Transcription
All >> [music] [music] >> Right. Welcome to Beyond the Sermon. This podcast exists to have helpful and practical conversations applying the word of God to all areas of life. And today, as you can see, we are joined by two very special and, we would call them, honorable guests with us right now, who have been so helpful to our church and to the greater community as well. We have Joel Kissik and Dina Warren with us. They are both members of our church here at Hope Bible Church here in Oakville, and they have been used to provide legal counsel in many different ways over many, many years that have been such a blessing again to, uh, our church, to our, uh, church plants, and to the greater church community as well, and not to mention other areas, uh, again. So, we're so thankful for that.
So, we're going to be talking about some legal matters here today. If you're tempted to think this is going to be boring, think again. It will not be boring. It's going to be great. And, um, many of the things we're talking about today are things that impact our daily lives, like around us right now, happening in this nation, are again, uh, getting a lot of attention, have a lot of concerns, um, specifically areas around free speech and also later on, areas of life and death, like literally. So, this is, uh, a super important time. Joel and Dina, we're so glad you are with us today. Before we start, maybe you could just introduce yourselves briefly, just personally and professionally, just to give some people some context. Joel, why don't you go first?
>> Thanks for saying briefly. Um, [laughter] uh, I'm, I've been a member of this church and been serving the church as its lawyers as long as I've been saved. I was saved in this church. Before that, I spent, um, several decades, um, being a high-end corporate commercial lawyer, which I still do, but my first charity client was this, uh, church, and as you rightly said, since then, uh, worked in many, many, many different kinds of, uh, challenges and helping the church. Um, one of the greatest satisfactions in helping the church is not just, uh, and here's the legal answer and steering through the shores and all these kinds of things, but the heart to bring the heart of Christ to serving the church. I mean, I tell other churches this, everybody serves the Lord in one way. This is how I serve him, and it's a great delight.
>> Joel, your story is amazing. And what's the line you shared again, too? Like, all the way along, God needed >> Oh, yeah. [laughter] That's right. It's, um, you were saying, "Well, um, this church is going to need a lawyer here. I'll just save Joel there. Now you got a lawyer." >> And the fruit has been amazing. [laughter] Like, honestly, the Lord's love upon you and how that's been such an impact. We're so grateful you're here. >> I'm so grateful too. >> Dina. >> Uh, well, thanks for having me. I'm really delighted to be here, especially with Joel, um, and with you to talk about these things. And the law is interesting. I will say I agree with that. So, um, yeah, I grew up in a Christian home, was saved in university, and the Lord kind of opened doors to allow me to go to law school, and, you know, had family, which I wasn't sure how that was going to go with with practicing, but I was able to do part-time work in a lot of religious freedom cases, which was super fascinating. And then for the last, um, almost seven, seven or so years, I've been working in an organization, a charity that represents charities, and I get to do a lot of their advocacy work and legal work. So, really interacting in those places between law and charity interests and constitutional law. And so our topic today is like squarely within that scope, and um, I really, really love these topics. I love engaging in them, and it's a joy to be able to talk about it today with you both.
>> Well, we think this is a great, uh, meeting a great need today, and so again, to have expertise in the room, which is, uh, super, super helpful. So, if people don't know, obviously, today our focus is going to be on Bill C-9, which has created quite a stir across our nation, especially in certain kind of sectors. It's come with controversy. It has come with some protest, I think rightly, and also lots of confusion, I have found, as well, and we're hoping to try to help with that a little bit here today. So, why don't we start with the basics? Some of our people listening right now, like Bill C-9, like there's some that know about it, there's some that are in the middle, some have no idea what is going on with this bill and, uh, what it's about. So, what is Bill C-9, Dina? What is it trying to accomplish?
>> Sure. So, Bill C-9 is called the Combating Hate Act, and what it does, it adds a few offenses to the criminal code around hate speech and hateful expression. Um, it defines some terms, um, and it removes a defense that existed as well if you were charged with a hate speech, um, offense. Now, I just, in one brief context for that, is there have been a lot of concerns about around, um, issues like anti-semitism and some increasingly violent and hateful acts, um, and so this is, um, has been framed as the government's response to concerns around those issues.
>> Right. Okay. Where is the bill currently? Something that just happened, like, just this past week.
>> Yeah, exactly. So, we are talking about it as a bill, but it is law. So, it has been passed by the House and the Senate. It has been passed into law, and it will become effective. So, it can be enforced, um, as of July 18th, 2026.
>> Okay. Wow. Okay. So, what exactly does Bill C-9 change in terms of Canadian hate speech law, and why are people concerned about it?
>> Great question. Um, so specifically, it introduces new offenses. Um, it introduces, um, what we call an add-on hate offense. So, if you're charged with any federal offense, so that can be in the criminal code, or there are other federal legislation, there's other federal laws, excuse me, where you can be charged with an offense. If those offenses are found to be motivated by hate, you get an add-on charge of a hate offense. So, there's that. There's, um, an offense of promoting hate by using symbols, and some of the symbols are specifically identified. Um, there is an obstruction, obstructing access to certain spaces, um, that has been added. Hatred has been defined, um, in the criminal code. It previously was not defined. We would have to look to court decisions to understand what that means. And, um, one of the key pieces that probably would interest, um, folks listening here, is that the bill, now law, has removed what is called the good faith religious defense.
>> That's right.
>> Um, so, I would say, in some, those are like the key elements of, of the bill. Um, and I will also say that removal of the good faith religious defense was not part of the very first bill that kind of came about as a result of some political bargaining through the legislative process.
>> Okay. One of the real tricky parts, my understanding of what is now law, is essentially the government, in some sense, and you can agree or disagree, I want to talk about this. Have we just tried to criminalize an emotion? Is that, is that fair to say, because of how the law is now defined and how do we define exactly hate? And where, again, in the past, where a motive would be used to verify the actual crime, now the motive or the emotion itself could be seen as criminal. Is that, is that incorrect or correct?
>> Yeah, I mean, there's certainly an emotional element to what we define as hatred. And I think that that question is probably most relevant to that new add-on offense of hate, because it's simply motivated by hate. And it's a little bit the way it's phrased. I don't want to get too technical, cuz it's that part, I will admit, is a little bit boring. But the way it's phrased in the criminal code is not exactly the same as the existing hate offenses. It seems to be a bit of a lower threshold. Um, and it's not exactly clear how this is going to work in practice, that add-on offense. And so, I, I do think that there's some legitimate questions and concerns in that one.
>> Um, talking about the emotion. Yeah, there's definitely, in hatred, it's an emotion. It's not, and the criminal code offense, uh, is willfully promoting hatred, an emotion. So, Joel has something in his heart. This is not what it's targeting. Joel going out and trying to put something in somebody else's heart. That's the problem.
>> And the, what used to be there, as Dina said, the, the defense for, um, good faith exposition of scripture, paraphrasing, that's been removed. Um, but the idea, the core idea of willfully promoting hatred is not, has not changed. They just defined what hatred was. They sort of took a Supreme Court decision, dropped it in with a few tweaks, but basically that's it, which is willfully promoting hatred. And they actually define hatred as an emotion. And it's a pretty strong term.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And highly subjective, depending on who you're talking to, too.
>> Uh, yeah, actually, you, you make a very good point, because the test is not, "Did you mean Joel to actually promote hatred?" That's not the test. It's, "Would a reasonable person have said, 'Yeah, Joel is promoting hatred'?" Well, okay. Please define for me what a reasonable person is in [laughter] this day and age. That's a, that's a more challenging, and you know what, probably not steeped in the scriptures would be my guess, is how a court would interpret a reasonable person. And I think, like, one of the, one of the main reasons we're here right now in this podcast is kind of the potential implications of this law now, this criminal law in our nation, and how it affects the church, how it affects the gospel of Jesus Christ, how it affects the preaching of the word of God, how it affects specifically, again, areas that, you know, we deem as fundamental to the beliefs that we hold to in terms of God's design for creation, sexuality, gender, repentance, sin, judgment. [snorts] I mean, all of this now, again, this is the confusing part. Can, can these things now be determined? Things that we hold true in the word of God, the Bible, to preach the gospel, can elements of these be determined as hate speech now?
>> That's a great question.
>> Yeah. [laughter] It kind of is the question, isn't it? Yeah.
>> So, it's, um, I mean, yes and no would be my answer, because it really does depend on how those are expressed. Um, I think you could see some people say, "Well, I am expressing these in, um, a way that is faithful and true to the word." Um, that absolutely does not come anywhere close to, um, that standard. And then you have other people who will choose to express it in ways that maybe come a little closer to that line. Um, certainly, I think within the context of our church and anything that I've heard, absolutely not. Um, absolutely not. But I, I can see how people are concerned about that and how it does create a chilling effect. But, you know, based on statements that have been made by, say, the minister, about what this is going to capture, we've been told that it won't capture good faith religious expression. And if it has wasn't captured before, it shouldn't be now. Okay.
>> Um, that's at least what we've been told.
>> Yeah. And there, the religious defense that was there before, I, [clears throat] don't think it was ever used. It might have been used. I, I don't think it's ever been used. So, it's not like there's a stack of, "Oh my gosh, we've just lost the one defense we had." No, no, no, no.
>> The, [clears throat] focus on the, >> the willful promotion of an emotion of intense hatred, vilifying people.
>> Okay.
>> Well, you can, as Dina says, you can preach the gospel more than one way.
>> Interesting. One of the challenges, though, is, is that in the debate process of this bill being forwarded, you have a liberal MP. My understanding was, and he did reference certain biblical passages in the context of being examples of, again, correct me if I'm wrong, these detail, okay, very important. But my understanding was he did reference biblical passages, Romans 1, Leviticus, you know, maybe 1 Corinthians, in terms of this would be an example of hate speech that we need to get rid of. Fair?
>> Yes, in the committee hearings at the House of Commons, an MP said, pointed to Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Romans, and said that they are clearly hateful. So, that obviously is deeply concerning that, um, an elected MP would describe them as falling within that category. So, yes, it was deeply concerning. Um, and I think that's one of the key reasons. I mean, there are general reasons. You didn't need that statement to be concerned about some of the developments in the legislation, but that sort of, um, really, I think, woke a lot of people up to say, "We need to start paying attention to what's happening here."
>> Yeah. Yeah. Maybe saying the quiet part out loud, maybe like, like this is, this is the challenge. Sean, go ahead.
>> Yeah. Sorry. I, I, I, uh, tend to be a bit bullish on these kinds of things. U, it, it, it shouldn't shock us that somebody who doesn't hold that view would say, obviously, this is hate speech. And the intention of some people to create a chilling effect has to be resisted because, look at what the law says. What exactly is being prohibited?
>> Well, do you go around saying people are subhuman? Yeah, you, you'd have a problem. If you don't, if you're preaching the, the gospel, get out there and preach the gospel. And there are, this may shock people, but there are enemies of Christ in the community, um, who would love nothing better. And C-4, which Dina alluded to, is an example of that. You read the preamble of that, and it is about the most anti-faith statement by a government you can get. And it chills people like this thing, removing the religious exemption when first it wasn't relied on. Second, you know, there's more than enough room to preach the gospel with love and the ethics of love your God and love your neighbor without any concern about being, you know, somebody being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you're vilifying, you're promoting the vilification, let alone the fact that the people who have had problems with hatred promotion, they were guys out handing out pamphlets and doing things completely sort of pushing of you versus a, a church, which is entirely voluntary, where it's all in the context of a pastoral preaching of the council of God. So, I tend to, um, I tend to see in this an intention to cause a chill. And what I'd really like to make sure that we leave people with is, here are a couple of concrete things. Now, sleep at night. Don't, don't waste two seconds worrying about this. Get out there and proclaim them. Why? Because this isn't targeted at you. The government has said it's not targeted to you. The law, forget the religious removal of that. Yes, it's a problem in the sense that it shows the government doesn't like faith as much as they used to. They're, they're giving it. It's a gimme, I think, to those who don't like Christianity or don't like faith-based. So, they promote, they put in a law that basically says it's illegal to promote hatred and to interfere with places of worship, and at the same time, take out the defense for religious preaching. It's a bit of a mixed message. So, is the community? It's mixed.
>> So, if we, like, again, my understanding is, like, let's say, for example, we're preaching Romans chapter 1, right? Which is a clear understanding, um, of the sin that we believe is homosexuality, and God's design is for a man and a woman. And someone's sitting there in the church, and they disagree with this, and could they, because my, my understanding was they could personally claim, "Well, uh, I feel, you know, that I've been, you know, whatever threatened or whatever it is," and they can individually, you know, create a disruption based on this law. Is that true or no?
>> So, at one point, so no. Um, this, this actually requires Attorney General consent. There were, uh, to most of the offenses in this section of the code, there was a time where the, that was going to be removed. Um, but that kind of adds a layer of, um, vetting, if you will, um, in terms of any charges going forward. And so, that is part of the law. That remains part of the law. It was before they thought about taking it out, but that has stayed in the law as the Attorney General consent. And I think Joel's point before is really important. Someone, um, you know, someone in the general public, their understanding or their subjective idea of what's hateful is not necessarily, and probably most of the time, not actually in line with what's in the code.
>> Okay.
>> It is a high threshold. It is meant to be a high threshold. Um, and so people can use the term hatred colloquially or like, but in the legal term, it has a very specific definition, and most of the time, those two things aren't the same.
>> Okay. And you're confident that the actual legal definition will hold up?
>> Yeah. Um, so, the legal definition, I mean, I can tell you what it is if you're interested in what the actual code says.
>> Let's do. Want you to.
>> Yeah. [laughter] >> Yeah. Because it, it shows you the, the, >> And by the way, as you're about to do this, one of the next questions is like the tension now perceived, like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, what we have, our protections there, is anything happening right now threatening to remove some of those rights and freedoms? That kind of dovetails whether you're about to say that'd be helpful too.
>> Sure. Yeah, I can comment on the Charter. Um, so, hatred now in the criminal code has been defined as an emotion, like you said, we were talking about earlier, of intense and extreme, of an, an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation. So, that definition is drawn directly from a Supreme Court case, actually, from 1990, that dealt with some of these questions. Um, now, it doesn't, it, it's fine in, so, in itself, like, it's accurate, but I think if you look at some of the cases, there's so much more in the cases, >> about six, I mean, what isn't included that also, that's the definition of hatred, and there's a clarifying section. [laughter] >> And what does that say?
>> Yes. The clarifying section says, um, a statement is not considered hatred solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends.
>> Okay.
>> And so, I think a lot of what we see is, "I'm offended by what you say. It must, it's hateful. It's hatred. It's, it's criminal." But that's not >> the legal standard.
>> It's very common in society right now for that to happen. "I feel unsafe. I'm harmed. I'm whatever." Okay. But you're saying legally, that doesn't hold up. We, we pray.
>> [laughter] >> Yes. Well, uh, because this definition is drawn directly from the Supreme Court decisions, uh, you know, they have reversed themselves in the past, but this one is pretty well established. I think what we do lose in this definition is some of the context from those cases where there's a little more commentary, and that's where you get some of these pieces like, um, you know, delegitimizing. It's based on this idea of destruction, destruction, and, um, implying that people should be despised or, um, subject to extreme ill treatment. Like, you, like, there's some contextual factors and explanations in the cases, but the definition itself is pulled directly from the >> it's about people, not about sin, not about actions.
>> God prohibits this conduct. That is sin. I'm not saying that people who do that are subhuman, you know. So, preaching what one, Romans, Romans says is sin. This is, [clears throat] what God says is sin. That is not a criminal code offense.
>> Okay. Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Is there any concern from either of you in terms of what's currently happening? Maybe even the trend trajectory, right? Um, Charter of Rights and Freedoms is huge for Canadians. You know, our ability to be able to express our opinion, freedom, religion, all the things that we hold very, very dear. Any concerns in terms of where this is headed?
>> Well, the Charter and this section is very interesting because, um, we were talked earlier about the good faith religious defense, and when the court was actually, Supreme Court, I should say, was looking at these offenses, um, I mean, on their face, they infringe expression because they're limiting what people can say. Um, but we can have limits on our constitutional rights, and they said one of the reasons we can have this limit on expression is because of these defenses, including the good faith religious defense. So, it is an interesting question, and I know your question's broader, and I'll answer that, but it's an interesting question whether these, um, removing that defense will, um, impact the constitutionality of these offenses in the future. Um, in terms of religious freedom generally, as a Charter freedom, you know, I think it should be robust. It's fairly robust. The description is really quite good in what it, what it covers. Um, it's ter, it's in terms of what, how you can infringe it legally, like what limits will the government allow, and there have been, it's, I would say, success is divided, sort of, in recent cases, um, on the, the limits that are allowed and the scope of religious freedom. Um, >> yeah, I would say it's mixed. Um, does it, does it mean that it will be, would be unsuccessful in this case? No, I actually think there, potentially, depending on the facts, it, it would be, um, quite a, a good case to, to, to use, particularly with the removal of the defense.
>> So, if a pastor were ever charged under this section, the challenge would be the section's unconstitutional as an infringement of my right, and all rights have the subclause of subject to such reasonable limits. That's not a reasonable limit. There's no reasonable limit here. That would be, and it's mixed. How do you see the next 10 years? Like, you see that further the reasonable limits exception? Yes, we have this shining right, subject to reasonable limits. What do you mean by reasonable? Is that going to be, you know, what, maybe one more, and one more, and one more? Is that what you see?
>> I think that's fair. Um, so much deters on the facts, and so, in this type of case, if you're talking about, you know, a charge on hate speech, um, so much will would turn on the facts. How is it expressed? Is, is it targeting a specific group on their identity? Is it denigrating them? Is it trying to make them appear subhuman? Are you preaching the gospel?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> And those are really two very different things.
>> Amen.
>> So, there is an aspect of this, like, so as, as, as a pastor, as a church, as a Canadian citizen, we have two lawyers here that are providing expertise, which we're so thankful for. The average person listening to, though, they're sensing, "Hey, this doesn't seem good," or like, "Why is the government doing this?" or "What's the, what's the actual agenda here? What's the motive?" Like, like, um, for, for the, for the lay person, for the common person listening right now, and like, I myself would just like, you're like, you're hearing all this and you're like, "Why are we even doing this?" or like, "Cuz I think one of the arguments you would both make would be nothing's actually really changed through Bill C-9." Like, and you can talk a little bit about that, too. Like, we already had all these things in place. So, what is the point of this? And then, like, is there a greater concern in terms of bigger picture and spiritually? Cuz at the end of the day, one of the things I believe in so much, and, and it's my right or job as a pastor to be able to teach our people that at the end of the day, biblically speaking, it's good versus evil. It's Satan versus Jesus Christ. Like, that is true. Absolutely. Like, you know, the prince of the power of the air is Satan, and Jesus Christ and one who has a victory, and he'll be exalted forever. So, all these things happening down on earth, at the end of the day, there is this cosmic battle going on, this war. As believers, we understand that. And so, we're always trying to kind of discern, like, who, who's where, and how, and all that stuff, too. It encourages me as a whole, because I expect things to be difficult biblically speaking. So, it doesn't ultimately discourage me. It does, it does have times of like, "Man, this is not good." Cuz like, I think we're so blessed and spoiled in Canada, right? Like, we've grown up in this incredible nation. So much to be thankful for, and it seems like it's starting to really break down. Now, I want to hear your comments. And I said a lot there. Yeah.
>> Uh, yes. Over to you. [laughter] Um, boy, the first question, "What's going on here? Why are they trying to do this?" If you tell me they're not changing anything, sorry, I, I, that doesn't make any sense. Why are you doing something that doesn't change anything? And, you know, my answer, uh, and Dina may have a different one, but my answer is, uh, you forget, laws are passed by politicians who want to get reelected. And so, what are they trying to do? And if we say to you, "Get out there and preach just like before," uh, and don't worry about these amendments, and you say, "Why? There's amendments. That means something, doesn't it?" You'd say, "Well, actually, uh, in this particular case, um, I, you couldn't say since they've criminalized using the swastika or the SS bolts, and they've criminalized getting in the way of, I mean, specifically criminalized, like Dina said earlier, I think it was already criminalized, but specifically criminalized getting in the way of people having access to their mosques or their synagogues or their churches." Um, there are people, this again may shock you, who would be delighted to have the Christian just shut up and sit down and stop preaching the gospel. And they have a voice, and they are listened to. And the government, like that liberal MP that Dina talked about earlier, who will stand up and say something like that. If I had been in the room, I would have said, "Hogwash."
>> Right?
>> It depends, right?
>> It, Dina says it's the facts. Yes, I can, I can use Romans 1 and vilify and hatred and they're subhuman and all this stuff. I can also say to say, "This is the Lord pointing you to Christ."
>> Everybody in this room is a patient.
>> Nobody is better than anybody else. We all need Christ, which is, you know, this is the message of the gospel, which is why I say so. That's what I think they're trying to do. That's why I think it is there. And that's why I also think, guys, don't waste two seconds sleep. Go back out there and preach the gospel. And the enemy wants you to be afraid.
>> That's right.
>> So, I would say to the people watching this, you want to help. Okay. First, call your MP and say, and talk [clears throat] to him about this. And second, uh, I, I'm very deeply troubled that you would remove the religious push. And second, pray for your pastor that he preach the full gospel boldly, and without a [clears throat] fear. Like, this, you can do this. This is what we should do.
>> Amen. That's helpful. Dina,
>> thank you. [laughter] >> I'm encouraged. Oh, yes. Agreed. It's good.
>> Amen. [laughter] >> And Dina's going to say, "Ignore what he said. It's all wrong."
>> No. No. I think you make a really good point because, you know, the question is, what do you already have? You have tools that could address this. And so, there's a, there's a problem, a real problem. Um, but it is a question of enforcement and a willingness to enforce. And there hasn't been a willingness to do that. So, instead of enforcing the laws, we're going to enact new, new offenses to make it appear that we're responding to the problem. Um, and so the question really will come down to, will this be enforced? And it will, will it be enforced in ways, um, that address those concerns? They're saying it will. Um, I think the other piece is, laws change. Just because this has changed this way doesn't mean we're stuck with this forever.
>> They can be changed again.
>> Oh, that's a great point.
>> Uh, yeah. So, call your MP and say, "Put it back."
>> Yeah. We got to keep voting, right? So, yeah, our, our responsibility. Joel brought up the chilling effect. Let's talk about that a little bit. I'm concerned about this, okay? Because what happens? So, the chilling effect is people will be tempted now with what is out there, even hearing, and then like the response is, "Oh, fear." And then, um, I think the temptation for pastors, leaders, churches, I mean, for sure, this is already happening from Bill C-4, and then now C-9, um, the temptation is going to be to self-censor. The temptation is going to be to play it safe. The temptation is going to be not addressing the passages that might be the ones that are controversial. The temptation is to soften, water down the gospel. Right? This is what Joel just said. We can't do that. I say amen 100 times. Um, but that's a real temptation. Again, um, the chilling effect of softening voices and limiting conviction to areas that we feel safe. Do you believe, do you agree that this is a, a temptation that we're going to be facing across our land?
>> For sure. I mean, I can totally understand why it's understandable. You're looking at a criminal law. You're looking at some, you know, maybe sensational headlines or some, you know, misinformation about what it's actually doing. And so, I can definitely understand that. But I think that means it's even more important for, you know, >> gospel-centered preaching to continue to demonstrate this is not even close to hate speech. And if, if there is a vacuum there, what happens is you allow those extreme voices that do exist to kind of say, to take up that space. And you definitely don't want that.
>> Right. Right. That's well said.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Well, all that has to happen for evil to spread is good men do nothing. Right. Um, and >> that's right. >> There is, um, when I was speaking to the people who watch this, not only pray for your pastor, let them know you're praying. Get five people together and say, "We prayed for you today. >> God bless you and strengthen you and speak through you the gospel." Like, I would also say to a pastor, your faithful expository preaching of the gospel encourages your fellow pastors. The converse is also true. >> Like, I don't, I, um, I don't wish to add to a burden, but, you know, the gospel is not popular. News flash. Um, people don't like to be confronted with sin, you know. Okay. But don't shrink. That's right.
>> Because we, everybody, we grow strength by seeing, uh, that pastor is preaching and unafraid. And, you know, it's not just for you. I mean, this is always true of any pastor. You're not preaching just for you. Of course, this is true. But in this particular context, your fellow pastors who need to see, "I'm not afraid."
>> Yes.
>> And what we're trying to communicate here is, lawyers are saying, "Right, don't be, >> Yeah. >> preach."
>> I love that. Lawyers that are fired up for Jesus, exalting the [laughter] Lord, and just passionately encouraging pastors to be bold with the gospel. This is great. You know, [laughter] these are the kind of lawyers I want to hang out with more often. So, yeah, what a breath of fresh air. I'm sure everyone listening is like, "This is awesome." So, yeah, which is so true, [laughter] too. So true.
>> Our number is 1-800-Christ-Saves. Nice. [laughter]
>> Ah, Joel, that's so good. So good. Um, I, um, Paul Carter, uh, he writes a lot. He's a, he's got a bright mind, whatever. He said C-9 could be used, again, the government setting up, could be used as a shield, protection, like this is how it's being kind of packaged. And he says, at the same time, the way it's written, could be used as a sword. It could be used to damage and and cut, whatever. So, we've talked a bit about this already, but maybe we'll just from this angle. Um, again, the way the, the way the government currently is presenting it is this big shield for protection against those who are vulnerable, those who are might be attacked. But we also know the way it's written, and again, the things that they have removed, and good faith stuff, is that it, it could, this is hard, right? Because again, when it's actually come into an actual context and a judge looks at it, whatever could be a shield, could be a sword. Comments?
>> I think that, uh, that's fair. Um, and there is some uncertainty because we don't know what it will look like in its application, or if it will be applied, right? It's all about, it's a question of again, enforcement, um, and what sort of might be that first case that appears before a court under these provisions. Um, >> and again, I do, I do come back a little bit to the, the shield piece, because there are already so many, um, parts in the criminal code that could address obstruction or criminal harassment or mischief or trespassing. Um, so, there are many, and, and the existing hate offenses as well. So, there are a lot that could have already been used. Um, and, you know, my question is always, well, like, why not, why haven't they been used already? Um, if there is a need for protection and a shield, why aren't those being used?
>> And by the way, maybe like, let our people know too, like, you, you went to Ottawa to speak on this exact issue. Tell us a little bit about that. That was just very recently.
>> Sure. Yeah. Thanks, Joel. Um, so, in, in the legislative process, just for some context, um, and at both the House of Commons and at the Senate, they'll usually have a committee that looks at the legislation, kind of really closely, and they'll invite people to come and give testimony, um, both in person, and then you can usually submit something in writing. And so, I had the opportunity to go to the Senate in person, to the committee, and present some of the concerns, um, answer questions, and just interact with the senators, um, directly. And, you know, we definitely asked the discussion about enforcement and duplication and the good faith religious defense, um, and how that has been important in, um, not effective in its actual application. It hasn't been used to, as successfully as a defense, but it's used to ensure that the offense remains constitutional. Um, and just to question that and to urge, um, amendment, um, that would be, you know, better generally, and obviously in the interests of Christian communities. So, yes, I did have that opportunity. I'm so thankful, um, to have that opportunity. It was, um,
>> We're [snorts] so thankful that you went. Thank you for representing millions of Canadians. How, like, were, How did you find that experience? Were you encouraged? Were you discouraged?
>> So, I would say I found it, I found the experience encouraging. The senators seemed genuine in their, um, in how they listened, in their questions, in their interactions and engagement. Um, afterward, it was quite disappointing, I will say, to see the results and some of the debate once the, once the Senate came back together, and to see some of those same senators and some of the statements that they then made in the full Senate, um, it felt like, "Okay, they didn't actually hear what we said." So, it was a good experience in terms of the interactions, but the outcome, of course, was, was quite disappointing.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. It is, uh, is, um, it's not views on this are not really constrained to one particular political party. It's more societal thing.
>> Okay.
>> You know, um, uh, I, the, the view that, um, we need to do something about this, and we need to be seen to be doing something about this, explains why they could take a, you could listen to an articulate argument and do it anyway, because you, I'm not really trying or interested in changing the law. I'm interested in doing something that demonstrates I'm listening to people who care deeply about this and are afraid and are increasingly afraid. Now, one could say, um, that you'd say, "If that were true, where are the prosecutions? Where are the charges? Go get the guys who put the SS bolts on the synagogue and arrest them." You know, where are the resources being devoted?
>> Um, I don't know the answer to that question. Um, but I do think that what this thing is, why are we doing this at all, has more to do with appearing to do something than actually, and I'm not alone in saying this. I mean, I'm not sure what a particular Jewish community has, but it's not, they're not alone. I'm not alone in saying that, well, this doesn't really do much. It's a nice sign, but it doesn't really. Are there not Jewish groups who even criticize this bill as you're not going? It's ambiguous. Everybody says that, but, um, who go further and say, "You're not really helping."
>> Yeah, there were groups on both sides coming at it from both sides.
>> Okay.
>> I think the problem is, even if it's not doing anything, what is on the books has expanded criminal code. And I think with the criminal code, this is like the state's most coercive power, right? Like, they can actually, >> you know, sometimes the punishment is the process, even if you're not eventually convicted, but it is a very coercive power, and to have these additional offenses on the books and lack of clarity, um, it, it, it's problematic.
>> Yeah. Maybe just flush out the punishment is the process. I think that's, that's, that's a legitimate concern for where we are, that none of us want to have to go through, you know, like, we love you guys as lawyers, but then there's a lot of lawyers that aren't so fun, you know? So, anyways, what does that mean? The punishment [laughter] is the process.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, because one, you know, you're charged with a criminal offense, that in and of itself can be quite difficult, and then you have a process. Yeah. Exactly. Um, the implications of having outstanding charges, depending on what they are, I mean, you're, you're having to appear in, in court, you're having to hire a lawyer, you're facing the tons of money.
>> Oh, tons of money. Um,
>> um, potential prosecution, just that weight on you, and it, it's a slow process. These things generally don't resolve very quickly. Um, and so that whole process can be very taxing, very demanding, very expensive, um, very stigmatizing. Um,
>> Yes.
>> So, that would be kind of the idea of the process as punishment.
>> On the other hand, Paul was in prison.
>> So, that is true.
>> Easy to say, Joel. I get that.
>> Yeah, it is easy to say for all of us. Yeah. But you're right. Um, we've kind of touched on this a little bit, and we're kind of like, maybe the, you know, formal, official questions that we're asking, but like, practical wisdom for those that are listening right now, too. Joel, you said a lot of good things, too, but there any kind of final pieces where you guys are sitting? I think it's helpful. I think there's a, a calming effect that we're receiving from you guys today. There's a, you guys actually believe in the quality of the law to some degree, or, you know, to a, to a strong degree, right? Because I think I think that, like, the level of distrust is growing, right? Like, like politicians, it's pretty hard, like, you know, you're like, "What's happening?" Right? So, again, I probably speak for a lot of people where you're like, "Okay, but they say this, but then they say the exact same or different thing to someone else." So, so practical wisdom that you would have for people listening, and just kind of how to, um, how to move forward in the days that we live in.
>> You want to start? I can say that's perfect. I wouldn't [laughter] say anything. I was hoping to have it go the opposite way. Joel,
>> happy to.
>> I mean, I think what Joel said earlier, like, really, just keep doing what you're doing. Like, don't stop sharing the gospel. Don't stop preaching the word. Um, it, in many ways, as we've talked about, the details of this have not changed. We've expanded the scope and removed a defense. Those are, those are problematic things. But in essence, what you have been doing, keep doing it. Even if it were criminal, you know, really, we're called to do that anyway.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Right. And you were talking earlier about understanding the spiritual realm and, >> um, ultimately, and you say this a lot, and I'm always encouraged by it, Jesus wins. And if you're on that team, you're good.
>> Yeah. Amen. Yeah.
>> Like, >> that is encouraging to thank you for the reminder. So, yeah. [laughter]
>> But for real, like, I, I really, I think about that a lot in doing this, this kind of work, too. [clears throat]
>> Um, some nuts and bolts things. Um, first, um, uh, and not in no particular order, I'd say, um, part of this law is aimed at people getting in the way of, obstructing, and making people afraid to go to church or synagogue or so on.
>> So, teach your ushers, your welcome team. Here's what to do if that ever happens. If somebody shows up and they're extraordinarily cranky and a little bit crazy, you know, how do you deal with that? Which, in short, is, don't engage, call the cops. M.
>> Um, second, um, uh, said this, but you preach the gospel. And also, when you have position papers, like this church has a position paper on, uh, gender, uh, and sexuality, which is phenomenal, because what you want to combine is, when you're preaching on these difficult things, or even speaking about them, and you want to combine them with a pastor's heart, >> of love and compassion and hope.
>> So, not just, "Hey," and even that, I would say, you're, you're not going to breach the criminal code, but if you want to put belts and suspenders and staples and glue and like, eight levels of protection, just always connect, which you do anyway, but always connect, including, uh, on your website, if you've got public statements, um, the, the sin and these, in these areas, with love. And I, I, third point, I'd say, is look, anytime you, you should engage in this, what you should not do is say nothing.
>> I mean, first, I'd never tell a pastor, "You should be discouraged or intimidated by this." I'd go the other direction, but further, be public about it. Preach about this stuff, especially inside the context, the pastoral context of the congregation. And yes, put it on the website. Put it on. This is how we speak about this stuff. Again, hook it >> to like that is >> front-load.
>> Yeah. Front-load. And connect it to, "No, we're not," "We're not saying they should all be killed," >> for goodness sake, >> which is why I'd say, you know, I haven't heard that yet. Um, and so, I, I first, I sleep like a baby, but second, you know, if you really wanted to, I'd say, "Here's some practical advice. Always connected this way, and loud, and articulate, and connected." Those are >> Well, I think one of the things we're accomplishing today is we're changing the perception of lawyers for sure. I think [laughter] I think, I think in some small measure, you know what I mean? In some small measure. Yeah. Yeah. We are breaking some grace to an otherwise, you know, kind of profession that can be certainly dragged through the mud. So, yeah. [laughter] There was a pastor once who told me, "Joel, you're the proof lawyers can be saved."
>> Which is super encouraging, too. Maybe just some, maybe just some pastoral kind of reflections to close. I think as, as we talk about this, you, you both have, uh, commented on some of these things, but I'll just reiterate, just from my heart, too. Number one, I think as we look at, you know, scenarios now in law and all that's happening, um, we must not be fearful. We cannot be fearful. There's no way. Both of you said that several times. I mean,
I think of Paul's instruction to Timothy in Second Timothy. "For God gave us not a spirit of fear, but a spirit of power and love and self-control." Right. Timothy was there and he, I think he was insecure. He was intimidated. He was young. There's a lot of, you know, strong forces coming at him and Paul's like, "Bro, in the Lord, like, let's, let's not be afraid. God did not give us a spirit of fear but of power and love and self-control."
I think along those lines too. My heart is, the church has been through a lot over, you know, 20 centuries, right? And like, it's seen the good, the bad, and the ugly, and it's still here because the Lord is on his throne, because Jesus Christ is sovereign, because Jesus always wins. So it is encouraging, right? Because if you think back in some of the immense seasons of persecution all over the world through the history of the church, and yet the people who have persecuted are gone and Jesus Christ remains. So we always have to remember that, and it helps us to fear. Fear is not the response. Fear is going to make us hide. Fear is going to make us quiet. Fear is going to make us, you know, afraid of all doing this and that. We can't be that way. There's no way. So we got to, we got to have care and concern. I think, got to have wisdom. You know, wise as serpents, innocent as doves, but at the same time as well, um, the Lord is reigning. He is awesome, supreme, and sovereign, perfect control, and we belong to him. So, let's start with that foundation. Let's not be fearful. The moment I become fearful is the moment I cease to become effective for the things that God has called me to do, right? So, we have our moments, but then in the Lord, by his spirit, in the word, then we stand up strong. So, we got to, we got to make sure that we're not fearful.
Secondly, I, I would say to strongly encourage us to be courageous. Um, and in, in times like this, we need boldness. I mean, this is first, you know, this is Joshua chapter 1, "Be strong and courageous." I think of Acts chapter 5 when Peter and the boys are told that you can't preach the gospel and I'm sorry, but we must obey God, not man. And they, and they go out and they suffered for it, but they preached the gospel and God used that. That's a wonderful principle for us in our day. We don't know where it's going, you know, ultimately in the weeks and months and years to come, but for where we are right now, this is like, we need, we need courageous leaders in our day. We need that so much. The Bible commands us to that. I think of the three boys in the furnace, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and they were called, they were supposed to bow down, worship the idols, and they're like, "Listen, our God can deliver us, but even if he does, that, that song we sing in our church right now, it's so good. But even if he doesn't, we're not going to bow down and worship your idols, you know?" And that's a wonderful moment to say, I mean, even Daniel, too, right? Daniel like purposely opened up the windows. He prayed. He prayed. He wasn't supposed to, but he did. He didn't have to do it that way. So there, there, there's a courage. There's a boldness that our God comes first. And so we need again men and women to be raised up in that sense, too.
Thirdly, this is important to me, too. We must stand in solidarity. Um, I think as the church, um, we need to have each other's back, right? So I'm, I'm, I'm thinking about this a lot. Like, just again, where we are right now and where we're going to be, who knows? But, um, if someone does eventually, you know, get targeted for this, if, if somehow they are charged with a criminal offense for preaching the gospel, we cannot let that individual or that church be alone. We must have solidarity with them. We must, we must stand with them. And again, again, if, if they're not being extreme, they're not, you know, I mean, but if they are genuinely seeking to be faithful to things of Jesus Christ, we have to support churches. We have to pray for pastors. We have to, you know, be together in this because we are united under Christ. And so that's very important for me. I'm, I'm, uh, uh, even just this week, I'm part of a group of pastors representing across Canada and, and this came up and, um, one of the pastors there, he's very, very kind of passionate in a very loving, wonderful way about C9. And, um, and this, the call for solidarity for each other and just even the commitment, the commitment to say, if, if you go through this, we're going to be with you. If I go through this, you're going to be with me. And I think that's really, really needed. And as the church, we need to be aware we are in this together.
And then lastly, I'd say this pastorally, we must be prepared. And this has been brought up by both of you as well. Scripture does not promise us easy. That's not in the Bible. Jesus promises us narrow and hard. He promises us persecution. He promises us that if people hate me, they will hate you also. And so if we think that being a genuine, you know, spirit-filled, Christ-exalting believer is going to mean the whole world likes us, we are not reading the right Bible. Right? So when we read the Bible and the gospels, we understand that it's supposed to be difficult. And persecution, my eschatology says this increases. This doesn't decrease as time goes on. At the very base level, persecution is guaranteed. All those who are in Christ Jesus will be persecuted again. That's what Paul says again to Timothy. So something we need to be mindful of. And preparation.
Finally, I'll end with this too, is that Paul says to Timothy, "Preach the word in season and out of season." Right? So, right now, uh, not so much in season, right? Like maybe when the nation began, it was more in season. It's increasingly, in my mind, becoming out of season. We have been prepared. We have been prepared that we are to preach the gospel again when it's popular. And when it's not, our job is not to decide what happens. Our job is to be faithful to the Lord has called us to. And so, just some pastoral reflections again for our all our people listening. Um, Joel and Dina, thank you here. Any any final thoughts as you're listening me go on for a little bit there? Any final thoughts and words of closing?
>> Well, first, don't ever ask a lawyer if they have anything else to say. [laughter]
>> Yeah, that's right.
>> I find it charming that you'd even express the question that way. Um, [laughter] as opposed to, I know you were going to say something. Yeah. You know, actually, um, um, I really loved of all the things that you said, the one that we're not alone. You're not alone.
>> That's right.
>> The smallest first, you know, we have each other and we're a community of love. By this, right, by this people will know. And second, you know, the smallest bit of faith, you are connected to the infinite one who can do all things.
>> That's right.
>> And you know, third and final, really, I promise my final point is, you know,
>> [snorts]
>> uh, yeah, you're right. We're weak. Amen.
>> Embrace the weakness. Yeah, you're scared. Hey, I know who to talk to.
>> Right? Like [laughter] right.
>> This is us. This is what it means to follow, right? Weakness. So don't be afraid. Anyway, how [clears throat] many times does Christ say that? Amen. It's good word. Good word. Yeah.
Dina >> No, in contrast to Joel, I have no further submission. [laughter]
>> No, you guys have said everything so beautifully and I just [clears throat] amen to that.
>> Amen. Again, thank you both for all that you do. Like, I mean this, like on behalf of our church and the greater Christian community in so many ways. Um, the, the way the Lord is using you and continues to use you and use you today. Um, we are, we are truly thankful. And we're so thankful for beyond the sermon that that we can have this podcast and resource for you. And just a little bit of a, of a Easter egg. Is that what it's called? For the, what's coming next. Joel and Dina will be with us to also our next episode will be dealing with the subject of maid, medical assisted in dying, right? Assistance in dying, which is another huge issue facing our nation. So make sure you stay tuned for that as well. Thanks for joining us here at Beyond [music] the Sermon. [music]
>> [music]