Josie Luetke:
For years now, Canadians have slumbered through—or even cheered—the steady erosion of our civil liberties. It has thus been a pleasant surprise to see a notable pushback against Bill C-9, the so-called Combatting Hate Act, from a population that prides itself on hating hatred.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Labour Congress, and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and various other religious groups have expressed serious concerns. Most alarming is the proposed removal of a clause in the Criminal Code that prevents anyone from being convicted of hate speech if they were, “in good faith,” expressing “an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”
MP Mark Miller, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, singled out the Bible, saying: “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans—there’s other passages—there is clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals . . . Clearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke or be a defence and there should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.” MP John-Paul Danko (LPC, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas) specifically mentioned “anti-abortion hate” in the debate over the bill.
Many Campaign Life Coalition supporters have worried that it’s probable (at time of writing) passage will effectively criminalize evangelization. Not yet, I would wager. Opposition to the bill has been so fierce and widespread that I expect enforcement to be initially tepid if not non-existent. At least while this issue is still in the forefront of public consciousness, I doubt the government would be keen on a legal challenge. The subjectivity of “hate” could be weaponized in the future, but for now, it might grant us reprieve.
What is far less open to interpretation and has generated far too little alarm comparatively is Québec’s very own Bill 9, An Act respecting the reinforcement of laicity in Québec, passed on April 2.
The bill imposes many egregious rules, but to highlight perhaps its greatest blow to the pro-life movement in the province: A group now requires explicit authorization from municipalities to pray on public roads or in public parks. Peaceful witnesses like 40 Days for Life and Life Chain have been immediately and directly threatened. There’s far less plausible deniability here as to whether or not these events are encompassed by this legislation. Even the Québec March for Life could be impacted, though political in focus.
If the federal Bill C-9 is a blunt instrument, Québec’s Bill 9 is a scalpel, designed to precisely excise any trace of religion from public life.
The new Quebec law invokes the notwithstanding clause to shield it from legal challenges. Thanks to its predecessor, Bill 21, which bans certain public employees from wearing religious symbols, the Supreme Court of Canada is presently considering the scope of the notwithstanding clause. Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can prevent provincial and federal legislation from being struck down as unconstitutional, at least under sections 2 and 7–15, protecting a law from activist judges. Recently, this section has also been invoked by Saskatchewan and Alberta to legally safeguard parental rights, and youth from some of the encroachments of transgenderism.
In other words, the Supreme Court of Canada is presently considering the most significant check on its power—and how great its significance should be. The self-evident temptation is especially frightening as this institution was ideologically captured long ago. I’ll remind readers of its past rulings on abortion and same-sex “marriage.” Despite its previous 1993 ruling in Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), it unanimously struck down our nation’s prohibition against euthanasia in 2015 (in part because it deprived some adults of their “right to life,” for it had “the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely”). Idiotic.
Chief Justice Richard Wagner proudly considers his court “the most progressive in the world.”
Weakening the notwithstanding clause and consolidating more power in the hands of unelected justices (especially the present nine in our top court) would be dangerous—more dangerous than not legally reining in Québec’s descent into Godless totalitarianism.
Brazenly activist woke law schools gatekeep the legal profession; at least in theory we can hold our elected representatives accountable, not that I have any hope of that happening in Québec.
Residents there are merely reaping what they sowed decades ago. Even many of those without animus towards the Church have been so blinded by their hatred towards Islam (and all its manifestations—hijabs and street prayer/protests) that they have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Not that I have any say in the matter, but if restoring religious freedom in Québec comes at the cost of castrating our democracy… au revoir, mes amis. I would sacrifice the former in hope of salvaging the rest of the country…if it can be salvaged.
To the faithful who remain in that hellhole: pray, and pray overtly. Do not hide your light under a bushel basket. May your persecution wake up your fellow Québécois, but if not, may it rouse the rest of Canada: this is the natural result of secularization and legislation like Bill C-9. In the end, only one Judge can truly save us.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.