Speech police cast a long shadow
These stories hardly seem possible, but they’re happening. Hate crimes legislation is creeping into more places and threatening basic, fundamental rights of free speech.
Just a few weeks ago, Frank Wright of the National Religious Broadcasters Association warned, “We must be one in Christ to face the days ahead” because “hate crimes” laws would create untold new liability for Christians.
Now a major Christian ministry has confirmed that such “hate crimes” laws already are setting limits on what it can broadcast.
The issue is “hate crimes” laws in Canada, and they are affecting U.S. Christian ministries that broadcast into that nation.
This is serious and getting worse.
Now comes confirmation from the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, one of the largest Christian publishing and broadcasting organizations in the nation, that it has been reviewing, and if necessary editing, its broadcasts to avoid complications with Canadian “hate crimes” laws.
How do activists groups successfully bully what should be reasonable bodies of government? Look at how easy this was to pull off.
World Net Daily previously reported when the the Canadian Family Action Coalition confirmed activists who claim they have “hurt feelings” are demanding and getting penalties imposed against those who oppose the homosexual lifestyle.
“We today have a major national magazine, a federal political party leader and a registered political party, a major Catholic newspaper (Catholic Insight) and an internationally renowned journalist all of whom are being investigated by appointed ‘hate speech therapists’ from the commissions,” the group said.
The journalist is Mark Steyn, according to CFAC spokesman Brian Rushfeldt, and the newest case involves Canada’s national Catholic magazine of news, opinion and analysis.
What did they violate?
Rushfeldt noted that Alberta’s provincial law, for example, orders: “No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or (b) is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt bcause of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status of that person or class of persons.”
Parse that down. Here’s what it actually means.
“You see if my feelings are hurt and I feel discriminated against due to my ‘religious orientation’ then surely I must have a right and entitlement to have an appointed group of people in the Human Rights Commission at taxpayers’ expense, intervene and force the activist to pay me compensation for my feelings. This is really not bullying is it? Or is it more like extortion?” said a commentary by the Family Action organization.
“How can I prove my feeling are hurt? I don’t need to prove it. I just say it is so and it is so. Do I need to provide truth? No, not under the functions of the Human Rights Act. … Section 3(1) states that if something ‘indicates discrimination’ and ‘is likely to expose to hatred or contempt’ is a basis for action.”
This legislation is the real basis for action. The action is to speak up, charitably, with goodwill, about the constitutional right to free speech. And the freedom from government prohibition of exercising religious beliefs. We should not be legislating feelings.