Canada's Bill C-250: Hate Propaganda and Homosexuals

Great Debates
1

Right now, there’s a bill before the Canadian Parliament that has the intention of making it a crime to ‘promote or advocate genocide’ against gays.

Sounds good to me, at least at first.

The bill, C-250, is an amendment to Section 218 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Here’s what the Code says right now:

C-250 is pretty simple. All it does is add “sexual orientation” to the list distinguishing characteristics for identifiable groups…

Now, the intent of Bill C-250 seems, to me, to be to stop people from advocating the elimination of the ‘GLBTQ’ community. It seems sensible (indeed, important and timely) to disallow people from advocating killing gays (2(a)), or from promoting ‘conditions of life’ that would eliminate or de-gay them (My understanding of 2(b)).

But there are stong critics. Mostly religious groups, it appears, and this is to be expected, of course. But these critics have made a couple of points that I can’t quite argue away as lunacy or homohatred. The biggest one, I think, is their claim that [

The implication being that a passage in the bible might refer to ‘laying with mankind as with womankind’ as an abomination, and if a priest reads that to mean ‘Homosexual sex is a sin’, and preaches to his parish that homosexuals shouldn’t do this, and should repent their urges, then he could be ‘advocating the destruction of an identifiable group’.

It’s entirely believable that there are passages in the bible, and other religious texts and doctrines, that could be used to teach that gayness is a sin, and that homosexuals need to be saved or cured or prevented from carrying out their ‘sinful desires’. Is it, then, reasonable for religious groups to claim that Bill C-250 would restrict their freedom of religion, because preaching their beliefs could be taken as a violation of 2(b)?

Obviously, this bill would define as criminal the preaching by a religious figure of a doctirne of “Kill all the Gays”. I’ve got no reservations about section 2(a). But what about 2(b)? Are there limits on religious freedom being imposed? Could the bible be declared hate literature, and preachers jailed for preaching it?

(It seems to me that certain interpretations of certain bible passages may already be ‘hate speech’, by this reasoning. Aren’t there parts of it that talk about cleansing the promised land of the natives after the Exodus? If there are, I can’t find 'em, but I read that here in Great Debates. Such passages could be interpreted as a message to ‘Kill all the Gentiles’, and it looks the same on the surface as my other example.)

Could the Canadian courts interpret the amended Criminal Code in a way that would see priests put in jail? If so, what must the priests do to become criminals? If there’s a problem with this wording, how can we amend it to protect homosexuals against genocide, and still let religious groups believe what they want? Lastly, does this claim have any merit?:

Basically, I support the motion, as long as there isn’t a risk of the courts interpreting the amended Code to make it a crime to preach that gay is sinful. If it does, then I’m not sure. I’d love for people not to believe that, but I don’t want to legislate religion (unless the religion is actively harmful to people). So how about it?

Quotes from: Catholic Civil Rights League

Other links:
Petition in support of the bill
Petition against the bill
Criticism, an online newsletter
Support (*pdf), Canadian Bar Association
PS
Just as I finished wirting this, I heard the news on CBC that the House of Commons passed Bill C-250. Don’t I feel dumb. Well, the debate still stands… and it has to get past the Senate, anyway.

2

I think there’s a rather large gap between advocating genocide of homosexuals and thinking that homosexual activity is a sin.

If a white supremacist argues that interracial dating is bad, I don’t consider it hate speech. It’s when he says that interracial dating must be stopped, so get some knives and guns and go fix the problem that it steps over that line.

I’d have to say the churches aren’t going to need to worry too much about quoting scripture getting them thrown in jail.

I do have to say I found the Catholic Civil Rights League’s (and let’s face it, they don’t hide their dislike for homosexuality at all) arguments a bit humorous. Their first argument against the bill is:

While I don’t agree with that necessarily, apparently they don’t apply that standard to themselves. This is from their “Goals” page:

Isn’t existing law sufficient to stop people from discriminating against Catholics? :slight_smile:

3

Oh, c’mon now!

First, what would be so bad about that? Parts of the Bible ARE hate propaganda! Why isn’t the truth an absolute defense? It’s an awfully pathetic argument against a law to merely complain that the truth hurts!

But more realistically, please realize that no law can ever be perfectly crafted. Ludicrous nit-picking and threatening absurd theoretical consequences are tactics that will always be employed against any law that offends some group or other, certainly in cases that might challenge religious dogmas. We simply can’t let such practically absurd considerations prevent the making of good and just laws like that being proposed.

For real-world practice, consider paragraph 3: “No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.”

It is utterly inconceivable that any Attorney General is going to agree to prosecute churches or priests or anyone else who simply quotes or teaches from the Bible.

4

wolfstu: An example of Biblical advocacy of genocide:
“And the Lord sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.” – 1 Samuel 15:18

I doubt that any of the passages pertaining to homosexuality would be considered advocating violence or genocide in and of themselves. But there is a difference between holding a religious belief that members of a certain group are sinful and advocating violence against them. There are groups, at least in the US, that do believe that all homosexuals should be executed. (Or at least imprisoned until they ‘repent’.)

It is clearly not the purpose of this law to prevent religious groups from expressing their beliefs – though there may be some anti-gay religious groups that hold beliefs that would already be illegal under Section 218. The opposition to this bill is just another example of religious conservatives crying out in opposition of anything that promotes the acceptance, tolerance or equality of non-heterosexuals.

From what I saw on the news, I think it was that the bill passed First Reading, or at least a motion to consider it passed. It’s not ready to go to the Senate yet (though the Senate is powerless anyway…).

5

If C-250 wasn’t used to attack the Bible over religious or racial hatred I see no reasopn to believe it was be used to attack the Bible over the issue of sexual orientation. The Bible has been exposed to prosecution under C-250 for 33 years and it’s never come up. So why would it come up now? It’s a ridiculous objection.

Now, having said that, I think there IS a chance that some goofball will sue to have the Bible suppressed over this. Any law will be misinterpreted by some goofball; hell, do an Internet search for “John Kennedy silver notes” and find out what the real nutbars can conjure up. I am reminded of the controversy over the new Mel Gibson film where we have people arguing in absolute seriousness that “passion” stories are anti-Semetic and should not be allowed, which would mean, quite literally, that the central, ultimate part of the Christian faith is inherently something you can’t celebrate. But does anyone seriously believe the government’s going to use C-250 to ban Easter? Neither do I.

6

All it takes is a nicely powerful liberal judge. The Bible (as well as many other religious text, let’s not forget them…anyone notice that it’s the Bible taking all the flak whenever it is attacked, but it is lumped with other books when it is discussed in a neutral/positive light? Anyhoo…) says that it is a sin. Sin is bad, so the bible advocates removing sin when possible, in the case of homosexuality, becoming straight (it’s happened).

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely…” could be interpreted to include removing enough people from the group that the group is considered (by the judge) to be in danger of being obliterated in part. Certainly a stretch, but not unlike many other “interpretations” recently arrived at.

Whether you think that this conversion is possible or not is irrelevant, because as long as the speech “promotes” this goal is enough to show “guilt” in the speaker.

7

I don’t think your comparison is valid. Fact is that religious teachings about homosexuality are a very hot-button issue these days. Religious teachings about race are not. Despite the technical fact that some of the language in the Bible could be interpreted as religious or racial hatred, it is not in fact interpreted that way, by believers or unbelievers, at least to the point of being a factor in today’s political climate. So that issue slips under the radar. By contrast, Biblical teachings about homosexuality are a source of great contention these days.

8

Svend Robinson, a gay MP who is promoting the bill, said this in the paper on Tuesday:

cite

9

I think that this is just a scare-tactitc to get Christians to rally against the bill.

Not too long ago, my grandma showed me a petition which direly warned that unless the courts’ ruling that the Pledge of Allliegence was overturned, people who prayed in public would be arrested, and “you won’t be allowed to pray *in your own home.” *

I took the time to debunk this as thouroughly as I could. Finally, I just pointed out that banning religious practice would be career suicide for any politician, and thus, there’s no way a statute “banning” private religious practice could ever be passed.

I’m sure if I went over to her house, her religious friends will have sent her literature about the pending “banning of the Bible” in Canada.

10

The rights of religion are protected under our Charter of Rights and Freedom, without Sven’s amendment excluding religious belief anyone using the law to attack church members expressing a religious view would soon find the law to be deemed unconstitutional.

It’s a red herring used to attack the Bill. It has as much weight as their argument that the term sexual orientation somehow could be interpreted to protect Pedophiles or incest. Of course that is patently ridiculous because any time the term has been used it has been taken to mean Heterosexual/homosexual/bi sexual.

These folks are quiet the Henny Penny’s when it comes to anything protecting the rights of homosexuals. Hard to believe that something even as small as the definition of a single word will cause the entire fabric of Western cuture to unravel.

11

I’m no expert on Canadian law - in fact I don’t know the slightest thing about it - but I don’t see why this would be correct. The rights of religion are generally protected to the extent that they are not considered to be infringing on anyone else. Suppose for example, a religion had a belief that its members should actually kill homosexuals, no one would allow them to do this based on freedom of religion. I would think that advocating genocide or conditions of life etc. would fit into this category of unprotected religious expression.

12

But, IzzyR, you would have to actually provide evidence that someone was advocating genocide for C-250 to apply. Simply owning or reading a Bible is not “Advocating genocide.” After all, C-250 prohibits people from exhibiting a certain kind of BEHAVIOUR. You can’t send a book to jail.

Certainly, Canadians cannot murder one another and then claim religious freedom. However, the charge is murder, not owning a Bible. Heck, they’ll probably let you take your Bible to prison.

I would point out that Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” is not a banned book in Canada. Owning it is not illegal. Quoting it is not illegal. Now, if you stood on a street corner and started preaching that Jews should be rounded up and murdered and threw in some quotes from “Mein Kampf,” you might get arrested, but not because of the book you were quoting.

13

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it would be possible to charge any priest or pastor under this bill, mainly for the reasons cowgirl cited. But let’s be fair: why should we protect anyone advocating genocide? Or irrational hatred? I was raised Roman Catholic, and the reason I don’t practice at all is because of the logical questions that faith can’t answer. I don’t deride anyone who believes, but it’s not for me. My point is, I cannot understand why we have to be progressive as a society in everyday life, but when religious views designed 2000 years ago are in any way questioned the (mostly) Christians go nuts and say they are being persecuted for hanging on to out-dated and nonsensical beliefs.*

If some priests says that gays are evil and should be “dealt with”, then I say have at him. That’s hate speach however you define it, and hiding behind the Bible doesn’t change that.

*By that I mean the belief that gays are immoral sinners, not the general teaching of the faith about love thy neighbour and all, that’s good stuff. What I really wish is that they could get rid of the out-moded stuff like gays=immoral and let logic be their guide.

14

Rick, all I was saying to you was that you can’t prove anything from fact that the law has never been used to suppress the Bible under existing provisions against racial or religious hatred. Your post here seems to bring up a new issue.

Which I don’t understand at all. Should Biblical teachings be interpreted as being incitements to violence against homosexuals, then anyone who cites these teachings in an approving manner, will qualify as someone who is inciting violence. It is not at all analogous to someone who owns or reads Mein Kampf - generally it will be understood that the owner or reader is doing so for historical reasons. It would be analogous to the guy who sells the book and generally agrees with its teachings, and is trying to impart its message. (This is not to compare the Bible to Mein Kampf, but IF one were to interpret the Bible as inciting violence, it would be functionally equivalent for purposes of this law).

The idea that the Bible could be suppressed based on laws such as this apparently seems far-fetched to many people, and it may well be, at this time. But this is likely due to prevailing public opinion, which tends to shift. There are a lot of things that are politically undoable at one time, but which become attainable over time. And there are all sorts of opportunities for judges to retroactively interpret laws, should the possibility arise. We see this all the time in the US, with rights being declared based on laws or constitutional principles that were beyond the wildest dreams of the writers of these laws or principles. If a law is written so as to allow for - let alone suggest - a certain interpretation, it is a mistake to be sanguine about it based on the fact that “no one would ever do such a thing”. Someone might.

(OTOH, this may all be moot, based on the amendment cited by cowgirl. I am not familiar with the specific details here.)

15

If one were to interpret the bible as inciting violence, then I would say it should be considered functionally equivalent to Mein Kampf. To me, “God says so” should be no more protected than “I say so.”

Julie

16

Could someone cite a few examples of the kind of “advocacy of genocide against gays” that this law is meant to eradicate?

I see several posters arguing that this bill will do no harm. What good will it achieve?

As the Catholic League mentioned, I thought advocating killing large numbers of people is already illegal in Canada, regardless of their sexual orientation. Can we come up with any examples of such advocacy that is now legal, but would be banned under the new law?

Or is this just a way to make certain kinds of genocide advocacy super-duper extra especially illegal? Another feel-good measure that doesn’t really do much, in other words.

Regards,
Shodan

17

Yeah, since it’s them damned liberals who are always trying to squash free speech. :rolleyes:

I’ve been identified as liberal by many on this board, and as noted above, I don’t think the CCRL and friends have anything to worry about. The argument is a bunch of hooey, and the folks making it, such as the CCRL, weren’t real fond of gays before this even came up. I’ll happily provide cites if requested, but they don’t try to hide it.

I thought I clearly stated the hypocrisy of them taking that position above, but you might have missed it.

Shodan, I’d guess that its intended target would be a violence advocating Fred Phelps type. Last time I checked, even Freddy wasn’t advocating genocide (his website has been down for a while now), so I’m not sure why folks are worried about a couple of passages that are often interpreted as saying that homosexuality is a sin. Lying is a sin, but I don’t think you can interpret the bible to say we should eliminate liars from the face of the earth.

For the record, I do understand the position that hate crime laws are superfluous, although I disagree with it. I’m just thoroughly unconvinced that the majority of those fighting this bill are truly fighting it for that reason. I certainly don’t see the CCRL up in arms because religion was included as a protected group in the hate crime laws.

As kingpenvin said, the herring is red.

18

Then, DMC, I guess the argument over this bill will boil down to “Do you think it is a good idea to pass a law that will accomplish basically nothing?”

I am not a Canadian, but I am a conservative - I think the default should be for the government to do nothing unless they can come up with a reasonably clear indication of a public wrong that is not currently addressed under the law.

Otherwise, they are wasting resources to no good.

If there isn’t anyone currently advocating genocide against gays, what is the advantage of passing this law? If it passes, we gain nothing, except the risk that someone will try to misapply the law in some stupid way.

If the Canadian government has nothing better to do with its time than pass laws that don’t do anything, maybe they would be better off going home.

Save the taxpayer some money, for once.

Regards,
Shodan

19

I’m disagree with you as to whether it accomplished nothing or otherwise. Preemptively passing laws that are liable to apply at a future date isn’t a waste of time, in my opinion. Otherwise, when someone does break this, and it’s bound to happen, the hate crime laws wouldn’t apply.

As noted above, I fully understand this reasoning, even though I disagree with it. The thing is, we’re not talking about some huge multi-page hate crime legislation here. They are simply adding one more entry to the list of protected classes that are already covered by the law.

The government, wasting resources? Color me shocked! Hell, I want a smaller government (although we disagree about which pieces to trim), but can’t seem to get one no matter who is running the government. I’m not Canadian, but I would assume their government has just as little to actually do as our’s.

I doubt that it is very difficult to find people who would advocate the genocide of homosexuals. I’m just not willing to go look for them while at work. Are you saying if I find a single organization that does, you’ll back this law?

20

Double-secret illegal!