Ignite Our Culture Conference Recap (Part 3 of 3)

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:

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.

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.

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.

Ignite Our Culture Conference Recap (Part 2 of 3)

Saturday's conference was opened by Rev. Schouten of the Canadian Reformed Church at Aldergrove, BC. He noted that a large number of Christians seem to be unwilling to stand up for the Truth and for our God-given rights. He suggested that perhaps this is because we have become too comfortable with ourselves and with society - that we have silenced the prophets ourselves by being unwilling to be confronted with the uncomfortable truth about our own lives. He too challenged the attendees to be steadfast in prayer and action.

Michael Wagner took the podium to discuss whether there are legitimate restrictions to freedom of speech. One of his opening points was on the question of censorship: is censorship - state limitation of the communication of ideas - a good or bad thing? Wagner submitted to the audience that censorship itself is neither good nor bad; the question should be: what kind of censorship is good, and what kind is bad? He also rebutted the recent complaints of supporters of film makers that government plans to discontinue funding for Canadian-made films amount to censorship. Not funding something does not mean one is preventing communication.

Wagner proceeded to list several examples of good censorship, such as defamation - whether spoken (slander) or written (libel) - and communication that is subversive to the political order. Finally, he described how the language and philosophy of freedom of communication have changed. The original philosophy - freedom of speech and freedom of the press - was purposeful: to give citizens information to make informed decisions, and to support a search for truth. Of course, in the framework of moral relativism, the concept of truth - and this purpose by extension - have been eliminated. The language has also changed; many people now speak of the vague concept of freedom of expression - a concept that lends itself much more easily to feelings than morals.

Connie Fournier then told her story. She and her husband Mark are the creators and moderators of the largest forum for conservatives in Canada, FreeDominion.ca. They were subject to an investigation at the hands of the so-called Canadian Human Rights Commission. The cause for complaint was not even something hosted at the site - the offensive material was posted elsewhere, and a link to it was posted on the forum. This complaint was eventually dropped, but the process - enormous losses of time and legal fees - was punishment enough. To protect the participants in the forum - the move does not protect the Fourniers - they recently sold the forum to a company in Panama whose corporate mission is:

To buy websites from individuals and corporations living in countries where free speech is under attack, and protect those websites from being shut down or seized by oppressive governments.

It is a telling sign of the state of liberal democracy in Canada.

Ignite Our Culture Conference Recap (Part 1 of 3)

The ECP Centre's Ignite Our Culture conference in Langley, BC took place on March 28-29. Its focus was on freedom of speech and human rights. The speakers were Tristan Emmanuel and Al Siebring from NoApologies.ca;  historian Michael Wagner, author of Standing on Guard for Thee; Ron Gray, national leader of the Christian Heritage Party; Connie Fournier, creator and moderator of FreeDominion.ca; and Stephen Pidgeon, an attorney and expert on human rights and religious freedom.

Wagner began Friday's Townhall session with a survey of the history of the involvement of Canadian Christians in media. He noted that Christians have had to struggle to get access to radio and TV stations. This struggle was most often against the CRTC. The CRTC stated that proposals for religious stations had to have "balanced programming", i.e. they had to include programs for other religions. Other questionable organizations and programming were given the green light, with no such requirements. One of the more telling examples was the success of Playboy TV's application, while applications for Christian-only stations were being denied. Wagner concluded by noting that the struggle has shown the achievement of Christian activism. In this light, the unregulated new media - internet news, blogs, etc. - are an exciting development and opportunity for our cause.

Emmanuel asked the question: Does God desire our freedom? He proceeded to argue from Scripture that, indeed, He does. He challenged the audience to have that same desire and to be active in the struggle that is upon us.

ECP Ignite our Culture Western Conference

I'll be attending the ECP Centre's Ignite our Culture Conference in Langley, BC this weekend. The theme is "New Media and a Christian Perspective on Free Speech". I'll post comments on the conference proceedings here as I find opportunity.

At the heart of this issue in our culture is the concept of human rights. Here's a primer on the biblical basis of human rights courtesy of Michael Wagner at NoApologies.ca:

Under the law, then, a man has a ‘right’ to his life, his limbs, his liberty and his property simply because it is wrong to take them from him except in just punishment for breaking that same law. The law is a closed circle, a complete fence. Within it men are free and have innumerable ‘rights’ if one wants to think of them that way. But these rights appear from the wrongs specified by [God’s] law...

Far Beyond Moral Equivalence

Jihad Watch reports on a recent episode of one of the Law and Order shows: Law and Order shills for Islam. In summary, the episode is about a Christian woman stoned to death for having a Muslim boyfriend.

We need not mention that God does not call for the stoning of adulterers - or, as Robert Spencer points out, that Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery (John 8).

Spencer observes:

And the subtext of it all, of course, is that those who oppose the global jihad and Islamic supremacism are just another flavor of fanatic, not someone who actually cares about preserving Western (and other non-Muslim) culture and civilization, and safeguarding the equality of dignity and rights of all people. Nope. The two sides are completely equivalent and interchangeable.

Spencer is right that those who oppose the advance of Islamism in the West are painted as fanatics in their own right. But the writers are far beyond moral equivalence here. In fact, the two sides are not being treated equivalently and interchangeably. If that were so, the writers for Law and Order would just flip a coin to determine who would be carrying out the stoning - "Will it be the Christians or the Muslims throwing rocks this time?"

But we are quite unlikely to see an episode telling the story of a Muslim father who kills his daughters because they are dating non-Muslims - even though this very thing has happened and can't even be considered anomalous anymore in the West, including Canada. And we are quite likely to continue to see Christians being painted as dangerous fanatics - even though this depiction is contrary to the theology and practice of the vast majority of Christians.

There are two sides to the coin that is being flipped by writers such as those for Law and Order: on the one hand you have their unwillingness to confront - much less portray - the crimes against Muslim women and non-Muslims that actually happen, continually; on the other hand you have their willingness - even eagerness - to denigrate Christians and Christianity by imagining things that do not happen. 

These are the actions of a suicidal society: attacking the values that established it, and submitting to the values that threaten to destroy it.

The 'Secular' State of Egypt

Via Little Green Footballs, here's a three-part video report on the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt: Treatment of Christians in Egypt. Yes, that Egypt - the one that claims to be secular; the one that claims to uphold freedom of religion; the one to whom the US gives more than $2 million in foreign aid annually.

For more of what's really going on in Egypt, see these LGF posts:
'No Compulsion in Islam' | Egyptian Blogger Quits

Private Member's Motion M-446

The title of my last post - regarding Keith Martin's Private Member's Motion to delete subsection 13(1) from the Canada Human Rights Act - ended with a question mark. To be clear, I think it is great news. But I deliberately wanted to indicate some uncertainty about this development. There are uncertainties: on one hand, this is not a sure thing - it is only the beginning of the process; on the other hand, I wondered, if the resulting bill were to be passed, what consequences it would have for provincial HRCs as well as pending and past cases.

One question I haven't heard asked is why subsections (2) and (3) are not included in this motion. Since they both refer back to subsection (1) are they automatically deleted as well?

But there's another question that's nagging me: What is Martin's motivation? Many bloggers have encouraged readers to write a note of thanks and/or encouragement to Martin for taking the initiative on this important matter. But I'm not so sure. My approval is partly dependent on his motivation. I'd be delighted to know that Martin is an advocate and defender of freedom and that this motion is solely an outworking of that conviction. But as the saying goes, if it seems to good to be true, it probably is. I can't help but think that Martin is doing this for some political gain. If so, the means does not justify the end, and, though I support the means, I won't thank him for using it for his political gain. At NoApologies.ca, Al Siebring asks some of the same questions.

Nevertheless, all Canadians should write to their MPs in support of this motion. NoApologies and Pundita have some great summary material to help us get started.