Bill C-250 is now law in Canada, after over a decade of going through Parliament and countless months of debate. For those not familiar with C-250, it was the amendment to Sections 318 & 319 of the Criminal Code dealing with genocide and incitement to hatred. The amendment called for the addition of "sexual orientation" to the existing list of colour, race, religion, or ethnic origin protected under these sections.

The arguments and concerns of social conservatives, many of whom are also religious conservatives, have received considerable coverage in mainstream media. The concerns centre around the belief that this amendment will infringe on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

It won’t.

C-250 was very clear – it sought only to add "sexual orientation" as a protected characteristic in the sections dealing with hate propaganda. Nothing else in these sections was changed, apart from, apparently, an additional change that further protects religious views.

Those in support of C-250 have rarely had an opportunity to outline concerns about the opposition. The media, one can only assume, sees those of us in support of this amendment as "partisan". There are some real concerns about how this debate has been framed and the misleading statements being made by the leaderships of various conservative lobby groups and religious organizations (primarily Christian).

Section 318 deals with genocide. The section defines "genocide" as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group, or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction."

The Section goes on to say, "no proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General."

This is important as it is relatively rare in Criminal Code to have this consent required and it serves here as a protection against malicious or "frivolous" charges being laid.

Section 319 deals with incitement to hatred and it is this section social and religious conservatives were primarily concerned about.

The arguments used against the amendment suggest, or outright claim, that if ‘sexual orientation’ was added it would effectively render the Bible and other sacred texts as "hate literature" and subject pastors, priests, ministers, rabbis, imans, or religious laity who spoke out against homosexuality to criminal prosecution.

Interestingly, no such concerns were ever raised about Sections 318 and 319 when these sections dealt only with people of colour, race issues, religion, or ethnicity. How can be speaking out against blacks, Jews or Muslims, Ukrainians, First Nations or any other minority in the manner proscribed by these sections (i.e. inciting hatred and/or genocide) be considered acceptable and proper in a democratic society but to extend the same protection to lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (and heterosexuals, by the way) suddenly makes these sections attacks against free speech and religion?

Section 319 takes great pains to ensure freedom of speech and freedom of religion are NOT compromised while balancing those crucial rights with the right to be free from persecution and hate promotion.

Private conversation is protected.

If the statements in question are established to be true, this is protected.

If the individual is truly ("in good faith" also known as a bona fide argument) expressing an opinion on a religious subject or even attempting to establish an argument based on this, he or she is protected.

If the statements are relevant to the public interest, and the discussion of the issue is for the public benefit and if the individual reasonably believes the statements to be true (whether they are or not), prosecution cannot occur.

Further, if the individual was attempting to point out matters producing, or tending to produce, feelings of hatred towards an identifiable group or a member of such a group, with an eye to removing such barriers or counteracting hate, this is deemed acceptable under this section.

Any prosecutions that do occur under this section must, again, have the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.

The argument that this amendment will somehow compromise free speech or religious freedom or freedom of conscience is, at best, based on misunderstanding and, at worst, is a conscious attempt to mislead and ensure the continued ability to say the most vile things about homosexuals and homosexuality.

I don’t particularly care if someone "disagrees" with my having a homosexual orientation; they are free to feel how they feel.

I also don’t particularly care if someone presumes to ‘speak’ for God and criticizes my homosexuality "because it says so in the Bible (Koran, Torah, etc.)" as that is easily argued against or debated. For instance, any sacred text that even uses the word "homosexuality" or "homosexual" is suspect since the term itself was not coined until 1850! In other words, it is not the immutable Word of The Deity that is being quoted, but rather the imposing of modern terminology on ancient texts and a rather anachronistic interpretation of ancient societies. Biblical Israel, for instance, did not understand "homosexuality" as it is seen today...what the Patriarchs and Prophets spoke out against was what they saw as corrupt behaviour, likely tied in with "pagan" (i.e. non-Hebrew) religious and social practices. It is also an "abomination" to wear red, have a woman’s head uncovered in temple, mix cloth, or bring outdoor plants into the home (so much for that ficus plant...). The term "abomination", rather than meaning something grotesque or evil, meant something ritually unclean in Hebrew practice.

What I, and those who supported C-250, do care about is the fact that inciting hatred against homosexuals was not a crime. I am protected in the Criminal Code from zealots or outright bigots inciting hatred against me because I may be a person of colour, from a different country, or am a Jew, Muslim, Jehovah’s Witness, Catholic, or a member of some Appalachian snake-handling cult. With the passage of this amendment into law, Canadian jurisprudence took another step to the protection of all Canadians.

Related Articles

Contributor Stephen Lock |

Topic Politics |