Continuing Saturday's proceedings, Stephen Pidgeon spoke about the distinct nature of God-given rights in contrast to government privileges. Fundamentally, he said, a government can not grant a right - it can only grant a privilege. Human rights are superior to the authority of government, because God has declared his sovereignty over governments. But governments give privileges - "rights" above those of others - that are inferior to the authority of the state, but superior to those without the privileges. He suggested that the privileged group in Section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act (CHRA) is actually government broadcasters, who by virtue of Section 13.2 are exempt of its rules. He explained the difference between the legal terms mala in se - crimes based on good versus evil (a moral foundation) - and mala prohibita - acts that are not inherently evil, but are contrary to legislated policy (e.g. traffic laws). The CHRA is in fact not a rights act at all, since its moral foundation is not defined, but rather a government privilege.
After Ron Gray - also under investigation by the HRCs - addressed the conference on the topic of the evolution of politically-correct speech, Al Siebring tackled the issue of media bias. Siebring argued, partially from experience as a journalist, that there is generally not a direct attempt by journalists to "get Christians". Rather, he argued, the bias is in the enterprise itself. The mainstream media is rooted in a particular worldview, and in a particular vision of the purpose of the press, one taken - out of context - from Finley Peter Dunne:
Th newspaper... comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable...Thus the mainstream media has historically seen itself to be in opposition to "the comfortable", that is, the predominant establishment. For years, that has been the Christian foundation underlying Canadian society - biblical morality and absolute Truth. According to Siebring, this is the bias that is inherent in the enterprise.
Notably, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily fame uses this same quote in his argument that the government is "the comfortable" and that therefore the role of the free press is to be a government watchdog. In Siebring's view, the role of the free press is to speak the truth, whether that be the truth about the government, or about anything else. This understanding matches what Wagner noted about the purpose of freedom of speech, and it seems right to me. Telling the truth about Planned Parenthood, or the UN, or climate change should certainly be a part of the role of the free press. For Christians, of course, we have the added biblical directive to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).
Tristan Emmanuel had the last word, a treatment of the concept of hate. As with other debates, it is important to define the terms, and Emmanuel did this by consulting Scripture. Psalm 5:4-6 reads:
Thus God is the moral authority on what is lawful versus unlawful hate. Emmanuel also noted the inconsistency of moral relativists - they hold that there is (absolutely) no absolute truth, and yet use absolute terms to condemn hate and certain opinions.You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil;with you the wicked cannot dwell.The arrogant cannot stand in your presence;you hate all who do wrong.
After the audience members had the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers, the conference was wrapped up. The conference was a great way to be reminded of the fundamental issues and concepts regarding freedom of speech and human rights. Time and again, it was noted that unless you have absolute moral grounding, you have no foundation to condemn or censor speech, to restrict rights or grant privileges. Once you subscribe to moral relativism or post-modernism, you begin to build your ideas and arguments on the shaky foundation of feelings and actualization. My favourite speech was Pidgeon's on rights and privileges, one that hit this point home. It served to underline the fact that Western law and society have a moral basis and foundation that is outside the realm of men. And it clearly showed the foolishness of starting from other so-called foundations.