Every year, the city of Orléans celebrates with pomp and circumstance the liberation of the city from the English yoke during the Hundred Years’ War, thanks to the victorious intervention of Saint Joan of Arc at the head of the French armies. For the occasion, a young girl from the town lends her features to the valiant fighter and is flanked by two young boys as her pages. This year, the town rejected one of the two selected candidates on the grounds that he had frequented the Action Française movement and espoused values “contrary to the Republic”. A kind of paradox: after all, didn’t Jeanne herself fight for her God and her king?
2024 sees the 595th edition of the Johannine festivities. These festivities are among the oldest in France and are now listed as a UNESCO World Heritage. Shows, re-enactments, and processions follow one another through the streets of the town, which on 8 May 1429, under siege from the English, was the scene of a spectacular liberation by the armies led by the young virgin from Lorraine.
In February, Orléans city council announced its 2024 selection of the young girl who would be the star of the festivities in honour of Saint Joan of Arc, scheduled to run from 29 April to 8 May. Joan of Arc will be portrayed by Maïlys Boët, a sixteen-and-a-half-year-old secondary school pupil chosen from eight candidates on the basis of rigorous criteria. During the ceremonies, she is to enter the town wearing a suit of armour on horseback, just like the saint did nearly six hundred years ago. Tradition has it that the young girl herself chooses her pages—two boys of the same age who will accompany her on this solemn occasion.
But nothing is simple in our world, where evil intentions are everywhere. Although the two boys had been duly chosen, the Orléans anti-fascist committee took it upon itself to investigate their pedigree. One of the boys was identified by them as having taken part in demonstrations organised by the nationalist and royalist Action Française movement. In a press release issued on April 12th, Orléans city council and the Orléans Joan of Arc Association therefore ruled that he should be expelled for “disseminating ideas contrary to the values of the Republic, contrary to the values of the association, the city and the spirit of the Joan of Arc celebrations.”
Action française is almost 130 years old and has arguably always been part of the French political landscape. The movement is no longer at the height of its glory, as it was in the heyday when Maurras, Daudet, and Bainville lent it their talented pens, but it continues to attract young people and to demonstrate a certain intellectual dynamism. But it has the disadvantage of being ‘far-right,’ and is therefore in the sights of the French government, which has tried—without success—on several occasions to have its parades and demonstrations banned on the grounds that the movement is spreading ideas contrary to the all-too-famous “values of the Republic.” And with good reason: the primary raison d’être of Action Française is to call for the return of the King. It is therefore the least this movement could do to run counter to the “values of the Republic.”
One thing leads to another and Republican modernity produces this jewel of absurdity and ideology: the symbolic heir to Joan of Arc’s page—a historically attested figure known to have played a major role in the return of the King of France to his throne somewhere in the 15th century—is forbidden to feel close to a movement that works… for the return of the King of France.
This situation leaves us in an abyss of perplexity. Wasn’t Joan of Arc a Catholic? Didn’t she give her life so that the King of France could regain his rights, in accordance with a mission entrusted to her by Heaven? On reflection, none of this seems very “compatible with the values of the Republic.” We’ll have to give it some serious thought.
The young man who was ‘cancelled’ was a friend of Maïlys Boët. Perhaps she could have been excluded too, because of her bad company, but the association and the town hall decided not to cancel Jeanne. Not this year. But let’s not celebrate too quickly. Next year, there will still be time to make sure that Jeanne and her comrades are perfectly republican.
There can be no victory in the culture wars if we do not first win the battle for young minds. We have the most radically left-wing youth in history and they are not becoming more moderate as they get older. Across a vast spectrum of political, social and cultural issues, today’s youth hold views that are completely out of kilter with the rest of society. Addressing the New Culture Forum’s 2024 conference, NCF Senior Fellow Rafe Heydel-Mankoo explains how there is no hope for restoring a more healthy (left/centre/right) balance amongst our youth without first dismantling the left’s stranglehold over education.
Israeli comic Guy Hochman arrived on Tuesday in Malmo, Sweden to support the Israeli entry in the Eurovision Song Contest, Eden Golan, and to create content for his followers on social media.
After a short time at the Eurovision Village, Hochman was subject to verbal violence and was spat at by anti-Israel protesters after they identified him as Israeli thanks to the Israeli flag draped on his back.
Due to the confrontation, two local police officers detained the comedian and made clear to him that it was not a place for Israeli flags and Jews.
Hochman complained that while he was prohibited from waving an Israeli flag, the anti-Israel protesters continued to wave their Palestinian flags.
Hochman has a history of going to places where Jews and Israelis were unwanted. During the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, the comedian traveled to the country where he made comical videos with soccer fans, some of whom were friendly to the Israeli, while others were threatening. He had to cut his trip short after pro-Palestinian activists began to circulate his picture online and target him for serving in the IDF.
Sophie and Noah were the most popular baby names in Germany last year, but in several regions including the national capital strong local variations exist, including the primacy of Mohammed for boys.
Germany’s state funded language institute has revealed its baby name statistics in 2023, and said Mohammed is the most popular boy’s name in a group of cities. The German statistics combine homophones, meaning Mohammed is counted alongside Mohamed, Muhammed, Mohammad, Muhammet, Muhamet, and others, in the same way it counts Sophia and Sofia together, which is the most popular girls’ name for 2023.
While Noah is the most popular boys’ name nationwide, German newspaper Die Weltnotes buried within regional statistics Mohammed is the most popular name in Berlin, Hamburg, and Bremen. As reported by RBB24, Mohammed has now been the top name in Berlin for several years.
The Society for the German Language (GfdS) also points out major regional differences. For instance, Mohammed is a top-ten name in the north of Germany, but doesn’t make the cut in the south, where the society notes traditional Christian names are more common than the national average. The society cites the prevalence of “tradition, history or customs” for this difference.
Mohammed had been the 29th most popular name in north Germany in 2022, but rose to 8th place in 2023.
This naming phenomenon seen in Berlin and other German cities has also been observedacrossEurope in countries practicing mass migration over the past decade.
People noticing the government funded statistics showing Mohammed to be an increasingly popular forename in Germany has been attended by some controversy in the past. Fact-checkers have scrabbled to point out that Islamic custom dictates that pious families should always name one of their sons Mohammed, thereby skewering the statistics compared to German families who can pick any names they wish.
A 2019 report in government owned, taxpayer-funded broadcaster Deutsche Wellefinger-wagged at other media, politicians, and the public noticing the trend, for instance, while nevertheless acknowledging it to be factually correct. The outlet cited academic Gabriele Rodriguez, who said discussion about the name was taking statistics out of context to prey on the fears of German people about the way their society is changing, it reported.
She said “German ears need a bit of time to adjust” and said discussing Mohammed being a popular baby name ” is just feeding into the [populist right-wing party] AfD, which has the express goal of creating fear about such things so that they can sustain themselves.”
Several prominent left-wing politicians in France have signed a letter calling for the right of non-EU migrants to vote in the upcoming European elections.
Around 50 politicians, primarily from the Greens and the Socialist Party, penned the declaration for the right to vote of foreign residents in both local and European elections, including left-wing mayors of several major French cities such as Paris’ Anne Hidalgo and Lyon’s Grégory Doucet.
“As cities, we believe that migration does not reflect a state of emergency, but is a natural and recurring phenomenon in human history,” the declaration read.
“Cities, in particular, are destinations for immigration and, as the first and immediate democratic entity, they are challenged to guarantee the civic participation of the people they welcome,” it added.
The signatories argued that newcomers who do not hold EU citizenship should be allowed to vote so as not to exclude “equal participation in democratic life” because of a person’s passport.
“The right to vote for the entire population of the same city strengthens the social cohesion and identity of a city and our democracy,” they wrote, claiming that allowing non-EU foreign nationals to vote is the “democratic response to nationalism and discrimination.”
Conservatives, however, accused the left-wing politicians of using unscrupulous tactics to derail right-wing parties currently surging in the polls and expected to win big in next month’s European elections.
“When we no longer have voters, we have to create some!” quipped National Rally MEP Gilbert Collard.
Sébastien Michel, the center-right Republican mayor of Écully, accused left-wing parties of no longer having a moral compass. “While LFI is chasing the Islamist community vote, the rest of the left is trying to attract votes from foreigners,” he wrote on X.
The demise of left-wing parties across France has been evident in consistent polling leading up to the European elections in June.
Both the Socialists and the Greens are expected to be the biggest losers compared to their percentage shares in the 2019 vote, both dropping from 14 percent to 6 percent and 7 percent, respectively.
Meanwhile, Jordan Bardella and Marine Le Pen’s National Rally is predicted to dominate the election, currently polling at 31 percent, up eight percentage points on the 23 percent it received five years ago. Éric Zemmour’s Reconquête, whose European election campaign is spearheaded by Le Pen’s niece, Marion Maréchal, is on course to secure 7 percent, the same share it achieved in the previous vote.
Canadian Bill C-63 introduced life imprisonment for alleged hate speech leading to backlash from experts and legislatures (Image: Dall-E/Politico)
In February 2024, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-63, known as the Online Harms Bill. As per the Government’s official stand, the bill was introduced to protect individuals, especially children, from online hate speech and other harmful content. However, several sections of the bill have come under critics’ scrutiny because of its overreach and potential harm to freedom of speech. Critics argue that it would impose an unprecedented control on the freedom of expression.
First, let’s discuss the section on “hate speech” in the bill. As per the proposed bill that is undergoing readings in the Canadian Parliament, Justin Trudeau-led government is all set to penalise individuals for ‘hate speech’ even if it was made years ago. The bill, as outlined in the inserted text, would amend Canadian law to address the issue of hate crimes strictly. The main focus remains on increasing the severity of penalties for crimes that allegedly are motivated by hatred towards certain protected groups.
Enhanced Penalties for Hate-Motivated Offences in Bill C-63
Bill C-63 specifically noted that whenever anyone commits an offence under any Act of Parliament which is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, would be considered an indictable offence. The penalty for such an offence can be as severe as life imprisonment. That means if you say anything against those who believe “men can menstruate”, it might be seen as a hate crime and you will get in trouble in Canada.
Definition of Hatred
As per Bill C-63, the definition of hatred is based on the existing legal definition of hatred as per sections 319 and 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Exclusion Clause
There is one exclusion clause in the bill that says that not every act that might humiliate, discredit, hurt, or offend someone may come under the definition of hatred. Though it appears that the bill attempted to distinguish between genuinely hateful actions and those that might have unintentionally caused emotional distress, in totality it would be hard for the “accused” to explain their stand.
Reactions from experts and legislatures on Bill C-63
Historian Dr Muriel Blaive labelled the bill as “extremely problematic”. He highlighted the retroactive nature of the bill that could allow for the prosecution of the individuals based on the statements that were made in the past and at that time they were not deemed as “illegal”. He described the bill as a betrayal of Western legal traditions that say that a person can only be punished under laws that were active at the time of the offence.
The Canadian law proposal is outright mad. It is retroactive, which goes against all our Western legal tradition, according to which you can be punished only if you infringed a law that was valid at the time when you committed a crime: "And it isn’t just stuff you’ve posted after… pic.twitter.com/IY1r0GSjer
Furthermore, Bill C-63 has proposed to establish several new bureaucratic entities including the Digital Safety Commission and the Digital Safety Ombudsperson. These entities would have the power to investigate complaints and impose heavy penalties on individuals as well as operators. Notably, in the case of a person, the penalty has been proposed to a maximum of 6% of the global revenue or CAD 10 million and in the case of an operator it can go as high as 8% of the global revenue or CAD 25 million, whichever is higher. It has raised concerns that there would be over-regulation and it can potentially put a strain on the legal system of the country which is facing an immense burden already.
Life imprisonment
One of the most drastic elements of the bill is the creation of a new hate crime offence, which could result in life imprisonment if an act is motivated by hate. Notably, the bill reinstates Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that allows the Human Rights Commission of Canada to oversee cases of hate speech. This section, as per the critics, may lead to subjective interpretations of what can be deemed as hate speech leading to potential fines of up to CAD 50,000 without any possible procedural safeguards that are generally found in criminal law.
MP Rachael Thoman of Lethbridge has opposed the bill. In a post on X, Thomas stated that while the protection of children is a commendable goal, the bill does very little to achieve it. Instead, it would impose severe restrictions on free speech. Thomas warned that this bill would have a chilling effect on public discourse and may lead to potential misuse in the form of revenge accusations.
Why India needs to be careful
India finds itself at a critical juncture where the principles of justice and the preservation of civil liberties are being put to a severe test, especially when it comes to handling hate speech and the responses it provokes. If we talk about recent cases, a concerning precedent was set in the case of former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokesperson Nupur Sharma, where the Supreme Court of India, through its oral observations, suggested that she was ‘responsible’ for the subsequent violent events in the country including the riots and murders, giving a clean chit to the actual culprits who were doing the rioting and murdering.
Though the observations did not find their way in the final order, the implications and the repercussions of the statement are felt even today and it will continue to affect the narrative for decades to come which is deeply troubling. This approach can be seen as aligning with the concept of the “tyranny of the intolerant,” where the definition of hate speech is determined on the level of outrage it incites rather than the inherent nature of the speech itself.
The stance taken by the judiciary not only undermines the objective legal standards but also backs those who would resort to violence under the guise of being offended. The real danger here is the potential normalisation of violence as a legitimate response to speech, with the judiciary inadvertently legitimating the most violent reactions as benchmarks for legal scrutiny.
Nupur Sharma faced a severe backlash for a statement she made about Islam and Prophet Mohammed in reply to provocative statements during a debate on Times Now made by penalist Taslim Ahmed Rehmani. Alt News’ co-founder Mohammed Zubair intentionally edited the clip cut out Rehmani’s provocative statement and published only the part where Sharma was replying to him as “hate speech” against the Prophet.
The campaign initiated against Sharma was so well-orchestrated that it created national and international ripple effects resulting in the suspension of Sharma from the party. Furthermore, Kanhaiya Lal in Rajasthan and Umesh Kolhe in Maharashtra were murdered for supporting Sharma on social media. When Sharma went to the Supreme Court seeking clubbing of FIRs against her, the court made the infamous observations and blamed her for the riots and murders instead of blaming Islamists who were the actual cause.
The judicial attitude has the risk of creating an environment where the free speech of the section of the society that does not react violently is unduly curtailed. The fear of potential violent backlash could deter people from expressing legitimate opinions that could be controversial according to a specific group of people. Canada’s law against hate also reminds us of the anti-communal violence bill that Congress attempted to bring potentially putting Hindus in the line of fire. Experts and legislatures who opposed the bill argued that according to the bill, no matter who started the violence, in the end, Hindus would have been prosecuted.
India needs to be vigilant against judicial and parliamentarian overreach. Political parties like Congress do not have the edge to come back in power following the ongoing Lok Sabha Elections 2024 but that does not mean they would not attempt to bring such laws in the state where they hold the power. Such overreach threatens to erode civil liberties and gives power to anti-democratic elements within the society. As a nation, the legal framework of the country must evolve to protect free expression within the purview of curbing hate speech without capitulating to the pressures of those who are intolerant. Simultaneously, the citizens of the country must ensure freedom of speech and expression is never absolute and they should practice constraint wherever required.
The 2024 Eurovision Song Contest in Malmo, Sweden, kicked off with an opening act that subtly hinted at the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, which has heavily overshadowed the event.
Swedish singer Eric Saade, whose father is Palestinian and who was not competing this year, performed his 2011 Eurovision entry “Popular” while wearing a keffiyeh wrapped around his wrist. The keffiyeh is a Palestinian symbol commonly used in pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel protests. Contestants, performers, and fans are strictly prohibited from displaying non-competing nation flags or making political gestures.
Saade’s act sparked controversy, and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) has since issued an apology.
Saade, who represented Sweden in the 2011 Eurovision Song Contest, appeared alongside Eleni Foureira and Chanel as guest stars performing the songs with which they had represented their countries in the past.
“The Eurovision Song Contest is a live television event,” the statement said. “All performers are aware of the rules of the competition, and we regret that Eric Saade chose to compromise the non-political nature of the event. We are happy to discuss this with him after the live broadcast, if necessary.”
Saade has not yet commented on the EBU’s statement.
Last week, Saade expressed anger at the ban on displaying the Palestinian flag but defended his decision to wear the keffiyeh during the broadcast regardless.
The incident comes amid heightened tensions between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israeli government has been criticized for its use of force against Palestinian civilians, while the Palestinian Authority has been accused of inciting violence.
The Eurovision Song Contest is a popular annual event watched by millions of people around the world. The competition is known for its celebration of diversity and inclusion. However, the event has also been criticized for its perceived political bias. In 2019, Israel won the competition, despite calls for a boycott of the event.
The EBU has said that it is committed to ensuring that the Eurovision Song Contest remains a non-political event. It is unclear whether Saade will face any repercussions for his actions. The EBU is expected to review the incident and decide whether to take any disciplinary action.
In the meantime, the organization has apologized for any offense that Saade’s actions may have caused.
League leader, Deputy Premier and Transport Minister Matteo Salvini said Wednesday that French President Emmanuel Macron and former Italian premier Mario Monti should have their heads examined for suggesting the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine if Russia breaks through and Kyiv asks for help. “It upsets me that after Macron, even Monti is talking today about sending Italian soldiers to fight in Ukraine,” said Salvini. “These men must receive psychiatric care: those who think this way and say it as if it were a normal thing, that goes for Macron and Monti, are dangerous”. “Talking about Italian soldiers who may go to fight and die in Ukraine, I consider it a very serious thing,” he said. The League’s Alessandro Giglio Vigna, chair of the House EU affairs committee meanwhile, said he had invited the French ambassador to report to his panel on Macron’s statements, “softening” them. Vigna said “directly sending EU troops to the Ukraine conflict would be madness”.
Finnish MP and former Interior Minister Päivi Räsänen, who is being prosecuted for posting a Bible verse condemning homosexuality, called on Christians to courageously share the truth on controversial issues in the face of persecution.
In a talk hosted by the John Paul II Academy for Human Life and Family, Räsänen told the story of her ongoing court case in Finland and encouraged Christians to boldly speak out despite possible retaliation.
She said, “The most dangerous threat to this freedom is self-censorship,” stressing that “now is the time to use these freedoms.”
Räsänen recalled a case from 2013 when she was interior minister and the leader of the Christian Democratic Party in Finland. She spoke at a church event about the Christian view on abortion and marriage and said that “all of us have come across situations in life when we have had to consider whether we have the courage to act contrary to public opinions or norms, and sometimes even the law, if this contradicts the Word of God.”
“In Acts, it is described how the authorities refused to allow the Apostles to preach about Jesus, but Peter and the other apostles replied, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’”
Räsänen said that after her talk, “over 40 complaints about my speech were made to the parliamentary ombudsman accusing me as a minister [of] inciting to break the law.”
The ombudsman ruled that her comments fell within her right to religious freedom.
Currently, Räsänen is awaiting her trial in front of the Finnish Supreme Court after she has already been acquitted twice in court. The former interior minister is being charged with “hate speech” for a 2019 tweet and for writing a pamphlet in 2004 called “Male and Female He Created Them.” As a member of the Finnish Lutheran church, Räsänen had addressed the church leadership and criticized its official sponsorship of the LGBT event “Pride 2019,” accompanying her criticism with a photo of Bible verses from the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans condemning homosexuality.
Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola is being charged alongside Räsänen for publishing the 2004 pamphlet defending marriage as being exclusively between one man and one woman. In a recent exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews, Pohjola called on Christians to defend marriage and traditional sexual morals.
During the initial police investigation, Räsänen was asked if she would recant her views, but she sternly refused.
“I stand behind these teachings of the Bible. Whatever the consequences are, I will not apologize for what the Apostle Paul has stated,” the Finnish politician said in her talk hosted by the John Paul II Academy.
She warned that a conviction in her case “would open the floodgates to a ban on similar publications.”
Räsänen explained the prosecutor did not just go after her individually for “hate speech” but argued that affirming biblical teaching publicly would be a criminal offense.
“The prosecutor claimed in court that my views are known as a doctrine, which she defined and summarized as ‘Love the sinner, but hate the sin.’ And this doctrine she regarded as insulting and defaming because according to the prosecutor, you cannot make a distinction between a person’s identity and his or her action. If you condemn the act, you also condemn the human being and regard him or her inferior.”
Räsänen pointed out that the prosecutor’s argument “goes against the Christian view of man, and also against common sense.”
“This court case has at its core, at the core of the trial, is the question of whether it is allowed to share the teaching of the Bible and publicly agree with them,” she stated.
The Finnish politicians and a grandmother of 11 children stressed that protecting the right to freedom of expression is necessary to spread the faith.
“Protecting the right to speak freely, is not only necessary for the flourishing of society, but especially essential to proclaiming the Gospel,” she said. “So I want to encourage you to use your foundational freedoms and rights.”
“The more we keep silent about the teachings of the Bible and the painful issues of our time, the more powerful is the reaction. So it doesn’t help to be silent. Christians need to encourage one another to stay strong in Jesus.”
After a half-hour audience with Henk Jan van Schothorst, President Chan Santokhi of Surinam was vexed. Abortion is illegal and opposition to the LGBT movement is strong in the small South American country. But the Surinamese ambassador to Brussels had recently signed a binding trade agreement with the European Union that included mandatory provisions on sexuality and “reproductive rights.”—without any public debate. Quietly inserting a radical social agenda into ostensibly economic negotiations is a key neo-colonial strategy of Western powers, and it is very effective.
Van Schothorst advised the president to withdraw the signature and send the treaty text to the Surinam parliamentary assembly, giving them six months to compare it with the country’s laws, and return the Surinam position to the EU. If the EU rejected it, Surinam could simply find other trade partners. “I thanked the president for his time and his attention,” he recounted. “‘No,’ he and his spiritual advisor said, ‘We must thank you. God has sent you. Would you please pray for us?’” The Dutch activist and the South American president bowed their heads together in prayer.
Surinam was the last stop on Van Schothorst’s whirlwind December tour of four South Caribbean countries. Henk Jan van Schothorst is the founder and executive director of Christian Council International (CCI), and his mission is to create “a transatlantic and international network of Christians and conservatives involved in public policy and influence policy from a Christian perspective,” working at the UN, EU, AU, and OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) “to stand up for a Christian voice worldwide with a focus on life, family, and freedom of religion and education.”
On this trip, Van Schothorst briefed Christian parliamentarians, pastors, professionals, and high-ranking politicians on the details of the 20-year ACP (African, Caribbean, and Pacific)-European Union Partnership Agreement. “It intrudes into almost every area of the public and private life in signatory countries,” Van Schothorst noted. “From dictating abortion, to comprehensive sexuality education (CSE), to parental discipline, and social, sexual, gender, and cultural norms and more, the treaty goes far beyond the 2000 Cotonou Agreement it is intended to replace, violating national sovereignty in many ways.” That, of course, is deliberate.
Earlier in 2023, Van Schothorst had been invited to the Caribbean after a series of meetings at the semi-annual EU-ACP Joint Parliamentary Assemblies, where he and his CCI colleagues met and spoke with parliamentarians from Caribbean and Pacific countries; out of 16 Carib countries, 10 had not yet signed the treaty. Van Schothorst detailed the ways that the treaty obligations conflicted with the conservative laws of these countries—and how the inclusion of these provisions was intended to change laws on the issues of abortion and sexuality. In Surinam, after “appearances on radio, TV, and meetings with Christian professionals, spiritual leaders, parliamentarians, and the president, the Surinamese people became aware of the EU’s ideological power grab and a lively public debate erupted.”
In Grenada—where 96.6% of the population identifies as Christian—he met parliamentarians and pastors; the country later signed the treaty “at the insistence of the EU and with the promise that nothing substantive would change compared to the previous treaty (although that commitment was not included in writing).” MPs and ministers made time to meet in Trinidad (63% Christian) and Tobago (90% Christian); and the government there declined to sign. “On my transit to touristic Barbados, a liberal influx greeted me at the airport,” Van Schothorst told me. “The number of Christians has fallen to just under half of the population. I was not surprised that this country signed on.”
At the signing ceremony in Samoa on 15 November 2023, it turned out that 35 of the 79 countries had not yet signed the treaty. Why? Van Schothorst believes that CCI had something to do with it. “That was partially a result of our raising awareness,” he told me. “Dozens of times over the past three years, in Africa but also in Europe, we have gone to countries to point out the dangers in the treaty.” His Caribbean tour is one example of CCI’s work and real-world impact.
Henk Jan is the third of ten children from a conservative Christian family in the Netherlands, and his interest in politics was first piqued when he heard his father’s denunciations of socialist prime minister Joop Den Uyl. After military service and a six-month mission in Guinea, West Africa, he became a teacher, studying history in the evenings. At Leiden University, he specialized in European Union studies and did an internship with a newly elected Christian Member of European Parliament. After a week and a half, Van Schothorst recalled, the MEP asked him to stay on.
Van Schothorst spent seven years in Brussels and Strasbourg in the European Parliament, mostly in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. “There, I saw the great power of the European Commission as the institution that initiates legislation,” he told me. “Often out of sight of both the population and its representatives, all kinds of regulations, laws, and treaty negotiations are made and had. The standards by which these invisible, unelected, and mostly permanent bureaucratic elites are increasingly developing in a leftist direction—especially when it comes to sensitive ethical issues. More and more power is being drawn to Brussels.”
Who was watching the proceedings and holding the leftist activists accountable from a Christian perspective? Van Schothorst saw almost no one. (Later he found some likeminded organizations such as C-Fam and Family Watch at the UN-level, as well as Alliance Defending Freedom.) Conversely, the ideological enemies of Christianity were everywhere, constantly pushing their views and their policy agendas, working with generously subsidized NGOs, and shaping policy at every level. When his young family began to suffer from his frequent absences, he quit Brussels and got a job at the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy in The Hague on behalf of the SGP (Reformed Party), where he worked for four years. In his new role, he once again witnessed the power of progressive forces.
“I was responsible for the technical support of political parties in the process from one-party government to multiparty democracy in Kenya and Tanzania,” he told me. At the United Nations, he saw an all-out push by Western countries to smuggle abortion and the LGBT agenda into every law, policy, and treaty under the guise of “reproductive rights,” “non-discrimination,” and “sexual orientation and gender identity.” The same trends he had witnessed at the European Union were also underway at the UN.
“At the UN, there is no direct parliamentary control; and without sufficient watch and democratic control, international standards are set there. In negotiations, developing countries are often overrun by rich Western countries with their sexuality and gender ideologies.” Van Schothorst noted. “The various UN agencies are executive bodies of these philosophies rather than impartially serving the member states. It is teeming with leftist organizations. I thought: Someone has to do something. Why shouldn’t I try it?”
To combat the influence of the progressive “deep state” blob of NGOs, activists, and progressive delegates and politicians who dominate international institutions, Van Schothorst founded the Transatlantic Christian Council in 2013, which would later become Christian Council International. Fundraising proved difficult at first—Van Schothorst applied for charitable status from the Dutch government and was promptly refused. He fought the decision up the chain of command, and then in the courts. After two and a half years, three judges ruled unanimously in his favor with retroactive effect, and the Supreme Court rejected a government appeal in 2015.
Despite his victory, the legal battles cost tens of thousands of euros with little money coming in. Van Schothorst ended up working five years pro bono while his wife supported the family. The connections he made during his time at the EU’s Foreign Affairs Committee served him well, and he was able to begin meeting with politicians very quickly—even those with whom he disagreed. “I see my opponents as human beings created in the image of God, and some of them are my friends,” he said. “After a long discussion we can put it aside and have a friendly drink and talk about other things.”
Since the launch of CCI, raising awareness has been Van Schothorst’s primary goal. He is a go-between, informing Christians about the profoundly consequential goings-on within international institutions, and lobbying and educating policymakers about the implications of various agreements. CCI has consultative status at the UN in New York, the Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the EU in Brussels, working hard to bring the Christian worldview to bear on the proceedings and to impact the final text of resolutions and policies (so that they at the least respect national sovereignty and democratically enacted laws of member states).
CCI has also joined with many other Christian organizations to speak out on the political persecution of Christians within Europe, such as Finland’s Päivi Räsänen and the targeting of countries such as Hungary for its opposition to the LGBT agenda. Most tangibly, as previously mentioned, van Schothorst believes that CCI’s efforts have contributed to the delayed signing of the EU-ACP treaty.
After a decade of hard work building the organization, Henk Jan van Schothorst hopes to take CCI to the next level. “We have an ambitious three-year program aiming to return Christian perspectives to the very center of public debate and policy in North America, Europe, and worldwide,” he told me. “The Program for Life, Family, and Freedom at the UN, EU, AU, US, and its Member States protects Christian values and fundamental freedoms at a time when the Christian basis for these achievements is crumbling.”
To accomplish this, Van Schothorst hopes to utilize CCI’s consultative powers to mobilize “an international network of politicians, NGOs, legal specialists, educators, and journalists to defend family and freedom to policymakers.” In the long-term, this would include offices and employees in multiple locations worldwide. It’s an incredibly ambitious plan, and the forces he and his allies are up against are well-funded and culturally powerful. What Henk Jan van Schothorst is suggesting is a Christian version of the Left’s long march through the institutions—a generational fight against long odds. But it must be done, nonetheless, and Van Schothorst’s mindset echoes that of countless successful activists over the decades: “Why shouldn’t I try it?”
