Activate CFPL Blog

Is it homophobic in here … or is it just me?

Don Hutchinson — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:45:47 +0000

A featured link in this National Post weekend homepage story (May 25-27, 2012).

By Don Hutchinson

Homophobia. Do you think you know what it means? I bet your neighbour thinks it means something different (and odds are you’re afraid to ask).

As an evangelical Christian organization, after engaging in Ontario’s province-wide dialogue on anti-bullying legislation, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) has on several occasions been accused of being “homophobic.” By implication, all evangelicals – we – were so accused. We? I was accused of being homophobic?!

In 1998, Coretta Scott King, the widow of American Baptist (evangelical) minister and civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., stated:

Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.

This is a fair statement. Mrs. King was calling on Christians and civil rights activists to engage in the “love thy neighbour” expression of standing up for those who had experienced and were experiencing a form of oppression; injustice. This challenge to the Church was little different from her husband’s challenge to segregation laws in the U.S.A.; or Jesus’ challenge to the religious leaders of His day, when He said:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. (Matthew 23)

Jesus was heavily criticized for spending time with “sinners.” He responded by noting the imperfections of humanity, calling on us all to have grace for one another, and challenging the religious leaders to get real. Jesus accepted sinners for who they were. This does not mean He accepted or approved of their sin. Jesus did not confuse identity with behaviour. The woman caught in adultery was a recipient of Jesus’ acceptance. Her behaviour was not; as He cautioned her to “sin no more.” (John 8)

While I’m pretty sure I understand what Mrs. King was getting at, to the best of my knowledge the word “homophobia” is not defined in Canadian law, either by the courts or in legislation. And, unfortunately, what was intended as a call to defend has been twisted into a weapon of attack.

The word “homophobia” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.”

As sword rather than shield, the term is used to suggest a psychological disorder in the person or organization so labelled; and, to generate fear and to bully those it is directed against into silence. This label has become the contemporary slur of the 21st century, intended to silence the voices of those in our free and democratic society who might disagree with the public policy agenda of a select group of activists. This slur is intended as both insult and indictment directed at the very nature and character of the person or organization that dares to disagree.

A similar twist in use of a word took place in the United States in the 1950s when Senator Joseph McCarthy spun a defence of democracy and a fear of communism into unfounded allegations of being either a communist or communist sympathizer directed at thousands of Americans, who were ostracized and ridiculed in a manner intended to make them outcasts in a democratic nation. Jobs were lost, voices that held legitimate public policy positions were silenced and stated suspicion was accepted as conclusive evidence of a threat to society.

Accusations of “homophobia” have no place in public discourse, public dialogue or public debate and certainly no place in the legislatures, public squares or public schools of our nation. Reasonable people will disagree on matters of public debate. We might disagree with one another, but we are still called to accept and respect one another – as Canadians.

Evangelicals – certainly the vast majority of us – do not have a fear or irrational aversion toward gays and lesbians. We do however, at times, find ourselves in disagreement with the public policy positions expressed by activists from the gay community; as they at times disagree with ours.

The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed on more than one occasion that the religiously informed are not to be placed at public disadvantage or disqualified from engaging in public policy debate. As Justice Gonthier noted in his decision in Chamberlain (2002), with this portion of his reasons supported by the full court (read the decision of the Chief Justice at paragraph 3 and that of Justice LeBel at paragraph 188):

The key is that people will disagree about important issues, and such disagreement, where it does not imperil community living, must be capable of being accommodated at the core of modern pluralism. (paragraph 137)

There is no doubt and much evidence that gays and lesbians have in the past suffered treatment similar in fashion to blacks in the segregated U.S. South of the 1950s. The solution of that day was not found in calling “racists” names, but in engaging an awareness of injustice and a pursuit of justice. There is mounting evidence that calling evangelical Christians “homophobic” (even when some are admittedly behaving badly) is not a defence for a powerless community but an attack from empowered activists. A new injustice, that serves to repeat a pattern rather than improve a democratic society.

The last word goes to Martin Luther King, Jr.:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.(Letter from a Birmingham Jail, 1963)

Sex in the Capital City

Don Hutchinson — Fri, 18 May 2012 14:33:30 +0000

By Don Hutchinson

“The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation,” or so former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau infamously stated to the media at a press conference on December 21, 1967.

Last week, Canada’s Science and Technology Museum (located in Ottawa) finished setting up the exhibit “Sex:A Tell All Exhibition” in its renowned, taxpayer funded halls – bringing what perhaps belongs in the bedrooms of the nation into the halls of the state.

The museum hosted an advance showing for journalists and artists, which resulted in me receiving communications from one of each suggesting there were seriously offensive, potentially illegal, components to the exhibit. These were two trusted sources so I wrote the following note to Minister of Canadian Heritage James Moore:

I am shocked to hear about the explicit sexual content of the exhibition “Sex: A Tell All Exhibition” that is scheduled to open May 17 in the federally funded family environment of the Canada Science and Technology Museum.

While I have not seen the exhibition personally, the comments received in my office indicate that there are pornographic images; some reportedly involving or depicting children (under the age of 18 years), potentially in violation of the Criminal Code.

I would be relieved to find out these reports are not true, just as I would be remiss in not bringing them to your attention if they are.

Since then, there has been a lot of media coverage as over 50 letters of complaint have been received at the museum (at time of writing as reported on last night’s local Ottawa news) and the Minister has viewed the exhibit, noting in the House of Commons on Thursday:

I believe in the independence of our museums and I also believe in sex education.

The director of the museum asked me to view the exhibit. ... I was asked for my opinion and, in my opinion, it is not appropriate for young children to be exposed to sexually explicit material without the consent of their parents.

I made my view known and it is up to the museum to decide now where it goes.

Before opening the exhibit to the public yesterday, the museum raised the age for attendance unaccompanied by an adult from 12 to 16 and removed some components of the original exhibit, notably the cartoon videos of young teens masturbating – which might have generated concern once consideration was given to the potential for being classified as child pornography under s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code. This suggests there were, and may remain, problems with the content.

We’ve had some media contact in the same process. Of course, interviews are edited to shape the intent of the journalist. To be clear, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has for several decades taken a firm stand in regard to the protection and well-being of children. The EFC was involved in having child pornography added as a crime to the Criminal Code (defending the section before the Supreme Court of Canada and then working to secure amendments recommended by the court); advocating for almost two decades to raise the age of consent to sexual activity with an adult from 14, which it was in 2008 to 16; convincing the government to implement Criminal Code provisions against the trafficking of women, children and men (described as modern day slavery) and supporting the most recent efforts of MP Joy Smith to establish minimum sentences for those who traffick in children in Canada and application of our laws to Canadians who traffick in children outside of our borders. I could go on, but think this is sufficient for now.

Our interest is in the protection of children.

Which is why, in my capacity as a private citizen, I also contacted the RCMP to ask that a member of the child protection unit view the display to assess whether there was evidence of an offence that might tend to corrupt the morals of a minor under the Criminal Code s. 163 or of child pornography. I don’t know if anyone went.

One person who viewed the exhibit was featured on last night’s CTV National News noting that there was nothing in the exhibit about relationships being a part of sexual activity. It was just about sex, primarily homosexual sexual behaviour. Another person I spoke with said they were impressed that the exhibit noted alternatives to engaging in abortion if pregnant, but disappointed that adoption was not one of them.

I was asked by an interviewer if I was going to go to see the exhibit for myself. I don’t think so. I’m now old enough to know that not everything must be learned the hard way. Sometimes we can acquire what we need to know through the experience of others, particularly trustworthy others.

Journalist Michael Coren has suggested in one article that “with some exceptions our leaders are indifferent, and those of us who criticize this nonsense will be condemned as frightened prudes.” Concluding, “Rise up, frightened prudes of the world, before it’s too late.”

Prude is not a label that has been applied to me before, but I say, in the best interests of our children “The bedrooms of the nation have no place in the halls of the state.” Parents, be warned that the current plan is school trips to the Museum of Science and Technology between now and the end of January 2013 will feature large groups of young children, accompanied by one or two adults, learning more about the mechanics of sex and watching “soft porn” videos than anything that has to do with science.

It's Time to Talk About Life - Shared at the March For Life Rally

Don Hutchinson — Sat, 12 May 2012 00:08:27 +0000

Guest blogger: Bruce J. Clemenger is President of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Following is the text of his address to the gathering assembled for the 2012 March For Life rally on Parliament Hill.

You have heard it said that the debate about legal protection for the unborn is over. I say look at this crowd. Consistently each year we have gathered here to say it is not over.

You have heard it said that the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion. I say to you, read the decision. That is not what the Court ruled. I was in the court years after the decision when an abortion advocate mentioned a woman’s right to choose and the then Chief Justice Lamer cut her off and said the court never said such a thing.

You have heard it said that Canadians don’t want a new conversation about the child in the womb. I say polls from many polling firms show that most Canadians want protection for the child in the womb.

When is it not the time to talk about the beginning of life?

When is it not the time to talk about the protection of life?

When is it not the time to talk about what it means to be human; when is it not the time to talk about what it means to be a person?

And when is it not the time to talk about what duty of care we owe to another?

All else – our laws, our constitution, our societal norms, our culture and our civility – is built upon our answers to these basic questions about life, meaning and purpose. These questions form the horizon for all else.

We cannot afford not to have the conversation.

I say Parliament needs to catch up with what Canadians believe. The global trend over the last centuries has been in favour of life: the expansion of personhood to those who were previously denied status; in favour of protecting the vulnerable and the rejection of slavery, of human trafficking, of treating the other as a commodity, as an object, as something that completes the life of another rather than someone with inestimable worth.

I say science and medicine are teaching us more about the distinct personhood of the child in the womb.

I say the younger generations are more integrated in their understanding of life and more skeptical of the distorted logic and ethics that permeate the arguments we hear every day.

Lets have the conversation.

May God have mercy on Canada.

And may God give us strength and courage as we speak for those who cannot.

March for Life 2012 Photo Gallery

Faye Sonier — Fri, 11 May 2012 12:38:03 +0000

EFC's Don Hutchinson, Vice-President and General Legal Counsel

EFC's Bruce Clemenger, President

More pictures available here.

A Prayer for Life - Shared at the March For Life Rally

Don Hutchinson — Fri, 11 May 2012 02:58:21 +0000

By Don Hutchinson (as shared May 10, 2012 to open the March For Life rally on Parliament Hill)

Father,

We stand together in awe and wonder at the miracle of life. Science may speculate about the origins of life, but only You can create.

We gather together on this day to express our wonder at the miracle of all of life, particularly human life – from fertilization through to the natural cycle of death.

This day we focus particular attention on the wonder of human life formed within the human body; designed by You for growth, birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood.

We stand in prayer for those in the womb who have not yet developed a voice of their own.

We stand in prayer for those who have chosen to give birth to the children growing within – whether to raise those children as mom and dad, as single mom or to lovingly offer them for adoption in another welcoming home.

We also stand in prayer for those who have lost their children through no choice of their own and those who have lost their children by choice.

We ask that You, Father, by Your Spirit would touch each one of these with your love and compassion; for we have all been made in Your image and Your Son died for each one of us that we might know love, forgiveness and renewal in our own lives.

Father, we also stand together in prayer for our great nation of Canada, recognizing that the loss of lives through unrestricted abortion for nearly a quarter of a century has cost us all dearly through the loss of brothers, sisters, friends and a generation that would be moving into the professions, trades and other occupations that are necessary for the economic and social stability of our nation.

We pray for our Prime Minister, Members of Parliament and the Senate – chosen by the people of this nation, and we believe also chosen by You, O God – who have been called upon by You, by the Supreme Court of Canada in their decision in the Morgentaler case in 1988, and by the people of Canada to correct the injustice of our nation providing no protection for children in the womb, an injustice that has been visited upon our nation for 24 years.

Yes, we stand together in awe and wonder at the miracle of life. And we pray that the day will come when this gathering will not be necessary; when justice will be restored for the innocent voiceless; and our nation will be renewed in its foundation of dignity and respect for all human beings.

This we ask in the name of Your Son, Who lived, died and was resurrected again to life, Jesus, the Christ, our Saviour and the Lord of Life. Amen.

An Open Letter Regarding Christian Student’s Suspension Over T-Shirt

Faye Sonier — Fri, 04 May 2012 16:47:36 +0000

Nancy Pynch-Worthylake
Superintendant
South Shore Regional School Board

Dear Ms. Pynch-Worthylake,

According to a recent article in The Chronicle Herald (“School board going to higher power”, May 3, 12), you are currently seeking the opinion of a human rights expert regarding student William Swinimer’s T-shirt. Mr. Swinimer’s T-shirt reads: “Life is wasted without Jesus.”

As Canadian lawyers who specialize in section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter), notably the rights to freedom of religion and conscience, we would like to offer you our assessment of this situation. We have both appeared before various bodies, including the Supreme Court of Canada, to speak to the issues of religious freedom and expression.

Additionally, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), the national association of evangelical Christians, has appeared before human rights tribunals, appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada on numerous occasions to share our expertise both in this area and other areas of law. Please see Schedule “A” for the history of our engagement at the higher courts.

Schools to be a Welcoming Environment

Many school boards and principals seem to believe that there are restrictions on any and all expressions of religion in public schools. This is false. Far from religion and religious practices being excluded from public schools, schools are required to create a welcoming atmosphere for all.

In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that school boards have a duty to ensure that the public education system is a welcoming and positive school environment for all students. The court went on to require that school boards be “ever vigilant” of anything that might interfere with that duty. (Ross v. Moncton District School Board).

Further, discrimination on the basis of religion and creed is also expressly forbidden under the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act and “human rights codes must be interpreted and applied in a manner that respects the broad protection granted to religious freedom under the Charter.” (Reference re: Same-Sex Marriage)

The challenge in a plural society is to respect diversity, including religious diversity. The public education system is made up of students, parents, teachers and school officials from a wide variety of cultural and religious backgrounds. Rather than being a religion-free zone, as mentioned above, the public school system is to be welcoming to all, a religion-inclusive zone. Recognition of pluralism includes and requires respect for the worldview of religious and other communities represented in the public education system.

Freedom of Religion and Conscience

The constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion extends to all students and parents and teachers regardless of their ideological or religious beliefs. The education system, including the school board, is responsible for ensuring that all are respected.

The protection of freedom of religion afforded by s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad and jealously guarded in Canadian jurisprudence. (Reference re: Same-Sex Marriage). Religious freedom in Canada means “the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.” (Big M. Drug Mart)

Further, one Supreme Court Justice recently noted, on a point where there was consensus of the court, that freedom of religion “includes a right to manifest one’s belief or lack of belief, or to express disagreement with the beliefs of others.” (Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony)

Separation of Church and State

Some school boards mistakenly believe that the doctrine of the separation of church and state requires that religious expression be excluded from public schools. However, this is incorrect and it is likely informed by our exposure to American legal dramas. This doctrine is an American doctrine and it does not apply in Canada. Rather, in Canada, we have witnessed a co-operation between church and state, from which reasonable accommodation and mutual respect has flowed.

Freedom of Expression and its Inherent Limits

According to The Chronicle Herald article, the question you are putting to your human rights expert is as follows:

If a specific message communicates a personal belief that should not be reasonably considered offensive to others or whether the message could be reasonably interpreted to be disrespectful of others’ beliefs or a violation of others’ rights.

Thankfully, in Canada, there does not exist a right to “not be offended”. Canadians are free to express themselves, their beliefs, their values, whether they are reasonable, ridiculous or offensive. Additionally, feeling offended by the opinions of others is not a violation of any known Canadian or international human right.

As we have held in the past, and presented before the Supreme Court of Canada, we hold that the state, in this case by virtue of the school and board, should be limited in its power to monitor or censure expression and debate. As stated by the Court in one decision, “the guarantee of free expression protects all content of expression but may not protect some forms of expression, for example, violence and threats of violence.” (Canada v. Taylor). The state protects the freedom of expression; it does not grant the freedom of expression. Fundamental freedoms such as these are inherently the peoples’.

As alluded to above, we readily acknowledge that no human or Charter right is without limits. However, the courts have established high and specific standards where human rights of Canadians can be violated by the state.

For example, free expression is limited in the Criminal Code which prohibits the promotion of genocide, incitement of hatred, fraud, sedition and communicating for the purpose of prostitution. Other laws or actions by the state which seek to limit some forms of expression have a high standard to meet: it must demonstrate that such a violation of a Charter-guaranteed right can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. And our Supreme Court has been clear that we should view freedom of expression “firstly as the means of promoting the ‘marketplace of ideas’ essential to a vibrant society, and secondly as being indispensable to the proper functioning of a democratic government.” (Canada v. Taylor).

Frankly, a statement as vague, unspecific and obscure as “Life is wasted without Jesus”, is not captured by any categorical limits on free expression. It is lamentable that a student has faced 12 days of school suspension for wearing such a t-shirt and that school officials have expended valuable resources on managing this situation.

Students and school officials communicate in a variety of means their values and beliefs, by means of their clothing or campaign bracelets, the conversation they have, the comments made in class, or their involvement in certain student clubs and activities over others. It is obvious that not all values or beliefs will be agreed upon by every person connected to the school. To hope to achieve a homogenous utopia where no one is ever offended is unrealistic and undesirable.

In a country that values its diversity with a Charter that enshrines its commitment to multiculturalism, we need to acknowledge that all Canadians, teens and adults alike, can co-exist peacefully in a society of diverging opinions and beliefs. Where peace is broken and harmful communications, such as the incitement of hatred or genocide, take place, laws exist to capture such behaviours. Living together in pluralistic society may not always be easy, but it is worth striving for.

In closing, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to freedom of religion, conscience and expression to all Canadians and that the right to debate moral or religious issues, whatever they may be, is foundational to a true and vibrant democracy.

Unless one can act in a non-harmful way in public dialogue, inspired by one’s religious beliefs, then one does not have religious freedom but only the freedom to believe. Canadian courts have, to this point, been clear that religious freedom includes the right to speak about our beliefs; to share our beliefs with others; to practice our beliefs; and, to engage in public debate and discussion from a position that is informed by those beliefs.

We therefore urge you to publicly communicate that your school board will permit lawful and reasonable expression of religious belief and that you will refrain from penalizing any students who exercise their Charter rights to freedom of religion and expression.

We look forward to your prompt reply.

Sincerely,

Faye Sonier, LL.B.
Legal Counsel

Don Hutchinson, B.A., J.D.
Vice-President, General Legal Counsel

The Demonization of "The Other Side"

Don Hutchinson — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:28:41 +0000

By Don Hutchinson

The portrayal of the human race in space-age adventures is frequently one of a unity that is the utopian expression of some future dream. It certainly does not portray a contemporary reality. And, in those adventures of far off space, the other side is as demonized – represented as evil or diabolical to the point where the good guys’ understanding of reason and decency cannot be applied – as takes place on planet Earth, in country Canada, today. It’s at times embarrassing that we embrace the civil utopian ideals of a single human race while holding to the good vs. evil paradigm when engaging in public discourse. (I recall in university over 30 years ago that an unwritten rule of debate was he who first demonizes his opponent – we called it comparing him or her to Hitler – loses the debate.)

On Thursday, I watched as a long-time friend was demonized by opponents from outside and within his own party for proposing a reasonable setting for a study by a Parliamentary committee. I first met Stephen Woodworth, MP (Kitchener Centre), in the 1980s through our shared involvement in Christian Legal Fellowship; the same place I met another long-time friend and former cabinet member Hon. John McKay, MP (Scarborough-Guildwood). Mr. Woodworth has proposed, quite reasonably, that Parliament study when human life begins, currently defined in s. 223 of the Criminal Code. His motion M-312 proposes a Parliamentary committee of similar composition to other committees for the purpose of the study. That would mean 7 Conservative MPs (one being the chair), 4 NDP MPs and 1 Liberal MP on the committee (which would likely also have a composition of pro-life, pro-choice and pro-abortion MPs in that mix) to engage in a neutral study of importance to Parliament’s legislative capacity. Woodworth was characterized in the hour of debate, in the media and by opponents outside the House as having: a hidden agenda; secret desires; and, ignoble ends … rather than there being any actual basis for or debate on the motion. In order to better extend the demonization, allegations were made of some secret plot on the part of the Prime Minister that allowed a Conservative backbench MP to introduce this private members’ measure, thus drawing out comment from Prime Minister Harper that he would not support the motion when it came to a vote.

The motion was deemed suitable for debate in the House by an all-party committee that vets such things. Apparently, the committee was not required to assess whether Mr. Woodworth was a suitable person to introduce the motion. That decision was made by his constituents, whose opinion is to be respected by Parliament under the rules of our Canadian democracy.

There was reasonably balanced attention paid to the motion by the national media, with one notable exception. A group of about 30 people (and I’m being generous with this number) assembled outside Centre Block on Parliament Hill to oppose any conversation that might include abortion. The big 2 networks offered up 3 to 5 minutes of air time to this demonstration on their national broadcasts, more on their news networks. This group demonized any opposition to their position, including a misstatement of the 1988 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Morgentaler in an effort to silence the other side. Similarly, the national media refer to “pro-choice” activists and “anti-abortion” activists when the truth is that there are “pro-choice” activists, “pro-life” activists (it’s about so much more than the question of abortion) and “pro-abortion” activists in the 3 main camps on this issue.

I encourage people to wade through the 130 pages or so of the Morgentaler decision for themselves. It is a somewhat confusing decision because of the several justices authoring separate decisions, but here’s the easy way to keep track. Place 2 columns on a piece of paper: at the top of one write, “jurisdiction of Parliament to decide” and at the top of the other “unlimited right to abortion.” As you read through the challenge to wording of a 1969 law that was found to be flawed, simply record whether or not the judge or judges writing note that making law in regard to children in the womb is the jurisdiction of Parliament or the absolute right of the pregnant woman. You’ll quickly realize that the debate is a national one that belongs in Parliament, even though no Prime Minister has been willing to have the debate since Mr. Mulroney’s Bill C-43 passed the House and died on a tie vote on 3rd reading in the Senate in January 1991 – 3 years after the decision in Morgentaler.

No demons were identified on the Supreme Court or in Parliament in those days, but a conclusion was made that appropriate debate was (and is) due on an issue of national importance.

On Thursday, May 10, over 15,000 people will gather on Parliament Hill – if the numbers are like last year – to ask that the debate take place. Those 15,000 plus are encouraged to stand consistent with our principles and not demonize the other side; even though that group of 30 has sought to demonize us. The media are encouraged to give appropriate coverage to this largest of gatherings that takes place on Parliament Hill each year (outside of Canada Day); based simply on objective reporting of the news.

And Parliament is encouraged to seriously consider the opportunity to engage in a study by a committee such as that proposed in motion M-312. The day is fast approaching, if it has not already arrived, when our children will not accept the 1970s rationale about an embryo being a glob of cells – Henry Morgentaler suggested more like a fish – rather than a developing human being; and it is the relevancy of Parliament that will be assessed when their voices mature to voting age. The world around us is in revolt with governing structures being challenged from the African continent and across Europe as being outdated – seemingly demonized and in need of being exorcised by youth in rebellion. Canada’s Parliament need not set itself up for similar action.

I have known Stephen Woodworth neither to be evil nor diabolical. He’s a good man. He’s a good lawyer. He thinks things through. His constituents think him an appropriate person to represent them and he has presented Canada’s Parliament with an opportunity to stand unafraid of scientific and medical advances, in favour of understanding, reporting and intelligent debate as we journey into the future.

Tom White, the Toronto Transit Commission, Gideon’s Bibles and the Public Square

Don Hutchinson — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:22:59 +0000

By Don Hutchinson

Tom White died on Wednesday. Perhaps, many of you don’t know who Tom was – I only met him once, having several conversations over a few days together – so let me introduce the 25-year leader of Voice of the Martyrs USA with a true story that tells you something of his character:

When the black hood was placed over Tom White’s head, he didn’t know if he would see the light again. “Where are you taking me?” he asked the Cuban guards. The guards said nothing.

Tom had been secretly delivering Christian literature to Cuba for seven years. He and others had dropped gospel tracts out of planes into the ocean around the Communist island. But he had never heard from a single Christian in Cuba that the materials had arrived.

“Please, God,” Tom had prayed, “give us some confirmation that our work is helping.”
Now, six weeks later, he was taken to meet a Cuban intelligence officer, Captain Santos. Their plane had crashed in Cuba, and Tom and the pilot, Mel Bailey, had been captured and charged with compromising the stability of the nation.

“Our people have found thousands of these on the beaches and in the fields!” Captain Santos shouted, holding one of the sea packages that had been dropped years before.

Tom tried not to smile. “Thank you, Lord,” he prayed, “for answering my prayer. Thank you that our work has not been in vain.”

The answer to Tom’s prayer was costly. He spent twenty-one months in Cuban prisons. But in Castro’s prison, he met many members of the church and learned that even under Castro, Christ’s body was prospering. God answered his prayer.

Tom was about sharing the love of Christ and caring for those who suffered for doing the same. He will be deeply missed and his family will benefit from our prayers.

This deep desire – the apostle Paul referred to it as a compulsion (1 Corinthians 9:16) – is one of the traits that marks the Evangelical Christian. We are called to share the love and life of Jesus. As Paul discovered at Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17:16-34), we needn’t exclude the voices of others, but simply desire to have our voice included. This place where the discourse about religion takes place is commonly referred to as “the public square.”

Tom carried his message into the public square in a country where the government had decreed it illegal to do so, and he paid the price … willingly.

We Canadians have the privilege of living in a country where our Constitution decrees that it is both legal and a guaranteed right for Christians – and others – to engage in the discourse about religion, like the apostle Paul did in his day. The public square, constitutionally, includes any place that is regulated by government; government including federal, provincial, municipal and school boards and their agencies. Recent media coverage reflects that some democratically elected officials either don’t understand Canada’s constitutional guarantees or are afraid of offending some one or group(s) if they act on them.

Public transit authorities are agents of government. Bus posters are part of the public square. I wrote more on this point in 2009 when it was atheist bus ads that were being protested rather than Muslim or Christian ads (Atheist Bus Ads – Religion in the Public Square). Essentially, the current furor over advertising by Muslim and Christian organizations on the Toronto Transit Commission – which has featured Christian complaints, atheist complaints and complaints from others – is a point settled in Canadian law by the Supreme Court of Canada. The door for having the conversation about religion on public transit was flung open by the court’s decision in Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students when it was determined the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to this government body.

In another example of this principle, the democratically elected trustees who sit on a local school board may do so only because the provincial government has established school boards. They are equally subject to the public square requirements of Canada’s constitution, a.k.a. the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The recent controversy around Gideon’s Bible distribution is ill informed when it relies on the decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Zylberberg v. Ontario (1988) and Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Minister of Education (a.k.a. Elgin County) (1990). Those decisions dealt with mandatory religious exercises in the public school system. A better point of reference might be the 2012 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in S.L. v. Commission Scolaire des Chênes. In that case the court noted that the role of the state was to be neutral (or as neutral as it can be) concerning religion in the sphere of education. The court also affirmed the right of parents to make the decision in regard to the religious education of their children. One can reasonably conclude that sending permission slips home for parental approval is the right approach to distribution of sacred texts in the public education system; a significant part of Canada’s public square.

Tom White was willing to go to prison to keep the conversation about religion alive in a Communist public square. One would hope that respect for Canada’s constitution, historic religious freedoms and the decision making capacity of parents would suffice to keep the conversation alive in the public square of a free and democratic society.

Is bullying in Canada on the rise?

Don Hutchinson — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:01:32 +0000

By Don Hutchinson

Remember Bart, the school bully in Little House on the Prairie? Bullying in schools and schoolyards has arguably existed since the beginnings of such institutions; but the issue seems to be receiving more airtime now than ever before. The documentary Bully hit American theatres on March 30. It chronicles the lives of five bullied students. Two of the students ultimately take their lives due to the abuse they endured. Other reports confirm that bullying is a worldwide problem, one that makes children feel unsafe at school and, adult surveys confirm, may cause lifelong damage. The media is saturated with heart wrenching stories of tormented children and teens, with each story reminding us that something needs to be done. No Child should have to face this trauma.

Although public awareness of the phenomenon is increasing, statistics provide hope that bullying itself is not. Bullying statistics reveal that bullying is not in fact on the rise, at least not in Canada. Last week, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada released By the Numbers: Rates and Risk Factors for Bullying, a report that reviews available statistics on bullying in Canada over the last decade. One key finding of the report is that rates of bullying have actually decreased over the last few years. What has changed, however, is the nature of some of the bullying, namely cyber-bullying. Electronic communication has provided a more invasive form of bullying; and social media has taken bullying from the realm of locker room taunts and cruel notes passed in class to something much more public, and arguably, much more damaging. In an age of instant messaging, Facebook and Twitter, where can kids go to escape the taunts and mocking?

Statistics Canada has surveyed thousands of Canadian students on the issue of bullying every year since 2004. The findings are optimistic.

Students bullied 1-3 times per month:

2005- 18%
2006- 22%
2007- 15%
2008- 17%
2009- 17%

Students bullied 4 or more times per month:

2005- 9%
2006- 10%
2007- 6%
2008- 6%
2009- 5%

As you can see, for both frequent and less frequent bullying, the rate is dropping. The same series of surveys notes the combined rate of bullying (more frequent and less frequent occurrences) in 2006 is 32%, and the combined rate in 2009 as 22%, another decrease. So, bullying rates in Canada are not skyrocketing as some would suggest.

Statistics Canada’s findings are generally concurrent with the World Health Organization’s Health Behaviour in School Aged Children Survey (HBSC). When the HBSC’s three most recent surveys are compared—2002, 2006, and 2010 – the number of students who bully and students who are bully-victims (students who bully others and are bullied themselves) generally demonstrates a decrease over time. The number of students bullied does show a slight increase from 20% in 2002 and 2006 to 22% in 2010. However, for students who bully others, the number drops from 15% of students in 2002 to 12% of students in 2010. For students who both bully and are bullied, the number drops from 43% in 2002 to 41% in 2010.

One more statistic worth noting is one found in the 2007 Survey for Canadian Attitudes Toward Learning, in which 35% of parents surveyed said they were bullied as a child. Considering that current rates are in the 20th percentile, it is reasonable to deduce that bullying has decreased substantially even in the span of a generation.

The good news for Canadian parents and students is that rates of bullying are decreasing. This suggests that fewer students will have to live with the lifelong scars that bullying can cause. But a question begs to be asked - what measures have worked? Increased public awareness? Living in a more diverse Canada? Seeing that plurality reflected in media? Parental engagement? School programing? And what actions are appropriate in regard to electronic bullying, that steps outside of the school zone and makes even the privacy of one’s bedroom unsafe for some?

One thing is certain, parents, educators and legislators seeking to answer that question need to rely on current data and information. A thorough knowledge of the rates and reasons for bullying is a necessary foundation for combating bullying in Canada. Otherwise, we’re firing solutions into the darkness with no idea whether or not they will hit the intended target.

Protesting Persecution Through Social Media --- To Post or not to Post?

Anita Levesque — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 20:20:12 +0000

By Anita Levesque

The persecution of Christians is on the increase around the globe. What doesn’t appear to be matching that increase is the concern among media, or at times even Christians, in ”developed” countries.

The attack, arrest, imprisonment, torture and murder of Christians in nations that demonstrate intolerance for all faiths, or only select faith communities, is not recent news. Persecution has been part of the history of Christianity since its birth; just read Paul’s letters in the New Testament. But after more than 2000 years, one might question the developments in a ‘civilized’, more informed, more educated world’s interaction with Christianity.

Sadly, it seems this “old news” is often considered no longer even newsworthy by the traditional media. Perhaps this is because the unjust suffering of Christians doesn’t attract the same public interest as the latest corporate financial disaster or mass murder. Maybe, it lacks entertainment value. Or perhaps it’s because there is seemingly no direct impact on our “bubble” of reality. Or are we just too tired to care?

Has the suffering of over 200 million Christian human beings in 60 nations become a trouble that would only be added to those we already have daily at home and work?

It seems almost criminal to think we might allow our consciences to be numbed with disinterest. And yet, there are moments of inspired action! Take for instance the recent international protest against the arrest, imprisonment, and pending death penalty of Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani. From tweets to texts, emails to blogs, even radio to television; the Western and Christian world seemed to wake up without a smartphone alarm and together declare “not on my watch!” It was inspiring to observe the momentum; to see what could be accomplished using the electronic world that now unites us when we allowed ourselves to be personally impacted by the plight of one Christian man in Iran; a husband and father unjustly sentenced.

He is not the first (or only) to elicit such a response. A quick visit to websites of affiliates of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and partners in its Religious Liberty Commission provides enough inspiring stories of courage and action to assure of that. And, what is changing, what is being used more often as a tool of protest is social media.

The Arab Spring was a moment in time that highlighted the strength of social media. Borders and boundaries were gone and the world was an electronic global village. Concern and passion over injustice was ignited and social media accelerated the spread of the message to millions in a matter of hours. And millions upon millions within a few days.

Used with care and wisdom, social media – Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Tumblr, ReddIt and more – are powerful tools that can influence change. But carefully read the owner’s manual before powering up a ‘hot button’ campaign. There are enough cautionary tales to warn of potential injury both to campaigner(s) and campaign, particularly if not properly informed and prepared.

There are repercussions from a wildfire of interest from a World-Wide-Web audience. Social media can also have an unanticipated negative impact.

With regard to persecution, poor timing can have a negative effect on often tenuous negotiations; negotiations that occur privately behind closed doors between government officials who depend on diplomacy and discernment. These conversations take place through men and women who are knowledgeable about how best to relate with foreign governments that might not share Canadians’ respect or passion for “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” (and from which Social Media was born).

When using social media, we need to remember – particularly in cases of persecution of Christians in Muslim majority countries where the primary “Charter” may well be sharia law rather than one of “rights and freedoms” – that the process does not begin from the same ideals and certainly does not promote them. While social media has become universal, the ideals of rights and freedoms are not.

Social Media can bring to light instances of persecution. Increasingly it can be the first source to inform our country’s leaders and diplomats about the existence of acts of persecution, and the need for action. And, certainly, the loud “million-hit”, “liked”, or “viewed” clicks express just how many people care about the issue.

What Social Media does not provide in many cases, is the potentially harmful lack of behind the scenes knowledge about foreign laws or the moment-by-moment developments in sensitive negotiations that may be taking place. An electronic steam whistle sounded at the wrong time has the potential to hinder those conversations.

Social media may be used with enthusiasm but must be used with caution. Simply clicking to forward someone else’s post could make you a “slacktivist” instead of an activist.

Best practices call for knowledge and understanding of the person or group and the government(s) involved in the situation. Foreign governments and their representatives may be personally prepared to negotiate in private, but are at times constrained by the public pressure of their populace just as our leaders on certain issues. Once word leaks out about quiet negotiations, which inevitably seem to reach the ears of contacts on the ground or the Western media, it may well be necessary that the volume and intensity of pursuing the cause be turned down.

How do we know the timing? Again, if you’re attuned to the situation the information will enter the flow of news being reported from the source. And, make every effort to ensure your source is a reliable source.

One place to begin is to join with those who have that developed experience and influence, as well as contacts on the ground in several nations, like The World Evangelical Alliance, Voice of the Martyrs, and Open Doors. These groups have invested years, some decades, in building relationships; they have the developed the ability to consult in difficult situations, as well as an understanding of the cultures and the needs of the persecuted. It is sound advice to coordinate with their efforts.

The alternative is that our well intentioned social media efforts may contribute to an outcome opposite to that for which we were hoping.

Don’t stop using social media. Just think before you post!