Why social conservatives keep losing
It’s the stupidity that kills them.
Garnett Genuis has a special knack for making the case that religious conservatives can’t read because he keeps misunderstanding everything then running to his newsletter to scare people. The latest:
This morning, the National Post revealed that the Liberal government has struck a deal with the Bloc Québécois to remove religious exemptions from Canada’s hate-speech laws.
This is an unprecedented assault on religious freedom — for churches, synagogues, gurdwaras, and mosques alike. With this change to Bill C-9, faith communities that have worshipped freely for our entire history could find themselves at risk of prosecution simply for expressing their sincerely held beliefs. This opens the door to citizens being subject to state censorship and prosecution for quoting scripture or speaking on issues of faith.
So, no. Let’s review.
First of all, Canadians’ constitutional freedom of religion is, and remains, fully and entirely alive. The Supreme Court of Canada has defined religion as a set of sincerely held beliefs, which means that you don’t need to belong to any institution or group in particular to enjoy the right to worship (or not) as you please with the full backing of the Constitution. Go ahead and make yourself High Priestess of Mushrooms for all I care. It’s all good.
Second of all… fuck me, where to begin.
As drafted, C-9 does indeed tighten hate speech legislation and yes, it’s a turkey of a bill. I wrote about it here. It’s badly written and likely unconstitutional in that it removes “extreme” from the existing definition of hate speech.
C-9, ostensibly, aims to protect people (very much including religious minorities) from hate speech targeting them. That’s a laudable goal. It does it clumsily, but that can be fixed. Conservatives could focus on necessary amendments instead of rending their garments after failing to read simple English words sur le sens du monde (if you’ll forgive my bilingual elitism).
[Deep breath.]
Removing the religious exemption simply means that hate speech that rises to the level of being criminal cannot be exempted from criminal prosecution just because the person who uttered it did so out of sincerely held beliefs.
Example. It would be wrong, and also criminal, to stand on a street corner (or anywhere on the internet) and declare that persons with green eyes, or divorced women, or people who have one ear bigger than the other, ought to receive 50 lashes once a week. Easy enough to understand, right?
But what if someone’s beliefs mandate that people with one ear bigger than the other really do need to be struck with a whip? And they sincerely believe in the necessity of doing so? Yes! Still criminal! That’s what the amendment says.
Now what if your religion says that married women should not work outside the home? Can you say that publicly even with the new bill? Yes! Having retrograde and stupid ideas is not a crime. Never was and likely never will be.
Anyone with a clear head and grade nine literacy skills can understand that removing a religious exemption will do nothing worse than making sure nobody can invoke any religion, including made-up ones, to avoid prosecution for hate speech that otherwise rises to the level of criminality. It’s not even that hard. Most religious people, in my experience, understand that not everything in the history of their beliefs should apply literally to the world as it is today. Because they are smart enough to interpret religious customs, texts or traditions in ways that are compatible with being a good person in the 21st century.
Politicians like Genuis appeal to the others — those who think that the Bloc and the Liberals are trying to strip them of their constitutional rights, based on no data whatsoever. It’s pure fear-mongering and stupidity.
Thank goodness most Canadians — very much including religious Canadians — see through this bullshit.