[Previous entry: "Kerry's House of Ketchup #9"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "THE FULL COURT PRESS FOR THE HALF CENT SALES TAX"]

04/29/2004 Archived Entry: "Senate passes gay hate-crimes bill"

Posted by steve @ 01:45 AM EST [Link]

RELIGIOUS CANADIANS...IT AIN'T GOING TO BE NICE FOR YOU: Canada's Senate yesterday passed Bill C-250, legislation that would amend the Criminal Code to bar hate crimes against gays. I have no specific problem with this notion but my problem with the bill is that it doesn't contain -- in my opinion -- sufficient protection for religious speech.

Earlier this month I penned a piece that ran in some newspaper or another in Canada on the legislation concerning my fears. To read it, click on "More"

Bill C-250 a danger to religious freedom

By Steven Martinovich

On April 17 starting at about 2:00pm hundreds of Canadians will march from the Supreme Court to Parliament Hill to protest legislation that in a few days time will voted on by the Senate. Bill C-250, a private members bill introduced by MP Svend Robinson, amends Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code to bar the expression of opinions against sexual orientation.

The ultimate goal of Robinson's legislation is a noble one. Canada is a tolerant society that is dedicated to the defense of its citizen's fundamental freedoms. Although we have made much progress in that direction, it's undeniable that those whose lifestyles many consider to be on the fringe of society -- even morally objectionable -- still face a struggle to be accepted and in a free society be left alone to pursue their version of happiness.

Like many pieces legislation, however, Bill C-250 carries unintended consequences. Along with barring hate propaganda, Robinson's legislation also carries the very real potential that religious freedoms in Canada will suffer. Bill C-250 may very well end up declaring that portions of religious texts from several of the world's major religions -- including Christianity and Islam -- are hate propaganda.

The trouble lies with Bill C-250's use of the term "sexual orientation." As the Catholic Civil Rights League argued late last year, the term "appears to assume that both sexual inclinations and corresponding sexual actions are defining characteristics of the human person." That means if a person or text argues that homosexual behavior is immoral -- even while proclaiming tolerance, the old Christian principle of "Hate the sin, love the sinner" -- one is guilty of hate propaganda. At least three passages known to Christians condemn homosexual behavior, making Christian texts a potential target for seizure and their authors subject to criminal prosecution.

The danger of Bill C-250 was highlighted in a 2002 court case in Saskatchewan. In Owens v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, the court ruled that these passages -- particularly Leviticus which unfortunately proclaims homosexual behavior "detestable" and prescribes the death penalty for -- "expose[s] homosexuals to hatred." Other jurisdictions in Canada favor an even wider interpretation of existing legislation that could see any person's use of religious texts resulting in prosecution under the Criminal Code.

In Alberta, Rev. Stephen Boissoin has a date with the Alberta Human Rights Commission for writing a letter to the editor. In 2002 he learned that Alberta P-Flag Faith Society had undertaken an initiative in Alberta public schools teaching that homosexuality was "Normal, Necessary, Acceptable & Productive." Boissoin's letter urged Christians to become aware of this publicly funded initiative, an action that prompted a University of Calgary professor to launch a complaint with the AHRC.

These are merely two examples of a growing number of legal attacks on religious freedoms. Across Canada in recent years people and organizations with religious objections to homosexuality are being targeted by those who disagree with their agenda. Increasingly the principles of free speech, free association and religious freedoms are being sacrificed in order to silence and even intimidate those with dissenting opinions. In the name of tolerance, some Canadians are being forced to in a manner contrary to their deeply held convictions. Bill C-250 could only worsen the situation.

As laudable as the goal for increased tolerance may be, we can't sacrifice the freedoms of free speech and religious freedoms in order to achieve it. Currently the bill only protects people making religious arguments against homosexuality if it is believed that the opinion expressed was "in good faith," with all that nebulous concept implies. Given an activist judiciary and a federal government eager to reshape society, good faith protection isn't worth much at all. With the Senate due to vote on the legislation as early as next week, we don't have a lot of time to stop yet another erosion of our basic freedoms.

Replies: 16 comments

Leviticus is hate propaganda. It contains an incitement to ritual murder against homosexuals.

One doesn't fight such filth by banning it but by criticizing it. Those Christians who now complain loss of religious freedom haven't a leg to stand on since they are already protected by Canadian hate speech laws.

Canadian Christians are merely getting what they deserve.

Posted by Frank Elliott @ 04/29/2004 10:43 AM EST

I see. So before Leviticus was banned, Canadian homosexuals were being systematically, ritually murdered with no protection under the law?

This is not about protecting anyone. Its about silencing opposition. The first step to a totalitarian state.

Posted by Mick @ 04/29/2004 12:37 PM EST

I have a problem with "hate" crime laws. These laws make a presumption that the prosecutor can somehow divine what you were thinking when you perpetrated the crime. How would a prosecutor, or anyone else for that matter know whom you hate?
If you kill a homosexual acquaintance, did you kill because that person was homosexual? Or because that person was a jerk? What if the acquaintance is a homosexual AND a member of one of a "protected" minority groups. Do you get charged with one murder and TWO hate crimes? Then convicted and sentenced to the ddath penalty plus 5 years each for the hate crimes?
Hate crime legislation is an attempt at thought control. It is impossible to determine what a person is thinking when a person commits a crime. It is nothing more than obvious pandering to the liberal victim group mentality.

Posted by cb @ 04/29/2004 02:58 PM EST

The reason why I have somewhat of a 'no problem' attitude towards the hate crime legislation in principle because Canadians are going to get these types of laws no matter what happens. We already have them for every other group so you may as well be resigned to broadening the list. In Canada, that's the reality.

With that in mind I merely want to make these types of laws the least intrusive into other liberties as possible.

Do I like hate crimes laws? No, but we Canadians have to work within the system we have and take our victories where we can.

Oh and Frank, I wouldn't celebrate. When the guns of government are turned against you, don't expect help from those evil Christian Canadians.

Posted by Steve Martinovich @ 04/29/2004 03:58 PM EST

>Leviticus is hate propaganda. It contains an incitement to ritual murder against homosexuals.

I reply: No the death penalty for homosexual sex can ONLY be implimented under the following circumstances. 1) It can ONLY be done in the Old Testament Israelite Theocratic Common Wealth (which of course no longer exists & according to Christian Theology has passed away. Even the modern State of Israel doesn't qualify as the OTTCW ask any Orthodox Jewish Rabbi). 2) Only with the clear testamony of two or three witnesses can anybody be put to death 3) The sentence may only be carried out by the Public Authority of the OT Israelite Common Wealth, if a private Individual takes it upon himself to imposses this sentence he would be judged a murderer & be subject to judgment.

Isn't interesting how theologically & historically ignorant anti-religious gay bigots are? In fact that's the root of all bigotry. IGNORANCE!

"ritual murder"? PULEEZ!!!!

PS Attention anti-religious Gay Facists (& all other facists as well)! I'm an American so your Bill doesn't scare me. We still believe in freedom of Speech & Religion in my country the USA. For now.....but if you people had your way OTOH....

PSS I love gays! But I can't stomach bigots of any strip or sexual orientation. Rather than silence bigots by law I simply use my free speech to tell them off & tell them what they can go do with themselves. That's much more effective I think & much more satifying. :-)

Posted by BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) @ 04/29/2004 05:33 PM EST

Why is the Ottawa Citizen reporting that Svend Robinson (sponsor of the Bill and one who stole a $50,000 ring a few weeks ago. The Crown attorney is still dithering as to whether to charge him!!!) was in Vancouver yesterday when anti-Christian muzzle-bill C-250 was passed? Other papers, including the Citizen's sister paper The National Post, are reporting that Mr Robinson was "seen exchanging hugs and high-fives with jubilant supporters on a street within sight of Parliament Hill."

Is the Citizen's reporting trying to cover up the truth so that Mr Robinson can look more sick than he is and he can avoid prosecution for the serious crime he committed? Or has Mr Robinson been declared a living saint by the Citizen and is capable of bi-location?

Posted by James @ 04/29/2004 06:20 PM EST

One simple question: Does this mean that Bibles and Korans will henceforth be confiscated by Canadian Customs, and those bearing them charged with bringing hate propoganda into the country? As a US citizen, I am now fearful that taking my Bible with me if I travel to Canada will result in prosecution. Who (if anyone) in the Canadian government will guarantee that I will NOT be subject to legal consequences?

Posted by Joey W @ 04/29/2004 07:40 PM EST

I doubt you'll be frisked for religious texts at the border. It's people in Canada that could potentially be at risk. If they argue the subject and use religious texts as their basis and they are charged, our activist judiciary -- despite what Bill C-250 says -- could censor that speech.

Given how much the Charter has already been interpreted beyond its original scope I have little doubt that Bill C-250 will one day be no protection for religious Canadians.

Posted by Steve Martinovich @ 04/30/2004 12:14 AM EST

Yes, "Ben Yachov", "ritual murder." The law was applied to non-Jews. By definition a religiously imposed death sentence for anyone not a member of that religion is ritual murder. This applies to Levitican Law, the Sharia, or any Christian analog. I respect none of these laws and I would kill and die to prevent their iimposition.

BTW, if you'll read my original post, you'll see that I also oppose hate speech codes.

As for Steve Martinovich's claims that Christians won't be there when government attacks gays, they never are.

When the Third Reich put gays in concentration camps, they were never liberated. They were forced to finish their sentences in prisons. No Christian protested. In spite of the fact that an inordinate number of those interned under paragraph 175 were priests, the Vatican and Catholics world wide said nothing.

If you're loioking for sympathy, you'll find it in the dictionary between **** and syphillis.

Posted by Frank Elliott @ 04/30/2004 10:28 AM EST

If you actually read the legislation you will find that religous expression is specifically protected. The legislations says no one can be charged " if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text"

But, I suppose the facts are less interesting than the rants.

Posted by KevinG @ 04/30/2004 11:27 AM EST

Not very bright are you Frank?

Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. No Christian or Jew can lawfully use Leviticus to justify murdering a homosexual. The death penalties proscribed in the Torah COULD ONLY be imposed in the theocratic Israelite Common wealth under the conditions I discribed. The OT Israel no longer exists.

Like the typical bigot you are making up YOUR OWN self-serving definitions, interpretations & terms of Judeo-Christian teaching instead of geting off your big fat butt & LEARNING something about it from people who know. I'm not impressed by your anti-religious "propaganda"!

Posted by BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) @ 04/30/2004 01:21 PM EST

Mr KevinG,

How do you explain the case of Rev. Stephen Boissoin? It seems the Canadian Goverment is ignoring it's OWN nominal freedom of religion laws.

Enlighten me I'm not Canadian.

Sounds like rule in Canada is "Yes freedom of speech/religion is free, but not when we don't like it."

Posted by BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th) @ 04/30/2004 01:25 PM EST

If you actually read the legislation you will find that religous expression is specifically protected. The legislations says no one can be charged " if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text"

I realize that it's specifically protected, I've read the legislation. My point is that I don't trust the judiciary to actually interprete the legislation to actually protect religious commentary. This country's judiciary has a very long history of interpreting very clear legislation to mean what they want it to mean, particularly when it comes to advancing social agendas. Several judges in recent years have publicly stated that they are more than willing to interprete statutes to advance a socially progressive agenda despite what Parliament intended in any piece of legislation.

Posted by Steve Martinovich @ 04/30/2004 02:38 PM EST

Kevin G,

Please name me one recent court case in which the decision has been in favor of religious protection as opposed to limiting the right to express religious beliefs. There have been numerous instances of taking away religious freedoms (printer Scott Brockie and school-teacher Chris Kempling). If you can demonstrate that there is NOT an activist anti-religion bias in the courts, please show your proof.

(In other words - you're saying "trust us", while at the same time the gallows is being nailed together by the judges. Sorry; gullibility has its limits.)

Posted by Joey W @ 04/30/2004 06:05 PM EST

Why is it that this "anti-hate-speech" legislation is incomplete? Where are the clauses to protect smokers from non-smokers? What is to prevent a canine-phobic from verbally assaulting some poor dachshund's owner? If I say that drug users are dangerous and depraved, who is going to see to it that I'm punished for such terrible words?

Legislating against any kind of speech is ridiculous, because in order to make it truly meaningful you have to proscribe EVERY kind of speech, since it may be offensive to someone. Are "gay-bashers" good people? I don't think so; neither do I approve of Neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, or any other hate group. BUT - they have a right to their opinion, as long as they do not put that opinion into action. The key here is that instead of preventing behavior, some folks mistakenly believe that curtailing speech will accomplish the same thing before the acts can even take place. Wrong, and totally nonsensical.

If the idea is really that "no one can say anything offensive", Bill C250 is woefully inadequate. And if there is another agenda (as I suspect) then let's get it out in the open.

Posted by Bob McKenzie @ 04/30/2004 06:48 PM EST

"in good faith"! That's a loophole you could drive a truck through. It renders the religious exception meaningless. Who will decide what "good faith" is? You will have prosecutors deciding to charge or not to charge based on their interpretation of your theology.

Posted by stuart @ 05/02/2004 11:36 AM EST