The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest

Vol: 32 Issue: 18 - Tuesday, May 18, 2004

"Criminal Hatred"
by Jack Kinsella

Canada's Bill C-250 passed the Senate with barely a peep from the
mainstream media, with most Canadians barely aware of either its
provisions or its potential impact.  And it's implications should sweep
across America like a Canadian Arctic blast, but it hasn't, and likely
won't.

What Bill C-250 does is add  "sexual orientation" to the list of
"identifiable groups" in section 318 of the Criminal Code.  It sounds
innocuous enough, when expressed that way, which is why few Canadians
objected to its inclusion.

Section 318 of the Criminal Code defines 'hate speech' in broad and
sweeping strokes:

1. "Advocating genocide," which is defined as advocating or promoting
genocide, which is further defined as killing members of the group or
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction.

I don't think anybody has a problem with that. However, certain passages
in the both the Old Testament and the New Testament fall into that
category, making the Bible itself 'hate speech' on a legal par with 'Mein
Kampf'.

Leviticus 18:22 defines homosexual CONDUCT 'an abomination' punishable by
death by stoning.  Romans 1:26-27 condemns homosexual conduct, concluding
in 1:29, that, "knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such
things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in
them that do them."

Note that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuals, it condemns homosexual
SEX, just as it condemns heterosexual sex outside of marriage.

But since Bill C-250 expressly says that it is no defense under the hate
speech statutes that the speech in question is demonstably true, it
effectively stifles ANY criticism of homosexuals as a group based on
religious doctrine. (Heterosexuals can continue to be criticized from the
pulpit as usual.)

2. "Public incitement of hatred," which is defined as communicating
statements in a public place that incite hatred. Note that a "public
place" is defined as "any place to which the public have access as of
right or by invitation, express or implied."

Under the terms of Bill C-250, publicly stating that homosexual conduct is
morally wrong and prohibited by the Bible is the equivalent to public
incitement of hatred.  "Public" would include a church, a tent meeting, or
even an internet web site like the Omega Letter.

Should someone forward one to a homosexual who is offended by it, he could
file a criminal complaint under Bill C-250 and future Omega Letters would
be interrupted while I served my time in the pokey.

3. "Wilful promotion of hatred," which is defined as communicating
statements other than in private conversation that wilfully promotes
hatred against any identifiable group.  To preach what the Bible teaches
about homosexuality fits the legal definition of wilful promotion of
hatred.

The Owens case makes it abundantly clear how Bill C-250 will be
interpreted in Canada. The Court of Queen's Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a
2001 ruling by the province's human rights tribunal that fined Hugh Owens
for submitting a newspaper ad that included citations of four Bible verses
that address homosexuality.

The ruling generated virtually no news stories and "not a single
editorial,"  noted a columnist in the Edmonton Journal at the time.

Under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina,
Saskatchewan, was found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon
StarPhoenix, of inciting hatred and was forced to pay damages of $1500 CDN
to each of the three homosexual men who filed the complaint.

The ad's theme was that the Bible says 'no' to homosexual behavior. It
listed the references to four Bible passages, Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22,
Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 on the left side.

An equal sign was placed between the verse references and a drawing of two
males holding hands overlaid with the universal nullification symbol - a
red circle with a diagonal bar.

Owens did NOT put the actual verses, but ONLY the references.  The three
homosexuals who filed the complaint had to crack open Bibles and look up
the references before they even knew they were 'offended'.

Justice J. Barclay wrote in his opinion that the human-rights panel "was
correct in concluding that the advertisement can objectively be seen as
exposing homosexuals to hatred or ridicule."

"When the use of the circle and slash is combined with the passages of the
Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace,"
Barclay said. "In other words, the biblical passage which suggests that if
a man lies with a man they must be put to death exposes homosexuals to
hatred."

That case was decided BEFORE Bill C-250 became federal law.

Assessment:

Canada's Bill C-250 is 'private member bill' sponsored by the New
Democratic Party's Sven Robinson, who is openly gay.  Interestingly, this
same lawmaker was recently arrested for stealing expensive jewelery at a
jewelery exhibition.

After the complaintant realized who the thief was, he accepted  Robinson's
'apology'.  No charges were filed.  They got the jewelery back.  Who needs
that kind of heat brought down on them? Chilling, isn't it?

Could similar legislation be possible in America?  One would think that
the 1st Amendment guarantees would  make it impossible.

There was a time, not so long ago, when one would have said the same thing
about gay marriage in America. Especially after the passage of the federal
Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a contract that can
exist only between a man and a woman.

But somewhere, the judges found a Constitutional right for gays to get
married.   It isn't too much of a stretch to think activist judges will
find a similar Constitutional right for gays not to be offended is somehow
implied in the 1st Amendment.

According to LifeSiteNews.com, the legislation could be used to further
wall off Canadians from influence from other nations. That is, even
importing of printed or electronic material may be affected by the
legislation.

The hate crime provisions of the Criminal Code are used by the federal
postal agency to prohibit importation of materials deemed under the
legislation to constitute hate propaganda.

With groups like Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, and
other pro-family groups shipping pro-family materials into Canada the new
law also creates concern that the materials may be subject to
interception, seizure and forfeiture as 'hate' materials by Canada Post.

On the radio and television media front, Canadians have for some time
already been denied Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and Dr. Laura because they
offend the politically correct sensibilities of powerful Canadian media
controllers.

At present, however, there are two realities to consider.  The first is
that Bill C-250 IS law in Canada. The second is that no similarly
oppressive legislation exists in the United States.

There is no such thing as a 'limited' right to free speech.  Free speech
is only free when there are no restrictions on its expression.

Consequently, yours truly is making plans to permanently flee to the
freedom and safety of the United States before the Omega Letter is crushed
under the weight of Canadian political correctness.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for
light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for
bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)