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!



Pornography

How to lock your phone from pornography… 101

A taste of Into the Light Ministries’ TechSafe series

*****

Always lock the doors.” As a boy, this teaching served me well. We lived in a place with frequent break-ins, so the danger was real and present. We only had four doors in our home so “Always lock the doors” was an easy command to follow. Teaching us this was part of what my parents did to protect our home. And protecting the home front is what loving parents do, right?

But in 2025, there are new kinds of dangers. The most dangerous doorway into your house is no longer through your front entrance – it’s in your pocket. It is in our children’s pockets and hands. And there are often hundreds of doorways to pornography on your phone. It takes time and energy to find, monitor, and lock all of these.

I’m here to help. In this article, I will show you how to lock down your phones, protect yourself and your children, and live with a phone to the glory of God. Here are eight key steps that will make your devices far safer.

Step 1: Learn the phone

Think about how often you use your phone. Have you ever asked what a phone is? Have you ever asked how information gets to your phone?

Simply put, a smartphone is an information machine. Any time you use your phone to watch a video, listen to music, or read an article you are receiving video and audio information. But information can come into a phone through Wi-Fi, data, Bluetooth, the phone's camera, and other means. Each one of these represents a unique doorway into your device and, therefore, your home. And since smartphones can fit in your pocket, they are designed to be personal and private. Statistics show that most pornography is accessed on a smartphone.

What does this mean? You need to get to know your device. You do not need to be a tech wizard, but you do need to be generally familiar with it.

Step 2: Control Wi-Fi

The main way information enters the phone is through Wi-Fi. Every app on your phone uses Wi-Fi to access the internet to obtain whatever information it needs, whether that's Spotify to stream music or Google to find a new recipe.

We sometimes think of the internet as something that is in our home, but it’s not. The internet is way out in the wide world. We access the internet through our internet service providers (ISP), and we connect to the internet providers through Wi-Fi. How does that Wi-Fi get to our devices? A router.

A router makes Wi-Fi so that all your devices can connect to the internet. Without a router, your Wi-Fi could not travel from the wire in the wall, through the air, and into your phone. Your wireless devices couldn’t connect to the World Wide Web. The router creates a Wi-Fi signal and carries the internet service through the Wi-Fi signal to every part of your house so that all your devices can connect to the internet.

This access to the internet can be used for good, such as searching for a new recipe or for a used car on Facebook marketplace. It can also be used for evil, such as searching for pornography. Normal routers carry all of this information to your phone indiscriminately of what is good and what is evil.

A smart router, on the other hand, will monitor, filter, and (if necessary) block this content before it even sends it out over the Wi-Fi. This smart router will let that recipe reach any device that searches for it, but it might block Facebook for some of the younger teens' phones while allowing it for the parents’ phones. Best of all, it will block pornography for all devices, entirely. So your second step to locking doors on your phone is to buy a smart router like Bark or Gryphon to have powerful router-level monitoring, blocking and filtering tools.

If you want more information on routers, we have an entire video on this in the TechSafe router series.

Step 3: Install Covenant Eyes

Wi-Fi-level router monitoring systems are amazing, but they only work while on Wi-Fi. When a phone is not in your home or not on your Wi-Fi network, these smart routers can’t filter anything for you. This is why an accountability system that stays on the device at all times is essential. So step three is to install accountability software to monitor, filter, and block content on the smartphone device.

We recommend you install Covenant Eyes. This accountability software helps you keep your kids or yourself accountable to what is viewed online. It even sends reports to any ally of choice. Covenant Eyes enables you to block specific websites or apps that you don’t want your child browsing on, ranging from explicit websites to even benign websites that may waste time.

To learn how to set up and install Covenant Eyes on your phone, go to CovenantEyes.com, and they will walk you through the entire process. You can try it out and get your first month free by using the code: INTOTHELIGHT.

Step 4: Assess apps

In steps one through three, you have increased your security for the whole house, but there are many doors still left open on individual devices. The most common danger points show up in a phone's apps.

Apps are just roads to get you to the information you want to view, receive, or send. While some apps can be monitored by accountability software, some cannot. An app with open access to the internet that is not monitored, filtered, or blocked is simply too risky to leave unattended.

It is vital to go through all the apps on the phone and delete any that are unnecessary or could be a road to access explicit content. If you see apps that you or your child don’t need, then delete them! There are also app categories like social media, dating, or streaming services that are very dangerous to have on a device. Unless you or your child have demonstrated significant levels of self-control, these apps should not be on the phone. They often provide direct access to explicit material through their internal browsers.

Other app types like gaming or messaging can be dangerous for other reasons, like getting sent inappropriate pictures, being groomed by a predator, or seeing sexually provocative ads after a game. This is why every app must be assessed and reviewed before leaving it on your or your child's device. It will take some serious time to work through each app, testing links, looking for chat boxes, watching for ads, and assessing any other potential danger points, but it is worth it!

Step 5: Set up parental controls

Finally, step five is to set up parental controls. Many apps and phones have parental controls built into the phone – these are good and powerful tools. See our video on video smartphones to learn more about these parental controls and to find links to the websites of the specific devices you use.

What do parental controls do? Why are they helpful in protecting yourself and your home?

They keep you from losing all the work you did in step four. Without parental controls on the device level, locking down the app store or play store, the deleted apps can just be redownloaded!

Most phones have parental or screen time controls built in that allow you to disable the app store with a password that only you know. You can also set time limits for games or communication apps, set age-level content restrictions, block in-app purchases, and set device-specific downtime. For example, if you don't think that your children should be on their devices past 10:00 pm, you can set that up through parental controls on their devices.

Many of these parental controls can be found in the settings portion of the phone itself, or have their own accompanying app that can go on your phone, so you can monitor, block, and filter your child's phone from afar. Remember, these parental controls are not designed for tech wizards, they are made for you.

Step 6: Consider other devices

If you’ve not guessed it already, smartphones are complex and very difficult to lock down. They are very powerful devices, which make them powerful to accomplish good… but also evil. Because of this, you might want to question whether or not you or your child needs a smartphone. Step six, consider “dumbphones” and “child phones.”

On the outside, dumbphones look very similar to smartphones, but their operating system is hyper-minimalistic. They have black and white screens and only a handful of features like calling, text, GPS, and a few other basic functions. That's it.

Many adults love dumbphones because they are distraction-free. But because they are so limited, they are also a safe option for your child’s first phone. It's literally impossible to surf the internet on a dumbphone, unlike some old-school flip phones. We recommend looking at the LITE Phone and the WISE Phone. A quick Google search will bring you to their website, and you can also get a small discount on your order when you use the code: INTOTHELIGHT.

If the temptation to pornography or to doomscroll Instagram is an active struggle in your life, then you should consider a dumbphone or child phone.

Step 7: Change rhythms and rules

While all of these “tech” solutions are essential to making a smartphone safe to use, they are only one-half of the conversation. You need to think through household rhythms and rules that will bolster your ability to keep an eye on things and protect yourself. If your children want a particular app, allow them to make a case for it, and then evaluate together the dangers and benefits of the app.

Here is a list of ideas to get your brain working on the patterns you might want to put in place for your home. While this list isn’t comprehensive, it is a good place to start.

  1. No phones in the bedroom: personal devices need to be used in a common area in the house.
  2. Device curfew: All devices in the home get turned off at nine or ten at night. You can also have all devices charging in the kitchen overnight, even friends' devices.
  3. All apps, software, and media need to be approved by you, the parent, or your spouse before being downloaded or watched.
  4. You, not your children, own the devices in the home, and you have the authority to check on those devices as needed. Let your children know that you might look at their apps or search history from time to time.
  5. If there is a particular way you want your children to act with their smartphone, make sure you model that yourself.
  6. If you have children, invite your older children into the conversation. These ideas should just be a start to get your mind thinking.

Ultimately you know what's best for your home. Spend some time in prayer asking the Lord for wisdom as you set up rules for your house. If you are married, make sure you do this with your spouse.

Step 8: Rinse and repeat because it’s worth it

Step eight is to rinse and repeat. Imagine if you only locked your house’s doors one day in the year. You might say to yourself, “Alright, everything is safe and locked up!” Of course, this does not account for the other 364 days of the year or the regular unlocking that happens over time. The same is true for smartphones. This “how to” is not a one-time, fix-all solution. Rather, it’s a roadmap to a lifestyle change. And thankfully, God addresses the very work you’re doing here.

In Matthew 5, Jesus teaches us how to handle these temptations to sin – radical danger calls for radical measures. He says, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.” Of course, Jesus does not want you to literally tear your eyes out. Rather, He wants you to take the necessary steps to protect yourself from sin. Where temptation is present, radical measures are necessary. In fact, the way Jesus describes the dangerous result of indulging in sin – which is the eternal judgment of God – makes radical measures appear normal, even necessary. In fact, to Jesus losing an eye is nominal compared to losing your whole body. If you are tempted to sin with your phone, Jesus is calling you to tear out your right eye by locking down the doorways to sin on your phone.

Be encouraged, Jesus never calls His people to do something without providing the grace to do it.

Conclusion

Whew. That’s a lot. We understand how overwhelming this can be, but be encouraged – the fact that you are reading this article shows that you have the desire to make changes and protect your family.

May God bless your efforts to secure your home, raise children of integrity, and glorify Him supremely.

Where can I get more help?

This article is a taste of what we’re doing at TechSafe, a tutorial series for protecting every device in your home. The help doesn’t stop with just your phone; we’ve also tackled your computer, tablets, Smart TVs, gaming consoles, routers, VR headsets and more. And we have a separate tutorial for each one.

So now you don’t have to be a tech wizard to protect your home! Whether you are a parent wanting to safeguard your family, a struggler seeking to cut off access, or a pastor looking to equip your church, this series is for you. These tutorials will equip you to safely live with and enjoy your technology to the glory of God.

Let us walk you through this complicated process on our website, where we will provide everything you need to know about every device that you own. It’s all at IntoTheLightMinistries.ca/TechSafe – we will ask you for your name and email, but that’s it. It’s all free.



News

9 reasons you should go to the Calgary Study Weekend this August

Calgary Study Weekend – it’s likely been a minute since you’ve heard that name, especially if you live outside of Alberta! So, who are we, and why should you (or your child) be interested in attending

Calgary Study Weekend (CSW) actually dates back to 1988! It was started by the Young People’s Society of the Calgary Canadian Reformed Church. Throughout the years, and with God’s blessing, this Bible study weekend has grown, and in 2021, we began hosting two weekends.

The first weekend, or “The Original,” is for youths ages 16 to 19, and the dates this year are August 21-25.

The second is designed for those over 19 and in the “College and Careers” era of their lives. Dates are August 14-18.

What's it like?

The weekend kicks off on Thursday evening with registration and icebreakers coordinated by the hosts of the weekend. Our hosts are young people from the Calgary congregation who will serve as leaders and tour guides for the attendees. The counselors lead campers each night in devotions and discussions, fostering mentorship between generations of believers.

Praising our God with instruments and songs is a significant element of the Calgary Study Weekend. It is assisted by campers with musical abilities who have volunteered to play piano, guitar, and lead the singing. Praise and Worship is held multiple times throughout the weekend and is a highlight for many of our campers.

Beyond speeches and sporting events, once the scheduled portion of the day has finished, campers spend the evening in a variety of activities. These include sitting around the campfire, singing songs, playing games (including life-size Dutch Blitz!), and having intense theological discussions that go well into the night.

Calgary CanRef Church has always been a transient, “small engine that could” type of church/school community. So why would our Reformed Christian camp be any different?

9 reasons to go

Our goal is to foster Christian growth and friendships in a much more intimate setting. But why should you be tempted to attend a smaller “camp” when there are larger conferences that boast of many other opportunities? Attending a small Reformed Christian camp offers several unique benefits that can deeply impact your spiritual growth, community connection, and personal development. Here are a few reasons why it could be a great choice for you (or your child):

  1. Intimate community: a small camp foster close-knit communities where relationships are more personal and meaningful. You get to know the campers and chaperones on a deeper level, which can lead to stronger bonds and accountability. It's easier to form lasting friendships and have genuine discussions about faith and life.
  2. Opportunity for personal growth: In a smaller setting, you have more opportunities for personal reflection and spiritual growth. The counselors are often able to spend more one-on-one time with campers, providing mentorship and guidance specific to your struggles and questions.
  3. Intentionality in activities: The activities at CSW are chosen with a purpose: whether it's speeches, Bible study, outdoor activities (go spikeball!), or praise + worship sessions, we always aiming to build character, encourage teamwork, and facilitate spiritual development.
  4. Supportive environment: CSW provides a more supportive and nurturing atmosphere. You'll find a group of people who genuinely care about each other's well-being, spiritually, emotionally, and mentally. It’s a place where you can feel safe, understood, and encouraged.
  5. Experiencing God's creation: CSW is set in a natural environment that invites reflection on God’s creation. This provides an excellent opportunity for quiet moments with God, whether during a hike, a campfire, or gazing at the stars.
  6. Faithful worship: On Sunday, we worship together with God’s people at the Calgary Canadian Reformed Church. In between the services all attendees are split into groups, and are hosted by a Calgary family; where the fellowship, mentorship, and fun continue (besides, who doesn’t love Dutch meatball soup)!
  7. Clear biblical foundation: Since it’s a Reformed Christian camp, CSW will have a strong commitment to Biblical authority and Reformed doctrine. You can come to this camp knowing that you have the same foundational beliefs as the person beside you. We are grounded in Scripture and theology.
  8. Lasting impact: The experiences and lessons you learn at a small Reformed Christian camp are often more impactful and memorable because of the personal setting. Many people leave with a deeper commitment to their faith, lasting friendships, and a clearer understanding of God’s calling in their life.
  9. Cost: last but not least! We love that we can offer all of this at a reasonable cost! Summer is “hay-making” season for most of you, and taking time off work is a big deal. In addition to this, we’ve structured the camp to be over a weekend, so your boss doesn’t have to get annoyed when you ask him for too much vacation time.

While the weekend itself has changed and adapted to the times over the years, one thing remains certain: it is a time focused on growth in the gospel and establishing friendships with believers across the country in a relaxed and God-glorifying atmosphere.

You can find out more about us at our website.

We hope to see you there!


Today's Devotional

April 25 - Joyful affliction

“The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied; those who seek him shall praise the LORD! May your hearts live forever!” - Psalm 22:26 

Scripture reading: Deuteronomy 24:19-22

The joy in this section of the psalm is such that all are blessed by it. Verse 26 affirms this as it speaks of the afflicted eating of this and being satisfied by it. This is something >

Today's Manna Podcast

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

The Means of Grace: The Heidelberg Catechism

Serving #823 of Manna, prepared by Jake Torenvliet, is called "The Means of Grace" (The Heidelberg Catechism).











Red heart icon with + sign.
News

St. Catharines drops censorship bylaw

Just three weeks before having to appear in court to defend their bylaw that censored pictures of pre-born children, the city of St. Catharines blinked and backed down. ARPA Canada took the city to court in response to a bylaw that forbid delivering any image of a fetus to a private residence unless the material was placed in a sealed envelope with a warning label attached to it. ARPA argued that this bylaw infringed the Charter-protected freedoms of conscience, religion, and expression and was crafted to suppress pro-life content. As the court date drew close, the St. Catharines Standard reported that “councillors repealed the bylaw Monday night after an in-camera meeting with the city’s solicitor.” The turn-about is a good example of the importance of legal action, and the judicial branch of government more generally, as a check against the overreach of government agents using their power to suppress justice and truth. Although the federal and provincial legislatures tend to get the most attention, it is the cities and towns (the municipal level) that most commonly violate the fundamental freedoms protected in the Charter. The newspaper quoted extensively from ARPA’s lawyer John Sikkema, who led the challenge. “The real aim of the bylaw was to suppress opposition to abortion,” he explained to the paper. “Suppressing pro-life speech because some people find it offensive is not a pressing or substantial objective, as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires. Rather, in a free and democratic society, is an odious objective.” In a separate note to supporters, ARPA explained that a further outcome of this is that “other cities considering similar bylaws will be much less eager to pursue them.”...

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. ...