Fact Checking for the Lord
What with people wanting to put minority rights up to majority vote, we were doing some light R-71-related reading the other day and stumbled upon the Washington Values (sic) Alliance website, on whose logo (modified, on right, for purposes of commentary and mockery) we could spend pages doing a semiotic analysis. There we found "8 Good [sic] Reasons To Defeat Marriage Equality Bills." Here's one of the bullet points that caught our attention:
(6) In a few short months after legalizing same-sex "marriage" in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison! Say the wrong thing; go to jail. The same will happen here in Washington.
No, we always knew Canada was a more civil and just society socialized menace, but could such a heavy-handed reaction be true? Jail...just for stating public opinion or innocently saying the wrong thing? Seems strange. But, surely, the "values alliance" wouldn't engage in fear tactics and lies.
Some thorough scholarly research gave us a better idea of the law's actual wording.Yes, yes, if simply advocating or promoting a little genocide—a childish prank, really!—equates to mere "public statements" or "say[ing] the wrong thing," then we stand with you, WAVA, in your continued commitment to defending the promotion of genocide.
On the other hand, it was fascinating to see that gays were not the only "special interest group" seeking "special rights" for their agenda. This was not a new law; it merely amended an existing law—one that already outlawed hate propaganda against "color, race, religion, or ethnic origin." Religion...convenient, no? We bet few people whined about the supposed loss of free speech when that original language, protecting religion, hit the books.
Furthermore, according to section 319(1)(b): No person shall be convicted of an offence...(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. A brilliant coup! For it still allows hateful propaganda to be disseminated if it masquerades as religious discourse! Religioustolerance.org has a decent analysis of the bill on their site. It's a real shame that Canadian lawmakers didn't expand that sentence: "...base on a belief in or conveniently literal mistranslations of a religious text."
We are only left wondering: when did Prop 8-style shoddy logic migrate up here? Perhaps what's needed is a law...against Stupid Propaganda. We also wonder what else the Washington Values Alliance is lying about.
