New book Under Siege looks at Canadian governments targeting Christians

From lawyer Don Hutchinson,

Don Hutchinson is a husband, father and grandfather who graduated from Queen’s University in Kingston and the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law a long time ago. The author of Under Siege: Religious Freedom and the Church in Canada at 150 (1867-2017), Don is a strategic thinker and planner who has been a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada since 1990. Not coincidentally, he is also a long time member and former board chair of Canada’s Christian Legal Fellowship. More.

The book is a compendium of religious freedom issues. Tellingly, Hutchinson writes,

Can you imagine the Supreme Court being the final authority on matters of religious belief and practice? How would they decide on the issue of holy communion: transubstantiation (the bread and wine of communion become the actual body and blood of Christ) vs. consubstantiation (the bread and wine co-exist with the body and blood of Christ in communion) vs. representation (the bread and wine represent the body and blood of Christ in communion) vs. using grape juice instead of wine vs. those Christians who practise a love feast with a full meal instead of just bread and wine/juice vs. those who do not practise sacramental communion in any manner? (P. 106)

Well, um, yes. We can imagine that. Parliament is setting out on that road this very day, slow but sure, with Bill M103.

The outcome will prove an excellent job opportunity for graduating, otherwise unemployable, campus social justice warriors.

Hutchinson will be speaking in Ottawa Saturday, April 1, 3:00 pm, at Greenbelt Baptist Church, 839 Shefford Road

Reality check: It’s an astonishing fact that the Canadian government is about to pass laws paving the way for a crackdown on “Islamophobia.” Essentially that amounts to criminalizing the repudiation of a religious belief.

Throngs of Christian airheads who claim to believe in freedom of religion voted Liberal. They, at least, deserve all this. What’s annoying is that many will treat the results as a persecution sent by God and compare themselves to genuinely persecuted ancestors. That’s shameful. Their plight will be the result of making churches into therapy groups and entertainment complexes full of people who just want to be liked and do not want to know what is happening.

As Anthony Furey explains, what rejecting Islamophobia really means:

A quarter of the countries in the world have some form of anti-blasphemy and apostasy laws, many of which are fuelled by a broad definition of Islamophobia. For too many of their citizens, opposing Islamophobia means locking up contrarian bloggers or cartoonists who draw the prophet. This is what we’re at risk of normalizing.

The motion was previously slated for second reading in April but is now set to appear in the House of Commons on Tuesday. The scheduling change means the fallout from M-103 will be drowned out by the federal budget, which will be tabled on Wednesday. More.

The Cool, who enjoy mocking Christians (and circumscribing their rights, cf Trinity Western), will soon discover how different mocking Islam will be. But they’ll accept that, of course, so long as they are allowed to continue to assault their preferred, easier targets. They have little to lose at first.

See also: Anti-Islamophobia legislation is just the beginning, of course.

and

Puzzled by leftists and Islamists working together?

Share