A Convert to the Church attempts to put his convoluted thoughts down on paper Er, ink...whatever...
How Canada rejects religious freedom
Published on April 30, 2004 By Jiggles In International

Canada has recently passed a new bill, labeled "C-250" which effectively makes the Bible "hate literature" because it condemns certain practices that are accepted today (i.e. homosexuality). This bill, which has been in parliament for 10 years or so, was first put forth by the openly-gay MP, Svend Robinson. To be fair, Robinson had no problem with a provision which allowed people to speak out against homosexuality on religious grounds. That would allow orthodox Jews, most Christians, and Muslims to live within Canada, but the gods of Canadian parliament have decided that this provision need not be entered.

Now, I need to clear up some of my personal bias regarding the issue of homosexuality. I do not have any close homosexual friends, because I was raised in a rather secluded, white Protestant town that is fairly conservative. There was not much opportunity to make friends of that sort. Second, I really don't care about the whole gay marriage thing either, as long as the government does not make churches to perform them. Third, I believe, as the Catholic Church has said, that homosexuality is an "objective" disorder, insofar as that it is objectively a sin. Sin = bad

Yet, if we claim to be free, can we have "hate crime laws?" Is this not the road to the Federal government effectively telling me how to think? I am for getting rid of these "hate speech" laws because I have faith that ordinary people will eventually see the stupidity of certain positions, although I am unsure about how intelligent intellectuals are. Like most people, I cringe when I read Fred Phelps or Jack Chick, and they disgust me. But by allowing the government to throw voices of dissent into jail, how far will it go? Where is the line between sedition and dissent? And can it be effectively regulated?

I do not think so. Although I have no tolerance for people condemning people who happen to be homosexual to hell, and if anything, it is counter-productive to developing a loving dialogue, I do not see how I can really shut them up. I certainly do not want them to talk with such hatred, but I have every right to ignore them. It is like that recent march to let people murder babies, otherwise known as abortion. I was disgusted with the antics that were displayed, with Whoopie and with Ashley Judd. Yet, I firmly believe that every person who advocates violence against an identifiable group, like those cute, ignorant neo-Nazis, to have their say. I figure it is better to air our dirty laundry, rather than to let it foster. I certainly do not want to create any modern Nazi martyrs, and I think society does not either.

Comments
on Apr 30, 2004

It's even worse than you think. The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that "truth is not a defence" in hate crime cases. Do a google search on "canada hate crime laws"; if you are a thinking type of individual I imagine you will be disgusted by what you learn.

"A man who is not a victim is a nobody" David St. Hubbins, The Loser Manifesto, 2003 (with apologies to Mordechai Richler)
on Apr 30, 2004
Wow, I never knew it was that bad. When the government ever tells you that it is illegal to tell the truth, it's in pretty damn dire straights.