As we enter the school year, we wanted to point out an exciting court decision released at the beginning of the summer holidays that received too little attention. ARPA Canada has closely followed developments around the Canada Summer Jobs Grant since 2018, as explained here and here. Following various changes and legal challenges, the Federal Court of Canada has ruled against the federal government’s decision to deny Canada Summer Jobs funding to certain Christian organizations.
The Canada Summer Jobs program and the lead up to the court case
The Canada Summer Jobs program was developed during the Harper era (funding was doubled under Trudeau) to provide wage subsidies to employers so they could hire students they otherwise could not afford to hire. This program provides meaningful summer work and helps youth develop and improve practical skills.
Starting in 2018, for an organization to obtain funding, the government required that they must check a box to attest to their support for so-called Canadian ‘values’ including ‘reproductive rights,’ or abortion. The Liberal government had discovered that pro-life organizations were making use of the grant program and, for overt partisan reasons, wanted to put a stop to that. The government’s addition of this attestation box on the application created much controversy. Many Christian organizations refused to check the box outright, refused with an explanation, or added qualifying statements to their answer. As a result, many were denied funding.
As a result of public criticism from all sides of the spectrum, the government removed the requirement to fill out that attestation by 2019 and instead cited a requirement for organizations to be safe, inclusive, and free from harassment and discrimination toward employees. Even so, various Christian organizations were still denied funding in 2019.
Redeemer University, a Christian university in Hamilton, Ontario, had previously received Canada Summer Jobs funding from 2006-2017. They applied for funding for 11 students in summer 2019. Bureaucrats administering the program determined that Redeemer’s application was ‘high risk’ because of their belief in traditional marriage and required Redeemer to provide further information to prove that it does not discriminate against or harass employees. Redeemer responded, sharing their anti-harassment and safe workplace policies. Even so, the government denied funding to Redeemer.
Another organization, BCM International Canada, which operates Mill Stream Bible Camp, also challenged the government’s decision to deny funding to them. The Bible Camp applied for funding for six summer camp counsellor positions. Again, the government denied funding, stating that the organization discriminates against its employees.
The Federal Court Decision
In a decision from the Federal Court this summer, Justice Richard Mosley determined that the government had not treated Redeemer University with “procedural fairness.” He found that the federal government denied funding solely because of Redeemer’s Christian position on marriage. The government denied funding without informing Redeemer what the issue was with their application, and without providing further opportunity for participation in the process. Ultimately, the court determined that the application was denied because of Redeemer’s views on marriage and sexuality rather than issues relevant to the application for funding.
In the decision regarding BCM International Canada, the Federal Court also ruled that the government did not provide an opportunity for the Camp to provide relevant evidence that they did not discriminate against employees. He found that the government denied funding because of government assumptions about Christian beliefs rather than issues with the application itself.
Justice Mosley determined that the Court could rule in favour of the applicants without considering Charter issues such as freedom of religion, conscience, expression, or association. However, Justice Mosley stated in his decision that the government must be careful to consider Charter rights in similar situations. Mosley stated, “[Faith-based] institutions must be treated not just with procedural fairness but also with respect for their Charter-protected rights. Should it be established in another case that officials discriminated in administering funding programs against faith-based institutions because of the sincerely held religious beliefs of their Community, a finding of a Charter violation may well result.” The Court also ordered the government to pay the full legal costs of the applicants in both cases, something which is uncommon in these types of cases and which highlights the failure of the government to administer the program fairly without denying funding based on religious beliefs.
Reason for thanksgiving
Christian organizations do important work in our society, and the government should not determine who does and does not receive funding based on what the organization believes. We are thankful that the Federal Court of Canada recognized that the government must consider Canada Summer Jobs applications in a manner that is fair and reasonable, even if the applicant holds to beliefs that are different than what the government wants them to believe. In addition, these court decisions caution the government to give serious consideration to the fundamental freedoms of institutions and communities in the way they provide funding to faith-based organizations. Government funding should not be conditional depending on the beliefs and principles of an organization. This is an important victory for Christian organizations within Canada, and we can thank God for the way the courts held the government to account for its actions.
Our friends at the Christian Legal Fellowship intervened in these cases. To dive deeper, you can read their excellent factum here and here. You can also read the judge’s decisions here and here.
On Quick Updates this week:
Mark talks about ARPA’s upcoming Fall Tour, Parliament resumes next week, and the Government is talking Canada Summer Jobs for 2019.
Here’s a brief 2 minute update on what ARPA’s been up to this week.
On this episode:
– Colin encourages you to check out the We Need a Law store,
– Hannah Sikkema reflects on the Conservative Party convention,
– Plus, we highlight some summer action taking place in local communities!
By Lighthouse News
The federal government’s controversial “attestation requirement” for the Canada Summer Jobs program is being challenged in court again. Earlier this year, Toronto Right to Life launched a lawsuit over the attestation requirement on the basis that the demand for applicants to affirm so-called “Charter Rights” on reproductive choice – in other words, expressing support for the government’s position on abortion – was a violation of the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience guarantees of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Now, a small irrigation company in Brooks Alberta has launched a similar suit. It’s believed to be the first legal case involving an organization in the private for-profit sector; a group that is not explicitly tied to church or faith-based organizational structures, such as summer camps, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, or pro-life groups.
Lawyer John Carpay for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
The company is represented by John Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms in Calgary. Carpay says this entire file shows that the government simply doesn’t understand what “conscience rights” are. “Even the Prime Minister and the Labour Minister, Patti Hajdu, are going out publicly and saying at town halls: ‘We’re telling you that (the attestation) is only intended for pro-life groups, so if you’re not a pro-life group, you can just go ahead and sign it.'”
Carpay says that’s “asking people to set aside their integrity and not read what they’re signing”, adding that the court action is important to show that “this is not just about pro-life groups; it impacts private businesses as well.”
The Canadian Council of Christian Charities continues to compile a list of organizations that were denied Canada Summer Jobs funding because of their refusal to sign the attestation. Lawyer Barry Bussey says there could be a number of lawsuits announced in the new few weeks, adding that he’s aware that there are “other non-faith-based groups” which will also be filing court papers soon.
The National Post has also gleaned some new information in this controversy. Reporter Brian Platt has uncovered what appears to be a major inconsistency in the government’s justification for insisting on the attestation in the first place.
In January, when the government announced the restrictions, the Labour Minister said they had “heard a whole bunch of complaints” about pro-life groups receiving government dollars in earlier years.
But in court papers filed in the ongoing suit by Toronto Right to Life, there were only six complaints referenced, and five of those came as an identical form letter initially supplied by the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, while the sixth complaint provided an online link to that form letter.
Based on that new evidence, Toronto Right to Life has now asked the court to add “bad faith” to the grounds for its lawsuit on the issue. The group’s Blaise Alleyne says they were “shocked” to see that “the only basis for the government’s decision to discriminate against Canadians who hold different beliefs was just a series of requests from a single special interest group.” He says the Abortion Rights Coalition “asked the government to discriminate against Canadians with different beliefs than (theirs), and the government went ahead and did it, with no regard for the Charter.”
During court proceedings on the case last week, the Crown refused to answer questions about the new evidence contained in the affidavit.
Alleyne says there is legal precedent for his group’s position; the Roncarelli v. Duplessis case from Quebec in 1959.In that case, the government of Premier Maurice Duplessis punished an individual because of demonstrable prejudice against Jehovah’s Witnesses. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Duplessis had wrongfully used his authority and acted in bad faith in that case.
You can listen to the full interview with John as featured on our Lighthouse News broadcast here.
Employment Minister won’t say what ‘rights’ means
by John Sikkema
In his famous essay, Politics and the English Language, George Orwell lamented that “political words” tend to be so abused as to become almost meaningless. Their vagueness then allows people to use them “in a consciously dishonest way” – meaning the user allows the hearer to think he means something other than what the user had in mind.
Writing in 1946, Orwell listed “fascism”, “socialism”, and “democracy” as examples of abused political words. Were he writing today, I think he would include “rights”.
Employment Minister Patty Hajdu says she is willing to modify the application for summer jobs grants next year, “but again, whatever we do, it will still be with the policy goal of ensuring that we don’t in any way support organizations that are in any way working to undermine Canadians’ rights.”
In case you haven’t heard, anyone applying under the Canada Summer Jobs program for subsidies to hire students must attest that “both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights.” Hundreds of applicants refused to do so; their applications were consequently rejected.
The attestation’s terms are vague at best – what do “core mandate”, “respect”, “human rights”, “values”, and “other rights” mean, exactly? For a lawyer to advise a client to agree to such a string of vagaries in a contract would be malpractice. At least we know that “other rights”, according to the government, includes access to abortion. For many, there’s the rub.
Abortion might be considered a “right” the way any publicly funded service is. Health care, housing, or welfare are “rights” for those entitled to them under existing law. Would advocating for privatized health care or for welfare reform therefore be “working to undermine Canadians’ rights” in Minister Hajdu’s view? Or any advocacy for less government?
However, if by “rights” Minister Hajdu means Charter rights, it must first be said that abortion is not a Charter right – but even if it were, you wouldn’t violate the Charter by arguing that it shouldn’t be. If the Minister is talking about Charter rights, then the only way to avoid financially supporting a rights violator is to defund government, since government is the only entity capable of violating Charter rights. Ironically, the Minister may end up being reprimanded by a judge for trying to compel professions of respect for her idea of “Charter values” from law-abiding actors in the private sector, to whom the Charter does not apply.
Either Minister Hajdu is unsure what she means by “rights” or she intends to keep her meaning obscure. To justify the attestation, she uses the example of a church operating a summer camp with a code of conduct prohibiting homosexual relationships, commenting: “Well, you know, [that] is not in line with sort of the Charter or the way that our country understands relationships.” The Charter – “sort of” – except that religious codes of conduct adopted by religious institutions are protected, not prohibited, by the Charter.
Hajdu then adds, more confidently, “And, in fact, it is against labour law…” No, Minister. Churches and other religious entities have always been allowed to hire based on shared beliefs and a shared commitment to moral standards. The Minister has not proffered a single example of a funding recipient that has violated any law. Besides, employment, labour, and human rights law already have enforcement mechanisms.
In late March, the Liberals defeated an Opposition motion to allow “all organizations that engage in non-political non-activist work” to access funding whether they sign the attestation or not. So they are fine with funding activist, political groups, provided those groups are not conservative on such matters as “reproductive rights” or sexual conduct.
Get away from that slippery word, “rights”, and what the Minister is saying is this: her government does not want to subsidize anyone who believes abortion should be regulated or that an organization’s staff or members should conduct themselves according to an illiberal sexual ethic. But the Minister is at her most Orwellian when she tries to justify this partisan, ideological, and even illegal policy by relying on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – sort of.
By Lighthouse News
The federal government’s unwillingness to alter the rules around a controversial “attestation requirement” for applicants to the Canada Summer Jobs program could end up in court. The Canadian Council of Christian Charities (CCCC) is considering legal action after the Liberal majority in Parliament handily defeated a motion from the Conservatives last week. The motion, if passed, would have supported access to Canada Summer Jobs funding regardless of the private convictions of the applicants. Many applicants have refused to tick the attestation box because they interpret it as a requirement that they essentially agree with the notion that abortion is a Charter right.
Barry Bussey
The defeat of the motion means applicants for summer jobs funding are still in limbo when it comes to the status of their applications. Barry Bussey, a lawyer with the CCCC, says more than 170 organizations are still waiting to hear what will happen next. “We encouraged all of the people who contacted us that if they were denied (funding), to send another letter in to the Canada Summer Jobs Program, and to ask for an ‘accommodation’ of their religious beliefs (and) their Charter rights. We are now being told that the answer to that request for accommodation will be given in early to mid-April.” Bussey says they’re not very hopeful that the government is actually going to give approval to these organizations. So, he says, “the various charities are going to have to determine their next step. Will they just drop it, or will they look at a possible legal remedy?”
He says while it’s not clear yet whether a lawsuit will actually be filed, the attestation does set a very dangerous precedent in terms of what else the government might do with respect to this kind of values test. “One does not have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots (on this). When the government makes a values test and says, ‘We’re not going to give you government funding, or registered charitable status… unless you agree with us on whatever the issue is, this is just simply a recipe for chaos and disaster as a democratic society.” He says all Canadians, both religious and non-religious, need to be concerned about this kind of thinking that’s going on in government.
Bussey says ultimately, the precedent set by the Summer Jobs program attestation could be used to strip churches and other organizations of their charitable status, thus restricting their ability to hand out tax receipts for donations. These donations would be significantly hampered, curtailing the great work that so many Christian charities do across this country.
You can listen to the full interview with Barry as featured on our Lighthouse News broadcast here.
By Lighthouse News
As Parliament prepares to vote on an Opposition motion condemning the Trudeau government’s so-called “attestation requirement” for Canada Summer Jobs program funding, evidence is mounting that the requirement is creating problems far beyond the scope of what the government claims to be its intent.
The attestation requires applicants to affirm that the “core mandate” of their organization aligns with so-called “Charter Rights”, including “reproductive rights” and “the right to be free from discrimination based on… gender identity or expression.” Both Employment Minister Patty Hajdu and the Prime Minister have repeatedly insisted that the requirement was only meant to bar funding for summer employment that is specifically aimed at things such as pro-life activism. However, ARPA Canada is hearing from dozens of businesses and charities who cannot, in good conscience, sign on to the attestation. The requirement to affirm “reproductive rights”, they say, conflicts with their values on the issue of preborn human rights.
Nanda Huizinga-Wubs, who operates a popular charter and school bus rental company in the Ottawa area with her husband, says her company “did not apply for funding because of (the) attestation”. There was also an email from a woman who wants to remain anonymous, but who’s associated with a children’s summer camp. “Students working at (the) camp don’t feel comfortable signing this attestation. The camp, which has been affordable for all is going to have to raise their prices to cover the full cost of the students and will be prohibitive for some impoverished families that it serves.”
An associate pastor at an Edmonton-area church wrote that “all four of our applications (for Canada Summer Jobs funding) were rejected.” A number of Edmonton-area churches have been mobilizing and speaking with their MPs about the issue.
In Tilsonburg, Ontario, the operators of a local thrift store, established to help fund a local Christian school, had their funding denied. Onward Thrift’s Joanne Kok says they were “unable to check the box.”
Perhaps one of the more compelling pieces of correspondence came from a 17-year old high school student in Guelph, Ontario, who had hoped for a summer job at Lakeside Hope House, a facility that works with the elderly and the homeless. The letter, from student Sonja Verbeek, reads in part:
“The job I had last year involved spending my time with homeless people, preparing and eating meals with them, connecting with homeless individuals, supporting, advocating, and connecting the homeless population to resources that support them. Who is going to give the homeless this support now that these jobs are no longer available? How is it fair to create further distress to Ontario’s population that is already very marginalised?”
The letter continues: “The type of people Hope House supports are mostly not people of faith. Hope House does not and has not asked them to subscribe to the organisation’s beliefs. They simply want to make their lives better.”
And it’s not just faith-based organizations that are objecting to the attestation. Peace River-Westlock Member of Parliament Arnold Viersen released a letter last week from Bernadette Sharpe, the Chief of the Loon River First Nation in his constituency. “As an Indigenous Nation that ascribes to religious values, the restriction or force infringes on our Equality Rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Sharp wrote. “We hold to the values taught by our elders, and will not compromise (those values) for a few dollars.”
Parliament is set to vote on March 19th on an Opposition motion that pushes back on the attestation. The motion reads
That, in the opinion of the House, organizations that engage in non-political non-activist work, such as feeding the homeless, helping refugees, and giving kids an opportunity to go to camp, should be able to access Canada Summer Jobs funding regardless of their private convictions and regardless of whether or not they choose to sign the application attestation.
The motion is sponsored by the opposition Conservatives, and it’s widely expected that the Liberals will impose party discipline and “whip” the vote. However, ARPA’s Director of Law & Policy André Schutten says there is precedent for the government changing its mind on these kinds of issues. He points to discussions last year on an amendment to the Criminal Code to remove special protections for worship services. “The Liberals, going into the Committee (hearing on that issue) were completely for striking that section from the Criminal Code. The Justice Minister was in favour of it, and yet at the Committee stage, we saw the Liberals switch their vote specifically in response to grassroots action where every-day Canadians were contacting them and saying they were really concerned.”
Schutten says it’s particularly important that Liberal MP’s get the message on this issue. ARPA has launched an EasyMail campaign and telephone campaign to help you contact your elected representative. Please send your email and phone your MP before the scheduled vote on Monday.
You can listen to the full interview with André as featured on our Lighthouse News broadcast here.
The deadline for applying for the Canada Summer Jobs Grant has passed and the government is now processing applications. Part of the application is a requirement to check a box, affirming support for legal abortion, among other things. Some organizations refused to check the box. Some refused and explained themselves. Some checked the box but added a qualifying statement. At least one Christian charity checked the attestation and, without modifying the statement, simply appended their own statement of faith (a variation on the Apostles’ Creed) to the application. They were still denied funding! Apparently, the pro-abortion attestation is too pure to be sullied by a statement of Christian faith. Read some of these stories here.
If you have been denied funding, know someone who has, or even if you simply oppose this ideological litmus test, be encouraged that the Official Opposition is now challenging it with a motion stating:
“That, in the opinion of the House, organizations that engage in non-political non-activist work, such as feeding the homeless, helping refugees, and giving kids an opportunity to go to camp, should be able to access Canada Summer Jobs funding regardless of their private convictions and regardless of whether or not they choose to sign the application attestation.”
We recognize that the motion is silent on political and activist activities which defend our pre-born neighbours and a Christian perspective of sexuality, which this country desperately needs. However, the motion is commendable in that it defends other very important work Christians are doing across this country. The motion is also a direct challenge against the current government’s efforts to use public money to demand conformity to its radical secular ideology.
The vote on this motion is Monday, March 19th. ARPA Canada encourages everyone to use this opportunity to speak up!
We agree that the attestation, while claiming to respect the Charter, ignores its fundamental freedoms: religion and conscience, expression, and association. The government has tried to argue that the attestation doesn’t affect organizations that don’t deal directly with “reproductive rights” as part of their “core mandate”. However, they have refused to change the actual wording of the attestation, which appears to reasonable people to require that they affirm access to abortion as a Charter right or Charter value. So they still must choose to either not apply, apply without the attestation, or submit their own attestation. As we’ve seen, anything but strict compliance has resulted in a denial of funding.
Show your support in three ways:
- Send this EasyMail to your MP before March 19th and ask them to support the Opposition Motion to allow applications who refuse to check the box on this values test.
- Better yet, phone your Member of Parliament at their constituency office and ask them to vote for this motion. This is particularly important if your MP is Liberal or NDP.
- Best of all, meet with your MP at the constituency office. All this week and next week (March 5 to March 16), MPs are in their ridings. A visit from some high school or college students, or charity volunteers, or small business men or women would be a powerful voice for change.
If you’ve been directly affected by the CSJ attestation as a business owner, non-profit, or even as a summer student please let us know with a quick email to [email protected]. We’d like to hear your story. If you’ve been affected, please call your MP, explain your situation, and ask your MP to support the motion. Better yet, set up a meeting with them to chat about how this has impacted you!
What else is at stake? Barry Bussey, legal counsel with the Canadian Council of Christian Charities, explains the implications for charities in particular in this blog post:
the CRA’s application for registered charitable status is quite extensive. A charity’s application to be registered already entails screening of purposes and activities to ensure that they are not contrary to Canadian public policy. [MP Lisa Raitt] queried if the CRA already does such a review, why this attestation? In her view, the attestation requirement is about changing the Canadian public policy so that eventually the government will force registered charities go through a similar test.
When I posted Raitt’s comments on my Twitter account I was interested to see that one pro-choice advocate confirmed that, indeed, Raitt is on the right track.
They also provided a link to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s policy paper wherein they call for the removal of registered charitable status of charities that do not support abortion…
Given the fact that the federal government is highly attuned to the demands of the pro-abortion community, this latest call for the removal of registered charitable status for religious communities that have an “anti-abortion” position has got to be taken seriously. This forms part of the reasoning which compels CCCC and other religious groups to push back against the CSJ attestation requirement. In short, the attestation is but the thin edge of the wedge.
In short, what’s at stake is the freedom for Christian charities to minister to their communities without violating their principles and without losing charitable status. In fact, if charitable status is removed, a logical next step might be amending human rights law to subject such organizations to discrimination penalties. But you can help stand for truth and justice.
Let us know what you think. And take action before the vote on March 19th!
By André 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…”
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.
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? How much Scripture have we committed to memory for those lonely days in a prison cell? (There are no Bible apps in prison.) How often do we practice the spiritual discipline of fasting, as Jesus expected us to do? If nothing else, it trains us to cope with hunger. Do we practice the discipline of tithing, which develops a willingness to part with material blessings?
Are we prepared for whatever comes next?
Julia Beazley, Director of Public Policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
It looks as though the controversial “attestation” requirement for the Canada Summer Jobs program may be going to court more than once. At the centre of the dispute is a requirement that all applicants for summer jobs funding have to sign on to a statement vowing support for so-called “reproductive rights”.
Julia Beazley with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada says the government extended the deadline for applications for that program earlier this month, but ultimately, that didn’t make any difference. “They didn’t change their position on the attestation; the attestation itself remains unchanged and (is) still completely non-negotiable.” She says a number of organizations have been refused funding because they either wouldn’t sign the attestation, submitted alternate statements outlining their commitment to Charter rights, or asked for religious accommodation. “Those organizations are now starting to hear from Service Canada saying ‘your application is incomplete’ because the attestation was not checked.”
A Toronto pro-life group has already launched legal action; they had originally asked a court for an interim injunction to nullify the attestation requirement until full arguments against it could be heard. That application was denied last month, but the main lawsuit is still going ahead.
The Canadian Council for Christian Charities has now distributed a template letter to organizations that have been rejected for the funding. Beazley says those response letters may well form the basis for another lawsuit. “We’re in conversation with CCCC and the Christian Legal Fellowship about this, exploring what our legal options might be. I think if we were to challenge it, it would likely be on those Section 2 Charter rights that are laid out in that letter.”
You can listen to the full interview with Julia as featured on our Lighthouse News broadcast here.