'Chill Bill' Passes Canadian House, Makes Free Speech Against Gays a Crime

Follow-up to previous mailing “Silencing the Bible”: See News article below these comments. As far as I’m concerned this issue is not so much about Homosexuals or Lesbians in particular - but about liberty. This is about what happens when equality of outcome, sensitivity, and diversity are given precedence over all other rights and liberties – freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. Can’t happen here? Guess again. Remember the Clinton administration supported a case against the right of the Boy Scouts of America to exclude Gay men from leadership positions. Anyone who thinks that would end there is fooling themselves. These people – and I mean radical egalitarians in general – of all orientations, i.e. the left – may lapse into silence for rare moments, but don’t ever quit. Please remember that in November. DBA Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Homosexuality, Freedoms of Association, Canada Printer-Friendly Version By Jimmy Moore 'Chill Bill' Passes Canadian House, Makes Free Speech Against Gays a Crime Talon News April 30, 2004 OTTAWA, ONTARIO (Talon News) -- A bill introduced by Canadian parliament member Svend Robinson that would make free speech against homosexuals a crime passed in the House of Commons. The "Chill Bill," or C-250, passed by a vote of 140-110 on Wednesday despite objections from the religious community that religious speech would be limited by the law if they speak out against homosexuality. If it becomes law, then the "Chill Bill," which is also known as the "Bible As Hate Literature" bill, would ban speech that would be used in condemnation of homosexuality or homosexual acts. This is similar to the anti-hate speech law in Sweden where a Pentecostal minister is now facing charges for using the Bible to point out that homosexuality is a sin. Robinson, who belongs to the socialist New Democratic Party in the Canadian parliament, has championed civil liberties issues in the past and is openly gay. The "Chill Bill" would specifically amend Section 318 of the hate crime law by adding the phrase "sexual orientation" as the fifth protected class of people, adding to color, race, religion, and ethnic origin. "It's a bill that recognizes that when hate crimes are perpetrated [in Canada] against those who are of a minority religion or race or ethnic origin or color, that Canada says this is wrong," Robinson said in defense of his bill. Robinson asserts that homosexuals should also be included as part of the language of the hate crimes law. "But there's one group in the country and that is gays and lesbians -- the group that has more hate crimes, more violence perpetrated against it -- that isn't included in the hate propaganda laws," Robinson notes. However, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada President Bruce Clemenger believes this bill would have a decidedly "chilling effect" on people of faith who believe homosexuality is wrong. "Whether this law leads to the prosecution of religious groups or not, it's almost certain to have a chilling effect," he told the Calgary Herald. "Will the Gideons still be allowed to place Bibles in motel rooms?" Clemenger is concerned that the terms "hate" and "sexual orientation" are not defined in the legislation. The maximum penalty for these hate crime convictions is five years in prison. Robinson responds to this by saying his bill was drafted to prevent "gay bashing" and contends that the notion that religious speech would be silenced by the bill is "utterly without foundation." Even still, John McKay, a member of the Canadian parliament who voted against C-250, said those who oppose homosexuality will be forced to suffer the consequences of speaking out against them in the future if this bill becomes law. "Anybody who has views on homosexuality that differ from Svend Robinson's will be exposed rather dramatically to the joys of the Criminal Code," McKay told the Canadian Press. Canadian legislative observer Vic Toews said Robinson is simply advocating "fascism" to promote his radical agenda. Derek Rogusky, the vice president of family policy for Focus on the Family Canada, said any legislation that limits the rights of people of faith while giving more rights to gays generally favors homosexuals when challenged in court. "We've seen through the courts that when religious freedom comes up against gay rights, that in fact religious freedom tends to be more often than not the loser in those particular cases," Rogusky told CBC Newsworld. But religious objections to homosexuality are already being condemned in Canada. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission recently ruled that a newspaper ad that listed Biblical references in it opposing homosexuality amounted to a human rights offense. The newspaper and the man who took out the ad were forced to pay $1,500 each to three gay men who complained about it. And in British Columbia, the supreme court said a high school teacher's one-month suspension without pay should remain because he wrote letters to the editor in his local newspaper contending that nobody is born with homosexuality. Bill C-250 is now headed to the 105-member Canadian Senate for consideration.

Libertina,

Thank you for the greetings and encouragement. Its very good to find some like-minded people to exchange ideas with. I don't mind talking about ideas to those I have fundamental differences with - as long as it remains civil -but one can begin to feel isolated after awhile.

In all things, Be Well!

DIM1

kanawa,

A note to you below your reply mentions that - sadly - this bill has already passed the Canadian Senate. Is there some Judicial review point that might see how it impinges on Freedom of Worship, and Speech?

Thank you, and be well!

DIM1

From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association."

While there is no mandated judical review of legislation, one can through the courts challenge the constitutionality of a particular law.

Although as the posted article shows in it's last couple of paragraphs we too suffer from a judical activism that leads me to a pessimistic view of the outcome.

kanawa,

Thank you for thoughtfully answering my question.
It looks as though the bill in question runs right over the< Stipulated Fundamental Freedoms, so blatantly that any child could see it - unless their attention was elsewhere - which I suppose it is - a relentless vision of enforced eqaulity blotting out all sense. I hope that there is some plan to appeal this and pray that it will succeed in the end.
Thank you, and

Be Well,

DIM1

JDoutrider,

Thank you!

I'd somehow overlooked your comment after you posted it and I apologize for that.

So much of the confusion on these things seems to come from simple wishful thinking on the part of homosexuals, lesbians, and their friends and families. I think that some fault might also lie with a failure of religious leaders and teachers to fully educate their congregants on the nature of sin. Not just what is sinful, but the reasoning involved in granting flexibility in how a sinner is to be treated - e.g. Jesus and the woman about to be stoned for adultery and the distinction he made between what is due the secular authorities i.e. Cesar, and what is due The L-rd - and the fact of the sin itself - which is not in question. There is much is the Jewish Talmudic tradition that also seeks to address this as well.

Kindness to sinners, and respect for their rights as citizens should not be confused with acceptance of sin.

A free people cannot have thin skins!

Thank you, and Be well!

DIM1

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.