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

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Equipping Christians to think, speak, and act delivered direct to your Inbox!

Log In Create an Account Contact Us

Save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.



News

Saturday Selections – June 29, 2024

Click on the titles below for the linked articles...

Presidential debate was between a pro-choice candidate and a pro-abortion one

Two US presidents debated each other this past week, both competing for a second term. It was a debate like no other, without a studio audience or even the White House press corp in attendance, and both presidents' mikes were muted when it wasn't their turn to speak. Commerical breaks – not normally a feature of these debates – were also inserted, giving both participants breaks to regroup. It might have been the most managed of all presidential debates. The Christian kids' news site World Watch explains it for kids below.

And for a deeper dive, click on the article link above for Jonathon Van Maren's take.

Why can't men give birth to puppies? (10-min read)

Some folks in India really believe that if they are bitten by a rabid dog, that will impregnate them with little puppies. The only cure? Talk to your local witch doctor who has a 100% success rate.

Why are we talking about something so ridiculous? Because our culture needs some clarity about how believing something doesn't make it so. We've fallen for "Man, I feel like a woman" being somehow a transformative belief. But why does that belief transform reality, and not the sincerely held belief that some men have that they are in danger of giving birth to dogs?

CRC calls its LGBT-affirming congregations to repent

Welcome news from a denomination many readers are familiar with. Its call to repentance was passed by a vote of 134-50.

Are we more anxious, or is this term usage being expanded? Or might it be both?

There is a general trend in the world to empty words of their meaning. Think of terms like "marriage" and "gender" that have been expanded to mean whatever each individual wants them to mean. The definition of "woman" has become so uncertain that even a US Supreme Court Justice has trouble defining it.

This article charts how the terms "anxiety" and "depression" are also undergoing a change, expanding who they each cover. So are new technologies like smartphones really making us more anxious, or have these terms simply been expanded to include people they didn't include before? Or might it be a case of both happening at once?

Doctor Who and how bad TV can get

When the BBC show Doctor Who first premiered in 1963, it was a cheesy but slightly educational show, as the time-traveling alien could visit all sorts of historical figures. But in recent years the show has gotten almost comically bad, the normalizaiton of the LGBT agenda now its primary raison d'être.

And they are not the only ones – a recent Star Wars Tales of the Empire episode had two inquisitors murder a Jedi, but both were careful to call him by his desired "they/them" pronouns. More and more often, "this is the way."

Super awkward abortion conversation at Walgreens... (4 min)

Pro-life groups are getting more creative about not just who unborn babies are, but what it means to be be an adult male.

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

We aren’t alone! 1,000+ converge in Texas for courageous faith

In  1 Kings 19 we find Elijah lamenting to God that the Israelites had rejected God’s covenant and that he alone was left, and Queen Jezebel was out to kill him too. God informed Elijah that he had it wrong, and that God had reserved a throng of 7,000 others who had not bowed to Baal. I recently assembled with a couple dozen Canadians and over a thousand others in Arlington, Texas for the 2024 Colson Center national conference. Listening to the stories and seeing this throng of believers, it was very evident that God continues to preserve His people through each age, and that He also calls us to stand firm in the face of the Jezebels of our day. As I’ve shared before, the Colson Center equips Christians to apply their faith to the cultural moment where God has placed us. This particular conference was focused on equipping attendees for “courageous faith.” As the organizers explained: “Faithfulness to Christ is not possible when we capitulate to profane cultural narratives, no matter how often or loud they are repeated…. The clash between the sacred and the profane is no longer ‘out there’ and the pressure to compromise is not merely hypothetical.” Courage past and present In the opening session on “courageous citizenship,” the Colson Center’s John Stonestreet interviewed Rod Dreher, the author of the well-known book Live Not by Lies, and also Kamila Bendová, who was featured in Dreher’s book. Dr. Bendová and her family live in the Czech Republic. Along with her late husband Václav Benda, they raised six children while holding underground seminars in opposition to their communist government, all while having their home bugged. Dr. Bendová shared how she didn’t protect her children from their resistance efforts but rather involved them. Now, many decades later, she reflects that all of her children and grandchildren have remained faithful. We can learn from the past, but need to live in the present. Doctor Kristin Collier spoke about the courage to change your mind, recounting how her journey from unbelief to faith in Christ resulted in 180 degree changes to her convictions about contentious issues like abortion. God then forced her to make a choice to follow Him in her public work as well, which came at a cost. She pointed us to Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one,” noting that at the core of courage is listening to and obeying the Word of God. Reverend Calvin Robinson, a broadcaster and commentator from England who himself was cancelled for his faith, challenged participants “we are called to be cancelled for our faith. We should embrace it rather than be afraid of it.” He proceeded to outline how our spiritual enemy is trying to divide and conquer by having Christians look to each other as moral compasses rather than looking to the teachings of Christ. Other speakers bravely and compassionately shared their stories and lessons about critical theory, cultivating a healthy identity, artificial reproduction, transgenderism, palliative care, and encountering suffering, all through the lens of living faithfully for our Lord. Conference connections It is one thing to read articles, listen to podcasts, or watch videos about these matters and another to be physically present with hundreds of other followers of Christ, growing in our walk together. We don’t all get the privilege of doing that at a conference like this, but we do have the ability to gather with our brothers and sisters in church weekly, in addition to Bible studies and fellowship in our homes. Let’s not miss these opportunities to spur each other on to godliness in this present age! If it interests you, the next Colson Center national conference is scheduled for May 30 to June 1, 2025 in Louisville, Kentucky, and we heard that Reformed authors Carl Trueman and Rosaria Butterfield are both scheduled to speak there. Pro-life apologist Scott Klusendorf will also be there. You can find out more at ColsonConference.org. Although Canada isn’t blessed with a conference like this, Reformed Perspective hopes to help change this with something similar (though much smaller and simpler) in the years to come. As valuable as a magazine, podcast, newsletter, website, and apps are, there is no substitute to gathering with others to worship God together and spur each other on in our walk. Mark and Jaclyn Penninga were just a couple of the Canadians at the Colson Conference. Other Reformed Christians included Rev. and Mrs. Slomp, and RP contributor Mark Slomp and his wife Jennifer....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Should government try to boost fertility?

In his article, “We are not taking Canada’s fertility crisis seriously enough,” economist Tim Sargent highlights that a society with fewer couples and children will have more loneliness and depression, and will struggle to afford pensions and healthcare. His solution? For governments to create incentives that make it easier to have and care for children. This could include making housing more affordable, offering financial incentives through the tax system, helping with childcare costs and reducing education requirements so young people can enter the workforce earlier. The trouble is, there’s very little evidence that government incentives can increase the birth rate. According to The Economist, since 2006 South Korea has been spending just over 1% of their GDP a year on incentives such as tax breaks for parents, maternity care and state-sponsored dating. And yet they continue to have the lowest birth rate in the world. Hungary has also put a lot of effort into increasing its birth rate, with some success, but they have not yet succeeded in raising the number of births to a “replacement rate” of 2.1 births per woman. The best a government policy seems to be able to do is to slow down the population decline. And this makes sense – birth rates tend to be higher not in richer countries with more incentives but in poorer countries with low GDP. Money alone is unlikely to be the solution. While people instinctively feel a lack of money is a major factor, other areas of life (that government has less control over) play a significant role in the low birth rate as well – like the fraying social fabric which puts people at odds with each other, the lack of community support that makes potential parents feel insecure, and the pressure to establish a career before a family. Other challenges include the struggle singles who want children experience in finding a like-minded partner to settle down with, the pervasive cultural messages that raising children is stressful and burdensome, and the looming sense of despair that a large number of young people feel about their future. These are not simple challenges for a government policy to address! In contrast, the Church may be able to play a more effective role in providing social support, encouragement, and hope in the face of despair to potential young parents....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – June 15, 2024

Dr. Matthew Wielicki: I refused to stay silent about climate change (8 min) One silver lining to the COVID-related censorship that happened on social media was that everyone got to see it. Mention the "lab-leak" theory and your post would be banned or have a warning label assigned to it... no matter that the case for the theory was always obvious. This "shut up the critics" tactic has long been employed in origins research too – 6-day creationists and even Intelligent Design proponents were excluded from publishing in the mainstream science journals, no matter how high the quality of their research. It shouldn't surprise us to learn that this same sort of censorship and pressure is being exerted on the climate front. As Dr. Matthew Wielicki shares, "This isn't about truth. This is about silencing people who disagree with you..." Hopeful amillennialism How is God going to bring this broken world to an end? That's a much-debated topic in Reformed circles, but maybe not all that hotly, simply because we don't think it a "salvific" issue. That's why we can more easily leave it as a matter where we might be a bit muddled. That said, one thing is clear: if you are a pessimistic amillennial, you need to repent. 3 core beliefs of the transgender movement It's no coincidence that these three beliefs run almost exactly opposite to what God has said.  As Samuel Ferguson explains, the transgender movement affirms that: My identity is self-determined My feelings, not my body, determine my gender We find wholeness through external, not internal, change Transgenderism isn't primarily an attack on logic, but rather a specific assault on God's Truth. Any godless argument against transgenderism is, then, going to be akin to standing up for your favorite athlete when the guy you're talking to has just spent the last fifteen minutes talking about your mom's weight. You're not addressing the real fight! This is a spiritual battle, and God's people need to defend Who is really being attacked. We need to give the world what it really needs to hear: that God has assigned us our gender, and given us an identity, and we can mar and mutilate, or receive and celebrate, what He has given us. Beating bullies with a compliment Kids will often have fun at another child's expense by insulting them – one child can feel big by making another feel small. Sometimes teachers will have to be involved. But as Prov. 15:1 notes, "a gentle answer turns away wrath..."  and what's proposed in this article is a version of that: try giving the bully a sincere compliment. What are they teaching kids about sex in public schools? This is a US article, but there's no reason to think it any different in Canada – mention of "alternative lifestyles" is going to be affirming. How eating out keeps you poor (7 min) Even if you don't eat out nearly as often as these people, this will still be "food" for thought for most of us. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – May 18, 2024

Gray Havens: See You Again (3 min) This Gray Havens' song is an attempted answer to a question that many a married couple has wondered: how can there be no marriage in heaven (Matt. 22:30)? In my head I understand that as a part of the Church we will all be the very bride of Christ, and what we had here with our spouse was only a pale shadow of this perfected bond we will have with our Saviour. But if you were in a good marriage how can you help but wonder, what about the wonderful special relationship you've had with your spouse for so many years? How can that just be done?  The answer, I think, is that it won't be. We won't be married, but that doesn't mean we'll be strangers. As the song puts it: Gonna see you again On the gold streets Standing next to me, I know I'm gonna see you again Darling, won't be long Till every trace of trouble is gone We'll be together And I'm not sure what that means But I know it'll be better than we ever dreamed When I see you again I'm not sure what that will mean either, but I can trust my good and gracious God that it will indeed be better that any of us dreamed. 25 ways to provoke your children to anger "How much of the anger in my home is caused by me? That’s a painful question. As parents, fathers in particular, we must heed God’s Word from Eph. 6:4 Of course, this is not to say that all of our children’s anger is caused by us. Each of our children is personally responsible for his or her own sin. However, this warning from God is here for a reason. One of the ways our sinful flesh manifests itself is by provoking others to anger. And the easiest place to do that is in our own home." DeYoung: homework on Sunday? In his book The 10 Commandments, Kevin DeYoung shares how he has never regretted deciding to make Sunday a homework-free day. Green hydrogen: a multibillion-dollar energy boondoggle (10-min read) When ethanol-from-corn-production first started it probably took more energy to produce a unit of ethanol than that unit could then produce. So why did governments push it? Because it looked good, even if it didn’t do good. Increased farm efficiencies since then may have changed that net negative into a positive but the return is, at best, still modest, with estimates of 1.5 units of energy created for every unit of energy used in corn-ethanol production. By way of comparison, in the US, one unit of energy used in gas production returns 15-30 units of gas energy. Now the US is ramping up production of hydrogen, but a unit of hydrogen takes more energy to produce than that unit of hydrogen then contains. And according to this article, that’s a matter of physics, and no manner of technological advances will change that net negative result. We should not be surprised that a world that has rejected God isn’t concerned with doing actual good, even as it still wants to look good. Thus this showmanship instead of stewardship. Preparing our children to suffer well (10-min read) There are things we can do to better prepare our children for the challenges and pains they will inevitably experience. Pulling the reverse card on a woke feminist (1 min) When a feminist is offended by a guy wearing a "feminist for Trump" shirt, he reverses it on her, questioning why she presumed his gender. Think of it as an addendum to the Golden Rule (Matt 7:12) – we aren't supposed to do to others as they do to us, but what about when a little tit for tat would be highly educational? Then that could be the best thing for them... which is what we should want others to do to us, right? But turnabout is all this fellow's got. Meanwhile Christians can do one better by finishing the argument. As Paul writes in 2 Cor. 10:5, we should want to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God," but note what comes next: "we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Pierre Poilievre and others can tear down the other sides' arguments. But if that's all they do, then they're leaving the world in the same state as the man in Luke 11:24-26, who after being freed from an evil spirit, replaced it with nothing, only to have that spirit return with seven others "and the final condition of that man" was even worse than before. Merely dismantling a lie leaves a person vulnerable to the infinite number of others lies out there. So we should learn how to tear down false idols, like we see many conservative commentators doing. But we need to offer the alternative too, doing what only God's people can do – pointing people away from the lie and towards God, and the truth that He made us male and female (Gen. 1:26-27). ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Albertos Polizogopoulos: lawyer for the Lord

On May 9, 2024, the LORD called Albertos Polizogopoulos to Himself, completing his task on earth at the age of 41. Not long after starting law school, Albertos was introduced to his wife-to-be Faye Sonier, a follower of Christ. Albertos decided to investigate the Christian faith for himself and was convicted by God’s Word. He proceeded to dedicate the rest of his life to his Lord Jesus Christ, who drew him closer and closer. Unlike the United States, Canada doesn’t have many Christian lawyers devoted to upholding constitutional freedoms. Albertos has been one of the few exceptions. He regularly defended life and freedom in Canada’s courts, including ten appearances before the Supreme Court of Canada. When I first met Albertos, through our mutual friend and colleague André Schutten, he jovially compelled us to stay up well into the early hours of the new day. He loved to tell stories and debate, while enjoying a good cigar. But as the years progressed, he changed his priorities and devoted his time to his family. ARPA Canada worked with Albertos regularly through the years, either by retaining him or intervening alongside him. He also wrote for RP recently about the coming battles over church property. His obituary testified to how the LORD continued to change Albertos and draw him closer, especially since he was diagnosed with cancer three years ago. “Albertos frequently spoke about how Christ changed his life. He exhibited peace about his terminal diagnosis and a profound trust that God was sovereign…. Days before his death, he looked at his wife from his hospital bed and said, ‘I don't think I know anyone more blessed than I am.’" There are very few lawyers who have the willingness and ability to devote their full-time career to upholding the value of human life, and our fundamental freedoms. I thank God for Albertos. His earthly race has completed, and I pray that more young Christians will pick up his baton and keep running....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – May 11, 2024

Click on the titles for the linked articles... Rend Collective: Lighthouse This one had our girls dancing... How deer grow antlers They do it every year again, and we're only just starting to fathom how much is all involved. Stem cells have something to do with it, but "..how do the two antlers maintain their bilateral symmetry, such that they branch at almost exactly the same points while separated by many centimeters to feet apart? Don’t ask they deer. They don’t know." Rex Murphy passes away at 77 Though he was a long-time presence on the CBC, and once touted Pierre Trudeau as "the greatest Canadian ever," Murphy was still a favorite among conservatives for his criticisms of Justin Trudeau, and his common sense objections to Trudeau's climate agenda. Women are forfeiting rather than competing against men in dresses This isn't quite Eric Liddell and Chariots of Fire, because, so far as I know, these athletes aren't forfeiting because they are Christian. But their example is worthy of imitation, and that opportunity – to forfeit to the glory of God, in celebration of how He made us male and female – may present itself to our own daughters very soon. True North covers the March for Life Three to four thousand pro-lifers' March for Life hit Ottawa this past Thursday, though you'd be forgiven for not knowing that if you only read mainstream news. True North did cover the event, and that shibboleth is why, if you haven't already heard of them already, you might want to check them out. As the linked article demonstrates, True North is willing to cover Christians, listen to them sympathetically, and quote them accurately (and even employs at least one or two), but this is a conservative, not Christian outlet. They covered the March, but didn't really explore the heart of the conflict – they didn't explain how the issue is between what God says about where our worth comes from – being made in His Image (Gen. 1:27) – and the non-explanation for our worth offered by those who say the unborn only have value if their mom wants them. That said, True North is still one of the better media outlets in Canada. And the price is right – you can sign up to their daily email newsletter for free. The New York Times says it is now okay to question the COVID vaccine ...and they're not the only one. CNN host Chris Cuomo, who was calling people crazy for not getting the vaccine, is now compassionately raising the issue of vaccination injuries. What's important to understand is that this reversal isn't simply a matter of error – we all make mistakes – but showcases the arrogance of their original stand. When people then expressed the ideas the NYT and CNN are only allowing to be expressed now,  these two media entities didn't just differ, but advocated for those people to be fired and otherwise penalized, because to do anything other than be vaccinated was crazy. They couldn't conceive they might be wrong. But for some, it now seems getting the vaccine was the wrong thing to do. The point isn't that the vaccine was bad, or that it didn't help millions, maybe billions. The point is that there were inevitably going to be tradeoffs – there always are – and our political leaders not only didn't discuss those tradeoffs, but ridiculed those who tried to. And penalized anyone who refused to do as they said. This, then, is one more reason we don't want big governments. When they make mistakes it is on a grand scale, forcing everyone to join in with their mistake. The power to compel is one to use only with great restraint... but restraint isn't a quality of the arrogant. Check out the video below for Chris Cuomo vs. Chris Cuomo. 🚨Watch former CNN host Chris Cuomo's (@ChrisCuomo) dramatic 180 on Covid vaccines! pic.twitter.com/1xrLTOMz4b — MilkBarTV (@TheMilkBarTV) May 6, 2024 ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
Music, News

Taylor Swift’s explicit evolution

Last week, Taylor Swift released her 11th studio album, The Tortured Poets Department, comprised of 16 songs. Hours later, she dropped part two of the album consisting of another 15 songs called The Anthology, creating a double album. In this latest effort, Swift says the f-word more than her first ten albums combined – one Reddit user says, “If you extrapolate this data, five albums from now she will have to release an album that says roughly 24,000 times.” Swift’s earlier music had been known for clean pop love songs, her country music devoid of explicit language and even incorporating biblical themes, such as in her 2007 song “Christmas Must Be Something More,” where she sings, “So here's to Jesus Christ who saved our lives.” That made her a favorite of many parents. That said, even her 2006 self-titled debut album, with its focus on cheating boyfriends, and Taylor longing after another girl's boyfriend, wasn't kid-appropriate. However, her latest album takes a darker turn, featuring explicit sexualized language and blasphemous lyrics mocking Christ’s death and resurrection. In her song “Guilty as Sin,” she sings,  What if I roll the stone away? They’re gonna crucify me anyway What if the way you hold me is actually what’s holy?  Another song, “But Daddy I Love Him” bashes Christians, calling them: …the most judgmental creeps Who say they want what's best for me Sanctimoniously performing soliloquies I'll never see  The rest of the material can be seen through a long X thread that asks “Is this the music you want your kids listening to?” Young people are impressionable, so it’s crucial to be mindful of the messages they’re exposed to.  Despite the album’s title, Swift is not a tortured poet; rather, she is praised by millions of fans worldwide. With a significant influence, especially on young girls, Swift’s dark turn is one parents need to know about. This is not the Taylor Swift of ten or fifteen years ago. Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it (Proverbs 22:6)....

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Saturday Selections – April 20, 2024

Painting without a license could soon be illegal in Minnesota Government growth is like the slowly rising temperature that eventually boils the frog in the pot alive – so long as the red tape grows only bit by small bit, we don't really protest. Here then, is a cup of cold water (or some sharp scissors if we're going with the tape metaphor) to shake things up and highlight how the government will regulate everything if we give them the chance. Christians should lead the resistance to growing government, since we understand that God didn't entrust our leaders with the responsibility of managing every aspect of citizens' lives. And we know that limited fallible human beings aren't up to the enormity of that task. 3 things a Christian should consider before serving in the military This short piece has an American focus but offers thoughts for Canadians to consider too. Since it was written in 2017, both nations' militaries have taken an ideological turn, so more could be said, which Aaron Renn does here. Today's music really is angrier, more egocentric A new study says it isn't just your imagination, Mom and Dad; song lyrics really are getting more repetitive, "me" and "mine" are popping up more often, and the tone of the lyrics has gotten angrier over the last 40 years. We're all Christian Nationalists now I prefer the term "Christian patriotism" to "Christian Nationalism" due to the latter's many conflicting definitions. But, as Larry Ball suggests, if we run with the definition of Christian Nationalism that the secular media is increasingly using – as Christians who think our rights come, not from the State, but from God Himself – then we are all Christian Nationalists now. What are the reasons disability exists? (10-minute read) AJ was struck with a progressive neurological disability that put him in a wheelchair as a young man. He had questions for God... and he went to Scripture to hear what God had to say. Were the Greek gods real? Douglas Wilson makes things clear with this "yes and no" answer. ...

Red heart icon with + sign.
News

Oregon abandons decriminalizing hard drugs

“America’s most radical experiment with drug decriminalization has ended, after more than three years of painful results,” The Atlantic reported in early April. Increased overdose deaths and “chaos in the streets” has the state of Oregon going back to criminalizing hard drugs. When the state decided to decriminalize drugs in 2020, 59 percent of voters supported it. Decriminalization advocates wanted to focus on a strategy of reducing the harm that drugs cause to users. Over $260 million was spent on services to help make this a reality. Three years later, 64 percent now want to go back, with support particularly strong among African American and Hispanic Oregonians. The New York Times reported that a wide range of officials supported a rollback in policy, citing surging homelessness, street protests, “an exodus of downtown businesses, record numbers of homicides, the rapid spread of fentanyl and soaring overdose deaths.” British Columbia followed Oregon’s lead by decriminalizing many hard drugs in 2023. Adults in possession of heroin, fentanyl, crack, meth, ecstasy, and some other hard drugs, so long as they are for personal use, will not be charged. This is an experiment being run until 2026. The province’s NDP government is already being criticized by mayors of smaller cities in the province who are reporting public disorder similar to what’s been experienced in Oregon. Yet BC is pressing on with its experiment. An underlying motivation for decriminalizing hard drugs and providing “safe supply” of drugs, even at the taxpayers’ expense, is the belief that drug problems will lessen if we ditch the stigma associated with drug use. If we stop treating it as shameful and immoral, then, so the argument goes, more people might seek treatment. But as Romans 7 teaches us, the law plays an important role “in order that sin might be recognized as sin.” Secular society may succeed in changing its laws to reduce the stigma of sin, but as we’re seeing in Oregon, making sin seem less sinful isn’t the answer. That will only serve to hold sinners in bondage further. What is needed is something that the law can never accomplish. “Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:24-25)....

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. ...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29