On the Bookshelf Update

I've added Standing On Guard For Thee by Michael Wagner to my 'On the Bookshelf' list (right). I hope to post a review when I've finished it.

HRCs Are Just Trees in a Forest

The HRCs are a legitimate threat to the quality of the public discourse and the freedom of citizens with politically incorrect opinions. They have done significant damage to such citizens and deserve the intense scrutiny they are receiving. But HRCs are just trees in the forest of the war to censor of such opinions. There are victims for whom the HRCs cannot take credit.

One such victim is Chris Kempling. A summary of his incredible story is here, from a column in the National Post.

I find it disconcerting that my professional body wishes to sanction me for my political involvement, for conduct in a completely different profession servicing my own faith community and for opinions published in other provinces or countries. This action has potentially alarming consequences, not only for Canadian teachers, but for all regulated professions (social workers, psychologists, nurses, etc.), for whom such cases end up establishing legal precedents.

Also note, per our previous post, that Kempling can easily demonstrate that he is not 'homophobic', by virtue of the rational, well-researched defense of his position, and his befriending of several homosexuals. But in the world of politically correct censorship, the truth is no defense.

Disproving Phobia

Yesterday I commented on the Ontario HRC's ridiculous argument against 'Islamophobia'. Al Siebring at NoApologies also picked up on it as well, and takes issue with the insinuation that he is irrational. In his argument, he focuses on another made-up word: 'homophobia'. (Incidentally, this is well-accepted in the wonderful world of leftist liberalism as another form of racism.) Translated literally, 'homophobia' must mean 'irrational fear of same', in which case the 'irrational' part is certainly self-evident. However, it's supposed to mean 'irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals' and it's meant to paint anyone with serious questions or reservations about homosexuality as irrational. Proving that your reservations are rational, however easy, is beside the point. He who defines the terms, wins; if you have to prove that you are rational, you are already starting on the defensive.

But the other part of that definition is the word fear. Not many 'homophobes' are legitimately afraid of homosexuals. Siebring states:

I happen to hold to a traditional view of sexuality, and I equally know that there’s not a single shred of “phobia” in my heart on this. I have known homosexuals. I have worked with them. I have befriended them; had them over to my house. Like my other friends, I have disagreed with them at times about various issues, and I’ve told them so. But I’ve never been scared of them.

The best argument against being labeled 'homophobic' is not semantic, but practical. Befriending homosexuals and inviting them into one's house is strong evidence against homophobia just as being a racecar driver is strong evidence against amaxophobia (fear of riding in a car). Christians should feel uncomfortable with the homosexual lifestyle - it is contrary to the created order - and should not hide it or apologize for it. But this needs to be balanced with the same friendship, love, and compassion that Christ gave to sinners of all kinds.

Not Guilty, But Guilty Nonetheless

I'm working on preparing a report on the whole Human Rights Commission fiasco here in Canada. It's a big enough task to review the last three or so months worth of news on the issue, without more news breaking every day. Case in point: the Ontario Human Rights Commission today formally announced that it will not proceed with the complaint against Maclean's Magazine. A few thoughts on the statement:

The Ontario Commission decided not to proceed with the complaints because it lacks legal jurisdiction to do so under the Ontario Code. The Commission has found that the content of the magazine and Maclean’s refusal to provide the complainants with space in the magazine for a rebuttal, are not goods or services within the meaning of the Code. The Commission has also found that s. 13(1) of the Code, which prohibits displaying or publishing a notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other similar representation with the intent to infringe human rights or to incite others to do so, cannot be interpreted to include the content of the magazine article in issue.

Given the lengths HRCs go to in order to bolster their cases, and given other remoreless over-reaching, this is remarkable restraint. On the other hand, given the intense scrutiny the HRCs are facing, it could just as easily be cowardice.

Racism exists in the media and the media has a significant role to play in either combating societal racism or refraining from communicating and reproducing it. Islamophobia is a form of racism that includes stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards Muslims and the viewing of Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.

Giving the made-up word 'Islamophobia' the benefit of the doubt, we can assume it to mean 'irrational fear of Islam'. No matter how you define Islam, it is not a race. Even its adherents, Muslims, are not a race. But I guess it's true because the HRCs say so.

Semantics aside, let me get this straight: racism includes viewing Muslims as a greater threat to society? Unless Muslims - or, more probably, the HRCs - own racism, we should be able to substitute Christians for Muslims. Oh, wait. It's well accepted that those scary Christians are a greater threat to society, and that's not racism.

The press release associated with the statement includes this gem:

While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission strongly condemns the Islamophobic portrayal of Muslims, Arabs, South Asians and indeed any racialized community in the media, such as the Maclean’s article and others like them, as being inconsistent with the values enshrined in our human rights codes. Media has a responsibility to engage in fair and unbiased journalism.

At least this time the HRC makes an attempt to identify some actual races in connection with 'Islamophobia'. You see, you don't need to be a race to be a victim of racism - you just need the HRC to declare you to be 'racialized'.

Semantics again aside, read between the lines. The Ontario Human Rights Act does not give the HRC jurisdiction over magazine content, but in the end the HRC still claims jurisdiction - "the Commission strongly condemns... the Maclean's article..." Guilty until proven innocent. More at SteynOnline.

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.