A huge amount of whoopdedoo is being made of Bill C-250 which passed through Canadian Parliament on February 2, 2004, and which was signed into law on the 28th of April this year.
So what?
What, exactly does bill C-250 say?
1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
2. Paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
So, the obvious next question is "What do sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal code say?"
Well, as it happens, I have that, too:
Advocating Genocide
318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.
Public incitement of hatred
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
(7) In this section,
"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;
"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;
"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;
"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.
So, I get an Email in my spam folder screaming that with the passing of bill C-250, it has been made illegal to criticize homosexuality, and freedom of religion has been made illegal in Canada.
Not to ask stupid questions or anything, but have these people ever learned to read!? Seriously?
Basically Bill C-250 is a very minor amendment to sections 318-319 of the criminal code. All it says is that the same type of speech which his illigal towards people of different races, origins and faiths is also now illegal towards people of different sexual orientations. For example, it has been illegal in this country for some time to say "you should all go out and kill a couple of black people," now, it's also illegal to say "you should all go out and kill a couple of homosexuals."
Frankly, I don't see this as an unacceptable limit on free speech. And, frankly, that is the limit I believe should be put upon free speech. You can say "homosexuality is wrong and is condemned by the bible" all you want, but saying something like "homosexuality is wrong and is codemned by the bible, therefore you should all go out and shoot a couple of homosexuals" is a very, very different matter.
So, let's see what some of the major objections are:
1. Sexual Orientation is not defined. For instance, is pedophilia a “sexual orientation”? Can a citizen be imprisoned for advocating prison sentences for sexual predators? (See Appendix 1)
Well, not to point out the obvious, but heterosexuality is undeniably a sexual orientation, so these laws also protect you. More importantly, what occurs between consenting adults is a very different matter than what happens between an adult and a child. Sexual predators are already guilty of a crime, and under most circumstances will go to jail. They don't need hate speech or literature directed towards them.
2a) Hatred is not is not statutorily defined. But the Supreme Court of Canada has defined it as connoting an emotion of intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation: R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 397. Is vilification and detestation of homosexual acts considered “hate”? Where does this leave the bible in relation to hate legislation in light of texts like Romans 1:24-27? Will the bible be banned in Canada as hate literature?
That's why we have courts of law in this country. The laws are interpreted by the judicial branch of our government, which in turn determine what constitutes hate. Laws are often nebulous specifically for that reason. There is no possible way a law can be written for every single possible circumstance, however, it is up to the courts to decide whether and how a given law applies to a certain situation. So to answer your question: yes, it's possible for the bible to be banned as hate literature, but I wouldn't count it as likely. I can't imagine any judge is willing to set that precedent.
2b) Hatred is a highly speculative judgment. What is understood as hatred to some people is considered criticism to others. Many of our opponents have labeled opposition to Bill C-250 or rational criticism of homosexuality “hatred”. (See Appendix 2)
No. Section 319(3) specifically states that making rational arguments for or against homosexuality is not subject to prosecution under 319(2), provided that the arguments are true.
3. There is no language regarding the intent to cause harm. Without the requirement to prove a defendant’s intent to cause harm, anyone who might genuinely care for a person with homosexual inclinations can be convicted for their criticisms of the lifestyle or even their recommendations of therapy.
The intent to cause harm, to my knowledge, has always been the measure of the law for any given offense. Even in murder cases, it needs to be established that the person intends to cause harm, in spite of the fact that it is not explicitly stated in the criminal code.
4. There is no provision for a non-religious defense. Subsection 319(2) provides an exemption from conviction by referring to a religious text. But what if a citizen appeals to Anthropology, Science, Anatomy, Natural Law or mere personal conviction without reference to a religious text? There is no provision for a defense on these bases.
Bull. The only thing the alleged perpetrator has to do is establish in a court of law that his statements are true, regardless of their content (as per section 319(2)(a)). Do you have a problem with legislation against falsehood?
5. There is no protection for health professionals who counsel and speak out against the destructive homosexual lifestyle. Homosexual activity has been long acknowledged to be very unhealthy. Yet, this legislation will stifle legitimate debate and discovery in the medical community. Not only will it lead to possible criminal convictions against doctors, but their professional associations might threaten them with sanctions and dismissal if they do not abide by the law (See Appendix 3).
Bull (again). As long as they can prove their statements to be truthful, they cannot be prosecuted. Seems to me that there's a passage somewhere in the bible about bearing false witness....
6. Citing a religious text does not exempt a citizen from prosecution under the legislation. Although there is an exemption from conviction under Section 2 which deals with “promotion of hatred” (no defense can be used unless a religious text is cited), there is no such defense at all under Section 1 which deals with “incitement of hatred”. Technically, therefore, there is no real protection for those who appeal to a religious text. The prosecutor will simply by-pass Section 2 and indict the offender under Section 1.
Technically true, but a judge would still need to rule that quoting the bible is dissemination of hate. Can you imagine even one judge who's willing to create that kind of a precedent?
7. The definition of “incitement of hatred” in Section 1 is purposely designed to intimidate and suppress freedom of speech. The legislation says that if the incitement “is likely to lead to a breach of the peace”, a citizen would be convicted. “Breach of the peace” can simply mean upsetting a group of homosexual activists whose peace has been breached!
Careful, you're starting to sound paranoid. No society in the world exists that does not have some limitation on freedom of speech. But this argument is even more ridiculous than that. The exact same restrictions on freedom of speech have existed in this country for decades, and not one person has spoken out against them. Now they make a minor addition to these laws and people are up at arms? For example, do you agree with a statement such as "you should all go out and shoot a couple of black people?" Why would you agree any more with a statement such as "you should all go out and shoot a couple of homosexuals?"
8. The Bill is a political ploy to silence dissent from the Gay Agenda. The Bill is being proposed at a time where judicial activism is out of control. Because the judiciary in Canada is determined to re-engineer the social structure of society (as evidenced, for instance, by its destruction of the traditional definition of marriage), this legislation will be used as an intimidation ploy to silence people of faith, particularly Christians. Sympathetic judges and a zealous prosecutors could easily result in widespread religious persecution which has already started in earnest (See Appendix 4).
Now, you're really starting to sound paranoid. This bill, at the end of the day is a very minor change to sections 318-319 of the criminal code. All it says is that people of a given sexual orientation have the right not to be hated. For a bill which is a ploy to silence dissent from the Gay Agenda (whatever that is), homosexuality isn't even mentioned in it.
Some people, I tell ya.
No comments:
Post a Comment