Post 205--Just Check the Box

23 FEB 2018 JUST CHECK THE BOX: THE GROWTH OF STATISM AND WHAT’S NEXT FOR CANADA’S CHRISTIANS

in Blog, Canadian Politics, Justice and Freedom, Pre-Born Human Rights 0 Comments  

0Likes

 

ShareAnd

 

Today I treat you to an article written by Andre Schutten, who wrote this under the banner of ARPA, a Christian political action group--in distinction from a political party--. You've read about and from ARPA before if you're a regular reader of this blog. "ARPA" means "Association for Reformed Political Action."  "Reformed" does not refer to a former Canadian political party by that name, but means "Calvinistic."  It's a group comprising mostly of various smaller Reformed or Calvinistic Canadian churches, but the organization itself does not belong to any church.  It a political action and advisory group that is independent from any church.

Here then Andre Schutten:

Last month I attended a particularly moving live stage production called Solitary Refinement. The play is based on true stories of persecution. It focuses on the suffering of Romanian pastor Richard Wurmbrand, imprisoned and tortured for 14 years – including two years in solitary confinement – for placing his faith in Jesus above his allegiance to the Communist government. (The play is currently on tour, and I encourage you to attend or have it come to your church. There is also a movie of Wurmbrand’s story coming out in March.)

The play moved me to think about three things over the past few weeks: first, the damage and terror inflicted by communism, socialism, and other totalitarian governments; second, how particular episodes in Canadian political drama of the last few months have an eerie similarity to the first experiences of Wurmbrand with communism; and third, how unprepared Western Christians are to face such totalitarianism.

In present-day Canada, two government institutions require citizens to affirm State ideology in order to enjoy the equal benefit of the law or government programs. The first is the Law Society of Ontario. It announced several months ago that all licensed Ontario lawyers are now required to affirm that they will “abide by a Statement of Principles that acknowledges my obligation to promote equality, diversity and inclusion generally, in my behaviour towards colleagues, employees, clients and the public.” All that lawyers have to do is “just check the box”.

Then, right around Christmas, the Hon. Patty Hajdu, Canada’s Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, announced that citizens applying for a Summer Student Jobs grant had to “just check the box” to affirm that “the job and the organization’s core mandate respect … the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights…”  

The State is Progressive. Christianity is Regressive.

Thousands of Canadian Christian charities doing wonderful work in refugee resettlement, summer camps for underprivileged kids, poverty relief, addictions help, and assistance for at-risk youth, must “respect” “reproductive rights” (which include unfettered abortion, according to the government’s explanatory manual) or risk losing out on thousands of dollars. When pushed on this, the Minister said it’s no big deal to “just check the box”, even if you do believe that the pre-born child is a human being worthy of protection in law.

So, what’s the big deal? Is checking a box really the end of the free world? Let’s look at the communist regimes of not so long ago to understand what is at stake.

“The State is Progressive. The State is Progressive. Christianity is Regressive. Christianity is Regressive.” Wurmbrand recounts that this refrain reverberated continually between the loudspeaker and the concrete prison walls inside the Communist prisons of Eastern Europe to brainwash prisoners. It was also a mantra dogmatically drilled into all students attending mandatory State-run schools.

Václav Havel was a dissident writer in communist Czechoslovakia. His plays pilloried communism. As Havel became more politically active, he fell under surveillance of the secret police. His writing landed him in prison multiple times, the longest stint lasting almost four years. He later became the president of the Czech Republic (which formed shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union). His most famous essay is The Power of the Powerless – well worth studying as statism increases in the West and the terrors of communism fade from memory.

Rod Dreher, in his book The Benedict Option, describes a central point of Havel’s famous essay:

Consider, says Havel, the greengrocer living under Communism, who puts a sign in his shop window saying, “Workers of the World, Unite!” He does it not because he believes it, necessarily. He simply doesn’t want trouble. And if he doesn’t really believe it, he hides the humiliation of his coercion by telling himself, “What’s wrong with the workers of the world uniting?” Fear allows the official ideology to retain power – and eventually changes the greengrocer’s beliefs. Those who “live within a lie,” says Havel, collaborate with the system and compromise their full humanity.

That is what’s happening with these check boxes today. It’s so simple – by design – to affirm the State ideology of “inclusion” and “reproductive rights”. Just check the box. And yet what’s actually happening is a wearing away or a numbing of our convictions. Like the greengrocer in Communist Czechoslovakia, we fear the trouble of dissenting. We need the funds. We want to keep our license. As Dreher further explains,

Every act that contradicts the official ideology is a denial of the system. What if the greengrocer stops putting the sign up in his window? What if he refuses to go along to get along? “His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth” – and it’s going to cost him plenty. He will lose his job and his position in society. His kids may not be allowed to go to the college they want to, or to any college at all. People will bully him or ostracize him.

[We have] said that the emperor is naked.

But we must dare to dissent. We need to live within the truth. We have a better and deeper and richer understanding of “diversity” and “inclusion”. We know what murderous lies are hidden behind the euphemism of “reproductive rights”. Because we love our neighbours as ourselves, we dare to dissent because we know what is true, good, and beautiful. And it’s worth fighting for.

As Dreher says, channeling Havel, when we do dissent, “by bearing witness to the truth, [we] accomplish something potentially powerful. [We have] said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by [our] action, [we have] addressed the world. [We have] enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. [We have] shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth.”

And so, when I filed my annual report at the end of 2017, I declined to check the box. I wrestled for a long time about whether to check the box. I rationalized checking the box. After all, what’s so wrong with a statement on “diversity and inclusion”? But I concluded that what was motivating me to check the box was fear: fear of professional consequences, fear of the hassle, fear of what others might think of me. And while I do fear the State in a Biblical sense, I can’t do what it is asking of me because I’d ultimately be lying. My statement of principles in not what they are actually looking for.

So I checked no, and then explained myself:

The Law Society of Upper Canada has no clue what the words “equality” “diversity” or “inclusion” mean as demonstrated in its unequal, exclusive and intolerant treatment of Trinity Western University graduates. I hold to an ethic that is deeper and richer and more meaningful than any superficial virtue-signalling that the law society cobbles together. However, the law society has no authority, constitutional or otherwise, to demand it of me. I, therefore, refuse on principle to report such a statement to the law society.

It’s not the most eloquent thing I’ve written. But I dissented.

So where do these check boxes take us? What’s next? I can’t help but think that the check boxes are a trial balloon of sorts. If the current government can get away with enforcing moral conformity as a condition for receiving summer job grants, can it do the same for charitable status? Will the other regulated professions (medicine, accounting, engineering, etc) include check boxes? Will all charities in the next few years have to check the box each year to affirm the “Charter values” of inclusion and non-discrimination and reproductive rights in order to keep their charitable status? And after that, will our Christian schools have to check the box to keep the doors open? Will we as parents have to check the box to access medical care for our kids? What’s next?

Are we prepared for what comes next? I’m not saying this is the way it will go. I am optimistic that when Christians stand up for what is right, good things happen. God blesses faithful witness. So I hope and pray for a revival in Canada and I know it is possible, by God’s grace. But if the trajectory we are on continues downward, are we prepared?

Post 201--Fraser Health Bullies Force Euthanasia

Our secular culture is playing around with death more and more as if it has the authority to make life-end decisions.  Civilized people know that life is not ours to give or take. It is only barbarians who feel free to play around with life and death as if it is theirs to give or take. We've experienced this barbarian attitude for decades in connection with abortion. Long ago, it was predicted that once we're over the abortion hurdle then we'll take the next step, killing the other weak vulnerables among us, that is, the elderly and others.  Those in palliative and hospices were the natural next target. 

And, sure enough, it has come.  At first preferred, even if illegal.  Then, after some time of force and illegalities, it became legal over the dead bodies of many Christians--pardon the intended pun! And now the next step: force it on the institutions of care regardless of their values, worldview or religion. 

It has been public knowledge that the progress of the West is due to its traditional Christian worldview--along with the help of humanism, which itself is just a product of Christianity. It has also been predicted that to the extent the West forsakes its Christian tradition, to the extent it will revert back to its pagan past.  The issues of abortion and euthanasia are the direct result of this reversion process. 

The notice below is reaching you too late, I'm afraid. I saw it just now, five minutes ago. Nevertheless I pass it on so you can become more familiar, more shocked and more involved in stopping this slide into barbarianism.  It's coming; have no doubt.  It's just dressed in the impressive dress of modern science that hides the true horror it is. 

Well, read and take whatever action or join whatever organization or movement in your neck of the woods you can.  But first, read this:

From: ARPA Canada <info@arpacanada.ca>

Date: February 8, 2018 10:35:54 AM PST

To: Nancy Leguijt <jakeleguijt@shaw.ca>

Subject: Important event on Saturday

Dear BC Friends,

Fraser Health is now forcing non-denominational palliative care providers and hospices to offer euthanasia. That means that organizations devoted to caring are now being instructed to assist withsuicide. Many of our readers will be familiar with Dr. Neil Hilliard, the medical director of Fraser Health’s palliative care program, who was featured in ARPA’s palliative care documentary. In light of this decision, Dr. Hilliard has resigned from his position.

Although this decision comes from Fraser Health, the developments are not limited to the Fraser Valley. News reports indicate that at least two other regions in the province are placing similar expectations on the palliative care providers.

In light of these developments, Langley ARPA is organizing an event, to be held on Saturday. More information is in their update below. We strongly encourage you to attend and bring this event to the attention of others!

With just a couple of days to go, we are not able to advertise this broadly and need your assistance. Please email and phone your friends and family, and especially those who you know are connected to care-giving or would have an interest in this. This includes people from other churches and organizations. If you are from outside of Langley, consider organizing a van or car load and get as many folks out as possible for this important event.

---

Dear Fraser Valley ARPA members and friends,

This Saturday the Langley ARPA chapter will be hosting a number of speakers including MP Mark Warawa, MLA Mary Polack, Langley Hospice Executive Director Nancy Panchuk, and former Medical Director of the Fraser Health Palliative Care Program Dr. Neil Hilliard to discuss the sudden mandate by Fraser Health requiring all Fraser Valley Hospice to provide euthanasia as part of hospice palliative care programs.

Many Hospice medical professionals, volunteers, and donors are absolutely opposed to this directive and are pushing back. Delta Hospice Executive Director Nancy Macey recently told the Vancouver Sun, "the pressure to provide MAiD everywhere is a bullying tactic of the Dying With Dignity activists." Dr. Hilliard stated in his resignation letter that "providing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is not in accordance with palliative care (which) "affirms life and regards dying as a normal process...". MP Mark Warawa recently submitted a letter to the Fraser Health Board saying that "requiring hospice palliative care facilities to hasten the death of a patient through the use of assisted suicide and euthanasia directly contradicts this recognized mandate and social licence of hospice facilities, healthcare professionals and volunteers that are supported and funded by generous donors in our communities." 

Please join us on Saturday, February 10 at 8 pm for a panel discussion on the next steps in the battle to keep Hospice from becoming lethal!

Where:  Credo Christian High school, 21846 52 Ave, Langley, BC

When:  Saturday, February 10 at 8:00 p.m. in the Gymnasium

Hosted by:  Langley ARPA Chapter

For more background information on the current situation, please check the following links:

• http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/delta-hospice-rebels-against-fraser-healths-mandate-to-provide-medical-assistance-in-dying
• https://www.langleyadvance.com/news/langleys-conservative-mp-says-hospice-shouldnt-have-to-provide-assisted-suicide/
• ending-suffering-the-palliative-alternative-part-7

Post 200--Canada's Quasi-Judicial Courts

Christian Roots Canada's Lynette's heart is bleeding. She sees Canada's Liberal Federal Government in the hands of extremists. And while the Liberals are pushing their agenda unrelentingly, the church is asleep, she complains.  Well, that's been my view of the  Canadian church since a long time ago. Even when I was still in Nigeria during the 1970s through most of the 1990s, I observed the same from reading the magazine Mclean's. Of course, it is true not only for the national scene, but also for the provincial. Here in BC a few years ago the government passed a new family law and the churches were silent. Not a sound; not a peep. Was it good or was it bad?  The church slept through this entire procedure--as if it did not even know about it!  The government fiddling around with the family, the basics of society and the church has nothing to say?  Incredible.  You don't know how embarrassed I increasingly am about such a gutless church!  No wonder so many people are leaving the church. What does it have to offer in terms of important social issues? 

The rest of this post amounts to Lynette's lament. Read it. Follow her links and take whatever action you can. The next post is a short letter from Nick Loenen, a friend of mine and an ex-MLA here in BC, also calling for action.

OK, here's Lynette's lament:

===============

Friend, My Heart Hurts… for Canada Twenty-eight years ago, I was a new immigrant to Canada. I lived in Toronto and got to know my husband through the church we both attended at the time. He was passionate about how to live life in such a way that it did not just intersect with ‘church’ on Sunday, but in such a way that he could live a life of ‘applied theology’. He introduced me to his vision of impacting the culture for Christ. He saw how the culture of the day was beginning to be swayed by political correctness and sexual immorality. At that time, religious people depended on the ‘abstinence’ message to be a unifying force against the onslaught of sex ed in public school classrooms. But that was hardly enough. By 1992, the notion of sexual ‘orientation’ was already taking root in the classroom with the advent of books like, ‘Heather has Two Mommies’. Teachers were given ‘sensitivity training’, as were members of the local government, provincial government and the emergency services. This was to force employees to accept those who practiced alternate lifestyles, as equally worthy of legal recognition similar to the legal recognition given to a family consisting of one man, one woman, and children.   By about 1996, liberal politicians rammed through a bill to read ‘sexual orientation’ into the Human Rights Code. The ‘Church’ was caught sleeping at the wheel, and by the time we roused ourselves, the horse was out of the stable before we could shut the gate. And the Church went back to its slumber...  until the next time. The progression of an apathetic willingness by the Church corporate to accept the mores of a decadent culture, has now led to a Liberal Prime Minister forcing Christians, and anyone who does not believe abortion is wrong, to put his/her conscience in a tiny box, seal it well, and throw it out, if they want to receive some of the $200 million of Government Grants. These Grants are applied for by NGOs and other faith-based organizations, to pay high school and college students a fair wage over the summer, so that they could save some money to defray some of their college education costs. The kids got work experience, the employer hired more kids with a lower overhead cost and everybody won. Para-church organizations benefited from that. Will the Church corporate stand against this legislation of conscience by a corrupt government?  Even if the Church doesn't, you can.  Keep reading to learn what YOU can do. There is another far-reaching issue looming ahead, and it would be wise to rouse yourself and do something about it NOW.  Scripture says that the wise man sees the danger coming and avoids it, but the foolish pass on and are destroyed (Prov. 22:3). Next on the Liberal agenda is a consideration to reinstate Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) which was repealed by Parliament in 2013. See the article here This article states, ‘Instead of proceeding through the criminal courts, complaints made under Section 13 were dealt with in the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which hears complaints made under the Act. If a Section 13 complaint was upheld, the tribunal could levy fines of up to $10,000 and issue cease-and-desist orders.' First, remember that this a 'court' made up of 'quasi-judicial' persons (aka untrained laymen practicing law on the basis of feelings of perceived hurt).  Why is this important? Ask Connie and Mark Fournier. Their case of freedom of speech went all the way to the Supreme Court.  Internet companies thought it was important enough to get involved. If you think that Christians fared terribly with rogue Human Rights Courts under a Conservative Government, think what evil can be unleashed by this God-hating Liberal Government. They are up to no good, and the 'money for your conscience' issue will pale in comparison to what is to come.  Friends, this hate crimes legislation which masquerades as freedom of speech will encompass so-called ‘internet crimes’ which, most assuredly can be used by our wicked leaders and Human Rights Tribunals, to take aim at the Church. Make no mistake about it. Why is the progressive slide of the country into a stinky, messy, manure-pond, of any importance to ChristianRoots Canada right now? Friends, this generation of Christians, WE (collectively) have failed to raise an army of defenders of the faith. Thankfully, organizations like ARPA and others are doing double duty in galvanizing efforts to hold back the onslaught. So WHAT can YOU do about it? Please go to ARPA’s website here  And get your kids signed up for programs that educate and equip them for action. Read their Lesson Plans on how to teach against the post modern, degrading, issues here Take action using their formatted letters to your politicians here.   STAND UP FOR CANADA!!! And may I ask a favour of you? Before you go, hop over to our latest blog here, and leave us a comment. OR, Learn  a little more about the crew behind ChristianRoots Canada at our Facebook Live video, and join the discussion in our Facebook Group here. If you would like copies of The Biblical Legacy of Canada's Parliament Buildings, you can order them here.  These booklets can be used to encourage your brothers and sisters with the fact that Canada had such a Christian ethos at one time, that the architects who built the Peace Tower were more conversant with the Old and New Testament than we are today. Check out the Scripture verses!! The booklet is proof and we can get there again.

Post 174--Disrupting Church Services--Zombie Prohibition?

I am a writer. As such, I do a lot more than just writing this particular blog. I operate an extensive website I've told you about frequently--< www.SocialTheology.com >--as well as another blog--
<  ChristianMuslimWorld >--. Sometimes they overlap such as when I decide a certain article, either my own or a guest article, is suitable for the other vehicle as well. In all of them I occasionally share articles with you about the gradual pushing Christianity out of the way here in Canada, but also in other countries.  In some countries it is another religion that persecutes Christians. This is true especially in Muslim and Communist countries, but also happens in Buddhist and Hindu nations.

It also happens in Western countries, including Canada. However, in the West, it is often under the radar so that most  people do not notice. Hence they often feel that talking about persecution of Christians in Western countries is a matter of paranoia, a distorted imagination. I plan to exposing this dangerous tendency by giving it more coverage to show you it's not just paranoia or imagination. It happens. It's true. But usually it is done in such small steps and in such hidden ways that people either not notice or just shrug their shoulders as a non-issue that is blown all out of proportion.

And true enough, in many cases these are small issues that by themselves are not all that significant. However, when you pay attention and put them all in a row you have to come to the conclusion that there is definitely a tendency, an important tendency in Canada, for example, of slowly putting tiny screws on what on the surface look like minor issues.

And while in two paragraphs back I point to other religions plus Communism as the perpetrators, here in Canada it is mainly the people with secular or liberal agendas who are behind it all.  Note that I refer to"liberal," not to"Liberal" as in the Liberal Party, though that Party has its share of supporters for this movement. But it's not only those with such an agenda, there are also kind people among them whose secular or liberal definition of religion blinds them to its real nature. So, when anti-Christian measures come on the table, they don't even recognize them to be anti-Christian in however minute shape.

Today I treat you to an interview published by Lighthouse News, an online news source operated by ARPA--Association for Reformed Political Action, "Reformed" being another term for "Calvinistic," not the former Reform Party. It is also close to Presbyterianism, but that's for another time. You will profit the most from this interview if you also pursue the links in the document. 


                                 DISRUPTING CHURCH SERVICES

André Schutten, Director of Law and Policy - ARPA Canada

As we told you a few months ago on Lighthouse News, the federal government is making a move to eliminate so-called “zombie laws”. These are essentially old laws       which are no longer in effect. The most common reason for their obsolescence is that they’ve been struck down by the court. While those laws are technically still on the books, they have become unenforceable, so they need to be removed to reflect that reality. But earlier this month, the federal Liberals introduced a second bill to eliminate some other old laws, and one of those eliminations could have an impact on every single pastor, and every single church, mosque, synagogue, or Sikh temple in the country. This is a completely separate bill from the one we discussed back in March. On the feature today, ARPA’s Law and Policy Director, André Schutten, on what the government is doing with this latest bill.

LN: Andre, let’s start with some background on the difference between these two bills.

AS: So they have a zombie law [Bill C-39] already and that one targets all these old Criminal Code provisions that were ruled unconstitutional, right? And so, I’m not really sure what the government’s up to. It might be that they’re trying to pass other stuff through this one and they use that description as cover. So C-39, which is also that – unconstitutional provisions, right – it’s “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts” from the Minister of Justice. So that one is the zombie law one. So I don’t know what else they’re trying to do with C-51, but I imagine that what they’re trying to do is they’ve got this cover going on, and they’re saying “Look! All we’re doing is cleaning up the Code again, and we’re just taking care of anything that’s probably unconstitutional.” But what they’re doing with that is they’re also taking out sections that aren’t unconstitutional; that are actually good sections (but) they just don’t feel like debating them.

LN: And that brings us to the central issue here. Right now, the Criminal Code says you can’t harass or assault a clergyman or minister in connection with him performing his duties, on the way to or from a worship service for example. And… you can’t disturb or interrupt a worship service while it’s underway. That is specifically addressed in the Criminal Code. But section 14 of the new zombie law, Bill C-51, specifically moves to eliminate that part of the Criminal Code.

AS: Yeah, so this one clause – Clause 14 – is key to that. Clause 14 is the one that removes protections for worship services. Whether that’s Christian worship services or Islamic or Jewish or Hindu or Sikh worship services; it’s written very broadly and says that anyone who disrupts these worship services is “guilty of a criminal offence.” And that’s a good provision to have, and yet they’re removing it, for no apparent good reason anyway.

LN: ‘I’m looking at that clause and I looked at it initially and I went: “Wow. This is really big.” And then I got to thinking about it and in the government’s defense – and I’m not defending the government, but just to play devil’s advocate for a minute – what’s the last time this provision was ever used? I mean, this is an ancient law that said you’re not allowed to disrupt a church service. Could the argument be made that being a multicultural, pluralistic society, church services aren’t special enough to require a specific clause in the Criminal Code to protect the conduct there?

AS: So, in reviewing some of the transcripts from the House of Commons on debate on this, Mr. Tom Kmiec – he’s a Member of Parliament from Alberta – he pointed out that this section has actually just been used a couple of weeks ago right here in Ottawa, where somebody has been charged under this provision. So in that sense, it is still a “live” section of the Criminal Code; it is being used.

And I think what’s driving the desire to remove this section from the Criminal Code is an attitude that a religious service is no different than a university lecture for example. And why should we give special protection to religious ceremonies if we don’t give it to, you know, a university lecture? And you can imagine, right, it’s been in the news; professor Jordan Peterson for example tried to give a lecture at McMaster University, the University of Toronto, (and) elsewhere, (and) he gets shouted down by protestors, right?

And so some people might say, “Well why – if we’re not gonna give criminal law protection to Jordan Peterson to give his lecture – why would we give it to a minister to give his sermon?” And I’d say that fundamentally the two are very, very different. A university lecture is one thing, but a religious service is something at a much different level. It’s something much more profound going on. And whether you’re Christian or not, I would say that protection ought to be there for a Muslim service – like a prayer service as a mosque – or it should be there for a Jewish service at a synagogue, or at a Christian service at a church. And I think that the government should not be afraid that this section is in any way unconstitutional; it certainly never has been ruled unconstitutional. So we should keep it.

And we need it in today’s society. Again, thinking of the Jordan Petersons of this country that get shouted down (while) giving a lecture, it’s not that hard to imagine that we might one day see people disrupting – in big ways – Christian services where orthodox teaching is being preached from the pulpit.

LN: Is this a fundamental shift in Canadian society? I mean, here we have on the one hand a government that pushes through (Bill) C-16, (that) says you have to use whatever pronouns somebody says they want to be described as, and on the other hand they’re removing this historical context of protection for religious services. It seems to me that there’s a fundamental reshaping of society going on here.

AS: Yeah, I think so. Absolutely. It seems to me there’s this fear of our Christian heritage. There’s this fear of our Christian past. And while I would say it’s absolutely true that the history of this particular section does have to do with Christianity and the Christian faith and protecting church services, that doesn’t mean that it has no value today. Even though we are definitely not a Christian nation anymore, we definitely should be protecting (the) Christian faith but also, again, other faiths should be protected in this respect as well.

And the counter-argument might be made that “Well, you know, we took out those sections but don’t worry; there’s still a section about criminal trespass,” right? So people can be charged under criminal trespass. But that, again, shows a total ignorance of what a worship service is. Now I can’t speak for the Jewish faith or the Muslim faith or the Sikh faith, but certainly for the Christian faith, our worship services are public events. It’s a public worship service. So, you know, we can’t exactly criminally charge protestors who come to a church service if we’re so public about our worship. Our worship is open to the public; we want other people to be able to come. They’re welcome in our church buildings. We want them to hear the Gospel. We want them to get to know Jesus Christ. But yeah, if they’re going to be disruptive and so on then we want to be able to also have the criminal law protection to make sure that that doesn’t happen. So we see ignorance of the Christian faith here, we see the ignorance of our history here. We see ignorance of the possible risks to not just the Christian faith but to all faiths with the approach being taken here. And I think that’s problematic all around.

LN: Is there anything we can do stop C-51? I mean, how do you mount a legal challenge on something that takes something away? It’s kind of a complicated piece.

AS: Indeed. We can’t exactly make a claim that – I don’t think – that we have a constitutional right to this provision. At the same time, we can make the argument that there is no constitutional reason to remove this provision. And so, certainly we are going to apply to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights – that’s where this bill is now – so that’s the Committee stage in the House of Commons, and we’re going to lobby to get that Clause 14 removed. We haven’t looked at the rest of the bill yet, so there might be good parts in the rest of the bill, I’m not going to condemn the entire bill, but this one clause – clause 14, which removes protection for our pastors and our worship services – definitely has to be cut out of that bill. https://arpacanada.ca/lighthouse-news/disrupting-church-services/#lhn-article-7442

Post 152—A Place for Spanking

I hope you don’t get tired of my apologies and my changes in direction or even promises not kept—which is not the same in my mind about breaking promises.  The document that I thought I would discuss in follow up from the last post is not what I expected it to be. So, we will let it go and do something else today. However, in case you’re curious, here’s URL that deals with issues somewhat related to that of Post 151--

               

       https://arpacanada.ca/news/2017/02/14/thoughts-religious-                                           tolerance/#feature

Yes, something else, but not something completely different. While the last post talked about shooting and murdering, this post will talk about spanking. To some people that’s in the same class as shooting and murder—it’s all doing violence to people.  Some time ago a friend of mine, Mark Penninga, the Executive Director of the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada published an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun under the title”Time and Place for Spanking.” I’ve written about this issue before, because I believe when a government gets involved in ordinary family affairs, it is intrusive and goes far beyond its legitimate reach.  Government and family exist in different spheres, each of which have their own laws and protocols. Governments may only interfere in families when there is evidence of families being highly dysfunctional. To some people, spanking, any kind of spanking, no matter its severity, becomes the government’s business, for its mandate is to protect its citizens, even infants, from violence, including parental violence.   

Penninga’s main point is that the term spanking covers a broad range of meaning, ranging from the gently corrective to that of the cruel and abusive. Attempts to have government make every form of spanking illegal in order to prevent the cruel type, has the opposite effect.  Then he demonstrates his point at length, all of which you can read yourself by turning to the articles’ URL (see below). One study, for example, that covered 50 years and examined 26 other studies concluded, “Whether physical punishment compared favorably or unfavorably with other tactics depended on the type of physical punishment.” The study looked at what the researchers called an “optimal” type of physical discipline — conditional spanking—and upheld it as legitimate.

Penninga wrote:

Sweden in 1979 became the first nation to outlaw all physical discipline. Since then, criminal charges for physical child abuse by relatives against children under age seven increased by 489 per cent between 1981 and 1994. There was also a shocking 519-per-cent increase in criminal assaults by children under 15 against children aged 7-14. Perhaps most devastating, 46-60 per cent of cases investigated under Sweden’s law result in children being removed from homes. About 22,000 Swedish children were removed from homes in 1981, compared with 1,900 in Germany, 710 in Denmark, 552 in Finland, and 163 in Norway.

Consider the 2010 case of a mother and father from Karlstad, Sweden, jailed for nine months and ordered to pay 25,000 kronor ($11,000) to three of their children who were spanked. More damaging than the jail and fines, all four of their children were removed from their home. Although the court concluded that the parents “had a loving and caring relationship to their children,” apparently spanking is serious enough to merit such an extreme sentence.

And then he concluded,

Parents will have a variety of opinions about the merits of physical discipline. But problems arise when the state assumes the role of parent. The role of the state is limited to preserving an orderly society and punishing wrongdoers (including child There is much that the state can do to promote a society in which children are safe and families can flourish. Banning physical discipline will achieve neither.

Parents will have a variety of opinions about the merits of physical discipline. But problems arise when the state assumes the role of parent. The role of the state is limited to preserving an orderly society and punishing wrongdoers (including child abusers), so that the other institutions of society can flourish. The institution of the family is an independent part of civil society accountable directly to God (although the state increasingly understands itself to be a god it seems). Parents are entrusted with the authority to lovingly raise their children and the state may only interfere in exceptional circumstances, such as real child abuse.

There is much that the state can do to promote a society in which children are safe and families can flourish. Banning physical discipline will achieve neither.  So far my friend Penninga. 

The Vancouver Sun published an editorial supporting Penninga’s main argument, while the highest court of the land agreed as well, but not everyone did, as you can see on the last of the three websites that appear below. As to myself, I am the product of a tradition of occasional reasonable spanking when deserved and emerged a humane, highly educated and successful person from a peasant background without any spanking baggage to sour my life. The same holds true for all 9 of my siblings as well as for the 11 and 9 siblings of my father and mother respectively. As the Bible puts it, “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” That’s ancient wisdom that liberals tend to deny, often having contempt for the past and its ways.

So, here are three URLs for you to check out, with the third one vigorously rejecting the point of this post.

 http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Opinion+Time+place+spanking/11049750/story.html.

See also www.keep43.can for supporting arguments.

            See www.nospank.net for opposing view.