Canada Borderline Bans Christianity, Outlaws Reading Aloud From Bible in Public

The Trudeau government has introduced a bill that could land Christians in prison for quoting the Bible or expressing a traditional faith-based opinion if the Canadian government deems it “promotion of hatred or antisemitism.”

Bill C-367, purported to amend the Criminal Code, will redefine the boundaries of free speech, criminalizing public Bible readings, prayers, and other expressions of Christian teachings.

This move by Trudeau’s Liberal government has been interpreted by many as an attempt to criminalize Christianity and traditional values under the pretense of combating “undefined” hate speech.

Critics argue that the Trudeau-supported bill will lead to severe penalties for those who publicly practice traditional Christian beliefs, especially regarding controversial issues such as transgenderism.

According to Rebel News, similar concerns have been raised in the past with Bill C-63, highlighting a trend towards increasing restriction of speech in Canada.

Egregious examples of anti-Christian bias in recent Canadian history include:

In 2013, the Canadian Supreme Court classified the Bible-based criticism of homosexuality as a hate crime (in connection with an otherwise really homophobic leaflet).

In 2017, a law was passed in Ontario allowing children to be separated from their families if parents refuse to “accept and encourage” their child’s rights related to their chosen LGBTQ identity

In 2021, a divorced dad, Robert Hoogland, was imprisoned after calling his biologically female minor child his “daughter” despite a court order

In 2022, Canada banned so-called conversion therapies for anyone giving advice by promoting a family model based on Christian teachings, or “which reinforces the idea that human beings are created entirely male or female from birth”

The potential for heavy fines or imprisonment for expressing traditional Christian views is a direct threat to religious freedom in Canada. The Trudeau government’s moves have raised alarm bells about the broader societal and legal implications of such legislative changes, potentially setting a precedent for other jurisdictions.

Source