Canada took a giant leap forward last night in its quest to persecute and criminalize Christianity after its House of Commons voted 186-137 to adopt Bill C-9, otherwise known as the Combatting Hate Act, advancing it to the Senate.
While religious freedom has long been considered a protected value in Canada, at least in theory, the government’s new hate speech legislation, which was supported by the Liberal and Bloc Québécois MPs, seeks to drastically curb that back.
Presently, the law exempts “hateful or antisemitic speech” if it is based in good faith on the interpretation of a religious text due to a sincerely held religious belief.
Bill C-9 strips that protection away. The National Post explains:
(If) Bill C-9 is passed, people of faith could be imprisoned for up to two years for expressing deeply held religious convictions that the government finds offensive.”
MP Scott Anderson, a fierce critic of the bill, called it a “travesty” and noted:
“For decades, Canadian law has had a religious exemption, which ensures Canadians can preach, teach, and discuss matters of faith, even when they can be controversial. … But Bill C-9 removes that protection.”
The removal of the religious exception clause is being driven by the Bloc Québécois, who have long sought to entrench cultural secularization, with the province of Quebec presently working on legislation to ban prayer in public.
Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet, one of the main driving forces behind the bill, previously said:
“Speech that incites hatred is a criminal act, regardless of whether it is uttered under the guise of religion or not.”
Justice Critic Rhéal Éloi Fortin added:
“If we are serious about fighting hate, I think that… removing the religious exemption in the Criminal Code is important. We really need to clean up the Criminal Code and remove these kinds of exceptional defences, which are unacceptable.”
3 responses to “Canada’s Insane ‘Anti-hate Legislation’ Passes Final House Vote, Moves to Senate”
It’s not the speech, but what they fear the speech could lead to. Paranoid men worried about all the “what ifs”. When the evidence that counter-speech has held frenzied mobs at bay since the beginning. Ironically, they’re doing the same thing the nazis did.
And they’re doing the same thing the pharisees did to Jesus (Luke 20:1-8, for example).
This sort of preemptive, preventative legislation, which is based solely on fear, always punishes the innocent. And Jesus is the first and foremost example of the punishment of an innocent man.
It betrays a severe lack of trust in the Lord, and also a severe unwillingness to consider the evidence staring them right in the face …
“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,g in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:18-21)
Notice in those verses, why they suppressed the truth. It was because they denied the evidence.
I could possibly agree with some laws criminalizing the blatant and intentional spread of falsehoods (like yelling fire in a theater for example). But preventative measures that punish the innocent, which are rooted in severe paranoid fear and distrust of the Lord, only work to suppress the truth, as government sets itself in the place of God.
Those who want to set the government in the place of God, don’t know what they’re asking for. They think it will bring liberty. It will not. It never has. And that historical evidence is also staring them right in the face.
So I guess it shouldn’t be a shock that their approach would not factor truths and falsehoods, because they intentionally ignore the evidence, because of the wickedness of their hearts. The truth condemns them. It leaves them with no excuses. Just as Jesus left the pharisees with no excuses. And they, ironically, hate anyone who speaks the truth.
“20 Remember the word that I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’a If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well. 21 But they will treat you like this because of My name, since they do not know the One who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.” (John 15:20-22)
This is why they suppress the truth. Ultimately why they would pass legislation that draws distinction along lines other than truth vs falsehood, would necessarily criminalize the truth. That’s what they want to outlaw.
I could go along with most any laws criminalizing falsehood spoken against any individual or group, as long as there is diligent inquiry, as described in Deut. 19, to determine the intent of the falsehood. Often times, it may be rhetorical, a tool of examination, etc., for the purpose of debate (getting to the truth). Often times it may be unintentional. So on and so forth. But the determining factor must not be a bunch of paranoid “what ifs”, and preventative measures that punish the innocent. Falsehood spoken with ill intent is a sin. And I’m perfectly fine with criminalizing sin. Most of the time these days it’s easy to prove – if the one speaking ignores factual correction, ignores the evidence, refuses to repent, and continues in the sin, for example, then that’s clear evidence of ill intent.
And as far as that goes, I’m fine with imposing the same penalties. Let the one who intentionally continues in the sin of spreading falsehoods, with clear and provable ill intent, suffer the same consequences he intended for others.
But I’d also note, since it’s pertinent to other current events, that the distinction between investigation and charges at trial, would have to be understood. Investigation is supposed to be purposed to discover the truth.
With God nothing is unknown. But in this corrupt world, we must deal with unknowns. There is truth, falsehood, and unknown. It’s because of those unknowns that the reasoning of mankind can lead him astray. Some of the legislators might’ve had good intent. I don’t know. But when they deem it necessary to silence the unknown, i.e., things that are not easily enforced through other laws or things that can’t be concretely disproved, they will inevitably silence the truth.
Intent can be determined through diligent inquiry. And it can be countered with repentance and correction as public as the lies. That’s a better approach. Just as the law of Moses is for imperfect mankind in a fallen world, it accounts for the unknowns, so that we may govern ourselves in the best way possible, while for God, there are no unknowns. He is the only one in existence who actually can quantify everything into either truth or falsehood. We cannot.