National Affairs
Protection only to an agreed point
Claire Hoy

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the African-American Democratic representative from the District of Columbia,

has this to say about our old friend tolerance:

"The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with."

Which brings us, of course, to rumors that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is considering the introduction of a Defence of Religions Act (DORA) to protect Canadians who disagree with same-sex marriage from state prosecution. Not to mention persecution, of which several examples are extant.

You'll recall the case of a Toronto print shop owner, an evangelical Christian, who took considerable offense to some explicit brochures from the homosexual community and refused to take their contract. Despite the fact there were numerous other printers ready to do the job, and despite the fact that this particular printer had performed numerous printing jobs for the homosexual community - it was just the graphic nature of the brochure in question which offended him, not the sexual preferences of the authors - he was hauled up before the provincial Human Rights Commission, fined, and forced to print the objectionable material.

There are plenty of other examples in Canada of such heavy-handed state actions against legitimately held religious views, but you get the idea.

Despite the argument that religious freedom is already protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and argument put forward by those who see themselves as champions of tolerance, such as the NDP and most of the Liberal Party, the fact is that a)-the Charter has been extremely spotty at best in protecting religious speech and b)- the Charter, as we've already seen in the entire same-sex marriage debate, is essentially open season to our un-elected and unaccountable senior judges who apparently, based on the record, have little if any compunction of reshaping society in their own ideological interest.

Critics of Harper's proposition - a proposition Harper himself has yet to confirm, by the way - say it will simply encourage the so-called "religious right" to promote their "hate" speech without fear of prosecution.

To them, it seems, citing the Bible would constitute hate speech. Fact is, in one case in Saskatchewan, a man who quoted a Biblical passage in a paid newspaper advertisement to criticize same-sex marriage was fined by their human rights organization for doing that.

So you see, those who claim that Canada already enjoys protected religious speech would, if they could possibly be honest with themselves, agree that the protection only extends to the point where most liberals (and Liberals) happen to agree with.

Anything beyond that, alas, is seen as "hate" speech.

They know, of course, that the Criminal Code already defines "hate" speech and makes it illegal, so that the proposed DORA would have no impact whatsoever upon that. Hate speech would still be hate speech.

But it is interesting, and telling, to know that the critics of this proposal believe that opposition to same-sex marriage on religious grounds essentially constitutes a prima facia case of hate. Interesting. Particularly considering that a recent Globe and Mail public opinion poll shows that a solid majority of Canadians do not agree that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are moral equivalents. Boy, we've sure got a lot of hate-mongers out there, eh. Mind you, the attitudes expressed by such self-declared champions of tolerance as NDP Leader Jack Layton and interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham, should not surprise anybody who has followed their public utterings on anything that could be defined as religious conservatism.

Just last week, for example, Graham rose in the House of Commons to bluster that the appointment of Darrel Reid, an evangelical Christian, as chief of staff for Environment Minister Rona Ambrose was "an affront to democracy."

The "affront," it seems, was not just about some controversial comments Reid has made in the past - including a rather odious comparison between hate-crimes laws and Hitler - but went right to the heart of Reid's openly Christian views, views which, Graham claimed, make him unfit for public office.

Imagine Graham or Layton or any other politician rising in the Commons to attack a Muslim or a Jew, not specifically for things they may have said, but "because" they are devout Muslims or Jews.

It wouldn't happen, would it?

Yet Liberals and New Democrats - not to mention the media and others - regularly attack devout Christians, accusing them of being hateful, smearing their cherished beliefs, all the while smugly claiming to be pursuing an agenda of tolerance.

Add to that the real danger of the courts tossing out a provision in the same-sex law protecting religious leaders from performing such marriages if it offends their beliefs - a very real possibility based on the record - and it is no wonder that Harper sees a need to codify the right of religiously-based Canadians to speak out on issues of considerable moral and theological importance.

Good on him, I say.