Reclaim the Net reports that "[m]embers of the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee voted on December 9 to delete a longstanding clause in the Criminal Code that shields religious discussion made in good faith from prosecution." At issue is "whether the change to Section 319(3)(b) opens the door to criminal proceedings against clergy or believers discussing moral or scriptural teachings."
As reported by The Catholic Register, Justice Minister and Attorney General Sean Fraser alleged that the measure poses no threat to religious freedom. “The amendment that the Bloc is proposing will … in no way, shape or form prevents a religious leader from reading their religious texts,” Fraser said. “It will not criminalize faith.”
So it won't prevent a religious leader from reading from their religious texts. But what about someone else other than a religious leader? What about discussing that religious text or what it means in modern parlance? Will that religious leader be able to read it in public? Can anyone else? Can they read it out loud? When they say it won't criminalize faith, they are lying.
And say they are correct. So what? It isn't illegal for baker to refuse to bake items for gay weddings, but that hasn't stopped the lawsuits and prosecutions. Sometimes the process is the punishment. "Religious and civil rights organizations say the removal of Section 319(3)(b) would leave clergy and lay believers vulnerable to politically motivated complaints," the article points out. That is probably the point.
Courts always talk about "standing" yet won't look into who is paying for some of these suits. I'm sure those groups funding lawsuits against baker's don't have standing in the case. If the gays had to pay the lawyers and court costs out of their own pockets over a cake I doubt it would happen.
ReplyDeleteIf the IRS taxed such assistance as income it would make a huge difference as well.
DeleteBet that only includes Christianity.
ReplyDeleteOf course. The goal is to police speech the authorities don’t want; and that, in turn, is determined by what authorities deem as “wrong think”. Don’t want people discussing how bad is mass immigration? Label it “racist hate speech” and make it illegal. Don’t want people teaching kids that elitist perversions are evil, then label it homophobic hate speech and make it illegal. But denigrate straight white men? That’s ok because it advances the elites preferences.
Delete