Bill C-415 becomes C-250 - But It Is Still the Same Dangerous Bill

Action Update
Oct 29, 2002

Bill C-415, the proposed amendment of the hate crime law has been sent back to the Justice Committee as Bill C-250. So C-415 is not dead as some have reported. It is exactly the same bill with a different number, and has been given the status as having passed "second reading." This means that the Bill is only one vote away from becoming the 'law of the land' and the only way to stop it is to send a message to the Justice Committee Members and to all MPs that the bill must be defeated.

Some MPs are still not aware of this Bill nor its consequences. They must be informed.

Requested Action Items:

1. Please take the time to call, email, write and VISIT your MP (if you have already done this, thank you) Contacting your MP is easy , click on this link.
   
   Express your concerns about Bill C-250 (use the information below to prepare your own comments).
   
   Ask your MP to commit to oppose this bill, and ask your MP to confirm this in writing.
   
   
2. Call one or more of the following Members of the Justice Committee and ask that the bill be rejected. Or at the very least that Canadians be allowed their voice on Bill C250, that the committee conduct cross country meetings to hear the concerns of Canadian citizens. Committee Members (contact info is avaialbe by clicking here.
   
   Andy Scott ( Lib) (Chair not determined but predicted to be Andy Scott)
   Vic Toews (Canadian Alliance Justice Critic)
   Peter Mackay ( PC Justice Critic )
   Bill Blaikie ( ND)
   Pierrette Venne ( BQ)
   Kevin Sorenson, Carole-Marie Allard, Garry Breitkreuz, Chuck Cadman, Irwin Cotler, Hedy Fry, Ivan Grose, Derek Lee, Paul Harold Macklin, John Maloney, Richard Marceau, John McKay, Lynn Myers

Reasons to Oppose this Bill:

1. Svend Robinson's bill is an affront to the faith of millions of Canadians: The religious exemption provision in this bill, that some find reassuring, is in reality both dangerous and unacceptable. Any law that portrays the Jewish Torah, the Christian Bible and the Islamic Koran as requiring protection to permit the promotion of hatred is a bad law. For example, the so-called exemption for religious reasons suggests that the Bible's prohibition against homosexual acts is hateful. Nothing could be farther from the truth. When Jesus spoke to the woman caught in adultery - he offered mercy and forgiveness. But he also said "go and sin no more". Calling immoral acts 'a sin' is exactly what many will consider as 'promoting hatred'.
   
   Note how Svend portrayed religious people as it relates to this exemption on a talk show this past week on October 23. "... the existing provision of the Criminal Code very clearly states that a religious belief even if it was that black people were inferior , even if it's a belief you should hate Jews
   or Muslims, .. as long as that's a bonafide belief - not an excuse, then it's covered."
   
   Based on Svend's characterisation of religious people, it's already clear that a 'religious exemption' would be used in a propaganda war, to further misrepresent religious belief and further marginalize or even ghettoize people of conscience and faith. Religious people upholding biblical beliefs will be portrayed as "promoting hatred, but allowed to do so for religious reasons" (at least for now). We don't think that good people, of any religious persuasion' should be labeled as hateful because they embrace or uphold biblical morality.
   
   Svend, in the name of promoting tolerance in Canada, went on characterize those who oppose his bill as, "leading a campaign of distortion, of lies ...by the religious right that is unbelievable." Note how he suggests that those who disagree with his legislation and who happen to be religious are "the religious right" and how he characterizes the legitimate objections and concerns of Canadians as "lies" and "distortions"?
   
   
2. The exemption will certainly be ignored and/or overturned: There are already numerous examples of Canadian courts and human rights commissions which have ruled in such a way that the rights of homosexuals trump (over -ride) the rights of religious people. A Christian Mayor in London Ontario was forced to pay a fine of $10,000.00 for refusing to proclaim "gay pride day" even though she refused to do so for religious reasons. A businessman in Toronto was fined $5,000.00 for refusing, on 'religious grounds' to print materials for an organization that promotes the rights of homosexuals. His fine was upheld by the courts after he spent another $100,000 to defend his religious freedom . A Christian man in Saskatchewan was fined $5,000.00 for simply printing in a local newspaper, the bible chapter/ verse references to homosexuality.
   
   Given that the courts in Canada have developed a pattern of a) trumping homosexual rights over religious rights and of b) "reading in" /change to laws and even the constitution as they see fit, an exemption for religious reasons is of little or no meaning. It would be naive on the part of religious people to believe that they will find protection in an exemption that the courts have already overturned in principle and practice.
   
   
3. Lack of clarity: Definitions within the proposed amendments are left unclear and dangerously obscure. For example, there is not a clear definition as to what constitutes 'promotion of hatred'. Is it thoughts and speech against certain behavior or promotion of actions only? Does the religious exemption apply only to people who attend religious gatherings? Does the religious exemption only apply to words spoken/activities that specifically take place within a Church? Will non-religious people be subjected to different laws than religious people? Adding to the confusion is the lack of clarity on the definition of 'sexual orientation' - a term still left undefined in the laws of Canada. Does 'sexual orientation' only refer to those who claim to be homosexuals? Does it apply to homosexual behavior? It is reasonable to predict that the term 'sexual orientation' can be used in the future to define and justify any number of other kinds of sexual behaviors that are presently considered
   immoral or even illegal.
   
   The haunting words of BC Supreme Court Justice Mary Southin in her ruling to legalize child porn, serves to warn us of where our courts might go when she wrote - "Perhaps the views Canadians have about child pornography may change over time, perhaps to the point where it becomes acceptable". 'Sexual Orientation' should not be left undefined. One Liberal MP is quoted as having said that bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, even sadomasochism are all part of sexual orientation.
   
   
4. Two-tiered justice is unjust: Under this bill the exact same crime will be treated in two very different ways based purely on 'a culture of
   political correctness'. Two-tiered justice undermines the principle of equality under the law and is a foundation for state oppression. Why
   would one life be less valuable than another, for instance in a murder ? Why would one victim be heard more reverently than another victim ? Who is it
   that determines which cases qualify for special consideration under this law?
   Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of justice and inequality before the law has historically been used to oppress the rights of certain
   categories of people while elevating the rights of others. It's a tactic of tyranny and its something we must vigorously oppose.

Bill C250 is un-Canadian and we do not want it passed into law.