I think Conservatives will actually be very happy about this behind closed doors - currently they are helping the Liberals push everything through parliament and committee, so whenever they bark to media about stuff they look like hypocrites. Now they get to complain without looking like hypocrites!

Also, I'm pretty sure the alternative here is an election where the Liberals would win >210 seats, so...

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca -5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'll be very upset if the Liberals change the balance on committees now. They have 'negotiated' their way into a majority (some say bribed is more accurate) but that doesn't give them the right to overpower the equal number of Canadians who didn't vote for them on committees. I watched the committee debate on Bill C-9 carefully and it was clear that there are some relevant and significant issues with it that were brought up by the Conservatives. If those voices are overpowered because of a negotiated majority, it will mean significant anger from the voting public.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Which issues?

Besides the main one that they want religion to be a valid defense?

[+] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca -18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (4 children)

The valid complaint is that using scripture from the Bible or Torah for sincerely held religious views can be classified as hate speech. These texts are thousands of years old and have been the basis for religious beliefs for centuries and this government believes they can now change that into a punishable offence for using those texts for sincerely held religious beliefs. Incredible really. And not the way Canada was founded or operated since its inception.

This pretty much sums it up: (https://i.imgur.com/bHtY2Zh.jpeg)

[–] CultuurMarxist@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If part of the bible or torah falls within the legal definitions of hate speech, then it is hate speech. You can't hide behind the idea that because it is a holy book it should be exempt from any scrutiny.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I was raised Christian and poured 1000% of my undiagnosed autism into studying the bible. The bible doesn't have hate speech. It's these christo-fascist idiots that have hate in their hearts.

Jesus was crystal fucking clear that none of those ancient Jewish laws were valid going forward. We are to love everyone as ourselves.

The hate speech is what people say before and after they cite the bible. Case and point; the parts of the bible that are 'anti-gay' are actually deliberate mistranslations.

You literally have to change / misrepresent the bible for it to support hate.

So yea this objection by conservatives is baseless.

[+] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca -8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Interesting twist. So if the Liberals CHANGE the definition of 'hate' then yes, everything that offends anyone can be labelled hate speech. If you don't see the danger of that, I don't know what to tell you.

I note that a school trustee in BC can be fined $750,000 because he offended some ANONYMOUS LGBT teachers apparently and yet we have had over 33 church razed to the ground from arson in Canada over the last few years and no one has been arrested and no one even charged that Im aware of. Hmm... you say works that 'take away my dignity' thats HATE, man. But you burn down my place of worship? Well, that's kinda justifiable isn't it? I mean, that's not HATE, right? Sorta like, more of a protest. Kinda. Well maybe just a tinge of hate, but hey, stuff happens, right?

ps. You want to judge the holy books with the law? Where do you think the law comes from? In Canada and Britain in particular its based on Judeo-Christian principles taken from those holy books. The current gov has come full circle to say they are now ABOVE those values. They're not.

[–] CultuurMarxist@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

They are, none of the power structures in capitalism, the state and capital, gives a shit about judeo-christian values. And in every developed country the number of actively religious people keeps dropping, why should these books written by goat herders 2000 years ago be above modern laws? You know these books say shit like that gay people should be stoned to death and that slavery should be allowed to exist.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Jesus was pretty crystal clear that the ancient jewish laws were no longer valid.

The bible doesn't have hate speech. It has christo-fascists misrepresenting it to justify the hate they choose to cultivate within their hearts.

LoveCanada's argument is completely baseless.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You say that you've studied the Bible so you should know that the verses about homosexuality are also in the New Testament so not the 'ancient Jewish laws' If you want I can give you chapter and verse but its a pretty easy google search.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Didn't say that. I said the verses on homosexuality were deliberately mistranslated. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I must have missed that. Where exactly did you say that the verses were mistranslated?

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

How bout instead of arguing with me you go research it yourself? I literally could not care less about convincing you of anything. Not my decision whose hearts God hardens.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Im not sure who offended you sir, but it wasn't me. And my heart is not hardened, Im on here because I enjoy discussing relevant topics with others of differing views. Have a good one.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

lmao you clearly dont enjoy people having differing views. Oh I am.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Bible doesnt say anything about stoning gay people to death. My understanding that the Koran does and therein lies a problem with accepting all religious texts as equal. I dont believe they are, but this is Canada and we definitely would have a problem if the gov tried to rule that one text is acceptable and the other is not.

[–] CultuurMarxist@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads".

Doesn't mention stoning, but it does say gay people should be put to death.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Either way you're not a christian or any other religion. Your a bigot trying to misrepresent the bible to justify your narrow ignorance based perspective.

The conservative objects are baseless because there is no hate speech in the Bible. Just christo-fasists thumping bibles to the beat of their own hateful hearts.

Worry not about the courts of men. God will judge you according to your heart.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

See my comment above. What did I say that is hateful?

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

See my other comment. You not saying anything hateful doesn't preclude your desire to use the bible to justify your hateful beleifs.

There's simply no way you could see the bible as potential hate speech unless you agree with hateful interperitations of it.

You can say nobody saw you put your hand in the cookie jar but the crumbs are all over your face bud.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago

So you can make that judgment just because you can make that judgment, with absolutely no proof? Ok, cant argue with that logic. Then I can be anything you decide. Seems fair /s

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Whoosh.

Does it advocate hate? Then it's hate speech.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Bible doesn't advocate hate. Chisto-fascists do.

LoveCanada wants the right to misrepresent the bible to back up his own hateful beliefs.

Source: Autistic former bible studier.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Please point to ANYTHING Ive said that is "hateful" Youre using the same ploy that most objecters do, which is "If you dont agree with me wholeheartedly, you are obviously a hateful bigot" So where is the part where you and I can just disagree, and you can hold your beliefs and I can hold mine? You have labelled me hateful when I havent said anything of that nature.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nothing you've said is hateful. So why are you worried?

where is the part where you and I can just disagree, and you can hold your beliefs and I can hold mine?

Matthew 12:30 "Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me."

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago

Im not worried. Im presenting the Bible's viewpoint on a contentious matter in our current society. I know what I believe. For the record I haven't even said Im a Christian, but I have studied the Bible and specifically this matter.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago

It doesnt advocate hate. The essence of the gospel is to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.

But its VERY clear about some things that the world seems to find fuzzy, one of which is homosexuality. It doesnt say anyone should hate ANYONE, but it also doesn't say that everything is good or acceptable to God. So you can shoot the message or the messenger but if you believe the Bible supercedes the wisdom of man, then believers are going to believe the Bible.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If you're arguing and inciting for someone to be put to death on the basis of their sexual orientation ("3 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.") then yes, that's hate speech regardless of it being the bible.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I was raised Christian and poured 1000% of my undiagnosed autism into studying the bible. The bible doesn't have hate speech. It's these christo-fascist idiots that have hate in their hearts.

Jesus was crystal fucking clear that none of those ancient Jewish laws were valid going forward. We are to love everyone as ourselves.

The hate speech is what people say before and after they cite the bible. Case and point; the parts of the bible that are 'anti-gay' are actually deliberate mistranslations.

You literally have to change / misrepresent the bible for it to support hate.

So yea this objection by conservatives is baseless.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them

To be fair, in studying this issue I have avoided the Old Testament and levitical law because as you know its been superceded by the coming of Jesus and the New Testament so I honestly forgot that verse existed.

The New Testament doesnt advocate death, it does however make clear its position:

Romans 1:26-27 (NIV): "...Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "...Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men [arsenokoitai] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NIV): "...The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai], or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers..."

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I appreciate that you might have gone past the old testament, however it is still part of the book and would otherwise be considered safe speech protected from hate laws.

I'm sure you can agree that someone advocating murder of gay people should not be considered 'protected speech' solely because its written in the bible. And if we have to start picking and choosing which sections of the bible are protected and are not, that seems like a far more subjective line than 'hate speech that can be backed up by the words of a holy book is still hate speech'.

The bar for hate speech in this country is way higher than most people seem to think it is. You need to be advocating for genocide, publicly inciting hatred likely to break the peace (ie a pastor preaching that its the responsibility of the congregation to murder gay people), or inciting hatred (again, private conversations are not included, but a pastor preaching 'you should scorn, despise, and hate gay people' would be).

Currently the 'its a religious belief' covers you from hate speech, but I dont think it should. If you're preaching those, you're not emulating or encouraging your congregation to emulate the works and teachings of Jesus.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You're right. I take some consolation in reading the Bill's definition of hate: "The Bill would create a definition of “hatred” for two of the existing hate propaganda offences in section 319 (publicly inciting hatred where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace and wilfully promoting hatred), the new hate propaganda offence and for the new hate crime offence. The definition would specify that “hatred” involves detestation or vilification and does not mean disdain or dislike. The Bill further specifies that the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. This would codify decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

a punishable offence for using those texts for sincerely held religious beliefs.

Do you think they're outlawing the bible? I was raised Christian and what you're saying is nonsense.

The bible doesn't have hate speech in it. So if you get in trouble citing the bible it's almost certainly because of what YOU said not the Bible.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're full of shit and that image "that sums it up" is full of shit.

Particularly that image is weeks old reeking shit. Regardless of the country, religious politicians have done everything in their power to fuck over those that don't believe the same, sometimes with success, sometimes with failure, but they are fucking relentless. You want to know what religion does to you? Look no further than the US where religious idiots voted a known pedophile into office because some literally said "He is the second coming of jeebus!"

The stupidity is real and if it would only have consequences for themselves, I would not give a fuck, let them suffer for their own dumb-ass decisions, but the problem is that it does have consequences for everybody.

No religion has ever been a force for good, ever, and I can't wait for the day that humanity grows up and stops believing in stone-age fairy tales.

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

There's a huge difference between the American version of Christian and the Canadian one. Canada, to its credit, largely separates church and state.

But your last sentence is dead wrong. "No religion has ever been a force for good" As someone who used to work for a charity and has studied quite a few of them, you probably dont realize that almost ALL large humanitarian charities have been started by religious groups. Like the Red Cross, Samaritan's Purse, World Vision, Compassion International and the Salvation Army. And you have more than likely benefitted from Canada's free healthcare system (if you're Canadian) which was started by none other than Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister before becoming a politician. Those charities and our healthcare system have literally saved millions of lives and fed and clothed and taken care of millions of others. Because of their faith.

[–] loonmusic@piefed.ca 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Committee stalemates in a minority government angers a significant number of voters because nothing ever gets done. There will always be a group opposed to whatever the current government does. One group seems to complain more often than the others. If the Conservatives were in power would you have the same complaint if they stacked committees?

[–] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Both parties share a two very simple objectives: consolidate power while in office and hinder and undermine the party in office while they're not.

Its fucking insane to me that people want majorities to "get things done" when political enemies swap the reigns every few years.

The people want a deck built. Liberals go buy 400 truss mounts; 2 are mounted. Conservatives take power, throw out 398 truss mounts, nail a 14' beam to a single truss mount and it pulls out of the wall. Liberals take power, cut the beam into easy to work with 4' sections, order 45 4x4 posts. Conservatives take power, posts are delivered to the house but there are too many, pay the truck to come back and return all of them, insist holes need to be be made first, buy a dozen manual post holers. Liberals take power, store post holers in shed, rent single post holer for next summer because it is cheaper. Conservatives take power, uses butane torch to clear weeds, ignites existing beams. Liberals take power, lay planks over charred beams, both break. Conservatives take power, order 80 bags of concrete for a foundation prior to rain storm. Liberals take power, holes must be dug, post holer on order, concrete bags get rained on.

Stop just doing shit and make a plan! We don't get a deck, and the only one winning is fucking Home Depot!

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

#bothsides?

[–] LoveCanada@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There will be a stalemate if there are equal numbers of Canadians are on either side of a debate reflected in equal numbers in committee. Thats GOOD for democracy because it means that issues have to be debated carefully and eventually consensus is reached with some give on both sides. What is NOT good is a majority gov that says they dont have to listen to other opinions because they have the votes to pass whatever they wish ESPECIALLY when they did not win that majority by national vote.

I much prefer a minority government at all times. Majority is dangerous to our democracy, no matter which party it is.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

It's not good for vulnerable minorities who are frequently scapegoated by the Cons and occasionally the Libs