Canada move Bill C-9 out of Commons to Senate - would remove religious teachings/speech protection
surrounding any topic they choose to deem as "hate".
The bill was specifically motivated by the multiple places in the bible where it clearly states that homosexual activity is a sin and an offense to God.
If passed, someone preaching for example about these excerpts or expressing other such beliefs, for example, Catholic doctrine on the topic could be subject to criminal prosecution.
The minority conservatives attempted as best that they could to put wording in that would hopefully give the accused something to fight with as they go through their court battles, but they could not get the libs to drop the religious teaching exemption.
What defines "hate speech" is left to those in power to define. The term "intimidation" is also an arbitrary term that has broad application which can be conveniently used to suppress opposing views and silence dissent to their beliefs.
Canadian liberals also couched their anti religious freedom pill within other mentions of protecting against antisemitism - a well established good cause to help with the optics, (but at the same time equating speaking out against homosexuality with criminal antisemitism).
The baby steps against religious freedom are turning into long strides in Canada, Europe, and Australia. They are present here in the US as well, eagerly awaiting their chance.
The spinners and propagandists will point to other portions of this bill made to make it look more palatable in order to deflect from the landmark communist step against freedom of religion.
Link: https://www.parl.ca/Content/Bills/451/Government/C-9/C-9_3/C-9_3.PDF
Replies to: “Canada move Bill C-9 out of Commons to Senate - would remove religious teachings/speech protection”
Is there a carve out for Islam? There are elements of that "faith" that are pretty "intolerant" of
different "orientations."
It is incredibly disturbing.
(no message)
How about you attribute your post and not plagiarize to sound intelligent and well meaning.
(no message)
Ad hominem and false accusation to deflect. But thank you.....
...for expressing your belief that I write well enough that you would accuse me of it. I did do several edits to clean up my typos.
You didn’t compose it, someone else did. You’ve done this before.
(no message)
Yes, I really did Jim. Wow! You REALLY want to avoid this
(no message)
Having checked this, more than 3/4 of your text is a copy and paste cited from a couple of sources.
(no message)
Well, now you are just lying (thus the lack of proof offered), and avoiding the topic altogether.
Everyone here summarizes information of interest that they read and then post here, but I did not plagiarize anything, nor do so. The topic is written about, and there will be people that will share views and disagree with views on the topic, but the words are my own, as they always are.
You should not extend your own insufficiencies with the the English language and with logical thinking to others. When others exceed you, it does not mean that "they must have plagiarized it".
Your comment of "3/4's" is utter BS, done to try to lend the credibility of a number that you came up with "after I checked this".
Please provide your "research".
Modus operandi. No point in responding.
(no message)
It is just such utter nonsense. They no longer seem to have any line they won't cross. If I didn't
believe that he was mentally infirm, I would do more about this.
Consent Management