|
Some
MPs from Liberal, PC and ND parties are giving a very
weak and misleading response regarding what Bill 250 is
about and what it will do. If you get one of the responses
that says the Bill has protection for the Bible, religious
persons etc. and it is not about oppressing freedom of
speech here are some things to challenge them with :
The root of the Bill 250's danger lies in the very fact
that so many people interpret it differently, MPs , citizens,
even professors. Good law would not create such confusion.
Terms like promoting hate - what does that mean - just
disagreeing publicly, or do you have to say it in the
media or a pulpit? What does sexual orientation mean -
one MP said it includes all forms of perverse sexual behaviour.
What about the term "inciting hate" - how can
I incite - just by what I say or do I have to advocate
"actions . Telling people to harm others is bad -
yes , but strongly opposing perverse sexual acts is NOT.
Remind them it is an obligation of legislators (MPs) ,
to produce the BEST law possible, not one that raises
confusion. The so called provision in Bill 250 protecting
religious thoughts is not adequate. There is already a
much stronger law in the Charter and it is not being applied
and giving protection to religion in many civil cases.
Will Bill 250 be properly applied in criminal cases ,
DOUBT IT.
And finally - a question for any MP : why would you as
an MP support a law which does not treat all people equally
under the law. The Hate crime criminal code law sets up
a two tiered justice system : victims are treated unequally
and so are perpetrators. Is one person more valuable than
the other? Is one more dangerous than the other? Every
group - in fact every person should be listed in the Bill
250 " identifiable groups ".
This would be just and justice. ( perhaps a sensitivity
course is needed for some on what justice is really about
).
Under Bill 250 , I will not know whether what I say, what
I write or if I quote form a certain scripture will be
grounds for CRIMINAL charges before the fact. If I am
religious it may not, but if I am not religious it certainly
could as Bill 250 stands. This is discriminatory itself.
I do not want a law which pits me against society - that
says I as a Christian can "promoter hate" but
my non-religious friend would be a criminal for saying
the same thing that opposes homosexual behaviour.
This is unacceptable law being crafted by our Parliament.
YOU need to resist the "pat and misleading"
answers of many of the MPs who support Bill 250 and force
them to look realistically at the BAD law.
YOU need to challenge them also that this law is not just
about RELIGIOUS FREEDOM it is about freedom of speech
and conscience.
What will the media have to do if Bill 250 is passed?
They will NO longer be able to have anyone on TV, radio,
or even in print media speak with opposing views of homosexuality
, sodomy, or even the "lifestyle".
Freedom of the press will go down.
Confusing BAD law is not what Canadian Parliament is elected
to produce, and it is not acceptable that activist judges
be asked to do their "self- interpretation"
of bad laws and impose it on society.
Brian Rushfeldt
|
