Status of bill C-250:

The bill was given royal assent by the Queen's representative in Canada on 2004-APR-29. It took immediate effect. It is now part of the legal code of Canada. Some propaganda directing hatred against persons of any sexual orientation, heterosexuals, homosexuals and/or bisexuals, is now a crime in Canada. Sexual orientation now joins four other groups protected against hate speech on the basis of their "color, race, religion or ethnic origin." ₁ However, a "not withstanding" clause allows religiously motivated hate speech.

Initial reactions to the bill:

Sponsor Svend Robinson said that "It's a bill that recognizes that when hate crimes are perpetrated in this country against those who are of a minority religion or race or ethnic origin or color, that Canada says this is wrong." But there's one group in the country and that is gays and lesbians -- the group that has more hate crimes, more violence perpetrated against it -- that isn't included in the hate propaganda laws." ₂

The legislation was strongly opposed by religious conservatives. They warned that Christian pastors or Muslim Imams could find themselves in jail if they were to preach that homosexuality is evil or sinful. They suggest that the Bible and/or Qur'an might be confiscated as hate literature. This is most unlikely. The bill contains a "not withstanding" clause which prevents prosecution of individuals for religiously motivated hate speech. Thus, if a person referred to passages in a Bible or any other religious text during the presentation of hate speech, then they could not be prosecuted under the law. Vic Toews of Canada's right-wing party, the Canadian Alliance, said: ''I'm concerned about the chilling effect of this kind of decision.'' ₃

Robinson denied that the bill would inhibit normal religious speech when it denigrates gays and lesbians. He told the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights who was examining the bill: ''There's not an attorney general in the country anywhere at any level who would consent to the prosecution of an individual for quoting from the Bible. An attorney general who tried something like that would be run out of town on a rail.'' ₂ He said that the Progressive Conservatives, New Democratic Party and Bloc Québécois members support the bill, but that the extreme right-wing Canadian Alliance does not. He said that the Alliance has "...opposed every equality bill that's come before the House for gays and lesbians."

Inspector David Jones of the Vancouver Police Department told The Canadian Press that he believes being gay puts people at an added risk on the streets. He said: "Sixty-two per cent of the violence is based on sexual orientation. That points to the need to protect these people." Jones also referred to the murder of Aaron Webster, a 41-year-old photographer, who was assumed to be gay and was beaten to death on 2001-NOV-17, in Stanley Park in Vancouver BC. ₃

John Fisher, spokesperson for the gay-rights lobby group Egale testified that ''the legislation as it stands, by being under-inclusive, by failing to protect a group equally needing protection, is unconstitutional.''  He suggested that if the law were not changed that the courts would eventually modify the law by reading "sexual orientation" into the legislation as a protected class.

Liberal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon told the House of Commons on 2003-MAY-14 that he supported the bill. It passed through the committee hearing later that month.

Reaction to the bill as it was discussed and passed in Parliament:

Focus on the Family, Canada issued a news release which stated that they "...and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, among other groups, believe the law may be used to silence those with religious views on the morality of homosexual behaviours. 'We do not condone, in any way, the promotion of hatred against anyone or any group,' said Bruce Clemenger, president of the EFC. 'However, the ambiguity of what this bill will capture may well silence what otherwise would be legitimate public comment on issues of sexual morality'." The Vancouver Sun reported that bill C-250: "has been described by some Alliance MPs and religious groups as a 'fascist' measure that could criminalize anyone for reading quotes on homosexuality from the Bible or the Koran." ₄ The individuals making these comments seem to be either deceitful or misinformed, because, as soon as the bill is given royal assent, there will be two passages in the Criminal Code that specifically allow religious individuals to legally engage in hate propaganda against gays and lesbians. Brian Rushfeldt of the Canada Family Action Coalition said: "Canadians who are speaking out against the redefinition of marriage are already being accused of 'hate' speech by homosexual activists...When C-250 is passed into law later this fall, the activists will begin to insist on prosecution to silence their critics with criminal sanctions." ₄ This also appears to be deceitful or misinformed. Section 308 already contains a passage that protects a person from prosecution if their statements are relevant to any subject of public interest, and if, on reasonable grounds, the person believes them to be true. Svend Robinson has said that these criticisms are unfounded. "The suggestion that including gays and lesbians in a law that protects against violence and hatred would touch religious beliefs and the right to quote from the Bible is utterly without foundation. What this bill is about is sending a message to the gay bashers, it's about sending a message to those who promote hatred, and violence and even death of gay men." ₄ Canadian Alliance Member of Parliament James Moore said: "There's a lot of distrust in general towards the judiciary right now, and it's leading a lot of people to be very fearful of giving powers to the judiciary that aren't necessarily defined specifically with regard to religious tolerance and religious freedom." ₄ Leader of the Canadian Alliance, Stephen Harper said that he was "encouraged" by some amendments to the bill, which he feels gives significant protection to religious freedom. But he remains opposed to C-250 because "homosexuality is such an inherently controversial issue there is a danger that this could have, if not tightly defined, very wide implications." ₄ This comment may be a reference to a definition of the term "sexual orientation" which is held by some conservative Christians. The vast majority of legislators, gays, lesbians, religious liberals, human sexuality researchers, mental health therapists, etc. define sexual orientation in terms of the sex of the persons to which an individual is sexually attracted. A person is either a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, depending upon whether they are sexually attracted to persons of the opposite sex, same sex, or both sexes. But some Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians define the term differently. They include pedophilia, necrophilia, hebephilia, incest, and other sexual crimes as additional sexual orientations. Under their definition, protecting persons of all sexual orientations against hate crimes and hate speech would protect sexual criminals from prosecution and criticism. On 2003-SEP-23, six days after the bill was passed in Parliament, Focus on the Family Canada featured a discussion of C-250 in their "Today's Family News." They mentioned: Bruce Clemenger, president of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada said that protecting persons of all sexual orientations from hate propaganda is certain to have a "chilling" effect on people of faith. Speaking before the Calgary Evangelical Ministerial Association in Calgary AB, he predicted that the courts will eventually have to rule on where legitimate religious teaching on sexual orientation leaves off and hate propaganda begins. According to the Calgary Herald, Clemenger said: "Whether this law leads to the prosecution of religious groups or not, it's almost certain to have a chilling effect. Will the Gideons still be allowed to place Bibles in motel rooms?" John McKay, a Liberal member of parliament (MP), calls C-250 the "chill bill...Anybody who has views on homosexuality that differ from Svend Robinson's will be exposed rather dramatically to the joys of the Criminal Code." Vic Toews, a Canadian Alliance MP and justice critic said that Svend Robinson had put: "the jackboot of fascism on the necks of our people with Bill C-250." Derek Rogusky, vice-president of family policy for Focus on the Family Canada  said on CBC Newsworld that: "We've seen through the courts that when religious freedom comes up against gay rights, that in fact religious freedom tends to be more often than not the loser in those particular cases." The Family Research Council (FRC) had a short article in their Washington Update news release, titled "Canadians Make Free Speech a Crime." They wrote: "Just north of us in Canada, the parliament passed Bill C-250 last week, making it a crime for anyone to publicly criticize homosexuality. Known as the 'chill bill,' the law makes it illegal to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex. The quoting of Scripture will soon be hate speech." ₅

Nowhere in the Focus or FRC articles did they mention the two subsections in the bill that give immunity from prosecution to speakers and writers of religiously-based racist, xenophobic, homophobic, and some other forms of hate speech. ₆

You totally walked past 319 (1)  Which states:

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

This is the one that will cause grief and open the door for more issues.  So can you please stop ignoring those of us who have some legal experience in how laws are imposed, and applied.  You could possibly learn something here.

What most people do not understand is that the laws are written with a certain spirit about them.  Not Evangelical spirit but a concept so to speak.

It however, is not left at that, it becomes open to interpretations and case law then sets the new spirit of the intention of the law and now the whole concept changes.  319 (1) allows this.

Thank you may I have a dollar to feed my children please.  Thank you

How words are said is the point I made i hope.

Ok let me practice what I preach (minus sarcasm).

Look at this bill and walk with me on it Ill demonstrate for you.

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Ok the above says in a public place that incites hatred against a group. that means if it is over heard and causes one preson to act out, an extremist. If we preach about what happened in Sodom and Gomorreah then someone burns someone who is a homosexual then we are liable under this section. ok move down to section 2

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

What you said on this I beleive is right so move to section 3

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

Notice that in section 3 it does not allow for the religion clause in section 1 on section 2.  This is where I beleive a door is cracked and can allow for judge interpretation to dictate through case law.  That was my point.

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada...

I heard Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Joseph Nicolosi both state that their broadcast on homosexuality (not berating homosexuals, but stating that they could help them) probably could not be broadcasted in Canada.

Doesn't that tell you something?  Because Dr. James Dobson (and his legal team) are pretty much up-to-date on legal and govt. laws that go against Christian beliefs.

As for Muslims over the country..........then that would be a Theocracy.  As for Christians over this nation, we have too many denominations, so it wouldn't be a Theocracy.

Bro. G...............................these attacks have gone on far enough.  I must report this to Admin.  One person cannot control the whole thread, and say that people are stupid or don't know what they are talking about when they don't agree with him.  This is a controlling personality.

I am saying this publicly.....and not going behind anyone's back.

This has gone way too far.

larry in box now plz

America the land of the free.  We all have our freedom to stand for or against issues.  Canadians have there own system.

Our issues on homosexuality in America is just coming to a head, and God does not change sin is sin.  You either stand for God or you stand for the devil, there is no neutral ground

So it is a heaven or N/A issue

Go to inbox Larry