(Natural News) Not only is it becoming increasingly obvious that Western liberals are becoming anti-Christian, they are also becoming increasingly authoritarian when it comes to the practice of Christianity by others.
Most Americans have this image of Canada as some liberal utopia where health care is free (and good), there is no such thing as violence, and freedom rings. While our northern neighbor is certainly dominated by liberals, the country is a far cry from a utopia.
In fact, it’s getting to be a far cry from being free.
As Big League Politics reports, lawmakers in the province of Ontario are considering a piece of legislation that would have the same effect as criminalizing the public practice of Christianity.
The bill, “Prohibiting Hate-Promoting Demonstrations at Queen’s Park Act, 2019,” would criminalize public displays erected by Christians that some could claim are hateful to Muslims (as though the Muslim religion isn’t hateful of Christians), the LGBTQRSXYX community, and any other group deemed “victims” by the intolerant Left.
If passed, the measure would ban “any demonstration, rally or other activity that is deemed hateful by the Speaker from being permissible on legislative grounds — effectively insulating the government from Christian speech,” Big League Politics reported.
LifeSite News further explains the nefariousness behind Canada’s ‘anti-hate’ laws which, in reality, go only one way when it comes to Christianity and public displays thereof (which, we presume, would include Christmas displays):
The problem with this bill, however, lies in the fact that the definition of “hate” is uncertain under Canadian law. As a result, unfortunately, the use of the word “hate” can be a useful tool for some to prevent differing views from being expressed. That is, the word “hate” can be used to silence opposing views expressed when, in fact, the views are simply a reasonable expression of belief.
And that’s been the problem with allowing one end of the political spectrum (or the other) to define what “hate” is: Hate could be anything that a political opponent says it is, even if it labels a well-established religious belief as such.
What’s more, it’s always the Left that gets to decide what “hate” is and what it means; conservatives have no say in the matter. Further, the actions the Left prescribes when ‘dealing’ with hate is most often authoritarian, intolerant, and itself hateful — like bans of Christian displays or even censoring Christians from speaking.
Speech is speech; not everyone has to agree with it
In Canada specifically, however, the Leftist ‘hate’ and intolerance is not only being justified by the country’s lawmakers, it’s being codified into law by the country’s judiciary. As LifeSite News reported, “Canadians have already experienced the contempt shown by the Supreme Court of Canada towards Section 2 of the Charter of Rights which provides for freedom of opinion, expression and religion” (which sounds a lot like our First Amendment).
For instance, in 2018, the moral covenant of a private Christian institution — Trinity Western Christian University — was deemed discriminatory and hateful by the court. In the 2013 case of Bill Whatcott, the high court ruled that what is relevant is the effects of an expression that was used, not the intent of the communicator. (Related: David Horowitz: We are marching to a one party state… one person’s dissent is another person’s hate speech (VIDEO).)
Also, the court additionally found that “truthful statements and sincerely held beliefs do not affect the finding of ‘hate.’” In a pamphlet, Whatcott merely expressed what are well-established facts about homosexuality; such expressions, however, are now considered ‘hateful’ in Maple Leaf country.
It should be noted that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal had concluded previously that the pamphlet did not constitute “hateful” speech. But when you have a higher court full of ‘progressives’ who consider that a badge of honor, the country will get decisions spiteful and even — dare we say it? — hateful of Christians and Christianity.
In the U.S., our founders understood that not all Americans would agree with all speech, political positions, religious viewpoints, and social norms. But they understood that for a society to flourish, all ideas must be given consideration, even those a majority find disdainful.
Canadians don’t agree, apparently.