Another Silent Night

By Anita Levesque

When I first started working on the issue of International Religious Freedom I had no idea how it would impact my life personally. Before this, I – perhaps like many Christians – heard occasionally about the struggles of believers in areas of the world where religious freedom was curtailed. It’s true that now, because of the focus of my work, I spend a great deal of time paying attention to situations of Christian persecution around the world. Much of what I’ve seen and read has been graphic and heart wrenching. The stories of devastation, the struggle for survival and the loss of life in ways that are often cruel have been imprinted on my heart and mind. And my awareness of them is even more heightened at this time of year.

“Silent night, holy night …”

Like many here in Canada, on Christmas Eve I will stand and sing “Silent night, holy night” with my family and friends in a candle-lit church service where we feel safe from harm, secure and far removed from threats.

This is far different from our brothers and sisters in Egypt however, who at this time last year experienced being the target of hatred from Christmas’ past and had the sweetness of their Christmas celebration shattered by a bomb and gunfire aimed at them and their loved ones.  This year, many will still bravely gather in an act of worship on a holy night, but the likelihood of its silence may again be short lived.

“All is calm, all is bright…”

I love being the first in our home to wake up on Christmas morning. In my part of the Canada, it is often accompanied with light dustings of crystal snowflakes making the decorations in my home glimmer all the more in the “all is calm, all is bright” light of an as yet undisturbed Christmas morning.  

This year though, I can’t help but remember the quiet of an underground house church in China, where many have known ongoing and unending threats and arrests.  The calm they do know comes from a deep inner peace and assurance that their Lord and Saviour knows their days from beginning to end, and that they will spend many more days with Him in heaven than with men here on earth. There is a certainty that what man might do against them, God will use for good, whether it be threat to freedom or threat to life. Darkness is an extremely important part of their Christmas; it affords them the chance to bravely gather in the basement home of one of their members, unseen and unheard by neighbours who might turn them in to local authorities. For them, darkness at Christmas is a blessing.

“Sleep in heavenly peace, sleep in heavenly peace...” 

Sleep is something I often don’t get enough of during the Advent and Christmas season. I am Chief-Elf and Wrapper in our home and no matter how early I begin; somehow I always end up awake late into the night Christmas Eve preparing the last minute gifts for under the tree or in the stockings. When my head finally hits my pillow --- my sleep is usually sweet and filled with anticipation of the Christmas Day’s activities. Not just the opening of gifts, but a time to be with my children, my husband, my family and celebrate the most important thing in our lives, our faith in Jesus Christ. It’s a joyful and meaningful time!

In Nigeria, 2012 was a year of increased violence against Christians. Surprise attacks and church burnings by Muslim extremists of whole villages have left many Christians in Nigeria unable to sleep at night without fear. Grotesque and deadly attacks on men, women and even young children have created an intensified focus by foreign governments. Canada has spoken out against these attacks, encouraging the Nigerian government to provide increased security for all its citizens – regardless of religion - and has offered support in creating a safe and religiously pluralistic society.  It will be a long journey for Nigeria, and one that needs our ongoing prayers. Until then, there will probably be many more in Nigeria that will find their all too early final peace - and only rest - in heaven.

We here in Canada are, without a doubt, blessed by how we are able to celebrate Christmas. From the gathering with our church family on Christmas Eve, to the joyful time we share together as families on Christmas morning, we celebrate in the assurance of our freedom. But our celebrations are incomplete if we do not to take at least a moment and remember our faith-family around the world and pray for them as they celebrate this Christmas season - many in hiding, in darkness, in chaos, in danger.

Believers from the West often ask those in these regions what they most want from us. “If we could give you one gift this year, what would it be?”  Their answer is a surprise to many, and one of great value to them … “to pray”. 

That’s it … simple, powerful prayer.  Yes, pray for their safety, pray for their families, pray for their freedom. But even more so - pray that the message of a Saviour who has come to earth as a man would be more broadly received. That through their lives – lives often given up for the sake of this message - more would come to know him and his simple purpose for coming - to free all men from the pain, devastation, and chains of sin and receive the gift of unending life. We have the ability to give them this gift this Christmas. In our silent holy night let’s remember them and let’s pray.

Who decides to pull the plug? Doctors, family or government?

By Don Hutchinson

This past Monday, December 10, I was in the Supreme Court of Canada standing with the family of a man fighting for his right to life – and in that battle the lives of many other Canadians. It was an honour to hear words of appreciation from Hassan Rasouli’s daughter, noting that we understood the importance of religion to the life and decision of her family.

Mr. Rasouli suffered complications following what was described as “minor brain surgery to remove a benign tumour.” His doctors determined he was in a persistent vegetative state, had no hope of recovery and should be withdrawn from life support. His family, including his wife who is a physician, disagreed with the diagnosis and sought a court injunction to prevent the doctors treating Mr. Rasouli from unilaterally removing him from life support.

In this case, the Ontario courts ruled that doctors in this situation must obtain consent, either from the patient or his substitute decision maker, prior to withdrawing medical treatment. If consent could not be obtained, the physicians’ option under Ontario law would be to continue treatment and proceed to the Consent and Capacity Board for a ruling. The Board – made up of 3 people: a doctor, a lawyer and a lay person – is required under the Health Care Capacity Act to hear from both sides and consider the patient’s wishes and beliefs, including religious beliefs, in the process of making a decision in the “best interests” of the patient.

On Monday, we heard from several lawyers, but I’ll focus on one, the lawyer for the doctors.

He argued that the decision to remove someone from a ventilator is not a decision about changing or discontinuing medical treatment (which would require consent) but rather a medical decision about discontinuing a “trial treatment” that has proven ineffective, a decision he argued should be made by doctors. He also argued that only the treating physicians could properly assess the medical benefit of any treatment. And that the medical system will fall into disarray if the court allows patients to demand whatever treatment they want.

The doctors’ lawyer further argued that family members become caught up in the emotion of making a difficult decision of this nature so it should be left to physicians – the doctor’s counsel was presenting physicians as a class that is seemingly unmoved by emotion – in order to avoid having the patient inflicted with the “terrible indignity” of being forced to be kept alive by artificial means. He noted his opinion that if there is disagreement it should be decided in the courts, not by the Consent and Capacity Board.

In short, it was argued that patients and their families are too subjective about keeping a loved one alive but doctors engage dispassionately and objectively in making life and death decisions. In his closing argument, counsel for the doctors also noted that there is the additional issue of the allocation of medical resources to ensure that those with the best chance of recovery have access to the medical care they require – an argument not mentioned throughout the process until there were less than 3 minutes remaining in the hearing and no one else was entitled to address the court.

I don’t think doctors generally, or these doctors in particular have malicious intent. Neither do I think their lawyer to be disingenuous. I do think that an increasingly win/lose cultural dynamic makes it necessary to step back, take a few good mind cleansing deep breaths and ask ourselves about the underlying beliefs and values of Canada as a nation, and – perhaps more importantly – as a people, human beings living together.

Are doctors more entitled to tell Canadians what to do than anyone else? My experience of living in a free and democratic nation is that doctors offer their opinions on treatment and then the patients decide. By the way, patients can no more force doctors to initiate a method of treatment than doctors can force patients to accept such treatment.

Let’s reflect on those remarks.

If the patient cannot speak for him or herself, then surely the doctor knows best, right? Not necessarily. In Canada we have long recognized that the doctor does not automatically know best. Our laws and practices recognize that physicians propose treatment options and patients decide. If an individual who cannot give consent for themselves has not given instruction or is incapable of giving instruction to a physician then someone who knows the patient well (or in some instances is appointed by government with the responsibility of learning about the patient) will become their substitute decision maker (SDM). The SDM is responsible to consider decisions from the perspective of the patient – including the patient’s worldview, religious beliefs, life experiences, etc – and to make decisions they believe to be in the best interests of the patient.

Doctors are people. SDM’s are people. People are not perfect; which doctors acknowledge through purchasing malpractice insurance. There may be disagreement about what each thinks is best for the patient. The recourse is to a legislatively mandated small group of people who are not connected to the patient or his treatment; have complementary training and experience to understand the issues presented to them; and, have a structured set of guidelines to assist them in making a decision to resolve the impasse. This latter group is the Consent and Capacity Board. Access to the Board is free.

In a nation where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada has expressed concern that access to the courts is becoming increasingly difficult, one would think the solution of a Consent and Capacity Board would be welcome. There is no cost to the family or the doctors and the matter is resolved fairly quickly rather than being potentially tied up for years in court. However, physicians have access to one of the best funded legal structures in the country, the Canadian Medical Protective Association, and don’t need to worry about the expense of going to court. And, a court battle like this one could potentially secure them greater authority over patient treatment decisions. On the patient side, Hassan Rasouli’s family has been forced to pay substantial legal fees – risking all for their loved one – as the CMPA has argued and lost its case in the Ontario Superior Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal while heading to the Supreme Court of Canada. Going to court should not be the future of disagreement about consent. No family should have to choose between mortgaging their lives and assessing the value of a loved one.

We live in a nation where government determines the funding for our health care system. Doctors and administrators should not be asked to place a value on human life based on assessing likelihood of recovery and/or their opinion on quality of life in recovery matched against available bed space. Does the medical community really want that responsibility? It is the responsibility of government to ensure adequate funding or find an alternative delivery system that will provide for necessary treatment.

No one is looking to tell doctors what treatment to offer. And, the decision to discontinue treatment must rest with the patient, or his family. If the two can’t agree then why not access the low cost solution with medical and legal expertise rather than forcing any family into facing a decision of potential financial jeopardy; a financial decision that they might regret for spiritual, emotional, psychological or economic reasons for the rest of their lives? Perhaps, the answer doesn’t lie with the 7 judges of the Supreme Court who heard this matter but with the politicians who determine the priorities in spending taxpayers’ money. There is no price that can be placed on a life. However, in a society that has decided we are our brother’s keepers, there is a budget for the availability of medical services.

The Conviction of the Kwantlen Polytechnic University Pro-Life Students

By Faye Sonier

There are moments when I wish my primary passion was for the establishment of animal sanctuaries. Or fundraising efforts for the purchase of new collections at the public library. Or campaigns in support of cancer research.

That would be easy for me. As a book-loving, cancer-surviving Canadian, whose favourite companion is Hugo, a dog I rescued, I could help advance those worthy causes.

However, the cause that cuts me to the core is the plight of the unborn child. I’m a 30 year old human rights lawyer and a pro-life activist. After a few years of being on the receiving end of withering looks, at times I think to myself that it would be nice to fight for a politically correct cause. It would be nice to raise awareness of an issue without being labelled “anti-woman.” But I believe children in the womb are deserving of more consideration than they’re currently receiving in Canada and so I carry on.

And as a pro-life activist, I feel compelled to speak up when pro-life citizens are being pushed out of the public square, as was recently the case at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Students at the university had their request to form a club with official status rejected on the grounds that its perspective is contrary to the Kwantlen Student Association’s "officially pro-choice" stance.  However, when the students announced that they would take legal action, the Association changed its position and granted the students’ club official status.

As someone who already has a law degree under her belt and a job at a national, pro-life organization, I have little to fear in sharing my view. This is not the case for pro-life students who are studying at Kwantlen or on other university and college campuses. By engaging in the same activities that other students do, pro-life students have been arrested; faced charges and expulsion; and have been ostracized, ridiculed and criticized by their professors and peers. Free expression is permitted and even celebrated for most reasons on campus – except when it isn’t. Pro-life expression is one of the few expressions that is met with suppression.

Pro-life students, like those at Kwantlen, aren’t naive. They know they could join other, non-controversial clubs, and graduate without causing a ripple. Yet, they choose a difficult road because their consciences compel them to do so. That takes courage. It is no small thing to risk your education in order to support a cause, no matter how worthy. And today, with rare exceptions, only pro-life students are asked to do so at Canadian colleges and universities. 

These aren’t apathetic young adults killing time glued to game consoles or smartphones as life passes them by. These students are actively participating in campus life. They are assembling to express a perspective on an issue that is hotly debated by politicians and in the media. In the process, they are learning about political and social issues, challenging their peers to consider another perspective and being challenged in return. These students are developing valuable skills, such as a public speaking, research, writing and advocacy. Student engagement is an enriching aspect of any university experience.

On campus, no one would think of shutting down clubs that fight animal cruelty, or raise money for the library or cancer research– these are the acceptable causes. But it is only through permitting the expression of unpopular ideas that we are and prove ourselves to be the society we claim to be, one that is tolerant and hosts a true marketplace of ideas. These students’ courage brings a mirror to our collective face and demands that we examine who or what is looking back at us. If for no other reason, we owe these courageous students a debt of gratitude for this opportunity to assess our own commitment to freedom of expression.

Soon It Will Be Christmastime

Originally published in Faith Today, November/December 2012

By Don Hutchinson

The season of Advent is soon upon us. In a matter of weeks Christians worldwide will celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.

Being from the true north strong and free, I was raised with snow, a tree and gifts as key to my celebration. My first warm weather Christmas featured an inadequate attempt to turn some southern flora into a Christmas tree – fail. My first married Christmas away from “home” featured climbing a small mountain, chopping down an evergreen and carrying it home over my shoulder, dragging it on the ground behind me with one hand while walking forward, holding it with both hands, dragging it while walking backward and, ultimately, putting the bare side of the once-upon-a-time perfect tree against the wall in our front room.

Reflecting on it now, with maturity and broader experience, I understand how much more is included in Christmas. There are those who will not be born and will not celebrate Christmas on planet Earth. Those struggling through a final Christmas season with family before “heading home.” Those enjoying Christmas dinners at various missions because they are without a home. Those forced into plying an unwelcome trade on the street corners of our nation because others want to buy themselves the “gift” of using another’s body.  

Those of us in the Western world will again face the seasonal battle of “Season’s Greetings” vs. “Merry Christmas,” while in more than 50 other countries the dilemma is more “Can I speak the name of Jesus without being beaten or imprisoned?”– and yet Christ followers there still celebrate His birth.

The EFC’s Centre for Faith and Public Life promotes biblical principles relevant to the public policy issues mentioned above along with a variety of others. We group these under four broad categories: sanctity of human life, care for the vulnerable, family integrity and freedom of religion.

Working in these four areas has refocused my celebration of Advent not on the trappings of a Canadian Christmas celebration, but on the reality of the birth, death and resurrection of a saviour – the Saviour.

There are days when it is challenging to advance the principles of the gospel in a Canadian public square that can be increasingly hostile to religion, particularly Christianity. Giving up, however, would lead to increased privatization of a faith birthed centuries ago to be a public faith. Such privatization would mean fewer opportunities to share Christian faith or influence a Canadian society that, without Christian influence, would be further adrift without an anchor – the Anchor.

A friend suggested Christians have suffered too many defeats with government and the courts. Perhaps, he suggested, we should pause until we find a winner. But I see we have victories. They are seen with the vision of Him who was victorious even in the apparent defeat of death. In 2005 human trafficking became a crime under Canada’s Criminal Code, and earlier this year a comprehensive national strategy was initiated to combat this modern day slavery. In 2008 the age of consent to sexual activity with an adult was raised from 14 to 16, protecting more children from predators. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly declared the secular understanding of “sanctity of human life” is a value shared by Canadians. The Court has also repeatedly ruled that religiously informed opinions are not to be excluded from public policy debate. (It is worth noting that the language used in all these rulings can be traced to EFC court interventions.)

In recent months nearly 200,000 people flooded Parliament with letters, postcards, and petitions seeking review of Canada’s “born alive” rule regarding legal recognition as a human being. It’s heartwarming to see evidence people care enough about the injustice to our pre-born neighbours to engage with government.

Responding to His call to love one another – our brothers and sisters in Christ as well as our enemies and neighbours – we will find ways to do that personally: through direct individual contact, organizations that minister on His and our behalf, and contact with government. In these actions we celebrate not just His birth, but His life – the Life.

Is Bill C-279 really the “Bathroom Bill?”

By Don Hutchinson

Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression), arrived for hearing before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on Tuesday, November 20, 2012. The bill's sponsor, Randall Garrison (MP, Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca), noted that he worked to ensure the timing of the hearing date would coincide with the international Transgender Day of Remembrance on the same day.

It is unfortunate that a Transgender Day of Remembrance is required as no one should be singled out for mistreatment or abuse. All are made in the image of God, and thus of inherent and inestimable value. All are also different from each other and none more unique than another.

Still, there is no need for Bill C-279. While the bill would no longer create a jurisdictional anomaly, as I wrote a year ago in regard to its predecessor Bill C-389, because Ontario enacted legislation in June to add the categories of “gender identity” and “gender expression” to its Human Rights Code, such amendment remains unnecessary. As Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall noted at the October 3, 2012 Ottawa launch of the OHRC’s Policy on Competing Rights, the OHRC is currently developing its policy on gender identity and gender expression by reviewing decisions made by tribunals and the courts under the prohibited grounds of “sex” and “sexual orientation.” In short, the courts and human rights tribunals have already developed jurisprudence under existing human rights categories to protect people who are transsexual or transgendered.

At the risk of repeating myself these 12 months on:

When “sexual orientation” was read into the Charter and when Parliament was considering its addition to the Human Rights Act, consideration was given to a general term that would be broadly encompassing in similar fashion to the words already used in human rights legislation. Certainly, the parliamentary committee heard that the term “sexual orientation” was broad enough to include the issues of nature (born that way) or nurture (a result of environmental factors) in regard to one being heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise sexually oriented. To now suggest the need to specifically deal with transsexual and transgender individuals would be like me advocating that the term “religion” is inadequate and therefore human rights legislation should identify Baptists, Mennonites, Salvationists, Pentecostals … just to mention some of the Protestant Evangelical Christian expressions.

I might add to the list that it seems unnecessary (and unlikely) that there would be the need to pursue “religious identity” and “religious expression” as separate identifiable grounds from “religion.” Although such additional language would be comparable to what is proposed in Bill C-279.

The danger in adding unnecessary language to any statute, and particularly to human rights statutes, is that the new language is in need of interpretation. The proposal in Bill C-279 is to introduce “gender expression” and “gender identity” as undefined terms that will then be thrust before tribunals and courts for an interpretation that may or may not align with past understanding of the issue. The courts operate from a position that there must be a reason a legislature adds new words to legislation. The reason is usually assumed to be that the old language was somehow inadequate. And thus the quest begins for them to provide an adequate interpretation to the new language. This bill offers no certainty of understanding or interpretation in that it proposes adding undefined terms to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Such action has proven historically to be a dangerous gambit.

The reason some have labeled this the “Bathroom Bill” is because the difficulty of addressing potential discrimination in regard to someone who doesn’t appear to others to be the gender that they consider themselves to be (and desire to be so considered as by others) is fraught with unpredictability. Despite the intention of the transgendered Colleen Francis, her naked presence – with male genitalia – in the women’s locker room and sauna at Evergreen State College in Washington State while a high school girls’ swim team was using the facility last month caused understandable upset for the girls, parents and others.  The girls now use a smaller washroom and Colleen has the large change room and sauna to herself. There is a point at which individual rights must give way to others in a society, or at least a point where common sense should prevail. Perhaps, in Ontario, the policy on competing rights would come into play but is it necessary that there be such a complaint in the first place? And if there were such a complaint, history has shown it would already be dealt with under the categories of “sex” or “sexual orientation.”

The bill is problematic for many MPs because they justifiably fear taking action that might be seen as an offence by activists in the LGBT community, a vocal and influential group in contemporary Canada. I’ve written another blog on the inappropriate use of the label “homophobic” which offers some advice that is applicable here:

As sword rather than shield, the term is used to suggest a psychological disorder in the person or organization so labelled; and, to generate fear and to bully those it is directed against into silence. This label has become the contemporary slur of the 21st century, intended to silence the voices of those in our free and democratic society who might disagree with the public policy agenda of a select group of activists. This slur is intended as both insult and indictment directed at the very nature and character of the person or organization that dares to disagree …

… Accusations of “homophobia” have no place in public discourse, public dialogue or public debate and certainly no place in the legislatures, public squares or public schools of our nation. Reasonable people will disagree on matters of public debate. We might disagree with one another, but we are still called to accept and respect one another – as Canadians.

While the intent of protecting others from hatred and discrimination is worthy, Bill C-279 is a legislatively inadequate and unnecessary proposal. Parliamentarians are called upon to give full consideration to the potential consequences of such a vague amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act and cast their vote responsibly. The concern for sound public policy should not be misunderstood or misrepresented, just as no person – straight, gay or transgendered – is deserving of mistreatment or mischaracterization. The mistreatment intended to be addressed by the bill has been exposed as being already covered.