Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!



Assorted

Podcasts to get you educated, not schooled

Only universities give degrees, but you can get an education even while you’re driving, jogging, or mowing the lawn

*****

About forty years ago, when I was taking my Bachelor of Education degree at the University of Alberta, I got schooled, but not all that educated. I was schooled in both senses of the word – both getting some training in how to teach, and just plain made to feel like a fool.

GETTING SCHOOLED AT A SECULAR U

My “Educational Foundations” professor was, I found out, a lapsed Catholic, and proselytizing atheist. I’d met atheists before – kids in my neighborhood as I grew up – but never one who was educated and articulate and eager to use class time to pitch his anti-Christian worldview.

My instructor seemed pretty confident about his atheism, and that left me shook. And it got me studying how to better understand the Christian worldview and be able to defend it. This self-study is really where my education started. My actual education degree never did set me up well to make year plans (the first thing a teacher needs to start organizing the courses they teach), but the very secular university’s library thankfully included several books on worldview and apologetics. I started my defense of my faith in two different libraries – the university’s, and also my dad’s much better stocked basement bookshelves (better in quality, if not in quantity).

In short, while university did not educate me well, it did provoke me (and even equip me, to some degree) to educate myself.

Could that happen now? It seems doubtful. I wonder whether the university library would still stock books as useful as the ones I took out to learn more about the Christian worldview. As well, how many (even lapsed) Catholics or Christians of any kind are still teaching in secular universities?

Even if you wanted to build up your faith in university, you would still face the monumental challenge of trying to absorb solid Christian teaching while (as I had to do at some points) reading (and taking notes on!?) fifty pages a night from the secular textbooks mandated for the courses you were taking.

GETTING AN AUDIO EDUCATION

So, how now shall we learn? If you don’t need or want post-secondary education, or you’re finished yours, and (like all of us), your time is limited, and (like many of us), you’re “not a reader” (!?) then what? How can you get not schooled, but educated?

One answer has been promoted by Jordan Peterson, who believes that this generation could be the best educated in history, because we have access to the internet, and through it, to podcasts and videos from the best thinkers of our day. One way to see the potential advantages of Peterson’s suggestion is to compare this method of self-education with one from a hundred years ago. The Everyman’s Library book collection started in 1906 to promote the reading of classic literature.

One obvious advantage of internet education over Everyman’s Library is cost. The cheapest volume I could find from Everyman’s had a price of £10.99 or roughly $20 Canadian. Meanwhile podcasts and YouTube videos are free (although there is always more material behind a subscription paywall!).

The second advantage of education online is the time involved. Although I can always find time to read a book (brushing your teeth, during breakfast…), reading generally demands exclusive attention, while “talking head” videos and podcasts can be heard while you are otherwise active (of course, not while juggling or other involved activities). It is worth noting that audio books have the same advantage.

The final advantage of internet learning over the Everyman’s Library is the sheer volume of material on the internet. Of course, that can be pretty overwhelming; hence the list of great places to listen below.

DISTRACTION VS. EDUCATION

A couple words of caution are warranted.

First, the internet can be a dangerous place to spend your time, even when you are getting educated. It’s easy to go down rabbit trails, because everything connects to everything else. The very fact that book learning involves more commitment in time and money tends to promote greater care in the selection of authors and their work. As we often hear about grocery shopping, stick to your list. Browsing the internet may not be as expensive as browsing the supermarket, but it is potentially at least as great a waste of time.

Secondly, let me offer a word about “outrage porn.” Podcasts and video creators make money on getting more clicks and longer time on their platforms from their audience, and one sure way to do that is to stoke our anger…. but God warns us against both anger and worry about things that we have no power to change. James exhorts us to be “slow to anger, for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:19-20), while Christ, who is Himself “gentle and lowly” (unlike many podcasters), asks, “which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?” (Matt. 11:29, 6:27). A good rule of thumb is to focus on podcasts or YouTube channels that bring an appreciation of God’s glory in creation and redemption into your life, that make you more effective in your service to God and your neighbor, or that equip you to be salt and light in a society that desperately needs both, and needs even more the Christ that they deny.

6 TO START WITH

With all that said, here are half a dozen great bets for your internet time. Click on the headings below for links to their respective websites.

1. Real Talk
Let’s begin with what might already be near and dear to RP readers: Real Talk, which you can also find on our own Reformed Perspective app. The two hosts have settled into a great rhythm, with over 100 episodes behind them. When the podcast started in July 2020, both Lucas Holtvlüwer and Tyler Vanderwoude appeared together to interview guests with extensive practical experience in such areas as Christian education and the missional church, with feedback every second episode. As time went on, each became more confident to host certain episodes solo, and the feedback episodes are now called “Real Talk Roundup” and feature other RP personalities, best book lists, and other highlights, with recent topics of real relevance, like “Death and Dying” and “Parenting and Pornography.” You can find them on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Amazon, Spotify, and on the Podbean App.

2. Two Stewards
For more Canadian content, check out the Two Stewards. As the homepage says, they explore “money, economics, real estate investing and more from a Christian worldview.” Although the podcast opens with the warning that Mark Krikke and Brent Vanderwoude are not giving professional financial advice, the listening enjoyment they do provide is packed with plenty of insight. For example, they rightly saw the latest hostility to giving your children an inheritance as motivated by covetousness, and contradicting the Biblical commendation for “ good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children” (Prov. 13:22). Wisdom backed up by God’s Word combined with good-natured banter between the two stewards (and with their guests) makes this podcast both entertaining and thought-provoking. Find them on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube.

3. The Briefing… and more
While Albert Mohler, a Southern Baptist, has experienced his share of controversy, his website has a wealth of listenable resources:

•    The Briefing – Mohler’s take on the day
•    Thinking in Public – roughly hour-long interviews with noted Christian and/or conservative writers
•    Speaking and Teaching – shorter takes on a variety of Christian and current topics
•    and clips from his “Ask Anything” tours.

These can all be found on Apple PodcastsYouTube, his website, and Spotify.

4. Ligonier
From a solidly Reformed (and generally paedobaptist) perspective, Ligonier Ministries has even more resources than Mohler, some of them current, and many more in archives: seven different podcasts of varying frequencies, at least 545 sermons from the late R.C. Sproul, daily videos on doctrinal issues, and more than 100 teaching series from multiple teachers (with multiple videos in each series) all of which are available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Ligonier Ministries also has a YouTube channel that includes enlightening and sometimes entertaining clips of question-and-answer sessions from Ligonier Ministries conferences, with answers from such well-known writers and speakers as Stephen Nichols and Sinclair Ferguson.

5. Breakpoint this Week
Another solidly Christian organization, Breakpoint Ministries gives you several ways to get educated while listening, including the daily Breakpoint Podcast and a podcast called Breakpoint This Week – with a focus on applying Christian worldview to current events and trends. A recent daily podcast applied the Biblical command to “bear one another’s burdens” to the stress of intensive parenting, while the September 13 weekly podcast discussed, among other topics, abortion distortions in the presidential debate and the younger generation’s view of 9/11. Breakpoint This Week can be found on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

6. Created to Reign
The Cornwall Alliance has a solidly Christian perspective on economic and environmental stewardship, as is evidence in their multitude of current articles. That worldview is evident in their podcast too, hosted by Dr. E. Calvin Beisner and Dr. David Legates, and titled Created to Reign. Two recent episodes of Created to Reign explained why free markets are generally not only more effective in helping the poor, but more just. Find it on Spotify, Amazon Music, and Apple Podcasts.



News

Stats Canada: birth rate now at just 1.26 children per woman

Statistics Canada is reporting that the country’s birth rate has dropped to among the lowest in the world, at just 1.26 children per woman, and British Columbia leads the downward trend with a birth rate of just 1 child per woman.

To put these numbers in context, for a country’s population to remain stable – neither growing nor shrinking – each woman needs to have, on average, 2 children – one to replace her, and one to replace her spouse. The real number is even a smidge higher at 2.1, to account for children that don’t make it to adulthood. But outside of Nunavut, at 2.48 children, no province or territory is even at replacement level. Saskatchewan is next best, at 1.63 children.

So how might this impact Canada’s population over the coming decades?

For simplicity’s sake, we’ll drill into this using a sample population of just 100, with 50 men and 50 women. If each of these women averages 1.26 children, then in one generation we’re down to a population of 63. Let’s round that up to 64, or 32 men and 32 women. If those 32 women then average 1.26 children each, we’re down to a population of just 40. In just two generations we’ve seen the population drop by 60%.

Applied to Canada’s current population of 40 million, that would see us drop all the way down to 16 million in two generations.

So why is Canada’s population still growing, and growing fast? We’re up by more than a million over just the last few years! This is due to an influx of immigrants – more than a million over the last few years. The growth isn’t coming internally.

Massive immigration is one short-term means of forestalling population collapse, but it isn’t a long-term answer, because birth rates are falling all over the world. And if the population decreases everywhere, there won’t be immigrants knocking on our door.

What’s the solution? Everyone seems to be looking to the government, but to this point, no program in any country has done much to slow the decline. The case could be made that the government isn’t the answer, but it is part of the problem – every childcare program meant to make having children easier needs to be paid for with higher taxes, and higher taxes make it that much harder to get by for one-income families where a mom wants to stay at home.

So what is the answer? Our culture needs to turn to God, not government. Do we sometimes find that a hard message to share? Well, thankfully, God is making it easier for us, by “platforming” us via the size of our families. It used to be you'd need to have 6 children or more to stand out, but now just 4 will give you an opportunity to let your light shine as people ask why so many? We can glorify our God, and help our country, just by speaking to the blessings He has given us in our children.

This chart is adapted from Stats Canada’s “Fertility indicators, provinces and territories: Interactive dashboard” posted to StatsCan.gc.ca on Sept. 25, 2024. Used with permission. This does not constitute an endorsement by Statistics Canada of this product.


Today's Devotional

October 17 - Carrying the cross for Christ 

“And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."” - Luke 18:29-30

Scripture reading: Luke 14:25-33

Clearly our Lord Jesus calls >

Today's Manna Podcast

Manna Podcast banner: Manna Daily Scripture Meditations and open Bible with jar logo

Imagine you could never eat pork

Serving #633 of Manna, prepared by Paul Aasman, is called "Imagine you could never eat pork".











Red heart icon with + sign.
News

One step forward, two steps back in Online Harms bill

What do pornography and hate speech have in common? Well, the federal government says they are both harmful. That’s why they’ve wrapped these issues up together in their recently announced Online Harms Act, otherwise known as Bill C-63. As the government’s news release stated, “Online harms have real world impact with tragic, even fatal, consequences.” As such, the government is of the mind that the responsibility for regulating all sorts of online harm falls to them. But the approach of the government in Bill C-63, though it contains some good content, is inadequate. BACKGROUND In June 2021, the federal government introduced hate speech legislation focused on hate propaganda, hate crime, and hate speech. The bill was widely criticized, including in ARPA Canada’s analysis, and failed to advance prior to the fall 2021 election. Nonetheless, the Liberal party campaigned in part on a promise to bring forward similar legislation within 100 days of re-election. Over two years have passed since the last federal election. In the meantime, the government pursued a consultation and an expert panel on the topic of online harms. Based on these and feedback from stakeholders, the government has now tabled legislation combatting online harm more broadly. Bill C-63 defines seven types of “harmful content”: a) intimate content communicated without consent; b) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; c) content that induces a child to harm themselves; d) content used to bully a child; e) content that foments hatred; f) content that incites violence; and g) content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. The hate speech elements of Bill C-63 are problematic for Canadians’ freedom of expression. We will address those further on. But though the bill could be improved, it is a step in the right direction on the issue of child sexual exploitation. DIGITAL SAFETY OVERSIGHT If passed, part 1 of the Online Harms Act will create a new Digital Safety Commission to help develop online safety standards, promote online safety, and administer and enforce the Online Harms Act. A Digital Safety Ombudsperson will also be appointed to advocate for and support online users. The Commission will hold online providers accountable and, along with the Ombudsperson, provide an avenue for victims of online harm to bring forward complaints. Finally, a Digital Safety Office will be established to support the Commission and Ombudsperson. The Commission and Ombudsperson will have a mandate to address any of the seven categories of harm listed above. But their primary focus, according to the bill, will be “content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor” and “intimate content communicated without consent.” Users can submit complaints or make other submissions about harmful content online, and the Commission is given power to investigate and issue compliance orders where necessary. Social media services are the primary target of the Online Harms Act. The Act defines “social media service” as: “a website or application that is accessible in Canada, the primary purpose of which is to facilitate interprovincial or international online communication among users of the website or application by enabling them to access and share content.” Further clarification is provided to include: an adult content service, namely a social media service that is focused on enabling its users to access and share pornographic content; and a live streaming service, namely a social media service that is focused on enabling its users to access and share content by live stream. Oversight will be based on the size of a social media service, including the number of users. So, at the very least, the Digital Safety Commission will regulate online harm not only on major social media sites including Facebook, X, and Instagram, but also on pornography sites and live streaming services. Some specifics are provided in Bill C-63, but the bill would grant the government broad powers to enact regulations to supplement the Act. The bill itself is unclear regarding the extent to which the Commission will address online harm besides pornography, such as hate speech. What we do know is that the Digital Safety Commission and Ombudsman will oversee the removal of “online harms” but will not punish individuals who post or share harmful content. DUTIES OF OPERATORS Three duties laid out in Bill C-63 apply to any operator of a regulated social media service – for example, Facebook or Pornhub. The Act lists three overarching duties that operators of social media services must adhere to. 1. Duty to act responsibly The duty to act responsibly includes: mitigating risks of exposure to harmful content, implementing tools that allow users to flag harmful content, designating an employee as a resource for users of the service, and ensuring that a digital safety plan is prepared. This duty relates to harmful content broadly. Although each category of “harmful content” is defined further in the Act, the operator is responsible to determine whether the content is harmful. While it’s important for the Commission to remove illegal pornography, challenges may arise with the Commission seeking to remove speech that a user has flagged as harmful.  2. Duty to protect children The meaning of the duty to protect children is not clearly defined. The bill notes that: “an operator must integrate into a regulated service that it operates any design features respecting the protection of children, such as age-appropriate design, that are provided for by regulations.” This could refer to age-appropriate designs in the sense that children are not drawn into harmful content; it could refer to warning labels on pornography sites, or it could potentially require some level of age-verification for children to access harmful content. These regulations, however, will be established by the Commission following the passage of the Online Harms Act. The Liberal government says that its Online Harms Act makes Bill S-210 unnecessary. Bill S-210 would require age-verification for access to online pornography. In its current form, however, the Online Harms Act does nothing to directly restrict minors’ access to pornography. It would allow minors to flag content as harmful and requires “age-appropriate design” but would not require pornography sites to refuse access to youth. As such, ARPA will continue to advocate for the passage of Bill S-210 to restrict access to pornography and hold pornography sites accountable.  3. Duty to make certain content inaccessible Finally, Bill C-63 will make social media companies responsible for making certain content inaccessible on their platforms. This section is primarily focused on content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent. ARPA has lauded provincial efforts in British Columbia and Manitoba to crack down on such content in the past year. If such content is flagged on a site and deemed to be harmful, the operators must make it inaccessible within 24 hours and keep it inaccessible. In 2020, Pornhub was credibly accused of hosting videos featuring minors. Additionally, many women noted that they had requested Pornhub to remove non-consensual videos of themselves and that Pornhub had failed to do so. At the time, ARPA Canada submitted a brief to the Committee studying sexual exploitation on Pornhub. Our first recommendation was that pornography platforms must be required to verify age and consent before uploading content. Second, we recommended that victims must have means for immediate legal recourse to have content removed from the internet. This duty to make content inaccessible will provide some recourse for victims to flag content and have it removed quickly. Further, the Commission will provide accountability to ensure the removal of certain content and that it remains inaccessible. The Act creates a new bureaucratic agency for this purpose rather than holding companies accountable through the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is arguably a stronger deterrent. For example, Bill C-270, scheduled for second reading in the House of Commons in April 2024, would make it a criminal offence to create or distribute pornographic material without first confirming that any person depicted was over 18 years of age and gave express consent to the content. Bill C-270 would amend the Criminal Code to further protect vulnerable people. Instead of criminal penalties, the Online Harms Act would institute financial penalties for failure to comply with the legislation. Of course, given the sheer volume of online traffic and social media content and the procedural demands of enforcing criminal laws, a strong argument can be made that criminal prohibitions alone are insufficient to deal with the problem. But if new government agencies with oversight powers are to be established, it’s crucial that the limits of their powers are clearly and carefully defined and that they are held accountable to them. THE GOOD NEWS… This first part of the Online Harms Act contains some important attempts to combat online pornography and child sexual exploitation. As Reformed Christians, we understand that a lot of people are using online platforms to promote things that are a direct violation of God’s intention for flourishing in human relationships. This bill certainly doesn’t correct all those wrongs, but it at least recognizes that there is improvement needed for how these platforms are used to ensure vulnerable Canadians are protected. Most Canadians support requiring social media companies to remove child pornography or non-consensual pornography. In a largely unregulated internet, many Canadians also support holding social media companies accountable for such content, especially companies that profit from pornography and sexual exploitation. Bill C-63 is the government’s attempt to bring some regulation to this area. … AND NOW THE BAD NEWS But while some of the problems addressed through the bill are objectively harmful, how do we avoid subjective definitions of harm? Bill C-63 raises serious questions about freedom of expression. Free speech is foundational to democracy. In Canada, it is one of our fundamental freedoms under section 2 of the Charter. Attempts to curtail speech in any way are often seen as an assault on liberty. Bill C-63 would amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act to combat hate speech online. But the bill gives too much discretion to government actors to decide what constitutes hate speech. HARSHER FOR “HATE SPEECH” CRIMES The Criminal Code has several offences that fall under the colloquial term “hate speech.” The Code prohibits advocating genocide, publicly inciting hatred that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, or willfully promoting hatred or antisemitism. The latter offence is potentially broader, but it also provides several defenses, including: the statement was true the statement was a good faith attempt to argue a religious view the statement was about an important public issue meriting discussion and the person reasonably believed the statement was true Bill C-63 would increase the maximum penalties for advocating genocide and inciting or promoting hatred or antisemitism. The maximum penalty for advocating genocide would increase to life in prison instead of five years. The bill would also raise the penalty for publicly inciting hatred or promoting hatred or antisemitism to five years instead of the current two. Bill C-63 defines “hatred” as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.” It also clarifies that a statement does not incite or promote hatred “solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.” This clarification is better than nothing, but it inevitably relies on judges to determine the line between statements that are merely offensive or humiliating and those that generate emotions of vilification and detestation. ARPA Canada recently intervened in a criminal hate speech case involving Bill Whatcott. Whatcott was charged with criminal hate speech for handing out flyers at a pride parade warning about the health risks of engaging in homosexual relations. Prosecutors argued that Whatcott was promoting hatred against an identifiable group by condemning homosexual conduct. This is an example of a person being accused of hate speech for expressing his beliefs – his manner of expressing those beliefs, but also the content of his beliefs. NEW STAND-ALONE HATE CRIME OFFENCE The Criminal Code already makes hatred a factor in sentencing. So, for example, if you assault someone and there is conclusive evidence that your assault was motivated by racial hatred, that “aggravating factor” will likely mean a harsher sentence for you. But the offence is still assault, and the maximum penalties for assault still apply. Bill C-63, however, would add a new hate crime offence – any offence motivated by hatred – to the Criminal Code, and it may be punishable by life in prison. It would mean that any crime found to be motivated by hatred would count as two crimes. Consider an act of vandalism, for example. The crime of mischief (which includes damaging property) has a maximum penalty of 10 years. But, if you damaged property because of hatred toward a group defined by race, religion, or sexuality, you could face an additional criminal charge and potentially life in prison. ANTICIPATORY HATE CRIMES? Bill C-63 would permit a person to bring evidence before a court based on fear that someone will commit hate speech or a hate crime in the future. The court may then order the accused to “keep the peace and be of good behavior” for up to 12 months and subject that person to conditions including wearing an electronic monitoring device, curfews, house arrest, or abstaining from consuming drugs or alcohol. There are other circumstances in which people can go to court for fear that a crime will be committed – for example, if you have reason to believe that someone will damage your property, or cause you injury, or commit terrorism. However, challenges with unclear or subjective definitions of hatred will only be accentuated when determining if someone will commit hate speech or a hate crime. BRINGING BACK SECTION 13 This is the first time the government has tried to regulate hate speech. The former section 13 of the Canada Human Rights Act prohibited online communications that were “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” on the basis of their race, religion, sexuality, etc. As noted by Joseph Brean in the National Post, section 13 was passed in 1977, mainly in response to telephone hotlines that played racist messages. From there, the restrictions around hate speech were extended to the internet (telecommunications, including internet, falls under federal jurisdiction) until Parliament repealed section 13 in 2013. Joseph Brean writes that section 13 “was basically only ever used by one complainant, a lawyer named Richard Warman, who targeted white supremacists and neo-Nazis and never lost.” In fact, Warman brought forward 16 hate speech cases and won them all. A catalyst for the controversy over human rights hate speech provisions was a case involving journalist Ezra Levant. Levant faced a human rights complaint for publishing Danish cartoons of Muhammad in 2006. In response to being charged, Levant published a video of an interview with an investigator from the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Then in 2007, a complaint was brought against Maclean’s magazine for publishing an article by Mark Steyn that was critical of Islam. Such stories brought section 13 to public attention and revealed how human rights law was being used to quash officially disapproved political views. Bill C-63 would bring back a slightly revised section 13. The new section 13 states: “It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” A few exceptions apply. For example, this section would not apply to private communication or to social media services that are simply hosting content posted and shared by users. So, for example, if someone wanted to bring a complaint about an ARPA post on Facebook, that complaint could be brought against ARPA, but not against Facebook. If a person is found guilty of hate speech, the Human Rights Tribunal may order the offender to pay up to $20,000 to the victim, and up to $50,000 to the government. This possibility of financial benefit incentivizes people to bring forward hate speech complaints. British Columbia has a similar hate speech provision in its Human Rights Code. ARPA wrote about how that provision was interpreted and enforced to punish someone for saying that a “trans woman” is really a man. The Tribunal condemned a flyer in that case for “communicat rejection of diversity in the individual self-fulfillment of living in accordance with one’s own gender identity.” The Tribunal went on to reject the argument that the flyer was not intended to promote hatred or discrimination, “but only to ‘bring attention to what views as immoral behaviour, based on his religious belief as a Christian’.” Ultimately, the Tribunal argued that there was no difference between promoting hatred and bringing attention to what the defendant viewed as immoral behavior. NO DEFENSES FOR CHRISTIANS? As noted above, when it comes to the Criminal Code’s hate speech offences, there are several defenses available (truth, expressing a religious belief, and advancing public debate). These are important defenses that allow Canadians to say what they believe to be true and to express sincere religious beliefs. But the Canadian Human Rights Act offers no defenses. And complaints of hate speech in human rights law are far easier to bring and to prosecute than criminal charges. Criminal law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. But under the Human Rights Act, statements that are likely (i.e. 51% chance, in Tribunal’s view) to cause detestation or vilification will be punishable. So, hate speech would be regulated in two different places, the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act, the latter offering fewer procedural rights and a lower standard of proof. Bill C-63 clarifies that a statement is not detestation or vilification “solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.” But again, the line between dislike and detestation is unclear. Human rights complaints are commonly submitted because of humiliation or offence, rather than any clear connection to detestation or vilification. Section 13 leaves too much room for subjective and ideologically motivated interpretations of what constitutes hate speech. The ideological bias that often manifests is a critical theory lens, which sees “privileged” groups like Christians as capable only of being oppressors/haters, while others are seen as “equity-seeking” groups. For example, in a 2003 case called Johnson v. Music World Ltd., a complaint was made against the writer of a song called “Kill the Christian.” A sample: Armies of darkness unite  Destroy their temples and churches with fire  Where in this world will you hide  Sentenced to death, the anointment of christ   Put you out of your misery  The death of prediction  Kill the christian  Kill the christian…dead!  The Tribunal noted that the content and tone appeared to be hateful. However, because the Tribunal thought Christians were not a vulnerable group, it decided this was not hate speech. By contrast, in a 2008 case called Lund v. Boissoin, a panel deemed a letter to the editor of a newspaper that was critical of homosexuality to be hate speech. The chair of the panel was the same person in both Johnson and Lund. Hate speech provisions are potentially problematic for Christians who seek to speak truth about various issues in our society. Think about conversion therapy laws that ban talking about biblical gender and sexuality in some settings, or bubble zone laws that prevent pro-life expression in designated areas. But beyond that, freedom of speech is also important for those with whom we may disagree. It is important to be able to have public dialogue on various public issues.    GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN REGULATING SPEECH This all raises serious questions about whether the government should be regulating “hate speech” at all. After all, hate speech provisions in the Human Rights Act or the Criminal Code have led and could lead to inappropriate censorship. But government also has a legitimate role to play in protecting citizens from harm.  1. Reputational harm and safety from threats of violence Arguably the government’s role in protecting citizens from harm includes reputational harm. Imagine someone was spreading accusations in your town that everyone in your church practices child abuse, for example. That is an attack on your reputation as a group and as individual members of the group – which is damaging and could lead to other harms, possibly even violence. Speech can do real damage. But Jeremy Waldron, a prominent legal philosopher and a Christian, suggests that the best way to think about and enforce “hate speech” laws is as a prohibition on defaming or libeling a group, similar to how our law has long punished defaming or libeling an individual. Such a conception may help to rein in the scope of what we call “hate speech,” placing the focus on demonstrably false and damaging accusations, rather than on controversial points of view on matters relating to religion or sexuality, for example. Hatred is a sin against the 6th commandment, but the government cannot regulate or criminalize emotions per se or expressions of them, except insofar as they are expressed in and through criminal acts or by encouraging others to commit criminal acts. That’s why we rightly have provisions against advocating or inciting terrorism or genocide, or counseling or encouraging someone to commit assault, murder, or any other crime. When the law fails to set an objective standard, however, it is open to abuse – for example, by finding a biblical view of gender and sexuality to constitute hate speech. Regrettably, Bill C-63 opens up more room for subjectivity and ideologically based restrictions on speech. It does nothing to address the troubling interpretations of “hate speech” that we’ve seen in many cases in the past. And, by putting hate speech back into the Human Rights Act, the bill makes many more such abuses possible. We suspect it will result in restricting speech that is culturally unacceptable rather than objectively harmful.  2. Harm of pornography As discussed earlier, Bill C-63 does introduce some good restrictions when it comes to online pornography. In our view, laws restricting pornography are categorically different from laws restricting “hate speech,” because the former laws are not designed to or in danger of being applied to censor beliefs, opinions, or arguments. Restricting illegal pornography prevents objectively demonstrable harm. Pornography takes acts that ought to express love and marital union and displays them for consumption and the gratification of others. Much of it depicts degrading or violent behavior. Pornography’s harms, especially to children, are well documented. The argument is often made that pornography laws risk censoring artistic expression involving sexuality or nudity. But Canada is very far, both culturally and legally, from censoring art for that reason – and Bill C-63 wouldn’t do so. Its objectives as they relate to pornography are mainly to reduce the amount of child pornography and non-consensual pornography easily available online.  CONCLUSION While the Online Harms Act contains some good elements aimed at combatting online pornography, its proposed hate speech provisions are worrisome. Unfortunately, the federal government chose to deal with both issues in one piece of legislation – this should have been two separate bills. As Bill C-63 begins to progress through the House of Commons, we can continue to support Bills S-210 and C-270, private members’ bills which combat the online harms of pornography. Meanwhile, head to ARPACanada.org for action items related to the Online Harms Act. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Scottish minister charges police with hate for their hate crime campaign

The Scottish government and Scottish police have joined together under the banner "One Scotland" to campaign against hate crimes using videos and a variety of billboards. One billboard reads: Dear bigots, you can't spread your religious hate here. End of sermon. Yours, Scotland. Another, longer one, says: Dear bigots, division seems to be what you believe in. We don't want your religious hate on our buses, on our streets and in our communities. We don't want you spreading your intolerance. Or making people's lives a misery because of their religious dress. You may not have faith in respect and love, but we do. That's why if we see or hear your hate, we're reporting you.  End of sermon.  Yours, Scotland The minister at St Peters Free Church (and former moderator of the Free Church of Scotland) David Robertson, was quick to point out the problem with this campaign – the police have lumped hate crimes (crimes motivated by hate...as opposed to those motivated by love?) in with "hate incidents." Vague definitions mean that the police's hate crime campaign might well be violating their own definition of a hate incident. On his blog (theweeflea.com) Robertson shared a letter he had written to the police and government to report to them their own "hate incident" and began with their definition: “A hate incident is any incident that is not a criminal offence, but something which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hate or prejudice.” On these incredibly vague grounds, he points out that on a day-to-day basis, he experiences a lot of anti-Christian "hate." He gives as examples, parishioners who have been bullied at work and in higher education. But he also quotes a number of emails that he regularly receives, such as: “Personally, as a secularist, I hate religion and feel I have every right to, despite attempts by the Scottish government to sneak a blasphemy law round the back door by making it an offence this year to hate religion.” He then points out that the inundation of billboards is in and of itself "hate incidents," promoting anger and hatred against religion, possibly resulting in vandalism against churches and worse. He also points out that the problem with the term "hate crime" is that it bears with it the threat of criminal prosecution. We can learn from Robertson's response to the officials in Scotland. With some wit, he points out the self-contradicting nature of their own propaganda, and then takes the time to ensure there is no doubt that he is against bullying and hatred...and also governments that exceed their proper limits. Hatred, as we know from Scripture, is a sin, but things such as murder and assault are sins as well as crimes. Sin must be repented of, and then forgiven in Christ. Crimes must be punished by the government, and it is difficult to judge something based on feelings in a court of law. At the end of the day, the irrationality of such a billboard campaign may be clear enough for even the culture at large to see. It is internally incoherent, as can be seen in their two fundamental principles: 1) Hatred is a crime 2) I hate haters One other Christian voice has chimed in with wit and humor to expose this campaign. A Christian think tank and advocacy group, Christian Concern, created three alternative posters copying the very same style. One read: Dear One Scotland, All people should be free to express their views, even if they offend other people. This is what freedom of speech means. How about promising to protect those whose views others might find offensive? This is how democracy works.  Love,  Some Christian friends And we'll leave them with the last word: Dear One Scotland, Do you really think that churches are teaching their members to be hateful towards others? Or to be violent towards people we disagree with? Why not pop into a church sometime and find out what we really think? Love, Some Christian friends...





Red heart icon with + sign.
Book Reviews, Graphic novels

The Unwanted: Stories of Syrian refugees

by Don Brown 2018 / 104 pages This is not a pleasant read because it lays out a tragedy for which there seems no ready solution. In 2011, Syria descended into civil war after the dictatorial ruler, President Bashar al-Assad, used his military force to attempt to squelch protests. But the deaths that resulted only sparked more protests. Soon Assad's own soldiers were joining with the protesters. And for the dozen years since then, the country has been in a constant state of conflict. And with constant warfare comes refugees. Of Syria's pre-war population of 22 million, at least 5 million have fled after their homes were destroyed or their friends, neighbors, or family members were shot and killed. That's what this book is about: the millions of Syrian refugees' search for safety and security. As Don Brown explains, many Syrians were forced to leave with little or nothing to their name. While there was compassion for them early, as the thousands fleeing turned into millions fleeing, the refugees became an increasing expense for any nation that allowed them in. So borders started being blocked, barbwire went up, and anyone who wanted to leave had to turn to smugglers, some of whom would deliver on their promises, sneaking the refugees across the border. But others would prey on the fleeing Syrians, taking their money but doing little or nothing for them. It is a sad, sad story, and it continues to this day. What Don Brown doesn't get into much is the legitimate security concerns countries have about letting thousands and hundreds of thousands of refugees in. Most are Muslim, and many are undocumented, making it easy for radical elements to hide amongst them. So, countries would want to check credentials before letting a refugee in. But how can you check credentials they don't have? At the same time, the Bible tells us that whoever is generous to the needy honors his Maker (Prov. 14:31). So, how can help be offered on this enormous scale? Cautions While Don Brown is very restrained in showing the impacts of the war, there are a few panels where, even as most of the violence occurred just out of frame, some blood is shown. That, and the overall topic matter, means this is one for high school. Conclusion I think the strength of the book is that Don Brown spends his time explaining the problem without pretending to have a solution. There is no simple solution. But there is a pressing need. And there are some individual actions that can be done, like praying for God's intervention. The peace that no one seems able to bring, only He can accomplish. Another possibility is donating to Syrian relief efforts like the Canadian Reformed World Relief Fund....

Red heart icon with + sign.
Book Reviews, Graphic novels

Fever year: the killer flu of 1918

by Don Brown 2019 / 96 pages In the Spring of 1918, even as the First World War was winding down, a more deadly foe made its presence known. An army cook, in Camp Funston, Kansas, reported sick, and over the next month a thousand of his campmates would also fall ill. Author Don Brown seems to be making the case that the Spanish Flu didn't originate in Spain, but in America, making the jump overseas with the soldiers that departed as the US entered the "war to end all wars." That, however, is a contentious point. The other sources I consulted agree that the disease was called the Spanish Flu only because the Spanish press was being more open about the numbers of citizens being struck down, and not because they were the actual source of the sickness. The true source of the illness seems to be a mystery. What's uncontested is the devastating nature of the epidemic. Before it was through, the Spanish Flu would travel around the world, and more than 50 million would die. By way of comparison, about half that numbered died during the entirety of the First World War, and as many as a third of those were from the Spanish Flu, and not weapons. The moral of Don Brown's story could be taken in very different directions, based on the particular bias of the reader. That this flu jumped from city to city via infected travelers could be seen as proving the need for lockdowns. That health authorities assured the public of facts not in evidence – that there was no reason to worry – could be used to argue health authorities have a long history of lying to us. That New York kept schools and most businesses open, and that the city had a lower than average death rate, could be used to argue against lockdowns. That San Francisco embraced masks but had the worst death rate on the west coast might be used to argue against masks' efficacy. Or folks could look to how San Francisco banned all social gatherings except church services and see that as evidence that their ban needed to go further. As you can see, there is a lot information offered up, and it points in all sorts of directions. What's more certain are the heroes: doctors and nurses who worked endless hours trying to aid the ever growing numbers in need. Neighbors and even the elderly all chipped in when whole families would get laid low. Brown details the search for a vaccine, and how there was a real mystery to be solved. Though the flu was obviously highly contagious, doctors weren't sure about the how. Sick patients could cough right in the face of volunteers without infecting them. Cautions This graphic novel came out at the end of 2019, 100 years after the Spanish Flu it chronicles, but just a few months before COVID-19 made its appearance. I've been wondering ever since if that was the very worst of times, or the best of times for this graphic novel to get published. If I'd reviewed this during the lockdowns, I might have added cautions about drawing too strong a conclusion from the information offered up in a comic book. That's still a good thought, but a little less necessary. While Don Brown illustrates the dead with some restraint – simple lines communicate discomfort and pain, but aren't realistic enough to really shock – this still isn't a comic for kids. 50 million people died from the Spanish Flu, so the topic is too grim for the very young. But I'd recommend it as a great one for a high school library. Conclusion Our recent history makes that an even more intriguing, and even more sobering read. What we went through parallels much of what the world endured then, though theirs was the far deadlier plague. That a virus can infect a third of the world reminds everyone to "seek the Lord while He may be found" (Is. 55). That's a lesson we were reminded of in the last few years, and one everyone would do well not to forget....





Red heart icon with + sign.
Documentary, Movie Reviews

American Gospel: Christ alone

Documentary 2018 / 139 minutes RATING: 8/10 In one of the documentary's many memorable moments Costi Hinn, the nephew of televangelist and faith healer Benny Hinn, describes how, while working for his uncle, they would stay in $20,000-a-night luxury suites, fly in private jets, and eat in the very best restaurants. His uncle was not ashamed of this lifestyle since he preached that God wanted his people to be wealthy. But the extravagant lifestyle did start to wear on Costi Hinn: "Another hotel that sticks out in my mind is called the Grand Resort... it's in Greece and ironically, it's set on the Aegean Sea. I had my own suite, my own pool and there I stood every day looking out over the Aegean Sea. If you know your Bible at all, Paul sailed the Aegean Sea on many missionary journeys. And so here I am, a Word of Faith/Prosperity kid looking out where Paul was shipwrecked, where he went through literally chaos and hell on earth, just to get the gospel out to people, and now I am staying at 5-star hotels..." He began to recognize the contrast between the "God wants you to be rich" message he was spreading, and the message of Jesus, who prepared his disciples to be hated and persecuted (John 15:18, 2 Tim 3:12) but that they could endure it all knowing they had Christ. American Gospel: Christ Alone is about the many churches that have replaced Christ with what we hope to get Him to do for us. In this alternative gospel, Jesus isn't the gift; instead what is on offer is the American Dream: if we love God enough, and give enough to Him (via gifts to the right preachers), then He'll give us the nice car, the beautiful wife, and the big house with the picket fence all around. Why should you watch? That's a lie that most Reformed folk aren't falling for, or at least, not straight on. So why should we watch this documentary? One reason might be to help others. If you know any Christian friends tuning in to preachers like Kenneth Copeland, Paula White, Joel Osteen, Todd White, and Benny Hinn, then this would be a great film to watch together. It exposes their health-and-wealth, name-it-and-claim-it, prosperity gospel for the sham that it is. Another reason is to better understand how, even in solid, orthodox Reformed churches, we can still buy into a prosperity-lite counterfeit. The version we adopt might be masked by other names, like "the Protestant work ethic." It isn't preached off our pulpits, but it is in amongst the pews. The hardworking sort that we are, our heart may start to feel some sense of entitlement. We'd never say out loud that God owes us anything, but if we did right by our family, helped at the Church and school, and put in the hours at the office then...shouldn't God want to reward us? And with that comes the pressure to keep up appearances. If hard work is supposed to earn you anything, then if you aren't successful, there must be something wrong with you, right? The end result of this train of thought is that works are done, not out of gratitude for what God has already done for us, but out of fear of what others might think. As one of the interviewees noted: "You can grow up in a church, hear a gospel about freedom, and still work your tail off trying to maintain the image that you're a good person." So yes, we can also benefit from this false gospel take-down. Powerful insight Some of the most impactful interviews are the ordinary Christians. We meet Katherine Berger, who has had one medical issue after another but is happier today than when she was healthy because she now knows the true Jesus. It also doesn't hurt that there are some really insightful Christian leaders interviewed. Some of the recognizable names include: Jackie Hill-Perry Matt Chandler Ray Comfort Nabeel Qureshi Phil Johnson John MacArthur Michael Horton John Piper R. Scott Clark Steven J. Lawson Paul Washer Their responses are stitched together so seamlessly the film doesn't even have a narrator – a minor detail, but it highlights just how well-produced it is. If all I have is Jesus... Ultimately what makes American Gospel worth watching is what it teaches us about Christ. It tells us about a God so good that should we lose everything else – our health, our home, money, and family too – and we have Jesus, then we have more than we could ever imagine. The full film can be rented or bought online at their website here. But if you want to try before you buy, you can watch a 40-minute excerpt for free below. ...