Not only is it becoming increasingly obvious that Western liberals are becoming anti-Christian, they are also becoming increasingly authoritarian when it comes to the practice of Christianity by others.<\/span><\/p>\n Most Americans have this image of Canada as some liberal utopia where health care is free (and good), there is no such thing as violence, and freedom rings. While our northern neighbor is certainly dominated by liberals, the country is a far cry from a utopia.<\/span><\/p>\n In fact, it\u2019s getting to be a far cry from being free<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n As Big League Politics<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/a> reports, lawmakers in the province of Ontario are considering a piece of legislation that would have the same effect as criminalizing the public practice of Christianity.<\/span><\/p>\n The bill, \u201cProhibiting Hate-Promoting Demonstrations at Queen\u2019s Park Act, 2019,\u201d would criminalize public displays erected by Christians that some could claim are hateful to Muslims (as though the Muslim religion isn\u2019t hateful of Christians), the LGBTQRSXYX community, and any other group deemed \u201cvictims\u201d by the intolerant Left.<\/span><\/p>\n If passed, the measure would ban \u201cany demonstration, rally or other activity that is deemed hateful by the Speaker from being permissible on legislative grounds \u2014 effectively insulating the government from Christian speech,\u201d Big League Politics<\/em> reported.<\/span><\/p>\n LifeSite News<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/a> further explains the nefariousness behind Canada\u2019s \u2018anti-hate\u2019 laws which, in reality, go only one way when it comes to Christianity and public displays thereof (which, we presume, would include Christmas displays):<\/span><\/p>\n The problem with this bill, however, lies in the fact that the definition of \u201chate\u201d is uncertain under Canadian law. As a result, unfortunately, the use of the word \u201chate\u201d can be a useful tool for some to prevent differing views from being expressed. That is, the word \u201chate\u201d can be used to silence opposing views expressed when, in fact, the views are simply a reasonable expression of belief.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n And that\u2019s been the problem with allowing one end of the political spectrum (or the other) to define what \u201chate\u201d is: Hate could be anything<\/em> that a political opponent says it is<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, even if it labels a well-established religious belief as such.<\/span><\/p>\n What\u2019s more, it\u2019s always the Left that gets to decide what \u201chate\u201d is and what it means; conservatives have no say in the matter. Further, the actions the Left prescribes when \u2018dealing\u2019 with hate is most often authoritarian, intolerant, and itself hateful \u2014 like bans of Christian displays or even censoring Christians from speaking.<\/span><\/p>\n In Canada specifically, however, the Leftist \u2018hate\u2019 and intolerance is not only being justified by the country\u2019s lawmakers, it\u2019s being codified into law by the country\u2019s judiciary. As LifeSite News<\/em> reported, \u201cCanadians have already experienced the contempt shown by the Supreme Court of Canada towards Section 2 of the Charter of Rights which provides for freedom of opinion, expression and religion\u201d (which sounds a lot like our First Amendment).<\/span><\/p>\n For instance, in 2018, the moral covenant of a private Christian institution \u2014 Trinity Western Christian University \u2014 was deemed discriminatory and hateful by the court. In the 2013 case of Bill Whatcott, the high court ruled that what is relevant is the effects of an expression that was used, not the intent of the communicator. (Related: David Horowitz: We are marching to a one party state\u2026 one person\u2019s dissent is another person\u2019s hate speech (VIDEO)<\/strong><\/span><\/a>.)<\/span><\/p>\n Also, the court additionally found that \u201ctruthful statements and sincerely held beliefs do not affect the finding of \u2018hate.\u2019\u201d In a pamphlet, Whatcott merely expressed what are well-established facts about homosexuality; such expressions, however, are now considered \u2018hateful\u2019 in Maple Leaf country.<\/span><\/p>\n It should be noted that the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal had concluded previously that the pamphlet did not<\/em> constitute \u201chateful\u201d speech. But when you have a higher court full of \u2018progressives\u2019 who consider that a badge of honor, the country will get decisions spiteful and even \u2014 dare we say it? \u2014 hateful<\/em> of Christians and Christianity.<\/span><\/p>\n In the U.S., our founders understood that not all Americans would agree with all speech, political positions, religious viewpoints, and social norms. But they understood that for a society to flourish, all<\/em> ideas must be given consideration, even those a majority find disdainful.<\/span><\/p>\n Canadians don\u2019t agree, apparently.<\/span><\/p>\nSpeech is speech; not everyone has to agree with it<\/h2>\n