Article content Well, Bill C-9, the ‘Combatting Hate Act,’ has passed the House of Commons in a vote of 186-137, despite strong opposition from various religious groups and civil liberties organizations. C-9 is a hotly-debated, arguably divisive piece of legislation, but the government was determined to push it through Parliament. What was all the fuss about?
How could ‘combatting hate’ possibly be controversial? After all, the vast majority of us would like to see a Canada free of hatred. Recommended Videos Many of those who are well-versed in the Criminal Code have maintained that we already have laws on the books against threats and acts of violence against identifiable groups, as well as against hate speech (defined very carefully).
Unfortunately, these laws have largely gone unenforced for some reason. Bill C-9 supposedly strengthens the law, but in fact lowers the threshold for accusing someone of using hate speech. One of the main reasons C-9 has been opposed by people of a wide variety of religious persuasions is that it removes the ‘good faith’ provision in the law that protects, say, a pastor from being prosecuted for hate if he or she can claim that the speech in question was an honest appeal to the authority of a religious text such as the Bible.
In addition, C-9 raises the spectre of certain passages of Scripture being labeled ‘hate speech’ which one could conceivably go to prison for quoting in public. In particular, Marc Miller, a cabinet minister, claimed that certain texts relating to homosexuality are clearly ‘hateful.’ The problem, of course, is with the definition of ‘hate.’ Calling someone’s political or religious opinion ‘hate’ is highly subjective. It’s a case of one person’s meat being another’s poison.
To me, simply stating a conscientiously held view about gender identity or how marriage ought to be defined is not hate speech. Yet, to another person, merely holding a view of gender or climate change or immigration or residential schools that someone else dislikes is automatically ‘hateful.’ Just ask the school trustee in British Columbia who was recently fined $750,000 by a Human Rights Tribunal for publicly stating the ‘wrong’ view of gender identity. The Liberal government doesn’t think anyone will be charged for their opinions.
Opposition members who express their worries about C-9 are dismissed as exaggerating for partisan reasons or out of sheer bigotry. Any fears of C-9’s potential to take our country further down the road to a more authoritarian society are deemed imaginary. But it has been happening in the UK for some time now, and it has recently occurred in BC.
We are told that the Charter of Rights will protect us, but it didn’t protect that trustee who spoke out about the curriculum that it was his job to monitor. I have always held Anthony Housefather (my former mayor) in high regard, but I confess I’m baffled by his ‘take’ on C-9. In an interview, he stated that religious leaders have no need to fear this new legislation.
It is not going to lead to pastors being prosecuted for hate speech...unless, of course, they say something hateful! Marc Miller tells us that Leviticus and Romans contain hateful material. Now that C-9 has passed, I suspect that clergy and others will be extra careful about what views they express and what texts they preach or write on.
The effect will be to put a chill on freedom of speech in this country. I have been studying the Bible for the past 50 years or so, and I don’t think Leviticus or Romans are hateful. But Marc Miller, Marc Carney and their colleagues apparently know better.
Since when was the state given the right to dictate the interpretation of Scripture to the rest of us?! Somebody a year ago should have made George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, and Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here compulsory reading for all MPs. It’s a little late now.
