Ian Bushfield on the British Columbia Humanist Association

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/01/28

Ian Bushfield’s website biography states: “…[He] is an advocate for Humanism, science and social justice living in Metro Vancouver. He is the current and was the first Executive Director of the BC Humanist Association. He co hosts the PolitiCoast and Cambie Report podcasts covering BC and Vancouver politics, respectively. He earned a BSc in Engineering Physics from the University of Alberta and a MSc in Physics from Simon Fraser University, and has completed a BCIT certificate in non profit management. He helped found the UofA Atheists and Agnostics in 2007 and led the group until graduating in 2009. In 2008 the group successfully challenged the University’s 100 year old convocation charge as it asked students to use their degrees “for the glory of God”. From 2013 to 2015 he lived in the UK, first in Leeds then London where he worked on science advocacy and transparency campaigns at Sense About Science. Today, he lives in Coquitlam with his partner and two kids.”

Here, we talk about everything about the British Columbia Humanist Association.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It’s been a bit since the last updates, for me, in connecting with the British Columbia Humanist Association (BCHA). I get pre-occupied, sorry. What is the newest in humanist ceremonies through the British Columbia Humanist Association?

Ian Bushfield: Humanist ceremonies are like a breath of fresh air for folks who lean towards reason and compassion without the whole supernatural vibe. These ceremonies cover things like weddings, funerals, and life celebrations but without the religious twist.

Here in BC, one of our biggest challenges has been the government’s steadfast refusal to recognize our ability to solemnize marriages. This means that you can’t legally have a humanist officiant perform your wedding in the province (only Ontario actually permits this) unless there’s a certified religious official there, or a civil marriage commissioner. We’ll have more on this later this year as we’re going to update some of our previous research on the issue and launch a renewed push for the government to update its archaic and discriminatory marriage act.

And in the meantime, we’re also going to be working to develop an expanded resource section of our website to provide links to the growing number of secular celebrants who are able to provide people with humanist ceremonies at other major milestones, such as the birth of a child, death, graduation and anything else. The great thing about humanism being non-dogmatic is there’s no official way to do any of these ceremonies but rather it’s about creating something meaningful and personal to those involved.

Jacobsen: How is British Columbia of the comprehensive sex education front?

Bushfield: Comprehensive sexual health education is about giving young minds the roadmap to navigate these critical aspects of life. It’s not just about the birds and the bees; it’s about empowering kids with the knowledge and tools to make informed decisions about their bodies and to cultivate healthy relationships.

At the BCHA, we’re all about reason and science. Comprehensive sex ed aligns perfectly with that. It’s based on evidence, promotes consent, and tackles issues like gender equality and 2SLGBTQ+ inclusivity. We believe in fostering a community that values open dialogue and respects diverse perspectives.

Why are we campaigning on this? Simple – we want to ensure that every student gets access to comprehensive sexual health education. It’s not just about what happens in the classroom; it’s about shaping a society where individuals are equipped with the understanding and respect for each other’s autonomy and choices.

It’s also critical that we pushback against the reactionary forces that we’re seeing in society right now. On the one hand, the traditional anti-choice religious right continues to push failed abstinence-only policies, including through sex ed programs delivered in some schools by so-called ‘crisis pregnancy centres.’ And if that’s not alarming enough, we’re also seeing the growth of a renewed effort to ban books and topics that address sexual and gender diversity. These groups are targeting school boards and inclusive policies like SOGI123.

So our campaign is a call to action for schools and policymakers to prioritize comprehensive sexual health education. It’s time to break down the stigma, embrace inclusivity, and empower our youth to make decisions that align with their values and well-being. Because, let’s face it, informed choices make for a healthier, happier society.

Jacobsen: What is Bill C-367?

Bushfield: Most people are probably aware that hate speech is a crime in Canada. It’s also a crime to condone, deny or downplay the Holocaust. I know there is some controversy among freethinkers about whether these are justifiable infringements on our freedom of expression, but what I think might surprise some readers is that one of the defences that you can use if you’re facing these charges is that your expression is based in good faith on “an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.” In other words, if you take your hate speech from a holy book, or say that it’s your religious belief, then you can continue to attack gay and trans people, deny the Holocaust or otherwise promote your vile bigotry. 

It’s important to note as well that the “religious text” part of the defence was only added in 2004 as a compromise to homophobic religious groups that opposed same-sex marriage.

So Bill C-367 is a simple bill that removes those religious defences. It was introduced by Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-François Blanchet in late November of last year.

Jacobsen: How does this provide special privileges for the religious not afforded to the non-religious in British Columbia?

Bushfield: There are three secular defences to a hate speech charge: The statement could be true, it could be for the public interest or if it’s in the service of countering hate speech. An example of those latter two might be an academic consideration of hate materials to try to debunk them or otherwise undermine their effectiveness.

The critical difference with the religious exemption is it allows bigotry to persist if it meets the “sincerely held beliefs” test, which is how our courts have generally defined religion in law. So someone perpetuating extreme homophobia has to meet a much lower bar if they claim their religion made them do it than a non-religious person who would need to establish the truth or public interest of the claim.

Because of this double standard, we’re supporting Bill C-367 to close the loophole that could be exploited to promote harmful ideologies under the guise of religious expression.

For us, fostering a society that is inclusive, respectful, and free from discrimination is paramount. Removing this defence aligns with our commitment to promoting understanding among diverse communities. We believe in the power of open dialogue and constructive conversations that contribute positively to the public discourse.

We’re inviting everyone who shares that belief to join us in supporting this bill. Your voice matters, and you can make a difference. Take a moment to write to your Member of Parliament, expressing your support for the passage of Bill C-367. Encourage them to contribute to the creation of a safer and more tolerant society by backing this crucial amendment to the Criminal Code.

Let your MP know that you believe in a Canada that upholds values of equality, respect, and understanding for all its citizens. Together, we can build a more compassionate and inclusive future.

Jacobsen: What is the major issue facing medical care in preventatives to a truly secular healthcare system?

Bushfield: The intersection of religion and healthcare in British Columbia is a multifaceted issue, notably underscored by the government’s master agreement with denominational health associations. This agreement facilitates the allocation of approximately $1 billion in public funding annually to faith-based healthcare organizations. However, it also allows these institutions the latitude to abstain from providing certain medical services that run contrary to their religious tenets.

It’s very important to understand that those decisions about what care to provide, or not, are made at the highest level of these organizations – at the board of directors, which is often appointed by religious orders. Individual doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals working in these facilities often do not share these restrictive beliefs and patients – particularly those in emergency situations – don’t have a choice about which facility they will end up in. This effectively means that some Bishops and senior priests are intervening between the medical decisions being made between a patient and their doctor.

Let’s get more specific.

Reproductive health services – abortion and contraception – is the first major area of contention, and actually why these agreements were penned in the early 1990s. Faith-based healthcare organizations, operating within the parameters of their religious doctrines, may impose restrictions on services such as contraception, abortion, and assisted reproductive technologies. This dynamic raises questions about equitable access to reproductive healthcare for individuals whose beliefs diverge from those of the affiliated institutions. Simply put, you can’t get an abortion – or possibly even a birth control prescription – at St Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver’s West End.

End-of-life care, specifically medical assistance in dying, is another dimension where religious perspectives can significantly impact healthcare choices. Publicly funded religious hospitals and hospices can simply refuse to provide MAID on their premises. They are required to provide an “effective referral” for those seeking to exercise their right to die with dignity but in practice this has meant excruciating transfers to secular facilities.

The government committed to rectifying this injustice last year but their resultant compromise, announced last fall, was to construct (at the taxpayer’s expense) a small clinic attached to St Paul’s Hospital that would be run by the secular health region. Patients could then be transferred from their rooms, through a hallway, to this new clinic to receive MAID.

It’s frankly still dehumanizing and utterly disrespectful. This compromise required nothing of the Catholic hospital and still treats patients and secondary to the ideology of the hospital’s board of directors. It also does nothing for the patients at the many religious long-term care facilities who are similarly still denied equal access to MAID.

This is why we’re continuing to call on the province to tear up the master agreement. A secular country should not be funding religious hospitals, especially when they’re denying patients their constitutional rights. Write your MLA if you agree.

Jacobsen: What is the latest in municipal prayer and legislative prayer?

Bushfield: In far too many cities and provinces, sadly, it’s still happening.

We actually have a couple of new entries in a European academic publication called eurel that I encourage everyone to check out. They offer quick summaries of the current state and include references to much of our recent work on the topic.

Beyond that though, we’ve been campaigning hard since the fall when we released our latest report on prayers in BC municipal council meetings. Our previous report was a few years ago and found a number of communities included unconstitutional prayers in their 2018 inaugural council meetings and none included them in their regular meetings. Our new report found seven municipalities (down from 26) had prayers in their 2022 inaugural meetings, notably including the City of Vancouver who hadn’t had prayers in almost 20 years.

We showed in the report that our lobbying after the release of our first report resulted in a number of communities abandoning the practice. And building on that success, we’ve been pushing those remaining seven to commit to end prayers before the next inaugural meetings in 2026. And I’m very pleased to say that we already have commitments from five of those cities – only Vancouver and Parksville haven’t formally promised to review their practices.

We’re going to keep up the pressure on those remaining two, so stay tuned to our website and newsletter and support our work so we can continue to work toward ending prayers in local governments.

In the meantime, we’re also finalizing our reports on prayers in municipal governments in the other provinces. We’re going to have an updated report on Ontario soon, as well as publishing data on the Atlantic provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan. We’re always looking for volunteers to help with that work, so people should get in touch.

We also updated our Legislative Prayer Across Canada infographic in December, as Manitoba’s legislature has slightly amended its practices. Right now Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador are the only legislatures (including Parliament) that don’t include some kind of prayer at the start of each day’s sitting.

Jacobsen: What is crucial to understand in public discourse about the provisions of end of life care for the non-religiousin British Columbia with respect to individualized considerations at these sensitive moments in life?

Bushfield: Honestly, people just need to read our new End of Life eBook to learn more about this. Sophie Burk and I wrote this as an expanded update to an earlier pamphlet we’d produced and it covers most things that humanists and the non-religious in BC will want to know about. It’s short, informative and has a very helpful list of resources at the back.

In brief, we cover Humanist perspectives on death, mental wellbeing and emotional support including pastoral support and end-of-life doulas, planning for death, advance care planning, healthcare issues including MAID and health inequity and death during crises.

I found the last section particularly interesting to think and write about as we discussed the overlapping COVID-19, toxic drug and climate crises that are each forcing us to think more frequently about death. I also like to think that in turn also forces us to value life even more.

Anyway, I encourage everyone to check out the book, it’s free and very readable.

Jacobsen: How are religious addictions programs influencing even the secular subpopulations in British Columbia, where there is a coerced attendance at religious recovery programs, for example?

Bushfield: First off, we need to understand the scale of the crisis we’re facing in British Columbia. Every day seven people are dying needlessly from the toxic drug supply. We have the tools available to stop these deaths but bigoted ideology is impeding us.

What we need to do is abandon the failed drug war approach and adopt an evidence and human rights-based approach to issues arising from drug use. Historically, prohibitionist regimes, often rooted in European Christian morality, have influenced drug policy. In BC in particular, that morality was often also fueled by reactionary anti-Asian racism. The BC Humanist Association, as secularists, firmly rejects a moralizing approach to drug-related challenges.

Today’s public health crisis related to drug use is primarily driven by an escalation in drug toxicity rather than fundamental changes in individual behavior. We recognize that drug use has been a constant throughout history and will be a constant in the future. The issue is one of regulation, not prohibition. We allow the safe consumption of caffeine, alcohol, tobacco and cannabis but force other drug users into unsafe conditions using products that are likely laced with dangerous levels of fentanyl and other chemicals. Drug users and experts are united in this diagnosis and have been clear about it for years.

To address this crisis effectively, we support the decriminalization of drugs and the implementation of a safe alternative supply, as outlined in “Decriminalization Done Right: A Rights-Based Path for Drug Policy.”

Continued criminalization perpetuates the marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs. Moreover, it hinders scientific progress by maintaining a legally enforced taboo against exploring the potential beneficial medical uses of certain substances, impeding evidence-based research.

For those grappling with substance use issues, we advocate for a health-focused approach that prioritizes evidence-based treatments. These treatments should be accessible to all individuals in need, free from judgment or stigma. Proper regulation of facilities is deemed essential to protect the rights of patients, and public funding is seen as crucial to eliminate financial barriers to accessing necessary care.

Again, the science backs this up. A recent study found that religious-based abstinence treatment programs do not reduce drug poisoning risks and are possibly riskier than no treatment, while another found that safe supply programs drastically reduce overdose deaths.

In summary, we need to shift away from moralizing approaches influenced by religious perspectives, and instead move towards evidence-based, compassionate, and inclusive strategies to address the toxic drug crisis in British Columbia.

Jacobsen: What do British Columbia Humanist Association members consider some of the more important social activist items now?

Bushfield: Because Humanism is deeply concerned with this one life we have, I tend to think humanists care deeply about all aspects of our lives and society. We’ve spoken a lot already about several of our current campaigns and your readers can look at our Issues Summary for a sense of where the BCHA stands on many contemporary issues. That said, we’re not dogmatic gatekeepers and I like to think that for any position we take, there’s bound to be a few members who disagree. But we’re a democratic organization, so people can always join and express their opinion through our Board of Directors.

The one thing I do want to flag though is our legal advocacy. In the past few years, we’ve intervened at every level of court from the BC Human Rights Tribunal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Our excellent pro-bono counsel has helped us advance the important duty of neutrality through each of these cases.

Most recently, we were at the Supreme Court of British Columbia presenting arguments in a case that pitted the province’s Privacy Commissioner and two ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses against their former congregations. The apostates had requested their personal records and the congregations were claiming a religious privilege to exempt themselves from the province’s privacy laws. We were pleased to see the Court agree with us and the Privacy Commissioner in its recent ruling that those religious rights are not absolute and had to be balanced against the privacy concerns of the former members.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are likely to appeal or continue the fight at a later stage, and we’re going to be there arguing for the importance of secularism and the rights of the ex-religious in these disputes.

Jacobsen: What services do humanist chaplains provide? I find this a much lesser known aspect of humanist work. 

Bushfield: This is a smaller but growing aspect of our work, but one I’m really proud of and see a significant future for.

Humanist chaplains play a unique and important role in providing support and guidance to non-religious individuals in various contexts. Unlike traditional chaplains associated with religious institutions, humanist chaplains focus on secular and humanistic values.

1. Counseling and Emotional Support: Humanist chaplains offer counseling and emotional support to individuals facing various challenges in life. This can include issues related to personal relationships, grief, existential questions, and ethical dilemmas, all within a secular framework.
2. Community Building: Humanist chaplains work to foster a sense of community and belonging for non-religious individuals. They organize gatherings, events, and support networks that provide a supportive environment for those who may not have a religious community to turn to.
3. Life-Cycle Celebrations: Just like traditional chaplains officiate religious ceremonies, humanist chaplains lead and officiate at life-cycle celebrations. This includes weddings, naming ceremonies, and memorials, creating meaningful and personalized ceremonies that align with humanist values.
4. Ethical Guidance: Humanist chaplains engage in discussions around ethical and moral questions, helping individuals navigate complex ethical dilemmas without relying on religious doctrines. They provide a secular perspective on moral decision-making and personal values.
5. Hospital and Institutional Visits: In settings like hospitals, prisons, or universities, humanist chaplains offer support to individuals regardless of their religious affiliation. This could involve providing comfort, companionship, or facilitating discussions about meaning and purpose.
6. Secular Rituals and Ceremonies: Humanist chaplains develop and lead secular rituals and ceremonies that mark significant life events. These events are designed to be meaningful and reflective without relying on religious symbols or beliefs.
7. Interfaith Dialogue: Humanist chaplains often engage in interfaith dialogue, promoting understanding and collaboration between individuals with different belief systems. This contributes to a more inclusive and diverse community.
8. Educational Programs: Humanist chaplains may organize and participate in educational programs that explore humanist philosophy, secular ethics, and critical thinking. These programs aim to promote a rational and evidence-based approach to life’s challenges.

Each individual chaplain will have their own particular focus depending on the needs of the community they serve. Overall, their role is to offer a supportive and inclusive space for individuals who identify with humanist, atheist, agnostic, or non-religious worldviews.

For the BCHA, our primary Chaplain is Dr Marty Shoemaker at Kwantlen University Polytechnic. He’s fantastic and you really should speak to him directly.

Jacobsen: What are the strangest forms of hate mail and misunderstandings of humanism known to you? I get like declarations of atheists and agnostics as automatically worshipers of Satan in some countries from respondents. I’m curious about the latest in our little bubble of secularism and humanism. 

Bushfield: This is something we’re having a lot of fun with on our TikTok channel. In the past year, and especially as Twitter has become completely inconsistent with our values, we’ve started posting more there. In particular, I’ve done a couple of videos where I open “fan mail” or read and respond to comments under newspaper articles that we’re heavily featured in.

One recent letter simply told us that “atheism is sin” and quoted the Bible at us. Other comments assume that Canada is “a Christian country,” which they may actually have a historical argument about but completely misunderstands the impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What’s been really great to see on TikTok though is that our following has grown from a few hundred to over 2500 in just the past few months. Some of our videos have reached tens of thousands of people and we’re able to engage in a more direct and personal way than on many other platforms.

It’s probably ephemeral as each of these platforms seems to become unusable after a while but for now, that’s probably the best place to follow us beyond our website and email newsletter.

Jacobsen: People can donate here. They can join here. They can volunteer here. Any final thoughts or updates for today?

Bushfield: I wrote a couple blogs for the end of 2023 about our many successes in 2023 and our big goals for 2024. I won’t rehash that entirely here but I am very excited for the work we have coming to promote secularism in local government and school boards, to start building new humanist communities and to tell humanist stories across our platforms.

On top of all of that, we set a new fundraising record to end the year. I know people were probably starting to get tired of my fundraising emails but the secular movement in this country operates on such a shoestring budget, especially compared to the well-funded religious right. We’re on the path to sustainability but we still need to kick it up a notch or two more. So if anything we’ve talked about resonates with you, please sign up for even just $10 a year and help become part of this movement.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the chance and your time, again, Ian. [Ed. And ChatGPT.]

Bushfield: Any time. Thank you.

And please note that some of my responses were written with the help of ChatGPT.

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.