Update (June 14, 2016): The Greek Government has responded. See a translation of their letter at the bottom of this post.

The BC Humanist Association has joined an international letter from secular, atheist and Humanist organizations calling on the Greek government to repeal its country's blasphemy law.

Read the letter.

While we're in favour of freedom of religion, that freedom has limits.

We only need to look to some of the so-called religious freedom acts in the USA to see the danger of letting religious freedom trample over the rights of women, the LGBTQ community and atheists.

That's why we're intervening in the BC Court of Appeal case over the proposed law school at Trinity Western University later this week. We need to put a clear limit on what is and isn't protected by religious freedom.

In the factum our lawyers helped us develop, which I highly encourage you to read, we argue that studying law is not a religious act protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that requiring all students - including non-Christians - to obey an evangelical Christian ethos is religious compulsion.

I'll be at the courthouse for the hearing from Wednesday to Friday and if you can't make it, follow the proceedings on Twitter under #TWUlaw.

From Wednesday until Friday, the BC Court of Appeal will hear arguments in the case of Trinity Western University vs the Law Society of British Columbia. The BC Humanist Association was granted leave to intervene in the appeal with the Canadian Secular Alliance.

The private evangelical university is attempting to establish a law school and requires all students sign a Community Covenant that excludes gay students.

In their factum to the court, the BCHA and CSA argue that studying law is not a religious act protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that requiring all students - including non-Christians - to obey an evangelical Christian ethos is religious compulsion.

Read the factum submitted by the BCHA and CSA.

By Terry S. Kogan, University of Utah

For years, transgender rights activists have argued for their right to use the public restroom that aligns with their gender identity. In recent weeks, this campaign has come to a head.

In March, North Carolina enacted a law requiring that people be allowed to use only the public restroom that corresponds to the sex on their birth certificates. Meanwhile, the White House has taken an opposing position, directing that transgender students be allowed to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. In response, on May 25, 11 states sued the Obama administration to block the federal government from enforcing the directive.

Some argue that one solution to this impasse is to convert all public restrooms to unisex use, thereby eliminating the need to even consider a patron’s sex. This might strike some as bizarre or drastic. Many assume that separating restrooms based on a person’s biological sex is the “natural” way to determine who should and should not be permitted to use these public spaces.

In fact, laws in the U.S. did not even address the issue of separating public restrooms by sex until the end of the 19th century, when Massachusetts became the first state to enact such a statute. By 1920, over 40 states had adopted similar legislation requiring that public restrooms be separated by sex.

So why did states in the U.S. begin passing such laws? Were legislators merely recognizing natural anatomical differences between men and women?

The draft medical assistance in dying bill has overly restrictive criteria that will leave entire classes of people without access to an assisted death. Dying With Dignity Canada and the BC Civil Liberties Association, our allies in the fight for greater recognition of personal autonomy, have begun calling for the bill to be defeated.

While it’s easy to let the perfect become the enemy of the good, in this case good just isn’t good enough. No law is better than a flawed law.

The Supreme Court of Canada was clear: People who are suffering from a grievous and irremediable illness have the right to choose an assisted death. That decision does not have qualifications about a “reasonably foreseeable” death, nor does it restrict mature minors or people with mental illnesses from making that choice. It also doesn’t preclude making that decision through an advance directive.

If this bill passes in its current form, the people excluded by the Government’s assisted dying bill will be forced to once again turn to the courts to defend their rights. This means more time, more money and more suffering for those who’ve made their wishes abundantly clear.

On June 6 assisted dying becomes legal in Canada. The Government, however, is treating that date as an absolute deadline to push through its legislation. It has resorted to different procedural tricks to force the bill through - some of these tricks go farther than ones the previous government used to limit and silence debate over its more controversial legislation.

Over the past week this pressure has led to increasingly desperate antics by opposition Members of Parliament and the Prime Minister himself. This has delayed the bill's timeline and given us more time to make our case for Parliamentarians to reform - or outright reject - the flawed legislation.

Please write to your MPs and Senators one more time and ask them to stand up for choice and dignity.

Freedom of expression and the freedom to dissent are of vital importance to Humanists. This is why the BCHA has signed onto the new Voices-Voix Declaration.

The 2016 Declaration succeeds the previous declaration that decried the muzzling of government scientists, political audits of charities and general advocacy chill. With the election of a new government in October, the new Declaration calls for an overhaul of laws and regulations to foster a strong and independent civil society.

These changes are vital to ensuring that groups like ours are able to continue to challenge religious privilege and push for greater equality for all.

By Kelly C. Smith, Clemson University

NASA’s chief scientist recently announced that “…we’re going to have strong indications of life beyond Earth within a decade, and I think we’re going to have definitive evidence within 20 to 30 years.” Such a discovery would clearly rank as one of the most important in human history and immediately open up a series of complex social and moral questions. One of the most profound concerns is about the moral status of extraterrestrial life forms. Since humanities scholars are only just now beginning to think critically about these kinds of post-contact questions, naïve positions are common.

Take Martian life: we don’t know if there is life on Mars, but if it exists, it’s almost certainly microbial and clinging to a precarious existence in subsurface aquifers. It may or may not represent an independent origin – life could have emerged first on Mars and been exported to Earth. But whatever its exact status, the prospect of life on Mars has tempted some scientists to venture out onto moral limbs. Of particular interest is a position I label “Mariomania.”

As part of its commitment to freedom of expression and the importance of dissent, the BC Humanist Association has signed onto the new Voices-Voix Declaration.

The 2016 Declaration succeeds the previous declaration which decried the muzzling of government scientists, political audits of charities and general advocacy chill. With the election of a new government, the new Declaration calls for an overhaul of laws and regulations to foster a strong and independent civil society.

These changes are vital to ensuring that the BC Humanist Association and other freethought groups are able to continue to challenge religious privilege and push for greater equality for all.

A number of years ago, I was fortunate enough to have a job that took me to Fort McMurray for a week to teach science workshops at local schools.

What struck me about the town was the incredible contrast between the wild beauty of the surrounding boreal forest and the massive tailings ponds of the oil sands only a short drive north.

So when I watched the scenes over this past week of tens of thousands of people forced to flee their homes in the face of this fire, my heart sank.

This is why I'm proud to announce that the BCHA has launched a fundraising initiative to do our small part for the people of Fort McMurray and neighbouring communities. We've secured a pledge to match up to $5000 in donations to the Canadian Red Cross for relief efforts - all of which will be matched by the Government of Canada.

So please visit www.redcross.ca/bchumanist and give a little bit to help those who were forced to leave everything behind.

In freethought


Ian Bushfield, Executive Director

By now most of us have seen the harrowing images pouring out of Northern Alberta over the past week. Tens of thousands of people were evacuated from Fort McMurray an neighbouring communities as a massive wildfire engulfed the region.

To provide an opportunity to respond, the BC Humanist Association has launched a fundraiser to support the Canadian Red Cross' relief efforts.

All money donated will go directly to the Red Cross and will help provide emergency food, clothing, shelter, personal services and other necessities.