The C-9 censorship bill is undergoing its third reading in the Senate today. Right now, senators are reviewing C-9 one last time and will vote on it.
It is urgent that we make one final effort to express our opposition to the content of this bill.
Call your province’s senators right now. Although they are busy, their staff members are receiving messages and could text them to let them know they are being flooded with calls opposing C-9.
C-9, the bill that condemns “hatred”! But what kind of hatred?
In the bill, “hatred” is defined as follows in C-9: “emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.”
Condemning vilification? Perfect! But detestation is synonymous with hatred (so much for clarity... ). But what’s absurd here is that an emotion is, by definition, passive and triggered by an external cause; one feels an emotion. And if the emotion is “both intense and extreme,” it must be due to an external cause of more or less proportional magnitude.
The danger of such a vague definition is that it could be exploited by unscrupulous activists and judges.
Furthermore, Bill C-9 imposes new penalties on top of those already applied to hatred crimes, thereby creating disproportionate penalties.
Furthermore, Bill C-9 removes the good faith defense that protects religious speech from charges of spreading “hate.” It is worth noting that, in this regard, Marc Miller, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, stated during a hearing of the Justice and Human Rights Committee: “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans — there’s other passages — there’s clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals… there should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges… there are clearly passages in religious texts that are clearly hateful.” It is curious that he cited only the Bible as a source of “hate,” but it is evident that for certain high-ranking liberals, Christians are a priority target.
An amendment introduced by a senator, one of the last appointed by Justin Trudeau, proposed criminalizing the “denial of the residential school system.” The rather vague amendment did not specify what would constitute “denial.” Would asking for proof of the existence of “unmarked graves” — none of which have been discovered to date — have been a crime?
Fortunately, this amendment was rejected, along with all the other proposed amendments. The text to be voted on in the Senate is therefore similar to the one passed in the House of Commons and will become law if adopted today.
We ask you once again: call your senators. This is the last chance to stop the creation of a new tool for persecuting political opponents.
With most sincere thanks,
Augustin Hamilton
Showing 1 reaction
Sign in with
Facebook Twitter