Liberals look to criminalize faith, while allowing hate to fester

[CdnFox]

Liberals look to criminalize faith, while allowing hate to fester | National Post

Now i'm not particularly religious, but even I fully respect people's rights to their religion. 

this is intolerable. 

For now, no one in Canada can be found guilty of wilfully promoting hatred or antisemitism if they can show that, in good faith, they “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.” But should the Bloc get its way, that defence in the Criminal Code will be erased.

So now you won't even be able to quote the bible if the bible passage is felt to be hate speech, which is so broadly defined that you can almost not aviod 'hate speech' if you have an opinion about damn near anything (that isn't pre authorized by the left). 

we are quickly becoming Britain

[West]

Christians should definitely go and read the Bible from cover to cover on the steps of parliament in protest. This is beyond vile but is what these whackos have been pushing for the better part of a decade now

[Radiorum]

The title of article is misleading. It's the Bloc that are introducing the amendment, not the Liberals.

Besides, why should religious texts be allowed to peddle hate?

[Barquentine]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So now you won't even be able to quote the bible if the bible passage is felt to be hate speech,

So now you can call for the deaths of one group if your millenia old religious text says it's ok?

"The Bloc Québécois is planning to introduce an amendment to a Liberal government bill"

You didn't mention that.

"The reality is I don't think people should be using the Bible, the Qur'an or the Torah to escape from committing a hate crime or claim that the hate — what would otherwise be a hate crime — is done in the name of a religious text," Miller told reporters on Parliament Hill.

Pierre Poilievre posted on his X account that the change would "criminalize sections of the Bible, Qur'an, Torah and other sacred texts."

Poilievre doesn't get the difference? It's not the texts. It's people using the texts to condone hate crimes and get away with it.

I think Quebec goes too far on religious freedoms and dress codes, etc... but this seems like it might be a good loophole to close.

[Radiorum]

Here’s where extreme religion leads – in a sermon entitled “Pray the Gay Away” – a pastor of a Baptist Church calls for the execution of members of the LGBTQ+ community. When asked for a statement to explain his sermon, the response was this: “… only calling for the death penalty and suicide for the actual sodomites (homosexuals). The Bible teaches that those people are worthy of death. They are supposed to be executed by the government.”

 

 

[User]

3 hours ago, Radiorum said:

The title of article is misleading. It's the Bloc that are introducing the amendment, not the Liberals.

Besides, why should religious texts be allowed to peddle hate?

Hilarious. Down in the US forum, you are pushing BS arguments about Trump erasing the First Amendment, while you are up here in the Canadian forum, cheering on criminalizing free speech and freedom of religion. 

 

[Radiorum]

20 minutes ago, User said:

Down in the US forum, you are pushing BS arguments about Trump erasing the First Amendment, while you are up here in the Canadian forum, cheering on criminalizing free speech and freedom of religion. 

If you can't see the difference between not allowing others to call for the death of minorities and outlawing political dissent, your comprehension is failing you again.

[West]

29 minutes ago, User said:

Hilarious. Down in the US forum, you are pushing BS arguments about Trump erasing the First Amendment, while you are up here in the Canadian forum, cheering on criminalizing free speech and freedom of religion. 

 

Its selective on what they want to enforce. 

2 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Here’s where extreme religion leads – in a sermon entitled “Pray the Gay Away” – a pastor of a Baptist Church calls for the execution of members of the LGBTQ+ community. When asked for a statement to explain his sermon, the response was this: “… only calling for the death penalty and suicide for the actual sodomites (homosexuals). The Bible teaches that those people are worthy of death. They are supposed to be executed by the government.”

 

 

 

Pray the gay away... thumbs up to whomever came up with that 👍 

[West]

3 hours ago, Radiorum said:

The title of article is misleading. It's the Bloc that are introducing the amendment, not the Liberals.

Besides, why should religious texts be allowed to peddle hate?

Christians are the most persecuted religion globally. Qatari influence on Canadian politics is really starting to show itself. 

[Politics1990]

about time they do this

[User]

32 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

If you can't see the difference between not allowing others to call for the death of minorities and outlawing political dissent, your comprehension is failing you again.

"call for the death"

You mean, advocate for what laws should be enacted through lawful government methods?

If free speech is based upon what you find in good taste, it is no longer free speech. 

 

[Radiorum]

10 minutes ago, User said:

"call for the death"

You mean, advocate for what laws should be enacted through lawful government methods?

 

3 hours ago, Radiorum said:

Here’s where extreme religion leads – in a sermon entitled “Pray the Gay Away” – a pastor of a Baptist Church calls for the execution of members of the LGBTQ+ community. When asked for a statement to explain his sermon, the response was this: “… only calling for the death penalty and suicide for the actual sodomites (homosexuals). The Bible teaches that those people are worthy of death. They are supposed to be executed by the government.”

 

10 minutes ago, User said:

If free speech is based upon what you find in good taste, it is no longer free speech. 

Agreed

[User]

4 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Agreed

So, he was advocating for a lawful government action... 

Again, you don't have to like it. 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

So now you can call for the deaths of one group if your millenia old religious text says it's ok?

That's never been legal. It's not what we're talking about here.

And you know that but you also knew that I was right so instead of talking about what I actually said you've created a fake scenario that doesn't exist to try and argue that.

Pathetic

But it is perfectly okay to say that it is morally wrong to be gay. It's fine to say that people should choose not to be gay because that's what your religious teachings say.

I think it's stupid, I disagree entirely, but the right to freedom of speech and expression is not contingent on my approval and it shouldn't be on the governments

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Poilievre doesn't get the difference? It's not the texts. It's people using the texts to condone hate crimes and get away with it.

He does. It's you that doesn't understand the difference.

Religious texts almost always outline what is and is not considered moral Behavior. Hate crime laws have gotten watered down to the point where if you say something like it is wrong to be gay you can be charged with a hate crime. Well, many interpret the bible and the Quran as saying it is wrong to be gay. It is always been allowed that if you're referring to the religion and the religious discussion that it should not be considered a hate crime but now they want to take that away.

And that is wrong. People should be allowed to have their beliefs.

5 hours ago, Barquentine said:

I think Quebec goes too far on religious freedoms and dress codes, etc... but this seems like it might be a good loophole to close.

In that case you do not think Quebec goes too far. This is worse than what Quebec does.

Here's a little trick that you people on the left need to understand. Whenever you're thinking about stomping on people's rights like this I want you to think what would it be like if somebody on the far right did the same thing to the rights you care about. What if it was illegal to suggest it was okay to be gay? What if gathering in public and mentioning gays could get you arrested?

Because as the democrats in the states are finding out right now, anything that you let your side get away with now will be used by the other side eventually against you. You think that's not true but I absolutely promise you it is.

So this is a good time to decide whether or not you want to stand up against the government having the right to tell you what you can and cannot say in the name of freedom and religious practices

[WestCanMan]

7 hours ago, Radiorum said:

The title of article is misleading. It's the Bloc that are introducing the amendment, not the Liberals.

Besides, why should religious texts be allowed to peddle hate?

TBH, what's going to end up happening is you won't be allowed to reference the hate messages in other people's religions, while lying about the Catholic church remains in vogue. 

You can say things like "every kid that went to the residential schools was raped and every Canadian knew that was happening" despite the fact that it's not even remotely true, but you can't say "mohammed married a pre-pubescent child and had sexual relations with her, and he committed actual genocides" even though those are indisputable historical facts.