Gathered around the bishop the presbyters are the image of the apostles, pointing us to Christ. The presbyters’ first task therefore was teaching, convening assemblies, preaching and catechizing. Saint John Chrysostom and Origen have left us the homilies they preached as presbyters. While bishops gave us our liturgies and in particular the anaphoras, the Eucharistic prayers of offering, presbyters taught, preached and looked after the administration of the Church, and together with the bishop, were members of the synod of the Church in that place.

However, this arrangement did not last long. By the third century the Church was beginning to take a different course, particularly in the West, as evidenced by Cyprian. The notion of the bishops as the image of Christ changed in favour of the idea that they were the image of the apostles. Nowadays a bishop is regarded as a successor to the apostles, so his primary responsibility is to teach. However, Saint Ignatius says that it is not the bishop who does the teaching and that we should respect the silence, which according to Ignatius’s understanding, the bishop maintains for everything apart from the anaphora of the divine Eucharist, which is his responsibility solely.

This contemporary view that the primary role of the bishop is teaching and only secondarily the Eucharist, is a clear divergence from the historic understanding of the Church. In the West in particular, teaching

became the bishop’s chief role, while the celebrating the liturgy was handed over to the presbyters. Thus in the West the priest performs the liturgy, while the bishop is primarily a manager, who exhausts himself in the administration of the Church. Here is a very significant divergence from the eschatological understanding of the bishop.

Labour’s appeasement of Islamism in the UK

1 Immediately after the 2005 election, which saw Labour share of the Muslim vote collapse – the government announced the incitement to religious hatred legislation. This was widely seen by Islamic organisations as the ‘Muslim blasphemy law’ they had campaigned 18 long years for since the Rushdie affair. Blasphemy against Muhammad is THE most serious offence in sharia – and carries the automatic death penalty in countries such as Pakistan.

2 August 2006 Ruth Kelly (Communities Secretary) and John Prescott (deputy Prime Minister) met Islamic leaders immediately after the Heathrow terrorist arrests. They were asked for a partial implementation of sharia for family law in the UK and Muslim festival to become bank holidays. Ruth Kelly then set up a commission to look into implementing the first.

3 June 2007 (Brown now Labour leader and as PM in waiting making joint decisions with Blair) – a government sponsored report on the teaching of Islam in British universities was published. One may well ask exactly what the Labour government was doing asking a senior member of the Islamic Foundation – the UK’s largest overtly Islamist group - to write this government sponsored report ON HIS OWN? The report recommended that non Muslims should be banned from teaching the main Islamic subjects in British universities! The PM publicly welcomed this report!

Cranmer

Ye holy angels bright, Who wait at God's right hand, Or through the realms of light Fly at your Lord's command, Assist our song; For else the theme Too high doth seem For mortal tongue.

Ye blessed souls at rest, Who ran this earthly race, And now, from sin released, Behold the Saviour's face, God's praises sound, As in his sight, With sweet delight, Ye do abound.

Ye saints, who toil below, Adore your heavenly King. And onward as ye go Some joyful anthem sing; Take what he gives And praise him still, Through good or ill, Who ever lives!

My soul, bear thou thy part, Triumph in God above: And with a well-tuned heart Sing thou the songs of love! Let all thy days Till life shall end, Whate'er he send, Be filled with praise.

Richard Baxter Ye Holy Angels Bright

In The Eschatological Economy I compared two christologies. One is the Christian christology, in which Christ is the truth of man, and true man is in fellowship with God and with all men and creation. As Christ is the truth of man, so (Christian) christology is the truth of anthropology. I take this from Irenaeus.

But there is another ‘man’ and another, non-Christian, christology. This man is a titan. He is man without God, and without anything that is not himself. This is a christology of ascent, determined by man’s belief in his own autonomy. Man is ascending away from his fellowmen, away from bodies and earth. The great chariot of mankind roars down the track, gathering ever greater speed, zooms up the ramp, lifts off and soars into the air, leaving the earth and heading out – but then, looking around for some third party confirmation of its lift-off, the chariot hesitates, finds that it has peaked, and beginning to fall back towards earth, starts to fly apart. So it is that we find ourselves tumbling and twisting in ever smaller pieces, each making our re-entry alone. In this ‘christology’ without Christ, in which man decides to do without the confirmation of his fellows, man can have no idea whether he is in fact ascending or descending, gathering unity and permanence or breaking up and dissolving. I credit Kant with this anthropology.

So, just as there are two loves, that make two cities, so there are two men and two histories of man. One history crashes, the other is sustained by the call of God.

The human-rights tribunals are a censorâ??s dream. Under Canadaâ??s human-rights act, commissioners can convict if they believe any published material is â??likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.â?? Since they are â??remedialâ?? institutions and not real courts, they need not follow strict legal procedures or grant traditional rights of the accused. No one goes to prison, but the panels can fine and silence people at will â?? and run up the lawyer bills for years. Truth is no defense, and commissioners are authorized to confiscate a computer without a warrant.

John Leo Canadian Kangaroos

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, which enforces the act, has a record of conviction that recalls the awful efficiency of Soviet courts: In over three decades of existence, the commission has yet to find someone innocent.

Jacob Laksin Free Speech on trial

both from Melanie Phillips Jihad of the Word

You must pray, you must reflect, you must listen. You must also act. Let me suggest four central actions you must come to a common mind about. In all these cases I use the term â??mustâ??, not because I am absolutely certain of these matters, but because I believe that God is indeed calling you to act, and this belief is buttressed by the discernment of countless others around the Communion.

1. You must state clearly that the actions of TEC as an official body, and of certain Canadian dioceses, are unacceptable to you as bishops of the Communion. And you must decide, resolutely, that those bishops from these churches who are in agreement to press forward in ways the Communion has now clearly and consistently repudiated no longer partake in your common councils. I am not eager to state this; but I know of no other reasonable course to take at this point. This is not a matter of punishment, or even â??disciplineâ?? in any technical form: it is a matter of common Christian sense. TEC (to use this example) has demonstrated clearly, and with increasing hard-heartedness, that it does not wish to respect the common recommendations and pleas and even hopes of the Communion as a whole.

2. You must call back into your midst those who have stayed away from this Conference, not simply as a sign of continued fellowship, but in order to meet face to face again to resolve and heal the breaches that are widening among you month by month. There is much speaking of the truth, repentance, and reconciliation that needs to be done among you and with them. But it is not right simply that declarations be made or statements offered or private counsel kept in the face of the present estrangements, irregular episcopal acts, and hostile words. There is scandal on every side: confront it and heal it among yourselves, armed with powers of Christâ??s spirit.

Ephraim Radner Open Letter to the Bishops gathering for the Lambeth Conference

The dramatic escalation of child protection measures has succeeded in poisoning the relationship between the generations and creating an atmosphere of suspicion that actually increases the risks to children, according to a new study from the independent think-tank Civitas.

In Licensed to Hug Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, argues that children need to have contact with a range of adult members of the community for their education and socialisation, but 'this form of collaboration, which has traditionally underpinned intergenerational relationships, is now threatened by a regime that insists that adult/child encounters must be mediated through a security check' The scope of child protection has become immense. Since its formation in 2002 the Criminal Records Bureau has issued 15 million disclosures, but the whole operation has now been ratcheted up several notches by the passage of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. This has led to the creation of the Independent Safeguarding Authority which, when it is rolled out in October 2009, will require CRB checks of 11.3 million people - over one quarter of the adult population of England.

Whereas adults would once routinely have rebuked children who were misbehaving, or helped children in distress, they now think twice about the consequences of interacting with other people's children. A culture of fear pervades what should be ordinary relationships.

Civitas Licensed to Hug: How child protection policies are poisoning the relationship between the generations and damaging the voluntary sector

All the books discussed in this piece are relevant to Great Britain and Europe. But very few of them are published here. Despite being one of our most significant historians, David Selbourne could not find a publisher for his latest book in the UK. Despite her highly acclaimed previous books, and a position as one of our foremost commentators, Melanie Phillips found it impossible for several years to find a British publisher willing to take her latest book, only finding a small new press after the book was scheduled in America. Oriana Fallaci has a distributor, but no UK notices, reviews or, visible distribution for this translation of her last but one book. Neither Bawer nor Berlinski's books - about the urgent need for Europe to wake up to the threat within - have been published on the continent under discussion. Which suggests that there are problems. The first is the now undeniable issue of pusillanimity in British publishing (Selbourne wrote an important article about this in the Sunday Times before his dense book came out in America). Of course there is some sense in the cowardice. Since the Rushdie affair, publishers have - like newspaper editors - made a not-too secret recognition. They know that publishing novels claiming that Christ was Mary Magdalene's lover pull in "good-controversial" publicity. But they also realise that the "all publicity is good publicity" mantra doesn't extend to the moment when you find the girl from the typing pool with an Allah-gram pinned into her chest because the messenger couldn't reach the editors.

Douglas Murray reviews recent books on Islam in Europe

Benedict and Roman Catholic theology (and of course much more Protestant theology) play down the personhood of the eucharistic president, and so, paradoxically, play down the priest. Because the eucharist appears to be about the bread and wine, our attention is drawn away from the priesthood of the many gathered around the one. We are left to assume that the priest is the man whom we presume we already entirely know, while these eucharistic elements are wonderful and mysterious, not known, but their truth revealed here. It looks as though the bread and wine are Christ, but the priest is not Christ.

It is simply not sufficient to say that these elements of bread and wine are Christ, without integrating them into a theology of the Whole Christ (Christ together with his people) and into an account of the coming-into-being of that body, and thus an eschatology. But in fact we need to say that the priest is entirely mysterious, because he is Christ-and-his body, and it is as we, the people of this congregation, are sanctified and integrated into that whole Church that we come to recognise the whole Church in the person of the Christian stands before us, presiding at this eucharist.

Perhaps it would be better to put it this way around: it is the people who, gathered around these elements and this priest, are this mystery. They are the first instalment of the redemption and consummation of the whole world in Christ. What they are becoming is being revealed here. These eucharistic elements are the future of priest and people, redeemed and consummated. The priest, together with these people, and this people together with this priest, are our glimpse of the future glory of man with God. They are our first view of man brought into communion with God and with all creation, and so man glorified.

Theological leadership is raised up in due season. We have no comparable tomes such as Jewel’s Defensio Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae or Hooker’s Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, but the Reformed English Church persists because there is no better expression of English identity: it is the Ecclesia Anglorum. If it is ‘crucified between two thieves’ – the Puritans and the papists - it is because it has tasted the unmerited grace of God in Jesus Christ and maintains continuity with the Church of the Middle Ages and the early Fathers. It is catholic and reformed; moderate and reasonable; rigorous yet pastoral. And these are held in tension, in the brokenness of the cross, and there are undoubted frequent imbalances, in the imperfection of our fallenness. The Ecclesia Angliae has endured through numerous threats – the Roman Catholic Church, the Puritans, the Enlightenment and science, and ecumenism. So Cranmer is sure that it can survive feminism and pluralism.

Cranmer Knight is not quite so sure the Church of England can survive but, when in the dark, whistle.

We talk too much. We read too much. We hear too much. So much so, that we have lost the art of doing, of acting either as individuals or as a people. We no longer understand what it is to belong to a people who acts, who has "public action" of its own. We are no longer liturgical. For in our vernacularism and modernisation and reform, the very nature of the leiturgia - the nature of what is truly the work of the people - has been lost.

Today we seek to comprehend and explain and decide what we do in our churches but it is utterly questionable as to whether our people experience the liturgical revelation of Almighty God.

In fact, let's drop the adjective "liturgical" and use Hemming's words which assert that the liturgy is nothing less than "the ordinary and continual revealing of [God's] truth". If this is so, it cannot be a forum for our own self-expression. It cannot necessarily be within our immediate comprehension or subject to our didactic commentary. It must be experienced, indeed lived, as worship of Almighty God - as opposed to being "enjoyed" as a form of Christian activism - in order to begin to grasp something of what is being communicated in it: the very life of God Himself.

Alcuin Reid Divine Worship

The experiences of apostates in Muslim countries are blatantly at odds with their rights as guaranteed under international law. Most Muslim nations are members of the UN and have ratified international human rights treaties. However, these nations and the international community have failed in their duty to uphold the rights of apostates by neglecting to guarantee their personal safety and their full and fair participation in society.

In Saudi Arabia, Mauritania and Iran, where the death penalty for apostasy is not codified, death remains a real possibility for the apostate on the basis of their application of shari’a. In other countries where shari’a is used to govern personal status matters, such as in Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Yemen, apostates face serious penalties, such as the annulment of marriage, termination of citizenship, confiscation of identity papers and the loss of further social and economic rights. Apostates are also penalised under other laws, such as ‘insulting Turkishness’ in Turkey, the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, contempt of religion in Egypt and treason in Iran.

Apostates are subject to gross and wide-ranging human rights abuses including extra judicial killings by state-related agents or mobs; honour killings by family members; detention, imprisonment, torture, physical and psychological intimidation by security forces; the denial of access to judicial services and social services; the denial of equal employment or education opportunities; social pressure resulting in loss of housing and employment; and day-to-day discrimination and ostracism in education, finance and social activities. The affect of all this on the personal lives of apostates and their families can be significant and far-reaching. As the number of apostate communities has significantly increased in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia over the past twenty years, human rights abuses have been more regularly reported.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide

The UK tax system is unusual in that it takes virtually no account of either marriage or family responsibilities. Most other countries’ systems explicitly recognise both. Tax credits do, of course, take account of the financial needs of children of one parent, but in the case of two-parent families they ignore the needs of the second parent. This is one of the reasons why the Government has failed to meet its child poverty targets.

Care reports Couple Penalty and Taxation of married families

Today ours is an increasingly diverse society in which we can observe the fragmentation of shared values and the emergence of extremist action, with profound on-going effects. In response to this emerging situation, our society has, on the whole, remained with its same priorities and pushed forward with the cause of the individual and of personal autonomy as the central values on which to build. The logical consequence of this is a particular and radical understanding of society itself. In this view, society as such exists to keep the peace between people of quite divergent views. Society’s task, basically, is to protect us from each other. In fact this is the core ‘credo’ of a secular, liberal society: society is the peaceful coexistence of potential or real enemies. This thinking underlies much of our public culture. The ‘social cohesion’ currently being sought is, it seems to me, based on this premise.

Yet this premise is, of course, quite inadequate. It is inadequate simply because it does not reflect the concerns and culture by which most people actually live. Up and down our society, in families, within friendships, even as neighbours, and in the very notion of civic friendship within many towns and villages, we seek for something far more than ‘protection from each other’. We share dreams and ambitions; we gather round mutual interests and enthusiasms; we appreciate ‘good things’ together; we still share, in these groups, patterns of thought, or at least profound instincts, about what is to be held as good and wholesome, and what it not. Within all these groups there is a great deal of shared perception (or moral belief) about what is ‘the good life’. These values, and the reflection that carries them, continue to be handed on from generation to generation, adjusted and enriched as that is done.

Yet these patterns of moral reflection, for that is what they are, are often marginalised by being unrecognised, disowned or sentimentalised within our public culture. Hence they are gradually being eroded. They are, in fact, being replaced by a static appeal to the opinions of a supposed majority or of well-organised pressure groups. ‘Political correctness’ is a typical and central expression of this process. And within political correctness, as a method of establishing a public moral culture, as many examples how, reasoning is minimised as a way of making moral judgements. In fact we can say that in forming our public culture we have moved away from rational ethics, the detailed discussion of difference, into a public strategy that is determined simply to control all expressions of difference, often removing difference from the public forum, for difference is seen as a potential point of conflict.

The roots of this thinking, and the project of social cohesion that flows from it, lie in a profound misunderstanding of the human person.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham Social Cohesion and Catholic Education (PDF)

An exhortation and litany to be said during processions, used to pray for God's favour during times of troubles

Let us make our prayers, and supplycations, rendrynge and gyvyng of thankes for all men, and namely for kynges, princis, and al other set in chief dignitie and high roumes, that by theyr godly governance, their true faithfull and diligent execution of justice and equitie on to all their subjectes, our heavenly father may be glorified, the common welth may be daily promoted and increased, and that we al, that are theyr subjectes, may live in peace and quietnes, with al godlines and vertue, and our christen princis & heades in unitie and concorde emonges them selfes, ever callyng uppon theyr heavenly father, whiche is the king of all kynges, and the lorde of all lordes, which shall judge without respecte of persone, accordynge to every mans doing or workes, at whose hande the weake shall take no wronge, nor the myghty man not by any power escape his juste judgement

We make prayers and supplications for kings, princes and all who have been set in authority. We can pray to God for them, and we can do so publicly, so that all who who are in authority know that this is what we are doing. And we can also make our petitions known to these princes themselves. We can petition them to provide us with what almighty God has given them for our sake. Although we may address our prayers to God at all times, we may do so in particular when no other authorities will listen to us. We can ask God to allow those he has set in authority over us to hear his Word and to hear our prayers. We can encourage them to call upon their heavenly Father for grace to give us what we need. In this way the common wealth may be daily promoted and our heavenly Father glorified.

Ascension, procession and prayer - all somehow connected. If only someone would tell me how.

Public Christian devotions became common by the fifth century and processions were frequently held, with preference for days which the pagans had held sacred. These processions were called litanies, and in them pictures and other religious emblems were carried. In Rome, pope and people would go in procession each day, especially in Lent, to a different church, to celebrate the Sacred Mysteries. Thus originated the Roman "Stations", and what was called the "Litania Major", "Romana", or "Major Rogation". It was held on 25 April, on which day the heathens had celebrated the festival of Robigalia, the principal feature of which was a procession.

Pagans on the march? Well, we imitate them in everything else. Perhaps we Christians should also lumber to our feet? Perhaps if we just take the initial risk of taking our worship briefly out of the church building, we will discover that this is in fact the imitation of Christ. Perhaps then we will find that we can go rejoicing around the city, mark its bounds and ask the Lord’s protection on it. Maybe we should even wheel out a few bishops and get them to bless, pray for, repent and lament before the city, and then bless the city again.

Prayer and procession are connected, you say?

The word "Rogation" comes from the Latin verb rogare, meaning "to ask," and was applied to this time of the liturgical year because the Gospel reading for the previous Sunday included the passage "Ask and ye shall receive" (Gospel of John 16:24). The faithful typically observed the Rogation days by fasting in preparation to celebrate the Ascension. A common feature of Rogation days in former times was the ceremony of "beating the bounds", in which a procession of parishioners, led by the minister, would proceed around the boundary of their parish and pray for its protection in the forthcoming year.

Ah yes, but we Anglicans don't do this. And you can't make us.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has announced plans to mount an unprecedented mass walk of bishops and other faith leaders through central London during the forthcoming Lambeth Conference to demonstrate the Anglican Communion's determination to help end extreme poverty across the globe. Rowan Williams will be joined by approximately 600 other archbishops and bishops.

Apparently we Anglicans do go on processions then. What does an Anglican procession look like? Like that, I see - everyone holding banners and singing their hearts out. Well, you will never get us Evangelicals to do that. We don't do processions.

The March for Jesus began as 'City March' in London in 1987. It was formed in the seedbed of friendship amongst three church groups, Pioneer, Ichthus and Youth with a Mission, and the worship leader Graham Kendrick. Over the next three years marches spread across the UK, initially in 49 centres, which then spawned hundreds of small marches. Marches then spread across Europe and North America, and finally across the world. In 1994 the first Global March for Jesus covered every time zone and united over ten million Christians from over 170 nations. It is estimated that, by the final Global March for Jesus on 10 June 2000, over 60 million people in 180 nations had marched for Jesus.

March for Jesus? It is always us who are doing things for Jesus - lucky old Jesus. Or it is perhaps the Lord who marches in triumphal procession (Psalm 68; Eph 4.8, 2 Cor 2.14) - and if he catches us up into his procession then we are the lucky ones? With or without the Pelagianism, apparently we Evangelicals do have processions after all. We usually call them festivals - Spring Harvest, Soul Survivor - and we hold them out in the country. But then it is not really the countryside that needs praying for, is it? Perhaps London, somewhere between Abbey and Cathedral, would not be a bad place to pray and process, I mean, march, I mean, walk.

The central role of intra-family gifts This leads us to the other essential feature of family economics, but one which Becker's "neoclassical" theory omits. Like Adam Smith, Becker presumes that all economic transactions, including those within marriage, are essentially self-interested efforts to maximize one's own utility or satisfaction. Now, family members do acquire their incomes mostly by exchanges with those outside the family. But the "division of labor" within the family, as Aristotle and Augustine pointed out, occurs mostly by personal and joint gifts, not exchanges. We all need to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and transported, whether or not we earn income. Our income therefore typically exceeds our consumption during parenthood and the "empty nest" (i.e. after children have left home), while consumption exceeds income during childhood and old age. This involves extensive gifts, not only from parents to dependent children but also between husbands and wives and from adult children to aged parents. ... Without government social benefits, the retirement gap could be bridged only by love: a gift from someone (most often one's adult children) whose own consumption and utility are thereby reduced.

Why do people have children? Becker answers that children provide parents satisfaction as producer or (in modern economies) consumer durables. But this theory is not very accurate. In what I call "neo-scholastic" economic theory, parents have children for one of two reasons: because they love the children for their own sakes, and/or love themselves and expect some benefit from the children. ... Becker's theory cannot accommodate this fact, since worship, like marriage and fertility, involves another kind of sacrifice of valuable resources by the giver.

John D Mueller Demographic Winter

More from the world's greatest living evangelical. If he wasn't so good I wouldn't keep quoting him.

The first action, therefore, is to gather together in the Lord's presence. This is what in former times was called "statio". Let us imagine for a moment that in the whole of Rome there were only this one altar and that all the city's Christians were invited to gather here to celebrate the Saviour who died and was raised. This gives us an idea of what the Eucharistic celebration must have been like at the origins, in Rome and in many other cities that the Gospel message had reached. In every particular Church there was only one Bishop and around him, around the Eucharist that he celebrated, a community was formed, one, because one was the blessed Cup and one was the Bread broken.

The Eucharist is a public devotion that has nothing esoteric or exclusive about it.

The second constitutive aspect is walking with the Lord. This is the reality manifested by the procession that we shall experience together after Holy Mass, almost as if it were naturally prolonged by moving behind the One who is the Way, the Journey. With the gift of himself in the Eucharist the Lord Jesus sets us free from our 'paralyses', he helps us up and enables us to 'proceed'.

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me" (Ex 20: 2-3). Here we find the meaning of the third constitutive element of Corpus Christi: kneeling in adoration before the Lord. Adoring the God of Jesus Christ, who out of love made himself bread broken, is the most effective and radical remedy against the idolatry of the past and of the present.

Pope Benedict Corpus Christi 28 May 2008 Solid nourishment, these homilies.

From its initial growth as part of the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, CCFON is now establishing itself as an independent body – complementing the work of the LCF but speaking with its own voice. Today is our first day in this new season. Today is a day of change when we commit to continue the work God has begun and to seek to take it to still greater prominence in the ‘Public Square’ in our Nation. Many of us are concerned about the state of our Nation – the instability in our social order, the breakdown of the traditional family unit and assault on historic values. This has arisen because we have abandoned God’s laws which are good for all mankind.

In abandoning God’s laws for a just and fair society we have seen the weakening of the rule of law and the rise of discrimination dressed up as equality. We call upon Christians everywhere to stand with us in the effort to win back our country for Christ.

Christian Concern for Our Nation and Christian Legal Centre - and there are resources on marriage & family - imported - since we don't seem to have a David Blankenhorn or Douglas Farrow of our own. Here's Iain Duncan-Smith Men are being erased from family life

I spend a large amount of time visiting housing estates and too often I find them full of young mums and no men. The local community groups always tell the same story - young men without any sense of responsibility, no family ties. With few fathers around, the young boys find other role models: the drug dealer or the gang leader. But it isn’t just young men who suffer: girls do too. Studies show that it is from a father that young girls learn about empathetic unconditional love. Without this, vulnerable girls who have no father are more likely to be flattered by male attention and to be drawn into early sex, which is often regretted and unprotected. It seems that the system conspires to break homes, then does its best to lower the life chances of those it is meant to care for. The benefits system is set so that if you are a couple living together, married or otherwise, you will have to work three times longer than a lone parent to get above the poverty line.

Have you seen Dad.Info?

Truth has always been the journalist’s best defence as they seek to expose the failings of politicians, governments or societies leaders. Against a torrent of highly paid lawyers, journalists have always been able to rest on truth. Truth, as the Good Book says, will set you free. Except in Canada.

Those complaining don’t ever have to prove that hatred and contempt actually occurred, just that it is likely to have happened or will happen in the future. Except that due to the nature of Canada’s human rights laws, those complaining don’t ever have to prove that hatred and contempt actually occurred, just that it is likely to have happened or will happen in the future. As if being accused of causing something that may not actually have happened is not bad enough, a recent filing by Canada’s Justice Department in another case stated quite boldly "truth and fair comment are no defence". The fact that what you write may be true or simply be a fair journalistic comment, won’t help you fight those charges.

Free speech on the ropes