Outlawing The Word Of God

Most Recent History Of

England and Wales

     In England and Wales, hate crimes may be physical attack, verbal attack, threats or insults and will be considered a hate crime if they are motivated by the victims race, color, ethnic origin, nationality or national origins, religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation or disability. In July 2007 a homosexual man won a job discrimination claim against the Church of England. After John Reaney was turned down for a youth worker’s post in Cardiff, Wales, he complained to the government that he was being unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of his sexual orientation. The employment tribunal agreed. Homosexual activists rejoiced at the ruling. One said that the “church must learn that denying people jobs on the ground of their sexuality is no longer acceptable” (“Gay Christian Wins Job Tribunal against Church of England,” Daily Mail, July 18, 2007).

     In May 2008 a policeman in Birmingham, England, ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. Evangelists Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham say they were threatened with arrest for committing a ‘hate crime’ and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned (“Christian Preachers Face Arrest in Birmingham,” London Telegraph, June 1, 2008). The objective of homosexual activists is to shut down every church that opposes their agenda and refuses to keep quiet.

Australia

     In December 2004 two pastors were convicted under a hate crimes law in Victoria, Australia. The case stems from a seminar that Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scott of Catch the Fire Ministries conducted in March 2002. The two pastors lectured on the differences between Christianity and Islam and quoted information about Islam directly from the Quran. They were accused by the Islamic Council of inciting hatred, and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal sided against them, even though the judge admitted that they quoted the Koran accurately. The cost of defending themselves against the accusations surpassed $150,000.

France

     One of the famous victims of hate crime legislation in Europe is Brigitte Bardot. Last June the actress, once considered to be the very icon of France, was given a two-month suspended prison sentence and fined €15,000 by a court in Paris. Mrs. Bardot was convicted for “instigation of hatred” towards the Muslim community because in December 2006 she had sent a letter to Nicolas Sarkozy, then the Interior Minister of France, to demand that Muslims anaesthesize animals before slaughtering them.

     In the letter she said, referring to Muslims, that she was “fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its habits.” Harboring and expressing such sentiments is a crime in France.

Finland

     Finnish Penal Code 515/2003 (enacted January 31, 2003) makes "committing a crime against a person, because of his national, racial, ethnical or equivalent group" an aggravating circumstance in sentencing. In addition, ethnic agitation (Finnish: kiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan) is criminalized and carries a fine or a prison sentence of not more than two years. The prosecution need not prove that an actual danger to an ethnic group is caused but only that a malicious message is emissioned.

Germany

     The German Criminal Code holds sections against hate speech. Sections 86, 86a were introduced to defend against the ideas of National Socialism. The underlying principle is that propaganda material from forbidden organizations and parties (to which the NSDAP but also modern hate groups belong) can affect the public peace and safety as well as the Free Democratic Basic Order of Germany and therefore may lead to violence.

     Section 130 states: "(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace: 1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or 2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population, shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

Greece

     Article Law 927/1979 "Section 1,1 penalizes incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence towards individuals or groups because of their racial, national or religious origin, through public written or oral expressions; Section 1,2 prohibits the establishment of, and membership in, organisations which organise propaganda and activities aimed at racial discrimination; Section 2 punishes public expression of offensive ideas; Section 3 penalizes the act of refusing, in the exercise of one’s occupation, to sell a commodity or to supply a service on racial grounds." Public prosecutors may press charges even if the victim does not file a complaint. However, as of 2003, no convictions had been attained under the law.

Iceland

     Section 233 of the Icelandic Penal Code states "Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin color, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)

History And Key Facts On Canada's Hate Speech Law

Sept. 02, 2009

History and key facts on Canada's hate speech law

by Chris Boutet

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/09/02/section-13-backgrounder.aspx

     The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that Section 13, Canada's much maligned human rights hate speech law, is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter right to free expression because of its penalty provisions. The decision appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.

     What is Section 13? Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act gives Canada's Human Rights Commission the power to deal with complaints regarding hate messages disseminated over telephone or the Internet. It reads: 13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

     Interpretation: (2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

     What is its history? Canada's hate law has its roots in the 1966 release of the Report of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (also known as the Cohen Committee). The report described the serious psychological harm caused by hate propaganda and noted that hate messages can also lead to an increase in discrimination. After an early draft of the legislation that did not include provisions for dealing with hate messages stalled and died in Parliament in 1975, an updated bill (C-25) was introduced the following year. It passed an received Royal Assent on July 14, 1977, and became the Canadian Human Rights Act, Chapter 33.

     In 1998, a subsection allowing the Tribunal to order a person found to be spread hate messages to pay compensation of up to $5,000 to the victim was amended to expand the Tribunal's punitive powers. It proposed allowing the Tribunal to: make a cease and desist order; order the respondent to compensate a victim specifically identified in the communication for up to $20,000; order the person to pay a penalty of up to $10,000. The federal government reasoned that raising the penalty limit under the Act from $5,000 to $20,000 would ensure that tribunals had the discretion to award an amount that was fair in the circumstances.

     In 1999, Justice Minister Anne McLellan established a panel to review the Act. Its report recommended that "the prohibition of hate messages in the Act be broadened to encompass both existing and future telecommunication technologies in federal jurisdiction." Canada's anti-terrorism bill (C-36) further amended the act to include the communication of hate messages over the Internet in 2001.

Hate Crimes Laws Used Against Christians In Canada

June 23, 2008

Hate Crimes Laws Used Against Christians In Canada

http://www.wayoflife.org/files/706fe196bc5dd6068bb1a96eefc8b4be-109.html

     “Many Americans have a warm, fuzzy view of Canada, and have no idea that a totalitarian nation is taking shape, instigated by gay activists and Muslim pressure groups in the name of ‘tolerance.’ They do not know because America’s mainstream media are refusing to cover it.” Canada is a model of what could happen in America if the so-called hate crimes legislation becomes the law of the land, and the Democrats will doubtless make this a priority if they win the presidency. Barak Obama has said that he will use the “bully pulpit” to promote homosexual rights and will make this one of his highest priorities. Such laws are used by homosexuals and Muslims and other enemies of the Christian faith to exact vengeance upon and shut the mouths of Christians.

     Since Canada enacted “hate crimes” legislation at the provincial and national level, gave special protected status to homosexuals, and set up human rights commissions and tribunals, the persecution against Christians has grown steadily. There are 10 human rights commissions in Canada, the national commission, known as the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and a provincial commission for each of Canada’s 10 provinces, except British Columbia. These nine provinces also have human rights tribunals. British Columbia lumps its commission and tribunal into one body.

     Complaints brought before the human rights commissions are investigated, and if deemed worthy, are sent to a tribunal for prosecution. The commissions and tribunals are “quasi-judicial bodies” that have the full power of government behind them, but they operate separately from the court system and do not provide their victims even the basic due process protections that rapists and murderers enjoy in the courts. All an activist must do is file a complaint claiming that his feelings have been hurt and that he is offended by something that a Christian has said or done, and the tribunals bring governmental authority to bear against the “offender.” There is no cost to the complainant, but the accused is forced to pay his own legal costs, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. If found guilty he must pay “damages” to the offended party, plus he must pay his accuser’s legal fees. There is a presumption of guilt and the accused must labor under adverse circumstances to prove his or her innocence. An outspoken Christian has no real protection under this system. It is a grossly discriminatory, lose-lose situation from beginning to end.

     As Ezra Levant, a lawyer who is defending himself before a human rights tribunal, observes, “Even if we win, we lose--the process has become the punishment. It is procedurally unfair. Unlike real courts, there is no way to apply for a dismissal of nuisance lawsuits. Common law rules of evidence don’t apply. Rules of court don’t apply. It is a system that is part Kafka, and part Stalin.”

     In 1997 the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined the City of London and its mayor, DIANE HASKETT, $10,000 for refusing to proclaim Gay Pride Day. It also ordered Haskett to make a public statement praising the “valuable contributions of gays and lesbians to her community,” which she refused to do. She said, “I will not bow down to the ruling of the human rights commission and I am willing to bear any consequences of that. If this ruling is left unchallenged, any Canadian can be forced to say what they don’t believe.... The implications are so staggering it should be a matter for legal review.”

     In 2001 in Toronto, Ontario, printer SCOTT BROCKIE was fined $5,000 for refusing to print homosexual-themed stationery for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

     In 2002 in Saskatchewan the Star Phoenix newspaper of Saskatoon and HUGH OWENS were ordered to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the newspaper in 1997 quoting Bible verses regarding homosexuality. The advertisement displayed references to four Bible passages (Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) on the left side. An equal sign (=) was situated in the middle, with a symbol on the right side comprised of two males holding hands with the universal sign of a red circle with a diagonal bar superimposed over the top.

     Owens bought the ad and the Star Phoenix merely printed it. The Human Rights Commission’s ruling was appealed to the courts. In February 2003 the Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan refused to overturn it, with Justice J. Barclay saying the advertisement was an incitement to hatred. But in April 2006 the ruling was overturned by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals.

     In 2005 a British Columbia KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS council was ordered to pay $2,000 to two lesbians, plus their legal costs, for refusing to allow its facility to be used for their “wedding.” The human rights commissioner in this case was Heather MacNaughton.

     In January 2006, city councilman JOHN DECICCO of Kamloops, British Columbia, was fined $1,000 and required to apologize for saying that homosexuality is “not normal or natural.” In his remarks, which were made in a city council meeting, DeCicco was expressing the official doctrine of his church. The fine goes to two homosexual activists who brought the complaint. DeCicco was also forced to issue a public statement that his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.”

     In January 2002 the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal levied a fine of $7500 against the VANCOUVER RAPE RELIEF SOCIETY for its refusal to allow a male-to-female “transsexual” named Kimberly Dawn to train as a rape and abuse hotline counselor. In an article at its web site dated April 16, 2000, the society argued that it operates as a women-only society and that it is not wrong to exclude an individual who has grown up as a man and who its clients might not accept as a woman. The original complaint was brought in 1995. The tribunal commissioner who imposed the heavy-fisted sentence was Heather MacNaughton.

     In 2005 in Alberta FRED HENRY, was subject to two complaints before the Alberta Human Rights Commission after publishing a letter defending the traditional definition of marriage earlier that same year. “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used as thought police.”

     In February 2007 complaints were brought before the Human Rights Commission targeting ALPHONSE DE VALK, a well-known pro-life activist, for quoting from the Bible and church documents to refute “same-sex marriage.” The complaint was brought by homosexual activist Rob Wells, a member of the Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered Pride Center of Edmonton. He accuses the magazine of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals. De Valk says, “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” adding that opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons.

     In 2007 the CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY OF CANADA and its leader RON GRAY were investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) after a homosexual activist complained that he was offended by material on the party’s web site. One of the articles that Wells complained about was an April 29, 2002, report published by WorldNetDaily in America citing a study that found that pedophilia is more common among homosexuals.

     Another article, written by Ron Gray, protested Canada’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Gray told LifeSiteNews: “Christians are probably the best friends homosexuals have in the world because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives in this world and condemn them in the next. I’m not motivated by hate at all. I would guess that very few if any real Christians are motivated by hate in their response to these issues.

     It’s a question of compassion. Who truly loves you, someone who tells you the truth even when it hurts, or someone who will tell you you’re okay even when you’re headed down the wrong road The Scripture says, ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, and deceitful are the kisses of an enemy’” He added: “I really think this is a crucial case because if an agency of the government, which the CHRC is, can tell a political party what it may and may not include in its political statements we have gone way down the road to totalitarianism.”

     In 2007, in British Columbia, a complaint was made against MACLEAN’S MAGAZINE (Canada’s leading newsweekly) for publishing an excerpt from MARK STEYN’S book America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. The article, published in October 2006, was entitled “The Future Belongs of Islam.” The complaint was brought by Naiyer Habib and Mohamed Elmasry, an imam and president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. Elmasry appeared on the Michael Coren Show in Toronto in 2004 and said that anyone in Israel over the age of 18 was a justifiable target of Palestinian attacks. He later apologized, but his basic outlook is obvious. Yet he had the audacity to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that the MacLean’s article portrayed Muslims as “inhuman” and “violent.” The case was referred to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which opened its proceedings against Steyn and the magazine in June 2008.

     In January 2008 the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal began its proceedings against EZRA LEVANT. He is defending himself against complaints by Islamic activists who have protested the publication of Danish cartoons of Mohammed for news purposes in the Western Standard magazine in 2006. In his opening remarks to the tribunal on January 11, 2008, Levant made the following powerful and eloquent statement: “When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, ezralevant.com.

     “I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta human rights commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats ‘the commission’ or ‘the hrc’, since to call the commission a ‘human rights commission’ is to destroy the meaning of those words. I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me.

     The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and state.

     “I have read the past few years’ worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon student complained that he was called a ‘loser’ by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other words, the commission is a joke--it’s the Alberta equivalent of a U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy--except that Judge Judy actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission’s panelists are judges, and some aren’t even lawyers. And, unlike the commission, Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech. It’s bad enough that this sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons and restaurants. But it’s even worse now that the commissions are attacking free speech.

     “The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed, quote, 1. ‘human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, (c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of assembly and association; and (f) freedom of the press.’ “In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed, quote: ‘2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.’

     “Those were even called ‘fundamental freedoms’--to give them extra importance. For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.”

     In March 2008 the Canadian government ordered MACGREGOR MINISTRIES, an apologetics ministry, shut down because its reference materials were ‘critical’ of the beliefs of those who are not Christian (WorldNetDaily, March 21, 2008). Lorri MacGregor told WND that Canada’s version of a ‘hate crimes’ law prevented their work from continuing as it had for nearly 30 years. The ministry was ordered to either make wholesale changes in its presentations, or shut down. They were required to say that all religions are equal, stop publishing their magazine on cults, remove all offending material from their website, and stop selling any products teaching about cults. Refusing to operate under those conditions, they moved the ministry to America.

     In June 2008 STEPHEN BOISSON, an evangelical youth pastor, was banned from expressing opposition to homosexuality in any public forum and ordered to pay $7,000 “damages for pain and suffering” to the homosexual activist who complained against him. The trouble began in 2002 when Boisson wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate newspaper in Alberta and denounced the advance of homosexual activism in the schools. Printed under the heading “Homosexual Agenda Wicked,” the letter said: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.” This offended a homosexual teacher named Darren Lund who complained to the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.

Coming To America

The Cycle Is Evident

First Comes Hate Crime Laws

Then Comes Hate Crime Speech

     In October 2004 eleven Christians with the Repent America organization who were protesting a homosexual “Outfest” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were arrested and charged with a laundry list of crimes. In February 2005 four members of the group stood trial on three felony and five misdemeanor counts and the judge dismissed all charges. Common Pleas Court Judge Pamela Dembe said, “We cannot stifle speech because we don’t want to hear it, or we don’t want to hear it now” (“Judge Drops Charges,” Baptist Press, Feb. 18, 2005). (Homosexual activists claim that the group was disrupting their program and refusing police requests to move, but the judge ruled that they did nothing illegal.

     In April 2008 the New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined a Christian photography studio $6,600 for discriminating against homosexuals. Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon, co-owners of Elane Photography in Albuquerque, politely refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s “commitment ceremony.” One of the lesbians, Vanessa Willock, filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission claiming the Huguenins discriminated against her because of her “sexual orientation.” Jordan Lorence, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund that is representing the Huguenins, said: “This decision is a stunning disregard for religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms of people of faith, of Christians, and those who believe in traditional marriage defined as one man and one woman.

     This shows the very disconcerting, authoritarian face of the homosexual activists, who are using these non-discrimination laws as weapons against Christians in the business world and Christians in their churches” (“New Mexico Commission Orders Fine,” OneNewsNow, April 11, 2008). Lorence believes the Huguenins will win an appeal of the decision, but he warns this is how similar laws in 19 other states, and the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can be misused to silence biblical beliefs.

Thought Crime Becomes a Reality in Canada

Oct. 27, 2004

Thought Crime Becomes a Reality in Canada

http://www.studiobrien.com/interviews/thought-crime-becomes-a-reality-in-canada.html

     Interview with Michael O’Brien appeared in the August 15, 2004. The interviewer is Thomas Szyszkiewicz:  The Canadian Parliament recently passed Bill C-250 which amends the federal hate crimes law to include speech against sexual orientation. Some Canadian groups have complained about it, saying even the Bible could be seen as hate literature. What's wrong with what was passed

     O’Brien: A number of aspects of the new law are profoundly disturbing. For one thing, there already exists in Canadian law abundant protection of human rights, including protection against  discrimination on grounds of “sexual orientation.” What is distinctive about the new law is the criminalization of negative criticism of homosexuality as such. While the bill was in formation in Parliament two crucial amendments proposed by the conservative opposition party were defeated. The first was to ensure that religious pastors and teachers would retain full freedom to teach traditional Judeo-Christian view on these matters. The second was an attempt to make a distinction in law between homosexual persons and homosexual activities. The Church does not condemn homosexuals as persons; it condemns sinful activities—activities that are not only an offense against God, but are destructive of the person, as well as society in the long run. In rejecting these two amendments, Parliament simply decreed that henceforth any public criticism of homosexual activity is a hate crime against homosexual persons, punishable by jail sentences.

          Has there yet been any practical affect to what has been passed?

      

O’Brien: The ink is still wet on the document, and there has been little time to bring many law suits. For the time being we’re in the eye of the storm, a temporary calm. I think there is a widespread drawing back as journalists, teachers, and pastors ponder their options. At the same time activist homosexual groups are bombarding a number of pro-family, pro-life organizations in this country with mockery and threats, planning strategies (in open forums) for silencing all opposition, warning that those who don’t keep silent on homosexuality will go to court, and to jail. The high level of emotional violence in homosexual activist strategy is at times quite shocking. They seem consumed with hatred and determined to bring about an entire social revolution in their favor.

     I should add that during the past two years a number of significant “human rights” law suits have been brought against traditional Christians, litigation that predates the new hate crimes law. The courts generally have sided against the churches and individuals who do not want to cooperate with the “gay agenda.” For example, a printing company that declined to print Toronto’s annual gay pride day literature was sued under the human rights law, fined heavily, and forced to print the material or close their business. A private school was coerced by a court order to admit an openly homosexual teenage boy and his older male lover to the school prom; the court also refused the school board permission to cancel the prom. A daily newspaper that published an advertisement page of Biblical quotes regarding homosexuality was fined. Such incidents are multiplying.

            Is this another slippery slope issue? How far can this reach in terms of what alleged crimes

            might be committed or who might be protected by it?

      

O’Brien: Potentially very far. The law can be used primarily to further intimidate the timid and to punish the outspoken. We now have Thought Crime in Canada, just as Orwell predicted. Few people believe this could be the beginning phases of an Orwellian 1984 or alternatively a softer form of totalitarian government such as Huxley’s Brave New World. But the elements of State-enforced social reconstruction are now in operation. We should also consider the fact that in just over one generation we have been shifted from a society in which homosexual activity was a crime under the then existing law, to a society in which homosexual activity has become a government-protected and fostered activity, while voicing criticism of it has become the crime. I see this as a prime example of the new totalitarianism. Clearly, we have now arrived at a situation in which “some of us are more equal than others.”

     In its hate propaganda provisions the law states that in order to be found guilty of an indictable offense, a person must communicate statements in a public place which “incite hatred against an identifiable group” in such a way that there will “likely be a breach of the peace.” The courts have already proven their startling subjectivity on homosexual issues. A breath of protest from a Christian is a hate crime, while aggressive disruption of Christian gatherings by gay militants are often overlooked and go unprosecuted. A whiff of Germany in the early 1930’s is discernible in the atmosphere. Of course, glancing about our streets we do not see any concentration camps or marching jackboots. But will the prisons some day hold Christian inmates whose only crime is speaking the truth? And as for jackboots, activist homosexual groups have behaved like Nazi hooligans of the late1920’s and early 1930’s.

     Many of the terms in the new law are largely undefined, such as “sexual orientation,” “inciting hatred,” “a likelihood of breach of the peace” and thus there is an ambiguity so broad that one could drive a battleship through it. It will be left to the courts to do the dirty work of interpreting, condemning, and imprisoning. They have already proved themselves quite willing to do so, and the new law offers them added incentives.

In your book, A Landscape With Dragons: The Battle for Your Child's Mind (Ignatius Press, 1998), you have a chapter titled, "Are Christians Intolerant?" in which you raise several interesting points. One of those is that a mother "who fiercely protects her little ones from predators...suffers from a bias against rattlesnakes and wolves" or a doctor "who has seen an epidemic ravage a people...is prejudiced against deadly viruses." But this is not how the rest of the world views intolerance or even how Christians necessarily view it, is it? Mostly intolerance is seen as an evil thing in which the Christian is judging, not simply the external actions someone takes, but the interior disposition of the mind, heart and soul. How does this image get changed?

     O’Brien: The Christian view must always be this: I love the carrier of this Tuberculosis or AIDS virus as a person, but I do not love his virus. I want to protect him as a person but I do not want to protect his virus, for it is his virus that is killing him, and threatens to kill others as well. I will do what is reasonable to help him find healing, if he so wishes, but I will not allow his virus to invade my family, my body, my mind, my children’s education, and if at all possible my government. And I maintain my right to say to him that he is in danger.

     Tragically, throughout forty years of massive propaganda from media, especially through the entertainment industry, we have been bombarded with gross caricatures of repressive moralists and vicious “fundamentalists”, while the image of the immoral or amoral hero has been exalted in the name of “freedom.” As a result, people who “love the sinner but hate the sin” are now commonly considered to be dangerous sociopaths while those who promote and protect the deadly virus of sin are considered to be enlightened. We have suffered a cultural revolution of epic proportions (one that is far from over), and most people hardly realize what has happened, nor how grave the consequences will be.

          For the culture to change requires evangelization, ...evangelization is itself considered an act of

         intolerance since it challenges one's way of life. In light of such an atmosphere, how does one go

         about changing the culture?

 

     O’Brien: I think it begins with one’s own interior conversion. Speaking the truth will be effective to the degree that we speak in the spirit of love. Hatred and contempt have no place in the Christian heart, nor in our efforts at evangelization. Whenever we see these impulses arise within us, we should invoke the extraordinary and specific graces of Christ to dispel them with mercy, so that His presence within us may speak and be made present to others. Genuine mercy never undermines Truth. False compassion, by contrast, usually betrays truth on some level and generates other evils.

_____________________________________

Are you saved? Are you ready for the tribulation to come? Are you headed to hell without hope and God?

Click here to go to our salvation page and learn how you can become born-again and live eternally.