Times change but some things don't
NOTE: I considered having AI clean up this post as it got a little jumbled, might offend some people and generally might get picked apart. However, I didn't really like the sanitized feel it gave. So you get the original unedited version. Kind of fitting when responding to a Hive Learners prompt about should people be cancelled, or otherwise harmed because of viewpoints they hold :)
A year or two ago I had a discussion with some other people on HIVE about the Qur'an and the Bible. The basics of the discussion were that the Bible had changed over time from its original form and that the Qur'an was identical to its original form. It was an interesting discussion from my viewpoint because one had indeed not changed since it was written. The other was written in dead languages and the current version is in a version readable by modern people in languages different than the original text.
In the end we had a nice discourse on the holy works of a different faith and agreed that each held their faith in high regard. Christians have been following their Bible for millennia and Muslims for almost as long. However, some of the things written in those holy books no longer fits with modern sensibilities.
Indeed, in Canada both books could be considered Hate Speech under a new rewording or an older statute. Bill C-9 got a rework and I'm torn on what to think.
Protecting Minorities
In Canada there are laws that protect people from discriminated against based on a variety of reasons. From the actual legal documents the "identifiable groups" can be based on :
......Criminal Code as a group distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.Source: Justice Canada
So no discriminating based on any of those criteria. However, some literature speaks out against certain sexual behavior and orientation. That makes it hate literature. However, up until very recently certain books were excluded from the law.
Indeed, people who were of various faiths that spoke out against certain practices would have their beliefs upheld by this portion of the original law:
"“(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) […] (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.”"
In effect: The Bible I read which says "Thou shalt not kill" could be considered a hate crime if it is used to oppose MAID: Medical Assistance in Dying. Indeed many of the things listed in the Bible (and likely other holy texts) which prohibit or denounce current modern behavior could be considered hate crimes if they are taught in places of worship.
Great
The legislation which says everyone is allowed to worship freely also says....as long as doesn't go against modern sensibilities.
There needs to be a better balance
Plainly put... I don't believe in anyone being discriminated against. However, I also dislike the thought that a book I have been using as my guide for most of my life is being throwing into the "hate literature" pile.
How should the legislation be worded? I honestly don't know but I think a little common sense would go a long way. Allowing people to continue in a faith that has been going on for centuries seems to be a fair practice to continue. Striving to allow persecuted people to live without fear also seems like fair practice. But how do we balance the old and the new?
Laws regulating everything isn't the right answer if you ask me.
For anyone who has heard Bible stores there is a story of the "Good Samaritan". If you don't know the story the quick version is this:
- A man is beaten up and left for dead.
- A holy man (priest) sees him and moves to the other side of the road, leaving him.
- A church worker (levite) sees him and keeps on walking
- A Samaritan (despised minority) sees the man and cares for him.
Here is something I always find interesting.
The two men who walked on by...were just following the law. The law said not to touch dead people or you would be unclean. Not actually a bad law as dead people spread disease.
But sometimes a reasonable law leads to unreasonable consequences. In the story of the Good Samaritan a reasonable law followed without compassion and common sense led to a bad outcome.
Paying a modern price for old views
The Hive Learners asked if people should be held responsible for past posts. It asked if bad people and bad old viewpoints should make a current good person get cancelled, lose contracts, or otherwise face persecution. I wanted to turn that around.
When something has been viewed as "Good" by millions for centuries is now seen as bad by changing priorities or sensibilities should it be condemned, cancelled, or otherwise face persecution? How about those who have spent their lifetime adhering to that faith? Should be they forced to give up their viewpoints to conform the new norm?
On the one side I believe that people should be judged on who they are now. If they have changed their viewpoints and become better people why hold them responsible for viewpoints they no longer hold??
But if people are based on who they are now vs who they were? Then by extension I should be judged on how my current beliefs look in the current world even if they are based on what was previously viewed as proper.
By my own logic? I'm wrong by continuing to be who I was. They are right because they changed.
Weird how logic comes back to bite me sometimes.
The Bible hasn't changed and neither shall I
The laws may change and my viewpoints may be considered old fashioned and wrong. That does make me sad. However, I will not change simply because my Bible has fallen out of favor. I'll still believe in compassion and doing right to others. I'll still believe in helping my neighbor and following a code that I believe leads to a better world. I will still fight against hate speech and bigotry wherever I see it... even if the current laws say that the book I believe in is hate speech itself.
Of course I might be missing something and I would love to hear other opinions but that's my take on something happening in Canada.