Skip to comments.Committing a ‘Hate’ Crime
Posted on 09/18/2003 7:54:44 PM PDT by adamyoshida
Committing a Hate Crime
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -Leviticus 18:22
Canada is suffering from an advanced case of moral degeneration. At some point we choose to concede that sodomites, the idle, drug addicts, and all-purpose perverts of every stripe are the equal of hard-working and God-fearing people and, having conceded that equality, we have rapidly found our former positions reserved. In modern Canada the deviant man now holds the whip over the normal one. It is as if a great wave of insanity washed across the land, sweeping away the old and firmly planting the seeds of moral debasement.
One of the primary differences between conservative and liberal morality would seem to be as such: while conservatives recognize the capacity for human evil and wish to take actions to minimize it while encouraging virtue, liberals wish to eliminate evil and sin by redefining all that is sinful as virtuous.
I dont believe that homosexuality is a positive thing. I would lump it in with many of the lesser moral evils of our society: soft drug use, alcoholism, and prostitution. Like those, it is one of those things which will always be with us, and one whose practitioners are often kind and sympathetic, and we should therefore have tolerance and sympathy for them as people: but not for their sins.
Bill C-250 is a reversal of the old moral order. Its purpose seems innocuous enough: its going to prevent hatred. Who could be opposed to something as gentle sounding as that? But beneath that exterior lies something far more sinister: it is the criminalization of contrarian thought.
Svend Robinson claims that the need for the bill was made evident by Fred Phelps near-visit to Canada. For those who do not know, the Rev. Fred Phelps is a Nebraskan clergyman who enjoys picketing the funerals of AIDS victims waving signs that read, God hates fags. In short, Phelps is a crank, an idiot, and a constant source of embarrassment to those with reasonable objections to the homosexual agenda.
So, why then did the mere prospect of a visit by Phelps make it necessary to abridge the freedom of speech of others? The short answer is this: it didnt. The worst Fred Phelps and his motley band of losers could have done would have been to offend Svend Robinson, which is far from difficult. But, to the best of my knowledge, the purpose of the law is to protect people like Svend Robinson from harm, not to prevent them from twisting their panties into a knot. If we are going to make laws banning things on the grounds that they are simply offensive to the eyes, then I am going to push for a law which proscribes Svend from ever posing nude again, as he has done in the past.
The real purpose here isnt to prevent people from being physically harmed: we already have laws to do that. The purpose of Bill C-250, and other similar acts, is to criminalize all opposition to homosexuality and to the homosexual agenda. Already, before C-250, we have seen cases where people have been punished and persecuted for their personal and religious viewpoints.
We have seen the case of Hugh Owens, a conservative Christian from Saskatchewan, who was fined $4500 for the crime of publishing an ad which provided the chapter and verse for several passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuality. The newspaper which printed his ad, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix was fined as well.
There was Scott Brockie, the Christian owner of a printing shop in Toronto, who was fined $5000 for refusing to print materials for a gay and lesbian organization because he disagreed with the practices of the group.
Chris Kempling, a teacher from Quesnel, British Columbia, was suspended from work for a month for writing letters to newspapers and politicians which were respectfully critical of the gay rights agenda.
Then there are the cases of the democratically-elected Mayors of Hamilton, Ontario, Fredericton, New Brunswick, and Kelowna, British Columbia, all of whom were ordered by government bodies to declare Gay Pride Days in spite of their personal opposition and who were, in two of the cases, fined as well.
In Sweden a Pastor was sentenced to four weeks in jail simply for telling his congregation the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and reminding them that God was still angry with homosexuals and would judge them harshly.
Now I know supporters of the law will remind me that the law supposedly protects religious expression. But excuse me if Im rather doubtful of such assertions. The provision in the bill protecting religious expression only protects such expression when it is made in good faith. What exactly does that mean? I expect that we will find that out at about the time the first Minister steps into a jail cell to serve a longer sentence than a lot of murderers in this country serve. I expect that the courts will decide that, by definition, no expression that is hateful can be made in good faith, thereby nullifying what protections were inserted into the law.
Some will attempt to justify their support of C-250 by claiming that their goal is preventing violence against homosexuals and they will combine such statements with tearful stories of some poor fellow who was beaten or made to endure harassment because of his sexual preference. Yet that is not what this bill is really about. We already have laws to stop criminal harassment and punish those who assault others. What this is about is the criminalization of thought.
Let me make it clear: Im not just against adding homosexuals to our hate laws. Im against hate propaganda laws and their ilk altogether. People should be punished for actual crimes- not for mere words. If Fred Phelps wants to come to this country and spew his filth he ought to be allowed to do so, for his own words will indict him far more effectively than our laws ever will. The point of this isnt to get to the Fred Phelps of the world- its that it will have a severe chilling effect on any seeking to oppose the homosexual agenda. Many on the Christian right venerate those such as Chris Kempling who have had the courage to stand up to the moral left: but few of us have a desire to join them. Most Canadians, including religious leaders, will quickly learn to raise no objection to any gay initiative, lest they make themselves a target of the law.
In recent years Canada has gone through a social revolution with consequences as sweeping and dramatic as the French Revolution. The message of Bill C-250 is this: there is no room for social conservatives at the inn of New Canada. We are now representatives of Canadas ancien régime and I expect that the revolutionaries mean to dispose of us much as their French predecessors did.
This is no longer about the modification of the existing social order. Rather it is about its obliteration. The moral left in this country does not mean to foster tolerance; they mean to enact a new regime of oppression and repression against their opponents. I do not expect it to be long now before certain segments of our population are demanding not only the punishment of those who dare to recite offending portions of the Bible, but that Bible passages which condemn homosexuality be excised altogether. After all, if portions of the Bible are so dangerous that one can be fined simply for referencing them; would it then not be in the public interest to remove them altogether? A few decades hence, I suspect that Canadian bookstores will have a large section devoted to lurid pederastic fantasies about the rape of five-year old boys (with the free speech martyr John Robin Sharpe being revered as the father of the genre), while the Bibles will be kept behind the counter, wrapped in dark plastic.
The morality of the left cannot coexist with the Western Christian tradition. The most powerful enemies of the apostles of hedonistic post-modernism are the Judeo-Christian traditions which have nurtured our civilization through thousands of years of tumult, disorder, and despair. Just as the leaders of the Soviet Union once did, the leaders of the moral left know this, and are therefore determined to discredit, destroy, and oppress Christianity.
There is some comfort in that last thought: the leaders of the USSR spent seventy years creating a formally atheistic state. They essentially banned religion, created museums to mock it, and made every effort to destroy Christian mores. But, in the end, they failed. Modern Russia is one of the most Christian nations on the earth. The efforts of the left will fail in the end: its merely a question of how many lives will be destroyed, how many generations lost, before they do.
Dom' arigato gozaimashita!
Take a deep breath, America. We're next on the list.
|Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links|
|Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)|
|Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search|
|All FreeRepublic Bump Lists|
If you'd like to join the Homosexual Agenda ping list, please freepmail me.