Sex in the Capital City

By Don Hutchinson

“The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation,” or so former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau infamously stated to the media at a press conference on December 21, 1967.

Last week, Canada’s Science and Technology Museum (located in Ottawa) finished setting up the exhibit “Sex:A Tell All Exhibition” in its renowned, taxpayer funded halls – bringing what perhaps belongs in the bedrooms of the nation into the halls of the state.

The museum hosted an advance showing for journalists and artists, which resulted in me receiving communications from one of each suggesting there were seriously offensive, potentially illegal, components to the exhibit. These were two trusted sources so I wrote the following note to Minister of Canadian Heritage James Moore:

I am shocked to hear about the explicit sexual content of the exhibition “Sex: A Tell All Exhibition” that is scheduled to open May 17 in the federally funded family environment of the Canada Science and Technology Museum.

While I have not seen the exhibition personally, the comments received in my office indicate that there are pornographic images; some reportedly involving or depicting children (under the age of 18 years), potentially in violation of the Criminal Code.

I would be relieved to find out these reports are not true, just as I would be remiss in not bringing them to your attention if they are.

Since then, there has been a lot of media coverage as over 50 letters of complaint have been received at the museum (at time of writing as reported on last night’s local Ottawa news) and the Minister has viewed the exhibit, noting in the House of Commons on Thursday:

I believe in the independence of our museums and I also believe in sex education.

The director of the museum asked me to view the exhibit. ... I was asked for my opinion and, in my opinion, it is not appropriate for young children to be exposed to sexually explicit material without the consent of their parents.

I made my view known and it is up to the museum to decide now where it goes.

Before opening the exhibit to the public yesterday, the museum raised the age for attendance unaccompanied by an adult from 12 to 16 and removed some components of the original exhibit, notably the cartoon videos of young teens masturbating – which might have generated concern once consideration was given to the potential for being classified as child pornography under s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code. This suggests there were, and may remain, problems with the content.

We’ve had some media contact in the same process. Of course, interviews are edited to shape the intent of the journalist. To be clear, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has for several decades taken a firm stand in regard to the protection and well-being of children. The EFC was involved in having child pornography added as a crime to the Criminal Code (defending the section before the Supreme Court of Canada and then working to secure amendments recommended by the court); advocating for almost two decades to raise the age of consent to sexual activity with an adult from 14, which it was in 2008 to 16; convincing the government to implement Criminal Code provisions against the trafficking of women, children and men (described as modern day slavery) and supporting the most recent efforts of MP Joy Smith to establish minimum sentences for those who traffick in children in Canada and application of our laws to Canadians who traffick in children outside of our borders. I could go on, but think this is sufficient for now.

Our interest is in the protection of children.

Which is why, in my capacity as a private citizen, I also contacted the RCMP to ask that a member of the child protection unit view the display to assess whether there was evidence of an offence that might tend to corrupt the morals of a minor under the Criminal Code s. 163 or of child pornography. I don’t know if anyone went.

One person who viewed the exhibit was featured on last night’s CTV National News noting that there was nothing in the exhibit about relationships being a part of sexual activity. It was just about sex, primarily homosexual sexual behaviour. Another person I spoke with said they were impressed that the exhibit noted alternatives to engaging in abortion if pregnant, but disappointed that adoption was not one of them.

I was asked by an interviewer if I was going to go to see the exhibit for myself. I don’t think so. I’m now old enough to know that not everything must be learned the hard way. Sometimes we can acquire what we need to know through the experience of others, particularly trustworthy others.

Journalist Michael Coren has suggested in one article that “with some exceptions our leaders are indifferent, and those of us who criticize this nonsense will be condemned as frightened prudes.” Concluding, “Rise up, frightened prudes of the world, before it’s too late.”

 Prude is not a label that has been applied to me before, but I say, in the best interests of our children “The bedrooms of the nation have no place in the halls of the state.” Parents, be warned that the current plan is school trips to the Museum of Science and Technology between now and the end of January 2013 will feature large groups of young children, accompanied by one or two adults, learning more about the mechanics of sex and watching “soft porn” videos than anything that has to do with science.

It's Time to Talk About Life - Shared at the March For Life Rally

Guest blogger: Bruce J. Clemenger is President of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Following is the text of his address to the gathering assembled for the 2012 March For Life rally on Parliament Hill.

You have heard it said that the debate about legal protection for the unborn is over. I say look at this crowd. Consistently each year we have gathered here to say it is not over.  

You have heard it said that the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion. I say to you, read the decision. That is not what the Court ruled. I was in the court years after the decision when an abortion advocate mentioned a woman’s right to choose and the then Chief Justice Lamer cut her off and said the court never said such a thing.

You have heard it said that Canadians don’t want a new conversation about the child in the womb. I say polls from many polling firms show that most Canadians want protection for the child in the womb.  

When is it not the time to talk about the beginning of life?

When is it not the time to talk about the protection of life?

When is it not the time to talk about what it means to be human; when is it not the time to talk about what it means to be a person?

And when is it not the time to talk about what duty of care we owe to another?

All else – our laws, our constitution, our societal norms, our culture and our civility – is built upon our answers to these basic questions about life, meaning and purpose. These questions form the horizon for all else.

We cannot afford not to have the conversation.

I say Parliament needs to catch up with what Canadians believe. The global trend over the last centuries has been in favour of life:  the expansion of personhood to those who were previously denied status; in favour of protecting the vulnerable and the rejection of slavery, of human trafficking, of treating the other as a commodity, as an object, as something that completes the life of another rather than someone with inestimable worth.

I say science and medicine are teaching us more about the distinct personhood of the child in the womb.

I say the younger generations are more integrated in their understanding of life and more skeptical of the distorted logic and ethics that permeate the arguments we hear every day.

Lets have the conversation.

May God have mercy on Canada. 

And may God give us strength and courage as we speak for those who cannot. 

March for Life 2012 Photo Gallery

EFC's Don Hutchinson, Vice-President and General Legal Counsel

EFC's Bruce Clemenger, President

More pictures available here.  

A Prayer for Life - Shared at the March For Life Rally

By Don Hutchinson (as shared May 10, 2012 to open the March For Life rally on Parliament Hill)

Father,

We stand together in awe and wonder at the miracle of life. Science may speculate about the origins of life, but only You can create.

We gather together on this day to express our wonder at the miracle of all of life, particularly human life – from fertilization through to the natural cycle of death.

This day we focus particular attention on the wonder of human life formed within the human body; designed by You for growth, birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence and adulthood.

We stand in prayer for those in the womb who have not yet developed a voice of their own.

We stand in prayer for those who have chosen to give birth to the children growing within – whether to raise those children as mom and dad, as single mom or to lovingly offer them for adoption in another welcoming home.

We also stand in prayer for those who have lost their children through no choice of their own and those who have lost their children by choice.

We ask that You, Father, by Your Spirit would touch each one of these with your love and compassion; for we have all been made in Your image and Your Son died for each one of us that we might know love, forgiveness and renewal in our own lives.

Father, we also stand together in prayer for our great nation of Canada, recognizing that the loss of lives through unrestricted abortion for nearly a quarter of a century has cost us all dearly through the loss of brothers, sisters, friends and a generation that would be moving into the professions, trades and other occupations that are necessary for the economic and social stability of our nation.

We pray for our Prime Minister, Members of Parliament and the Senate – chosen by the people of this nation, and we believe also chosen by You, O God – who have been called upon by You, by the Supreme Court of Canada in their decision in the Morgentaler case in 1988, and by the people of Canada to correct the injustice of our nation providing no protection for children in the womb, an injustice that has been visited upon our nation for 24 years.

Yes, we stand together in awe and wonder at the miracle of life. And we pray that the day will come when this gathering will not be necessary; when justice will be restored for the innocent voiceless; and our nation will be renewed in its foundation of dignity and respect for all human beings.

This we ask in the name of Your Son, Who lived, died and was resurrected again to life, Jesus, the Christ, our Saviour and the Lord of Life. Amen.

An Open Letter Regarding Christian Student’s Suspension Over T-Shirt

Nancy Pynch-Worthylake
Superintendant
South Shore Regional School Board

Dear Ms. Pynch-Worthylake,

According to a recent article in The Chronicle Herald (“School board going to higher power”, May 3, 12), you are currently seeking the opinion of a human rights expert regarding student William Swinimer’s T-shirt.  Mr. Swinimer’s T-shirt reads: “Life is wasted without Jesus.”

As Canadian lawyers who specialize in section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter), notably the rights to freedom of religion and conscience, we would like to offer you our assessment of this situation. We have both appeared before various bodies, including the Supreme Court of Canada, to speak to the issues of religious freedom and expression.

Additionally, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), the national association of evangelical Christians, has appeared before human rights tribunals, appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada on numerous occasions to share our expertise both in this area and other areas of law. Please see Schedule “A” for the history of our engagement at the higher courts.

Schools to be a Welcoming Environment

Many school boards and principals seem to believe that there are restrictions on any and all expressions of religion in public schools. This is false. Far from religion and religious practices being excluded from public schools, schools are required to create a welcoming atmosphere for all.

In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that school boards have a duty to ensure that the public education system is a welcoming and positive school environment for all students. The court went on to require that school boards be “ever vigilant” of anything that might interfere with that duty. (Ross v. Moncton District School Board).

Further, discrimination on the basis of religion and creed is also expressly forbidden under the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act and “human rights codes must be interpreted and applied in a manner that respects the broad protection granted to religious freedom under the Charter.” (Reference re: Same-Sex Marriage)

The challenge in a plural society is to respect diversity, including religious diversity. The public education system is made up of students, parents, teachers and school officials from a wide variety of cultural and religious backgrounds. Rather than being a religion-free zone, as mentioned above, the public school system is to be welcoming to all, a religion-inclusive zone. Recognition of pluralism includes and requires respect for the worldview of religious and other communities represented in the public education system.

Freedom of Religion and Conscience

The constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion extends to all students and parents and teachers regardless of their ideological or religious beliefs. The education system, including the school board, is responsible for ensuring that all are respected.

The protection of freedom of religion afforded by s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad and jealously guarded in Canadian jurisprudence. (Reference re: Same-Sex Marriage). Religious freedom in Canada means “the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.”  (Big M. Drug Mart)

Further, one Supreme Court Justice recently noted, on a point where there was consensus of the court, that freedom of religion “includes a right to manifest one’s belief or lack of belief, or to express disagreement with the beliefs of others.” (Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony)

Separation of Church and State

Some school boards mistakenly believe that the doctrine of the separation of church and state requires that religious expression be excluded from public schools. However, this is incorrect and it is likely informed by our exposure to American legal dramas. This doctrine is an American doctrine and it does not apply in Canada. Rather, in Canada, we have witnessed a co-operation between church and state, from which reasonable accommodation and mutual respect has flowed.

Freedom of Expression and its Inherent Limits

According to The Chronicle Herald article, the question you are putting to your human rights expert is as follows:

If a specific message communicates a personal belief that should not be reasonably considered offensive to others or whether the message could be reasonably interpreted to be disrespectful of others’ beliefs or a violation of others’ rights.

Thankfully, in Canada, there does not exist a right to “not be offended”. Canadians are free to express themselves, their beliefs, their values, whether they are reasonable, ridiculous or offensive. Additionally, feeling offended by the opinions of others is not a violation of any known Canadian or international human right.

As we have held in the past, and presented before the Supreme Court of Canada, we hold that the state, in this case by virtue of the school and board, should be limited in its power to monitor or censure expression and debate. As stated by the Court in one decision, “the guarantee of free expression protects all content of expression but may not protect some forms of expression, for example, violence and threats of violence.” (Canada v. Taylor). The state protects the freedom of expression; it does not grant the freedom of expression. Fundamental freedoms such as these are inherently the peoples’.

As alluded to above, we readily acknowledge that no human or Charter right is without limits. However, the courts have established high and specific standards where human rights of Canadians can be violated by the state.

For example, free expression is limited in the Criminal Code which prohibits the promotion of genocide, incitement of hatred, fraud, sedition and communicating for the purpose of prostitution. Other laws or actions by the state which seek to limit some forms of expression have a high standard to meet: it must demonstrate that such a violation of a Charter-guaranteed right can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. And our Supreme Court has been clear that we should view freedom of expression “firstly as the means of promoting the ‘marketplace of ideas’ essential to a vibrant society, and secondly as being indispensable to the proper functioning of a democratic government.” (Canada v. Taylor).

Frankly, a statement as vague, unspecific and obscure as “Life is wasted without Jesus”, is not captured by any categorical limits on free expression. It is lamentable that a student has faced 12 days of school suspension for wearing such a t-shirt and that school officials have expended valuable resources on managing this situation.

Students and school officials communicate in a variety of means their values and beliefs, by means of their clothing or campaign bracelets, the conversation they have, the comments made in class, or their involvement in certain student clubs and activities over others. It is obvious that not all values or beliefs will be agreed upon by every person connected to the school. To hope to achieve a homogenous utopia where no one is ever offended is unrealistic and undesirable.

In a country that values its diversity with a Charter that enshrines its commitment to multiculturalism, we need to acknowledge that all Canadians, teens and adults alike, can co-exist peacefully in a society of diverging opinions and beliefs. Where peace is broken and harmful communications, such as the incitement of hatred or genocide, take place, laws exist to capture such behaviours. Living together in pluralistic society may not always be easy, but it is worth striving for.

In closing, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the right to freedom of religion, conscience and expression to all Canadians and that the right to debate moral or religious issues, whatever they may be, is foundational to a true and vibrant democracy.

Unless one can act in a non-harmful way in public dialogue, inspired by one’s religious beliefs, then one does not have religious freedom but only the freedom to believe. Canadian courts have, to this point, been clear that religious freedom includes the right to speak about our beliefs; to share our beliefs with others; to practice our beliefs; and, to engage in public debate and discussion from a position that is informed by those beliefs.

We therefore urge you to publicly communicate that your school board will permit lawful and reasonable expression of religious belief and that you will refrain from penalizing any students who exercise their Charter rights to freedom of religion and expression.

We look forward to your prompt reply.

Sincerely,

Faye Sonier, LL.B.                                                            
Legal Counsel   
 
Don Hutchinson, B.A., J.D.
Vice-President, General Legal Counsel