanding of Canadians” has something to do with our elected leaders’ refusal to “re-open the abortion debate.”

In R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a section of the Criminal Code that violated a woman’s right to “life, liberty and security of the person” under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But, the court was clear that it was striking a specific section with a specific constitutional problem. The court was equally clear that Parliament has the jurisdiction to enact legislation in regard to the unborn.

Since Morgentaler, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the unborn has no “legal” rights - a recognition that Parliament has not passed legislation granting those rights.

In 1991, the Supreme Court heard an appeal of a case where two midwives were charged under ss. 203 and 204 (now ss. 220 and 221) of the Criminal Code, after a child they were attempting to deliver died while still in the birth canal. At trial, they were convicted of criminal negligence causing death of the child (s. 220) but were acquitted of criminal negligence causing bodily harm to the mother (s. 221). However, the Supreme Court determined that a child in the process of being born was not a “person” according to the definition in the Criminal Code. And they were correct. Section 223 of the Code states that “a child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother…”

As bizarre as that seems, it gets even more convoluted. In 1996, Brenda Drummond, 28, was charged with attempted murder after she shot her nearly full term son with a pellet gun while he was still in utero (R. v. Drummond, [1996] O.J. No. 4597 (Ont.Ct.J.). Jonathan was born 2 days later, was treated in intensive care and survived. Ms. Drummond was acquitted of attempting to murder baby Jonathan because, according to law, a baby is not a legal “person” worthy of legal protection until it is born and the crime of attempted murder on an unborn child is “an offence not know in law.” She couldn’t be found guilty of attempted murder, nor could she have been found guilty of murder had baby Jonathan died before he was born. But had baby Jonathan died after he was born, then s. 223(2) of the Code would have found Ms. Drummond guilty of homicide.

Confusing, yes? Let’s examine the relevant Criminal Code sections, bit by bit. Section 223(1) defines when a child becomes a human being. Current Canadian criminal law dictates that

a child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not (a) it has breathed, (b) it has an independent circulation, or (c) the navel string is severed. (2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

Aside from the fact that this legal definition is scientifically, logically, philosophically, morally, and medically incorrect and defies all common sense, it seems odd that someone can do something to a child before it becomes a human being. Isn’t a child a human being? Let’s consider a fact scenario:

Imagine a woman goes into labour, but her boyfriend doesn’t want to father the child. Just before the birthing process begins, he convinces his girlfriend to let him terminate the pregnancy. If the father wants to end the life of that fully viable baby without facing charges, then the child must die before it exits the birth canal. There are three potential results:

The boyfriend fails in his attempt to kill the baby, and the baby lives (probably with debilitating handicaps), but he faces no charges as he committed no crime against a human being (see the case discussed above);
The boyfriend succeeds in killing the child before it is fully out of the birth canal, and can’t be charged with murder because murder can only be committed against a human being, and our law says one is not human until the child completely exits the birthing canal. (more on this below);
The boyfriend fails in his attempt to kill the baby during the birth process, but the baby dies soon after birth. He is found guilty of homicide (and, according to s. 235 and 236, liable on conviction to life imprisonment).

If you’re even more flabbergasted now, you’re not the only one. I’m a little blown away too!

Let’s take a look at another section in the Code. Section 238.(1) states:

238.(1) - Every one who causes the death, in the act of birth, of any child that has not become a human being, in such a manner that, if the child were a human being he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

In sum: “If you kill a child during its birth, it would be murder, but because we don’t define an unborn child as a human being, we can’t call it murder. So we are going to call this offence the ‘killing an unborn child in the act of birth’ offence and make it punishable up to imprisonment for life. But it’s not murder.”

The only saving grace of this section is that it does make it a crime to kill the child during the birth process. So, a partial birth abortion is a crime, right? Well, it depends. There’s another sub-section that follows:

238.(2) – This section does not apply to a person who, by means that, in good faith, he considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of a child, causes the death of that child.

Under this exception, one could argue that where a partial-birth abortion is done to save the life of the mother, then that procedure is legal. But think about this one logically: with all of the medical advances over the last century, with the possibilities of Caesarean section deliveries, doesn’t it seem a little strange that a doctor would begin to deliver a baby, and then half-way through the delivery decide that the life of the mother was at risk and that the best way to preserve her life would be to immediately kill the baby? Even with the baby dead, it still has to be delivered. That logic seems bizarre.

To summarize, having considered the above sections of the Criminal Code, the following is true about the current state of protection for the unborn, the being born, and the already born in Canada:

Abortion is permissible up until the moment the birthing process begins.
The killing of a child during the birthing procedure is, unless trying to save the life of the mother, a criminal act but is not termed murder or homicide.
It is impossible in Canadian law to be found guilty of attempted homicide where the attempt is made on an unborn child.
The moment an unborn child is completely outside of his or her mother, any attempt on its life constitutes homicide.

With this in mind, consider the case of Aysun Sesen, whose husband was charged in 2007 with the murder of his wife after repeatedly stabbing her in the abdomen for not having an abortion. She was seven months pregnant. Aysun was rushed to the hospital. Aysun Sesen's fetus still had a heartbeat on the way into the operating room. Doctors working on Sesen performed an emergency caesarean section, but the fetus was stillborn. The fetus apparently succumbed to a lack of blood. The baby’s mother died soon after. Because the baby had died only moments before being delivered, Aysun’s husband was charged only with one count of homicide. There will be no charge against him whatsoever in regard to the baby.

Compare Aysun’s child with the child of Bernice Daniels. She also was stabbed in the abdomen, resulting in the premature birth of her child who lived for 19 minutes before dying from injuries suffered during the attack. Her attacker was eventually convicted of the child's manslaughter. As medical ethicist Margaret Somerville says, "It's pretty bizarre that as long as you make sure the baby is dead in utero there's absolutely no criminal charge, but if you deliver the baby alive [and it dies soon after] then it's murder."

With all of this being said, I have to wonder, why does political rhetoric ban discussion from Parliament on the topic of abortion? Why does the leader of the governing party continue to vow not to open the abortion debate? And why do the three opposition party leaders continue to accuse the governing party of attempting to do so as if such a debate were immoral?

It seems to me that to not discuss this ridiculous reality is itself immoral.

UPDATE: Maryam Rostampour and Marzieh Amirizadeh Acquitted and Freed!

Anita Levesque — Tue, 25 May 2010 21:00:15 +0000

Judge warns them to discontinue their Christian activities

"The prayers of people encouraged and sustained us throughout this ordeal." Maryam Amirizadeh

Update to previous blog: Urgent Prayer Needed: Two Young Christian Women on Trial April 13th

We are excited to announce that your prayers have made a difference! Maryam Rostampour, 28, and Marzieh Amirizadeh, 31 have been acquitted of all charges and released by the Iranian judicial authorities. However, their acquittal and release came with a warning that any future Christian activity on their part within Iran would be dealt with seriously.

In March of 2009, the two girls were arrested for “propagation of Christianity” and “apostasy” (departure from Islam). They spent eight months in Tehran's notorious Evin prison where they endured repeated interrogations, solitary confinement, and unhealthy conditions; without access to medical treatment both became ill. In spite of this harsh treatment and the promise of freedom if they would only recant their faith, the two refused to deny Jesus Christ. Instead, they bravely stood before an Iranian Judge and declared that they would never do so.

In November of 2009, they were conditionally released, and waited six long months for their case to be heard in an Islamic court - where they might well have been sentenced to prison once again. At least this time allowed them to begin their healing physically from the health issues that developed during and because of their imprisonment.

When word broke that the girl’s case would be heard on April 13^th, Christians around the world joined in prayer and waited for word of the trial’s outcome. However, concern rose as weeks passed with no news.

Finally, news came. In a release last Saturday by Elam Ministries, it was reported that the two had been released, had left Iran and were safely in another country. Elam Ministries (a group that trains and equips Iranian Christians to reach and disciple their fellow citizens) were in close personal contact with the girls.

The girls told them:

“We have seen the Lord do miracles over and over again. He kept us and gave us favour in prison, and sustained us during a very difficult period of waiting for our final trial,” said Marzieh.

Maryam and Marzieh are eager to thank Christians who have been praying for them.

“We are most grateful to everyone who prayed for us,” Marzieh said, “I have no doubt that God heard the prayers of His people.” Maryam added, “I believe our arrest, imprisonment and subsequent release were in the timing and plan of God, and it was all for His glory. But the prayers of people encouraged and sustained us throughout this ordeal.”

“We hope to eventually share some of what the Lord allowed us to go through to highlight the need and the opportunity for the church in Iran, but right now we will take time to pray and seek the Lord for His will,” said Maryam.

Please continue to pray for Maryam and Marzieh. Pray for their complete physical and emotional healing. Pray that in time God would set them on a course of action that will both encourage Christians around the world and challenge the Iranian government concerning its unjust activities against Christians. Pray for our country’s government and Members of Parliament that they will wisely and effectively address religious freedom injustices with countries like Iran.

As we witness God answer our prayers for these two brave women … let’s celebrate! However, let’s not forget the millions of Christians around the world in countries like Iran, who live in daily fear of being harassed, tortured, kidnapped, arrested or killed for their faith. Their lives are daily at risk because they say “yes” to Jesus.

May we never take for granted that we wake up in a country that gives us freedom to believe in Jesus and live out our belief without fear. And every day we wake up in freedom, may we remember those who wake up in a country without it.

Source: Christian News Wire , Elam Ministires

Heintz v Christian Horizons – Win, Lose or Draw?

Don Hutchinson — Wed, 19 May 2010 20:49:25 +0000

The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where,
(a) a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institution or organization that is primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by their race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, creed, sex, age, marital status or disability employs only, or gives preference in employment to, persons similarly identified if the qualification is a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment; [emphasis added]