Here in Canada there have been announced by the Liberal Party new lawful measures when it comes to what is deemed as hate crimes. Seeing what has happened in Great Britain, many are concerned that the same might happen here.

I took some time to look into the matter, seeing that The Fire Tongue is openly critical of lifestyles of sexual deviancy that include homosexuality and transgenderism. We seek to be so based on Biblical teachings of sexual morality, and our resolution is as Jesus taught, to express in love the concerns that come with knowing someone is living in sin.

We may even publish content critical of Islam, whose extremist followers hunt and kill Christians, have women as sex slaves and commit other horrendous violations of human rights, especially against women. Christianity, even, has had its share of atrocities as commonly known throughout history, much, in our opinion, as a result of being commandeered by people with evil intentions, as seen here in Canada with the disastrous residential school program.

Being critical of religion is important, yet in the UK we are seeing Christian street preachers being given severe restrictions. Private prayer, even, has been considered a ‘gray area.’ Also, in the US, a Muslim mayor tells one of his city’s residents he is ‘not welcome’ after being rightfully critical of a street being named after someone who praised terrorist groups. If we start to simply label valid concern and criticism as ‘hate,’ we may see a very fast deterioration of what makes a truly free society.

I decided to look into the bill to see what exactly it is presenting, and managed to find some pretty clear definitions:

“The proposed definition of “hatred” has the potential to engage freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Charter. The following considerations support the consistency of the proposed amendment with section 2(b). The proposed definition reflects the way “hatred” has been defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court articulated a definition of “hatred” in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott (2013) that characterizes the concept as connoting extreme manifestations of detestation or vilification, which go beyond mere dislike or causing humiliation or offence. The Supreme Court defined “hatred” in similar terms in R. v. Keegstra (1990), while considering the constitutionality of the offence of wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group in section 319 of the Criminal Code. The definition would focus on vilification and detestation, and it would also clarify what does not constitute hatred. The proposed amendment would thus codify a definition settled in the leading jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada.”

It doesn’t seem to be as harsh as the UK. While I haven’t looked at the exact language of their laws, Canada’s seems to imply that its changes apply to extreme situations and not simple jokes, expressions of dislike or content deemed ‘offensive.’

“The definition of hate speech is limited to content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. The Bill would clarify that hate speech does not include expression of mere dislike or disdain nor expression that merely discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. Private communications would be excluded. The Bill targets only an extreme and marginal type of expression and leaves untouched almost the entirety of political and other discourse.”

There are some in society that mislabel concern and criticism as ‘hate,’ as seen with those critical of things like gender ideology. Such a mislabeling is very unhealthy for society, as skepticism and critical thinking habits naturally lead people to question the validity of what may challenge their worldview. There are many teachings being promoted today, even in schools, that are very challenging to common and traditional world views, and it seems that the criticism they are due is not being received. There has been speculation, even, that credible research that criticizes things like homosexuality have been unjustly discredited.

Open and free debate is a foundational principle in Western society, yet recently we have seen the ugly side of those who take their disagreement to extreme measures, assassinating someone who invited opposing opinions—a highly educated man (not formerly, but through his own practice of autodidacticism) now lost because of such a sick mindset. Addressing dissenting opinions should not be handled through censorship and murder, but through the discourse of logical reasoning that led to a conviction of belief.

Though I am happy they are taking measures to protect people from unjust discrimination, harassment and potential violence, my prayer is that the Liberal Party members and supporters of Canada recognize what the UK got wrong, and do not go down the slippery slope of censoring and punishing those who are rightfully critical to what challenges their beliefs and convictions. Doing so seems to be the very manifestation of fascism.

---

In Finland, this issue is being played out through the story of Päivi Räsänen and an organization called CitizenGo who recently sent out an email about her:

Her journey is a testament to the impact YOU can have when we stand together to defend our values and freedoms.

Päivi Räsänen, a member of the Finnish Parliament since 1995, former leader of the Christian Democrats, and Finland’s Minister of the Interior from 2011 to 2015, has been a staunch advocate for freedom of speech and religion.

A career worthy of praise, right? However, her commitment to these principles led her to face severe persecution.

In 2019, Päivi raised questions on Twitter (now X) about her church’s endorsement of the LGBT event “Pride 2019,” sharing Bible verses from Romans 1:24-27. This act sparked a series of investigations, including scrutiny of a church leaflet she authored nearly two decades earlier, discussing biblical views on marriage and sexuality.

CitizenGO stepped up in 2021 to support Päivi in her fight. We demanded an immediate end to the three “hate speech” criminal charges and our team was present in Helsinki during her trial.

We gathered more than 350,000 signatures from people worldwide to support Päivi, which were personally delivered to her and the Prosecutor General of Finland. We have been with her every step of the process, organizing demonstrations, vigils, and petitions.

In 2023, Päivi shared a heartfelt message with our CitizenGO members: “I’m so grateful, so thankful for this support. Thank you, CitizenGO.”

The legal ordeal for Päivi has lasted five years and is still ongoing.

Despite her unwavering faith and multiple court victories, Päivi continues to face legal challenges. After two acquittals, longtime Finnish Parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen will be dragged before the court for the third time for publicly stating Biblical beliefs on marriage and sexuality—this time, at the Finnish Supreme Court.