Activate CFPL Blog

Federal Budget 2012 – Families, Compassion & Charities: Key Components to Maintaining a Strong Canada (Part 1 FAMILIES)

Don Hutchinson — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:52:35 +0000

By Don Hutchinson and guest blogger Rick Hiemstra, Director of Research, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) does not generally engage in the number crunching of the government budget process. Biblical principles inform us, and the EFC’s Centre for Faith and Public Life applies those principles to concepts for public policy initiatives that we believe to be of benefit to the nation. Canada is facing the dual challenge of being recognized by other governments as a leader in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis and maintaining the strong foundation that underlies that leadership through sound governance of the economy at home. Canada’s ability to lead on the international stage is dependent upon, and cannot take away from, consideration of the people and principles that have landed the nation in that leadership role. For that reason, the EFC decided to make a submission in the federal pre-budget consultation process – based on principles rather than numerical recommendations – and we have been invited to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance to engage further in the conversation.

As the Government of Canada seeks to set a course for the future through the priorities of the 2012 federal budget, the EFC has urged the Government to consider and address three key building blocks of our nation: families; compassion; and, charities. The stability of Canadian families underlies and evidences the stability of the nation. Our long history of compassion toward the less fortunate, at home and abroad, testifies to the heart of the Canadian people. Canadian charities have been significant in the development of Canada’s health, education and compassionate response mechanisms and continue to be vital to the life of Canadians and Canadians’ expression of compassion toward those in need. We will briefly consider each of the three – families, compassion and charities – in a series of blogs beginning with this one: FAMILIES.

The Bible teaches that the family is to provide physical, emotional and spiritual care for its members as it prepares them to serve God, other persons (including civic responsibilities in municipality, province and nation), and creation. In this way, the family is a microcosm of a healthy society. Families have been and remain the cornerstone of any successful nation, but even a rock can be eroded and lose its structural integrity. As every Canadian knows, given time salt can be as destructive as a sledgehammer.

Canadian families are facing mounting challenges in the early twenty-first century, including the fiscal realities of a challenging economy. We know that the primary stressor on marriage, and by extension the family, is money. Many Canadian families have experienced increasing expenses while either having wages frozen or salary increases that don’t keep up with inflation. Progressively eroding the family budget have been: increases in municipal, provincial and federal taxes and premiums; rising costs of housing and associated expenses such as electricity, telephone service and internet access; and, the realities of climbing prices for food, gasoline and other staples.

The Conservative Party of Canada’s campaign platform from the 2011 federal election proposed the “Family Tax Cut” as a form of household income splitting that will be available when the federal budget is balanced. Current tax laws penalize single income families – the very ones who often struggle the most financially – by requiring them to pay up to 37% more than dual income families earning the same amount (see "Taxing Families: Does The System Need an Overhaul?", The IMFC Review, Spring/Summer 2008). However, Canadian families are facing pressure today and balancing the budget is an aim for 2014-15 and goal for either 2015-16 or 2016-17, depending on cost savings that can be found in the interim.

Canadian families need the relief today. The EFC has encouraged the government to take this initiative immediately and to give serious consideration to expanding the initiative to a full family household income splitting initiative as supported in the analysis of Jack Mintz, summarized in "Taxing Families":

Canada has an ambiguous approach to family taxation and no clear application of principle has evolved over time. This has resulted in inequitable tax treatment for families with the same earning power. Raised 40 years ago by the famous 1966 Carter Report, which argued for equal treatment for families, still today, a single-earner family pays much more tax than two-earner families. This is an issue that should be corrected, and this can best be achieved by providing opportunities for families to split income more readily.

Government has been, but should not be the beneficiary of fiscal imbalance in household income earners. Income splitting ought to be available to all Canadian families – dual income and single income, those with children (or other dependants) and those without – as a measure of economic fairness. In the current economy, it will also help many who have seen their wages stagnate and then experience erosion by inflation. It could well keep several families from being forced to remove their children from after school activities, such as sports and arts programs; finding themselves unable to keep their homes; or slipping into the ranks of Canada’s working poor, lining up at food banks and soup kitchens to make ends meet.

Keeping Canada’s families strong financially will keep Canada strong. Community, school and church have our parts to play in securing the strength of Canadian families. We call upon the Government of Canada to do its part as well. The economic health of the nation depends on it.

The Challenge of Poverty in Canada

Julia Beazley — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:37:36 +0000

(As originally published in the January/February 2012 issue of Faith Today)

Journalists, politicians and concerned Canadians have all recently struggled to learn the proper pronunciation of Attawapiskat, and to comprehend the deplorable conditions of this northern Ontario community suddenly thrust into the national spotlight. The severe poverty and critical needs for health, housing and sanitation are more reminiscent of conditions seen in the developing world a decade ago than anything we imagine our fellow Canadians facing at the start of a long, cold, 21^st century winter.

The people of Attawapiskat are not the only Canadians lacking the most basic needs of human life. What has been declared a state of emergency is, sadly, indicative of conditions in other First Nations communities across Canada - and for too many Canadians living on the streets. Several hundred thousand Canadians live without homes, and increasing numbers are at risk of finding themselves homeless.

Jesus said, in Matthew 26:11 the poor would always be among us. What does that mean for us today?

Last spring the EFC participated in a multifaith forum on faith and poverty. This Parliament Hill event was one of several responses to a Federal Poverty Reduction Plan for Canada, a report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources (HUMA). The multifaith forum allowed us, along with representatives from other faiths, to speak to government and together share in the call for collective action to address poverty in Canada.

Members of Parliament from all parties had worked collaboratively on the HUMA report, making 58 recommendations for how the Federal Government could act to reduce poverty in Canada. Foremost was that the federal government take a strong, long term leadership role to address poverty in our nation. An earlier report from a Senate committee, titled In from the Margins, had drawn similar conclusions.

Regrettably, the government response to the HUMA report failed to directly address the recommendations. There has been little parliamentary movement with respect to a poverty reduction plan or housing strategy. Apart from a handful of private member’s bills, Canada’s federal government has displayed a reluctance to act.

To be clear, the Federal Government is not silent on poverty. There are much-needed and essential funds being delivered to support housing initiatives, shelters, and so on. But it’s time to move beyond what has been a piecemeal approach, one which is proving inefficient and insufficient. The Federal Government alone has the political gathering power to initiate a coordinated national action plan to deal with poverty and homelessness in cities, big and small, and on First Nations’ reserves from coast to coast to coast.

But is the challenge of poverty just for government response? Jesus’ words were for both church and government. Each has a unique responsibility and role to play in meeting the needs of vulnerable Canadians, and in finding solutions to poverty and homelessness. The role of each is so critical that the failure of either will mean that the crisis in Canada will continue to worsen. And, the failure of one does not excuse responsibility on the part of the other.

At the same multifaith forum on poverty, Greg Paul, author and Executive Director of Sanctuary Ministries of Toronto, gave a talk entitled “Who is at the Centre?” He spoke from Matthew 26 and challenged us to reconsider Christ’s words about having the poor always among us.

What if Christ’s proclamation was not a statement of the futility of seeking to eliminate poverty, but rather a vision for what the church is meant to be? What if Jesus said the poor will always be among us because they belong in our midst, at the very centre of our church communities? What if welcoming, including and sharing with those who are poor and excluded is to be central to who are as the people of God?

While Christmastime is typically a season marked by generosity towards people in our communities who are living in poverty, what is our role when the decorations are put away and the trees taken down? When the bleak cold days of January and February set in are they still among us? Are we among them?

A Message to Pro-Choice Advocates: Women are not fragile flowers. We can handle the truth about abortion.

Faye Sonier — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:34:03 +0000

By Faye Sonier

A message to those claiming to be the voice of pro-choice advocates: Wake up. Canadian women are intelligent, bright and sensible. We do not need you to protect us from the realities of abortion or shield us from the potential risks associated with undergoing the “medical procedure.” You claim to be challenging the work and messages of crisis pregnancy centres and pro-life groups in the name of women’s “rights,” but frankly I’d appreciate it if you would take the time to care about our health. And by care, I mean something more substantial than indiscriminately throwing around the terms “back alley” and “clothes hanger” every time someone questions the ‘unquestionable’ benefits of abortion for Canadian women.

If you want to talk “rights,” one right women should definitely have is the right to be fully informed of the risks associated with any medical procedure we undergo. Oh wait, in theory medical practitioners are already required to provide that information. Our highest courts have reviewed and confirmed this to be a physician’s duty several times in the last few years. Why is it then that when crisis pregnancy centres or pro-life activists dare mention that there may just be some reported and documented risks associated with this particular medical procedure, they are quickly vilified as having a secret agenda and accused of seeking to manipulate women? (Or, should I say other women are being accused of trying to manipulate women, since most of the people sharing this information are female doctors, female counsellors, female peers, etc.)

If the secret agenda is to provide intelligent Canadian women with all the information necessary to make an informed decision about a medical procedure that will affect their current health and could well affect their future health, then I’ll take that secret agenda. But I tend to think that crisis pregnancy centres are rather poor at keeping their secrets. Almost all of these groups state rather clearly on their websites, in their waiting rooms and in the publications they distribute that they exist to provide care, information and support to women. Most even go so far as to clearly state in a way accessible in advance of any meeting or conversation that they will discuss options, including abortion, but will not make referrals for abortion.

It particularly upsets me that these “pro-choice” voices complain that some of the women who go to a crisis pregnancy centre for advice actually choose to carry their child to term rather than abort when they are presented information about medical risks associated with the procedure. Isn’t that their choice? Isn’t choice what you claim to be advocating for?

As someone who has had more than her fair share of serious medical challenges, I appreciate most the doctors and nurses who treat me as a woman with a brain. Even when I was just 16 and a physician was recommending that I take the birth control pill to address a physical issue I was suffering with, I was provided with the product’s pamphlet and given the opportunity to sit down and read through the risk factors, after which I challenged him about his recommendation. We had a frank conversation about the risks and benefits of going on the pill. I felt safe and secure having him as my physician and I knew that I could trust him to give me all the information necessary to make informed choice about my health and my body. He would tell me the risks, small or great, and I would make an informed decision. He respected me.

There are risks associated with every medical procedure, including abortion. It is disingenuous to treat the procedure casually and women as if they can’t process information when advised of potential risks. Pregnant might equate with emotional but it doesn’t equate with stupid.

This comment is not the place for an exhaustive list of the numerous studies which demonstrate that there are in fact real risks associated with abortion procedures, but increasingly verifiable medical studies are shedding more and brighter light on the consequences. In fact, Barbara Kay listed several in her piece in a January 18th National Post column.

Canadian women are surgeons, politicians, senior executives, police officers, social workers, soldiers and mothers. We take on some of the most stressful and challenging positions this country has to offer. And we excel. We are touted as model citizens to countries who do not recognize the value of women. We can handle difficult realities, stressful circumstances and tough decisions. We aren’t fragile flowers and we don’t appreciate being patronized on national television or anywhere else as being too fragile to handle information about risks associated with any medical procedure; particularly by other women! Provide us with the information, all the information, and we’ll make up our own minds. If more Canadian women choose to carry their children to term, raising them or making them available for adoption, rather than abort them, would that really be such a bad choice?

Canada’s Tarnished Human Rights Record: Lone Democracy Not Recognizing the Humanity of the Child in the Womb

Don Hutchinson — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:46:44 +0000

By Don Hutchinson

Last week I appeared on CBC TV’s Power & Politics with Evan Solomon. Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada was the other guest for a conversation about Canada’s lack of legal recognition for the child in the womb as a human being. In fact, Canada’s Criminal Code states:

s.223 (1) 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.

During the course of our discussion I mistakenly identified The Netherlands as the only developed democratic nation in the world, other than Canada, that offered no protection to the child in the womb for the full 9 months of pregnancy. A friend challenged that assertion. I had put my trust in someone else’s research on that point, so conducted the research I normally would have done before making such an assertion and found that The Netherlands allows abortion on demand only until the end of the 21st week of pregnancy; and then for an additional 3 weeks in urgent care situations. I apologize for the incorrect statement.

My statement must have surprised Ms. Arthur, the other participant on the show, as during my research I also came across an article written by Ms. Arthur in 2007 in which she opens with the words, “Canada is the only democratic country in the world that has no abortion law or restrictions of any kind…”

Canada stands alone among democracies, although as stated on the show our nation is in the company of communist nations such as China, Vietnam and North Korea.

So how did we get to this point?

The Government of Canada has, over several decades, committed itself to adhere to a number of international agreements; generated initially through the League of Nations (predecessor to the UN) and then through the United Nations.

In the 1924 Geneva Declaration on the Rights of the Child (League of Nations) the context for international considerations in regard to children was established as “mankind owes to the Child the best that it has to give.” The subsequent Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the “Declaration”), established at the United Nations in 1948 – notably with significant input from Canada through the work and leadership of John Peters Humphrey – declares in Article 2 that :

Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. … [emphasis added by me]

“Everyone,” under the Declaration, is not limited by birth in its “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” (from the preamble of the Declaration, again emphasis added). Article 25 (2) of the Declaration declares:

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

We see this recognition of the rights of the child, both before and after birth, expressed more explicitly in the 1959 UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which begins its international agreement history with the 1924 Geneva Declaration as a guide:

… the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth … [from the preamble, emphasis added]

Article 1. The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this Declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family. [emphasis added]

Article 4. The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services. [emphasis added]

This is the context in which amendments were made to Canada’s Criminal Code (the “Code”) in 1969 through Bill C-150 introduced by the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Prior to those amendments, the section that is now section 223 of the Code read as follows:

When Child becomes a Human Being:

s.195 (1) 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 independent circulation. (c) The navel string is severed

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injuries to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies.

Its companion section was:

Causing Death of Child Not a Human Being

s.209 (1) Everyone who causes the death of a 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 offense and is liable to imprisonment for life.

(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 that has not become a human being, causes the death of the child.

In 1969, s.195 (2) was amended to add the five key words “after becoming a human being” at the end of the sentence so that it now reads:

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injuries to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

Also in 1969, the then new s.251 was added to the Code. Section 251 set up protections against the procuring of a “miscarriage” except in accredited hospital after following an approval process to determine that the abortion was therapeutically necessary. Although a more liberal law, there was still recognition of the child in the womb and protections were outlined. The law evidenced recognition of Canada’s international obligations in a manner similar to other democratic nations and complied with Canada’s Constitution as it existed at the time.

In 1982, the Constitution of Canada was amended to include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”). Section 251 of the Criminal Code (which had withstood a court challenge prior to the Charter) was challenged by three medical practitioners who were performing abortions at a private clinic and was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988 in R. v. Morgentaler. In the Morgentaler decision, the court noted that the law was in violation of s.7 of the Charter as it had elements of vagueness and unequal application depending on geographic location within the country and thus endangered the life and health of women in violation of their “right to life, liberty and security of the person.” The court also made it clear that Parliament had the constitutional jurisdiction to enact laws to recognize and protect the child in the womb.

In 1989 Canada committed to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which affirmed the 1924 and 1959 Declarations mentioned above and included these words in its preamble:

… Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth" … [emphasis added]

In the same year, the government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney introduced Bill C-43 in an effort to patch the hole in Canada’s Criminal Code. The bill passed the House of Commons by a large majority in May 1990 but was defeated, in accordance with Senate procedural rules, as the result of a tie vote (43-43) on third reading on January 31, 1991.

Since then, although there have been several efforts by Members of Parliament in their capacity as private members – efforts that have ensured the debate which has continued in Canadian society and media has at least been periodically before Parliament – no Canadian government has introduced or supported legislation to offer a measure of protection to the child in the womb.

Canada remains the only democratic nation in the world that lacks any legal recognition of the rights of the child prior to birth, even though it has committed to that recognition in a series of international human rights agreements. Canada’s place on the international stage in regard to keeping its human rights commitments is tarnished and congratulating ourselves on Canada’s human rights record is self-contradictory, at least in regard to the child in the womb.

The Debate Is On: What is Human?

Faye Sonier — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 02:30:29 +0000

By Faye Sonier

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada regularly issues press releases. Depending on the topic, the timing and what is currently capturing the attention of Canadians, it may or may not get picked up by media outlets or blogs.

This week, echoing Members of Parliament Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener –Centre, CPC) and Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC), we issued a press release urging Parliamentarians to examine section 223 of the Criminal Code, which essentially defines what Canadians consider human. In the words of Mr. Woodworth, the existing language “defines a human being as a child who has completely proceeded in a living state from the mother’s body, whether or not the child has breathed. This means that in Canada a child is legally considered to be sub-human while his or her little toe remains in the birth canal, even if he or she is breathing.” We stated our agreement that the legal definition of “human being” is an important issue, and in a matter of hours, our press release had been widely circulated. It was republished on numerous blogs and we received a number of requests for interviews with major media outlets.

Of course, the media discussion is not limited to the comments in our press release. Mr. Woodworth and Mr. Watson are sharing their perspectives in print and television interviews. A number of Canadian bloggers quickly took to their keyboards and weighed in on the debate.

Some outlets are framing this call for an examination of the Criminal Code definition of ‘human being’ as a covert attempt to re-open the abortion debate. To be frank, engaging a national discussion on what is human and carefully parsing through the relevant sections and subsections of the Criminal Code will be all-consuming in and of itself. If you’ve spent any time sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons, or have witnessed a parliamentary committee hearing, you know very well that the debate around a word or phrase can take hours or days. Imagine the time necessary to consider these very complex sections of the Code. Further, and as Mr. Woodworth suggested last night on CBC, listening to the testimony of various medical experts, ethicists and scientists on what is human will take time and reflection as well.

And so it should. As a nation that prides itself on being a global human rights leader, we should really determine what we consider to be “human”, rather than relying on legislation inspired by 400 year old concepts.

That said, given the media attention and the voices calling out from the blogosphere, I’d say a national discussion on what is human has been engaged. Wouldn’t you?

Watch this CBC clip where the EFC’s Don Hutchinson debates Joyce Arthur on whether the child in the womb is human.

EFC Supports Call for National Discussion on Legal Definition of "Human Being"

Faye Sonier — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 13:46:47 +0000

PRESS RELEASE – “The question is not so much ‘What is human?’ but ‘When is human?’” suggests Faye Sonier, Legal Counsel for The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (the EFC). “Medicine recognizes a point of viability for a child in the womb. Science is prepared to experiment using pre-natal human tissue from conception onward. Yet, Canada’s Criminal Code states that a child in the womb is not human,” explains Sonier. “The Criminal Code provisions on this point are dumbfounding.”

“Parliament needs to examine these provisions; consider their historical roots; and, debate whether they make sense in twenty-first century Canada,” continues Sonier. “The EFC fully supports the recent calls of Members of Parliament Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener–Centre, CPC) and Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) for a full examination of Canada’s laws in this regard. As Canadians become more aware of what the laws stipulate, they will be astounded.”

As MP Stephen Woodworth offered in a December 21, 2011 media release, section 223(1) of the Criminal Code “defines a human being as a child who has completely proceeded in a living state from the mother’s body, whether or not the child has breathed. This means that in Canada a child is legally considered to be sub-human while his or her little toe remains in the birth canal, even if he or she is breathing.”

Section 223(2) is equally troubling. It sets out that a homicide occurs when a person injures a child before or during its birth and the child dies after exiting the birth canal.

“An Ottawa area case dealt with section 223,” notes EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel Don Hutchinson. “A mother was charged with attempted murder after she used a pellet gun to shoot her nearly full term son while he was still in the womb. The boy, born two days later, survived after surgery and some time in an intensive care unit. The charges were later dropped because the child was not considered by law to be a human being when he was shot. In an interesting twist, she received several months’ probation for failing to provide the necessities of life because after birth she didn’t report the pellet lodged in her son’s head.”

“According to section 223, the mother would not even have been charged had her son died before he was born,” continues Hutchinson. “However, had the child died from his injuries after he was born, she would have been charged with homicide. Do these provisions make any sense? Is that consistent with our contemporary understanding of life and human rights?”

“The wording of these laws is very confusing,” states Sonier. “The meaning is from a distant and less medically advanced society. The language of a now ancient time is far from obvious in the current century. As a nation, we need to ask ourselves if these convoluted laws and archaic concepts reflect our values, modern medicine and our understanding of human rights and human life. If they don’t, our political representatives need to take action.”

For interview information, visit our website.

Of Christmas Cards and Canadian Citizenship

Don Hutchinson — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 01:12:10 +0000

By Don Hutchinson

Last week in the House of Commons, the following statement was made by Mrs. Nina Grewal (MP, Fleetwood—Port Kells):

Mr. Speaker, Christmas is approaching and again the forces of political correctness continue with the relentless attack on the traditional traditions: judges remove Christmas trees from the court houses; school concerts are postponed to take away the Christmas theme; the lyrics of Christmas carols are changed; the distribution of candy canes is banned; and all the references to God, Christ and the Lord are removed.

Traditions are the foundation of society, culture and the faith. If we eliminate or water them down, we erode the glue that holds us together.

To embrace a diverse, secular, multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic society, there is no need to preclude the celebration of Christmas. Rather than diluting the traditions, they should be celebrated, whether they are Vaisakhi, Diwali, Chinese New Year, Eid, Hanukkah or Christmas. [my emphasis by underlining]

We must proudly put the spirit of Christmas back in Christmas.

I wish everyone a merry Christmas.

- Hansard, December 14, 2011

I agree with Mrs. Grewal. I don’t mind if someone wishes me a “happy holidays” or offers “season’s greetings.” I do, however, get annoyed with over exuberant political correctness, whether brought on by an order from on high or by fear of offending the easily offended. Call it a holiday tree if you must, but don’t ask me not to refer to it as a Christmas tree. While we’re at it, let’s put up a Hanukkah menorah alongside that Christmas tree in public spaces.

I heartily offer a Merry Christmas to bus drivers, retail store staff, Parliamentarians and others; with a “Happy Hanukkah” reserved for those I know who celebrate that holiday. At the appropriate time of year, I will wish a “Happy Eid” (a Muslim holiday), “Happy Diwali” (a Hindu/Sikh holiday) or “Kung Hei Fat Choi” (Chinese New Year) to other friends. It’s part of adjusting to 21st Century Canada with an increasing awareness of living in a multicultural and multi-religious society.

That brings me to reflect on the complaints I have seen, read and heard in the last week about the Prime Minister’s Christmas card for 2011, which bears the words “Happy Holidays” along with a photograph of the Harper family. Complaints about the Harpers’ choice of photograph or choice of words are, in my opinion, unnecessary and un-newsworthy. It’s really up to the Harpers what they decide for their cards. If the card says “Merry Christmas” there is likely to be an uproar that the Prime Minister is favouring one religion’s celebration over others. If the card says “Happy Holidays” then he’s assessed by others as somehow letting down “the baby Jesus.” I just think it’s nice that the Harpers share a family photo and the cards are sent out. Like any Canadian family, that’s their choice.

The media’s Christmas card analysis is taking place in the midst of what seems now the annual public squabble about whether or not civic facilities should celebrate atheism (empty), seasonal holidays (non-descript decoration), Hanukkah (menorah), Christmas (tree, manger scene), other Christmas (Santa and reindeer), etc. While ‘religion or not’ is featured in public discourse and in the same week as the Christmas card comments, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Jason Kenney (MP, Calgary Southeast), announced that the faces of those seeking Canadian citizenship would be required to be visible when taking the oath of citizenship; an announcement that was immediately cast as another entry into the “religious” fray.

At no point in the announcement does Minister Kenney mention the niqab or burka, and yet that became the focus of public and media commentary. And with the media focused on the niqab, Minister Kenney was confronted with questions about the niqab, period.

When I think of the oath of citizenship, the images that spring most immediately to my mind, and perhaps yours, are of flags waving and rows of people publicly declaring their commitment on Canada Day. But there are a variety of permissible ways for the oath of citizenship to be administered. In fact, relatively small and more private ceremonies take place for numerous reasons. One would anticipate that similar accommodation will continue to be forthcoming; in the instance of the niqab the accommodation would be for those whose religious beliefs preclude them from revealing their faces to the general public.

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled:

Freedom of religion is triggered when a claimant demonstrates that he or she sincerely believes in a practice or belief that has a nexus with religion. Once religious freedom is triggered, a court must then ascertain whether there has been non-trivial or non‑insubstantial interference with the exercise of the implicated right so as to constitute an infringement of freedom of religion under the Quebec (or the Canadian) Charter.

It is a reasonable requirement that the official who has been authorized by the Minister (e.g. a citizenship judge) be able to verify the identity of the prospective new Canadian and verify that the candidate is reciting the oath in one of our two official languages. A number of imams have stated that it is permissible for those who wear the niqab for religious reasons to reveal their face to an appropriate government official for identification purposes; which might readily include the celebration of citizenship with government officials, family and friends. This type of citizenship ceremony seems a workable accommodation of religious belief that would fit with the Supreme Court’s decision and in the multicultural society guaranteed under Canada’s Constitution Act and would align with existing citizenship practices.

The facial display requirement for taking the oath of citizenship might eliminate the opportunity to participate in a public ceremony on Parliament Hill on Canada Day. It does not prevent taking the oath in another way. Such recognition and respect, it seems to me, is the same kind of respect that we desire be demonstrated for Christmas decorations and concerts, Hanukkah celebrations, and other expression by Canadians in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guaranteed “free and democratic society”.

Whether Prime Minister or not, express yourself with cards that say Season’s Greetings, Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas. Let the children sing I Have A Little Dreidel, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, and Away In A Manger. Let compliance with the requirements for the oath meet the needs of both nation and new citizen.

By accepting choice of cards and respecting religious beliefs we, as Canadians, demonstrate that we “embrace a diverse, secular, multicultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic society.” Merry Christmas to you, Nina Grewal, and all Canadians! And a Happy New Year!

Yes to tolerance. No to mandatory gay-straight clubs

Don Hutchinson — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:10:49 +0000

By Don Hutchinson

As originally published in the National Post on December 14, 2011.

Dalton McGuinty, the man who would like to be remembered as Ontario’s “Education Premier,” has declared that all schools in his province — public, private and religious — must embark on anti-bullying initiatives, including the mandatory establishment of gay/straight alliance clubs for students. The campaign against bullying is a worthy one. But Mr. McGuinty’s approach stands in violation of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Premier stood with the Hubley family while announcing his newly proposed legislation. Only those who have lost a child can possibly comprehend what Allan and Wendy Hubley have experienced with the death of their 15-year-old son Jamie. Prior to his suicide, the Grade 10 student at Kanata, Ont.’s A.Y. Jackson Secondary School felt alienated and depressed, and described himself as “the only open gay guy in my school.” I can only imagine the level of bullying torment that Jamie Hubley experienced. I understand the Hubleys’ deep desire to ensure that no one else experiences what their son or they themselves have gone through. But his death is about more than anti-gay animus. There is a greater problem at play here — the character of today’s students.

It is not just respect for LGBT students that needs to be part of the curriculum in Canadian schools. Instruction and modelling of respect for all students should be part of the curriculum and the classroom environment. This does not mean all students must be forced to be friends, or agree with one another on all points. And, it does not mean that there can’t be debate or constructive disagreement. It does mean that bullying students on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religious beliefs, national or cultural origin or the several other prohibited grounds of discrimination under human rights laws should not be permitted, either by other students, teachers, administrators or those developing the curricula.

Over the years, parents of Christian students in Ontario’s public schools have contacted me with similar complaints about treatment of their children. One teenage girl was subjected to ridicule by a teacher and students in class, in the hallways (including notes left on and in her locker) and off school property because she objected to the depiction of Christianity in The Chrysalids, a book option from curriculum guidelines that the teacher decided to assign to the class. Another student’s parents were told by a school administrator that if they didn’t like what was going on in the school they should consider transferring their child to a private Christian school.

The remedy for bullying in our schools is not gay/straight alliance clubs, but rather proper character formation. Educators can’t do it alone, and their role is necessarily limited. Parents, churches and others need to be engaged. The foundation of our free and democratic society includes respect for all persons. This foundation needs also to be present in our education system.

Further, Canadian and international law recognize that it is the right of parents to determine the education of their children. Before overriding the choices parents make in education, Premier McGuinty and well-intentioned legislators should be reminded that this is not a right to be overridden casually. There is an obvious constitutional violation in forcing religiously based schools to establish clubs not endorsed by the faith community, parents or students, or a curriculum that disrespects their beliefs.

The children of all Canadians — who are subject to the curricula of the various Ministries of Education across the country — deserve the opportunity to learn ABCs, 123s and the traits of good character, including respect for others (even those with whom they disagree). The environment in which children learn these things should be free from bullying and harassment. And neither they, nor their parents, should be bullied by any provincial premier in the process.

I Was a Panellist at the Consultation on the Office of Religious Freedom

Don Hutchinson — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:59:34 +0000

By Don Hutchinson

Well, there you have it. I’ve been outed by the CBC. Yes, it’s true. I was a panellist at the Department of Foreign Affairs consultation on establishing an Office of Religious Freedom. I don’t know the selection process for attendees or for the panellists either. The panellist bios might give a hint and the CBC has conveniently published them for ease of reference. My selection might have to do with being a lawyer who works a great deal in the field of religious freedom and my employer, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, alone and in conjunction with the World Evangelical Alliance, has been directly engaged in this area since the 1990s. It could be that I have been a member of the Religious Liberty Commission since 2006 and its chair since 2008. Perhaps, it’s related to my being a member of Advocates International’s Task Force on Religious Freedom (Advocates is active in over 100 countries) or a member of the board of directors for Voice of the Martyrs Canada (part of an international network supporting persecuted Christians around the world). Maybe, everyone ahead of me on the list said no. I didn’t ask. They didn’t tell.

Admittedly, the organizations that I interact directly with on this issue consider international religious freedom matters primarily from the perspective of persecuted Christians. However, there’s good reason for that. I’m a Christian. And Christians are the most persecuted religious group on the planet with an estimated 200 to 250 million facing some measure of persecution on a daily basis (out of a total estimated global population of 2.3 billion Christians). Brian Grim, from the Pew Research Center, and Roger Finke, from Pennsylvania State University, confirm these numbers in their 2010 book The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century, where they also note that approximately 170-175,000 Christians are put to death each year simply because of their faith.

Engaging on the issue of persecution, of necessity, also requires contact with other persecuted faith communities. I have friends in these other faith communities. Our contact is largely based in the fact that they are doing work for their faith communities similar to the work I am doing for mine. We respect that about each other and work together when it is effective to do so. Other faith communities face persecution, particularly where they find themselves in the minority. Sometimes minority sects of a majority religion face the worst persecution in a particular nation because they are perceived to be false teachers within their own larger faith community.

Engaging on the issue of persecution also requires some effort to understand persecuting individuals, communities and governments. Is the persecution taking place in a nation where the government and religious leaders/beliefs are closely aligned (e.g. a Muslim majority nation, Buddhist majority nation, Hindu majority nation, etc.) or where the ideology of the government has a strong anti-religious animus (e.g. communist nation, secularist nation, etc.)? There is a need to have an awareness of why the persecution is happening.

About 70% of the planet’s population live in nations where there are either serious (often severe) restrictions on religion and religious belief or there are hostilities, both internal and external to the country, that have some form of religious or anti-religious motivation. To ignore this reality is to be incapable of engaging in well informed or well-rounded international diplomacy in the twenty-first century; and, to relegate immigration practices to sentences of execution should properly founded religious pleas for refugee status be misunderstood or ignored.

It is disappointing that the CBC’s coverage of the development of this new Office evidences the long since disproven view that secularism would triumph in global affairs, a bias that required religion to be set aside in Western engagement with other nations. This view was prevalent in 1960s and 70s North America but has held little sway since the 1980s when North Americans started to become more globally oriented.

The way the CBC has reported on the development of the Office has also, and unfortunately, reflected the accuracy of the findings in David M. Haskell’s 2009 book Through A Lens Darkly: How the News Media Perceive and Portray Evangelicals. Professor Haskell, a journalism professor at Wilfred Laurier University, in his studies of television media treatment of Evangelicals, found that the CBC stood substantially ahead of others in presenting the most negative portrayal of Canadian Evangelicals in the news media. 51 of 77 CBC news reports that were reviewed for the timeframe from 1994 to 2004 offered a negative portrayal of Evangelicals as intolerant (36% of reports), politically threatening (32%), insincere (21%), criminally-minded (21%) and Un-Canadian (14%). You can see there was overlap, with Evangelicals sometimes getting the double or triple slam in CBC reports.

Haskell also considered the attitude from which reporters at the CBC framed their stories that included Evangelicals, finding that 90% of CBC respondents to his survey “said they were atheist, agnostic or non-practicing, compared to just under half of the respondents from the private networks.” The CBC journalists also described the effort they made to distance themselves from being associated with religion.

The CBC’s October 3 story “New ‘religious freedom’ office raises questions” promotes the concepts of “secrecy” and “hidden agenda” that seem to frequent CBC reporting that includes mention of or allusion to Evangelicals and/or the Prime Minister’s attendance at a Christian Missionary Alliance (Evangelical) church. However, the agenda for the Office of Religious Freedom has been hidden from the CBC in plain sight. The concept of the Office was contained in the published platform of the Conservative Party of Canada during the Spring 2011 election – an Office in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade that would also relate to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of International Cooperation (page 40). The public announcement in April was met with support from then Liberal Party of Canada leader Michael Ignatieff. I am aware that the CBC knew about the consultation in advance because they interviewed people for the October 3 story in the week prior to the consultation and because it aired this story on CBC’s The House on Saturday, October 1, two days prior to the consultation taking place. Other journalists were present on October 3. I inquired of one how she ended up attending. Her answer? When she heard about the consultation she emailed a request to attend.

The CBC’s description that the consultation was “clothed in secrecy” evidences that either the secret wasn’t well kept – given that the CBC put together a program on the consultation a week before it occurred and other journalists found their way to attend – or someone at the CBC has an evident bias that is attempting to make and shape the news rather than report it.

I offer no defence for the Government of Canada’s consultation process; it doesn’t need one. In several consultations that have taken place with Liberal and Conservative governments a similar process has been followed. An invitation list is determined. Some people are on it and some are not – a friend of mine attended another consultation this week to which I would have liked to have been invited, but was not. A suitable venue for the consultation is arranged (which sometimes pre-determines how many may be invited to attend). And, being a federal government consultation in a federal government building the consultation takes place after clearing security and behind closed doors. This is all pretty normal stuff that one would think the CBC could take in its stride … if it didn’t have an evident and evidenced anti-religious bias.

In its “breaking news” December 7 story on the Office, “Religious freedom panel drawn largely from western religions,” our friends at the CBC have drawn the conclusion that Judaism, Christianity and Ba’hai are western religions, even though all three have their established foundations in the Middle East. Even to conclude that Christianity, as it has developed in the West, is a western religion is to allude to the same mistaken conclusion as those who identify the West with Christianity (and to ignore the hundreds of millions of Christians in the southern hemisphere and Asia). Lunch was hosted by the Aga Khan Foundation. Yes, in a western location – Ottawa – but the Isma’ili expression of Islam can hardly be categorized as western, either.

The CBC’s assessment of who spoke at the consultation does not reflect who was present. There were many present who did not speak. Present were friends I know from other multi-faith settings in which I engage. In addition to various streams of Christianity, there were, if I recall correctly, those from the communities of Shia, Sunni and Ahmadiyyah Islam; Ba’hai; Judaism; Hindu; Falun Gong; and Buddhism (I apologize if I’ve left anyone out). This was a gathering of those who could offer input on the development of the office from academic, diplomatic and personal experience. I was impressed with the people in the room, the variety of faith communities they represented and the awareness they had of the importance of religion in international relations in the twenty-first century.

I’m also aware that this has been a wide consultation that has offered a range of options for input, from written submissions to several consultations and a series of meetings with religious leaders across Canada and around the world. I know this because I have been tracking with the media coverage and media releases issued by Minister Baird’s office, all public information.

I don’t know what the Office of Religious Freedom will look like. I’ve shared, read and heard some of the input. But the decision on any office within the Government of Canada will rest with the Government of Canada, as it always has.

Minister Baird has engaged in a broad consultation, both in Canada and abroad, receiving recommendations from a substantial number of faith communities. He has also been informed about the U.S. experience (with its strengths and weaknesses, including self-admitted errors). On that basis, my expectation is that the CBC has propagated another biased attempt at inducing fear about Evangelicals (and other Christians) on a matter – the Office of Religious Freedom – that will bear little resemblance to what has been broadcast and written by CBC journalists.

WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST: POLYGAMY REMAINS ILLEGAL IN CANADA

Don Hutchinson — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 01:46:01 +0000

By Don Hutchinson

Prior to deciding that section 293 (the polygamy section) of Canada’s Criminal Code is constitutional, Chief Justice Robert Bauman of the British Columbia Supreme Court conducted one of the most extensive reviews of the topic of polygamy that has ever been undertaken – and not just by a court. The Chief Justice heard testimony from over 20 expert witnesses and also non-expert witnesses who have experienced life in a polygamous community; reviewed over 250 books, periodicals, articles and other writings on the subject; reviewed the history of the development of laws against polygamy, beginning in the 7th century B.C.E.; and, reviewed the particular history of the development of the law against polygamy in Canada – it turns out it wasn’t just about fundamentalist Mormons. The decision in this case makes for remarkable reading and provides a wealth of reference material on the subject (not something I usually write about court decisions!).

The key paragraphs state:

5. I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm; more specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.

…

1343. When one accepts that there is a reasoned apprehension that polygamy is inevitably associated with sundry harms, and that these harms are not simply isolated to criminal adherents like Warren Jeffs but inhere in the institution itself, the Amicus’ [legal ‘friend’ appointed by the court to argue the other side from that of the government] complaint that there are less sweeping means of achieving the government’s objective falls away. And it most certainly does when one considers the positive objective of the measure, the protection and preservation of monogamous marriage. For that, there can be no alternative to the outright prohibition of that which is fundamentally anathema to the institution. In the context of this objective, there is no such thing as so-called “good polygamy”.

…

1359. For the reasons I have given, s. 293 is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms except to the extent that it includes within its terms, children between the ages of 12 and 17 who marry into polygamy or a conjugal union with more than one person at the same time.

1360. For greater clarity, as I have indicated in my reasons, the inconsistency does not extend to persons who marry into polygamy before the age of 18 but are 18 years of age or older at the time of the laying of the Information in respect of conduct that occurred at or after 18 years of age.

Essentially, the Chief Justice heard and read the evidence then concluded that the harm done – not just a reasoned apprehension of harm but concrete evidence of harm as supported by the testimony of witnesses and the reported research – to women, to young girls forced into polygamous marriages, to boys and young men forced out of their communities by dominant males to avoid the competition, and more – was sufficient to constitutionally justify criminalizing “poly” relationships that are outside of Parliament’s definition of marriage.

This is a well researched and well reasoned legal decision.

While we can be fairly certain that neither the Attorney General of British Columbia nor the Attorney General of Canada will want to appeal this decision, the Amicus may seek to do so. The Amicus was appointed as a “party” (the parties are normally the people directly involved in litigation) to the proceeding, which may include the right to engage the appeal process. There are also rare instances in the Canadian judicial system where interveners (those who apply and are welcomed into the case to help inform the court’s opinion but are not parties, 11 in this case) have been granted permission to seek leave to appeal when one of the parties has not done so. In 30 days, we’ll know if an appeal is being sought.

Should the unlikely scenario of an appeal lead to this case continuing to climb the legal ladder toward the Supreme Court of Canada; and should the Supreme Court of Canada disagree with Chief Justice Bauman’s decision, deciding instead to strike down or more severely limit s. 293, would it be an appropriate time for the Government of Canada to exercise s.33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the “notwithstanding clause”?

While it might seem premature or mere conjecture at this point in time, it’s a question worth considering. The notwithstanding clause was added to our Constitution to protect the right of citizens to be governed by our elected representatives in a Parliamentary democracy. The Supreme Court of Canada has the authority to interpret and assess our laws – reflecting on them within the boundaries of the Charter and our constitution – but only Parliament and our provincial legislatures have the authority to enact our laws – again, within the boundaries of the Charter and our constitution. With the mountain of evidence compiled in this case substantiating that the harms associated with polygamy, defined in s. 293 to include polygyny (many wives) and polyamory (many consenting conjugal partners), negatively impact individuals and society, it would seem reasonable that the Government of Canada not rule out use of the notwithstanding clause should the court find technical difficulty with the language of the law.

Of course, if there is no appeal of the decision the law is settled; prosecutions may proceed; and, the place of Parliament in legislating what falls criminally outside the societally accepted norms of marriage has been assessed and interpreted by the court in accordance with its role in a Parliamentary democracy.