By Bob Kuhn

THE BIBLE can present Christians with serious theological, relational and legal conundrums when considering the issue of 'hate' and 'love' (used 128 times and 697 times respectively, in the New International Version).

In 2001, Supreme Court of Canada justice L'Heureux-Dubˇ (in her dissenting view in B.C. College of Teachers v. Trinity Western University) said: "I am dismayed . . . The argument has been made that one can separate condemnation of the 'sexual sin' . . . from intolerance of those with homosexual or bisexual orientations. Thiss position alleges that one can love the sinner, but condemn the sin."

In 2003, Bill C-250 amended the Criminal Code of Canada to include 'sexual orientation' in the protected class under 'hate speech crimes,' in section 319. Relevant portions read: "(1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of [an offence]; and (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of [an offence]."

In 2005, Danish cartoons depicting the founder of Islam cost many lives and incited protestations across the Western world.

And in Canada, an aboriginal leader was stripped of his Order of Canada and criminally charged (but acquitted) of making anti-Semitic comments.

In recent years, 'hate speech crime' legislation has been the focus of courts and lawmakers in many countries (recently in a British House of Commons attempt to strengthen its Racial and Religious Hatred Bill).

But what is 'hate,' and how does it become a crime? Where is society headed in its quest for 'tolerance'? What does this mean for Christians? A recent case from an Australian Court of Appeal provides a backdrop to consider the questions from a Canadian legal perspective.

The Australian State of Victoria's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, section 8, states:

"A person must not, on the ground of religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, of revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons."

A person's motive is irrelevant; but public "conduct engaged in reasonably and in good faith" is exempt.

Continue article >>

In 2004, two evangelical pastors were found guilty of making and publishing statements that were "likely to incite a feeling of hatred towards Muslims"; they were ordered to publish prescribed apologies and pledge never to repeat similar offensive comments.

At the appeal of this decision it was argued that, "if one vilifies Islam, one is by necessary consequence vilifying people who hold that religious belief."

In response it was argued that, in effect, one could not then hate the religious views without hating the person who holds them. The pastors stated that this would make blasphemy illegal.

Overturning the initial decision, three justices of the Court of Appeal concluded in 83 pages of analysis that the pastors did not breach the 'hate speech' provisions. It is interesting to note what one judge stated, regarding the pastors' admonitions to love Muslims:

"I agree that these statements must be taken into account in deciding whether s.8 was breached. I should make it clear, however that I do not regard the invocation to love Muslims, while attacking their beliefs, as necessarily inconsistent with a breach of s.8.

"To do so would encourage those who incite hatred or other relevant emotion to combine egregious statements about a particular racial or religious group, with expressions of feigned concern for the targeted group.

"It cannot be overlooked that, historically, words inciting hatred or contempt of members of a racial or religious group have often been accompanied by expressions of real or assumed concern about the persons against [whom] hatred or other relevant emotion is incited."

Despite the seeming victories for freedom of expression, the future is uncertain. It would seem inevitable that 'hate speech' prosecutions will increase - some legitimately, and others to silence dissenting expression. Will political realities influence the interpretation of these laws? Will Christians be silenced or marginalized by such laws and their application? The challenge remains.

Christians are admonished to simultaneously love the sinner, but hate the sin. It is fair to say Christians have often been better at hating the sin than loving the sinner. The difficulty is that secular society is increasingly unable to distinguish between the two.

The question remains: Will it be legally or otherwise acceptable to love our neighbours, but also be free to express disapproval of sins?

Bob Kuhn is an Abbotsford lawyer.

July 2007