Our world today is becoming increasingly sickened by religious extremism. Islamic extremism seems to be taking the brunt of the criticism right now. But, if you look closer, it seems that there is another religion, especially in western society, that people are becoming sickened by: Christianity. The word “extremism” is a very subjective word. To the non-believer any practice that does not conform to his or her own lifestyle is extreme. Perhaps, you are a Christian who doesn’t eat unclean meat, and you are having dinner with some old friends from high school. And they all think you are “extreme” for not ordering shrimp like they do. Is there legitimate extremism in the Christian Church? Absolutely. But, many times extremism and conviction are often confused because of the perspective of the non-believer.

In recent years, Christians have been unfairly targeted because of their convictions, all under the governmental banner of hate crime legislation. There have been some disturbing cases that tend to give us an idea of how those who stand for Jesus at the end of time will be treated. Let me tell you about a few people who were persecuted for their convictions.

Diane Haskett is a former mayor of London, Ontario. In 1997, she was fined $10,000 for refusing to proclaim Gay Pride Day. Scott Brockie, in 2001, was fined $5,000 because he refused to print homosexual-based stationary for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives. In 2002, Hugh Owens of Saskatchewan was ordered to pay $1,500 to three homosexual activists for publishing an ad in the newspaper in 1997 quoting Bible Scriptures about homosexuality. In 2008, Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, two American preachers sharing their faith in England, got into some hot water. What was their crime? Sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in a predominately Muslim neighborhood.
 

Let me tell you about a courageous man that has articulated the fallacies of these so called “hate crimes” in such a way that leaves no doubt to their utter lunacy. In January 2008, Ezra Levant, a practicing attorney and publisher, was charged with a hate crime by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal. He is defending himself against charges brought against him by Islamic activists who have protested the publication of a controversial Danish political cartoon about Mohammed for news purposes in the Western Standard in 2006. In his opening statement before the tribunal Levant said the following:

My name is Ezra Levant. Before this government interrogation begins, I will make a statement. When the Western Standard magazine printed the Danish cartoons of Mohammed two years ago, I was the publisher. It was the proudest moment of my public life. I would do it again today. In fact, I did do it again today. Though the Western Standard, sadly, no longer publishes a print edition, I posted the cartoons this morning on my website, www.ezralevant.com.

I am here at this government interrogation under protest. It is my position that the government has no legal or moral authority to interrogate me or anyone else for publishing these words and pictures. That is a violation of my ancient and inalienable freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and in this case, religious freedom and the separation of mosque and state. It is especially perverted that a bureaucracy calling itself the Alberta Human Rights Commission would be the government agency violating my human rights. So I will now call those bureaucrats “the commission” or “the hrc”, since to call the commission a “human rights commission” is to destroy the meaning of those words.

I believe that this commission has no proper authority over me. The commission was meant as a low-level, quasi-judicial body to arbitrate squabbles about housing, employment and other matters, where a complainant felt that their race or sex was the reason they were discriminated against. The commission was meant to deal with deeds, not words or ideas. Now the commission, which is funded by a secular government, from the pockets of taxpayers of all backgrounds, is taking it upon itself to be an enforcer of the views of radical Islam. So much for the separation of mosque and state.

I have read the past few years’ worth of decisions from this commission, and it is clear that it has become a dump for the junk that gets rejected from the real legal system. I read one case where a male hair salon student complained that he was called a “loser” by the girls in the class. The commission actually had a hearing about this. Another case was a kitchen manager with Hepatitis-C, who complained that it was against her rights to be fired. The commission actually agreed with her, and forced the restaurant to pay her $4,900. In other words, the commission is a joke – it’s the Alberta equivalent of a U.S. television pseudo-court like Judge Judy – except that Judge Judy actually was a judge, whereas none of the commission’s panellists are judges, and some aren’t even lawyers. And, unlike the commission, Judge Judy believes in freedom of speech.

 It’s bad enough that this sick joke is being wreaked on hair salons and restaurants. But it’s even worse now that the commissions are attacking free speech. That’s my first point: the commissions have leapt out of the small cage they were confined to, and are now attacking our fundamental freedoms. As Alan Borovoy, Canada’s leading civil libertarian, a man who helped form these commissions in the 60’s and 70’s, wrote, in specific reference to our magazine, being a censor is, quote, “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons.” Unquote. Since the commission is so obviously out of control, he said quote “It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation.”
 The commission has no legal authority to act as censor. It is not in their statutory authority. They’re just making it up – even Alan Borovoy says so.

 But even if the commissions had some statutory fig leaf for their attempts at political and religious censorship, it would still be unlawful and unconstitutional.

 We have a heritage of free speech that we inherited from Great Britain that goes back to the year 1215 and the Magna Carta. We have a heritage of eight hundred years of British common law protection for speech, augmented by 250 years of common law in Canada.

That common law has been restated in various fundamental documents, especially since the Second World War.
In 1948, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a party, declared that, quote:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

 The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights guaranteed 1) Human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,...
(c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and association; and
(f) freedom of the press.
 In 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.
 
Those were even called “fundamental freedoms” – to give them extra importance.
For a government bureaucrat to call any publisher or anyone else to an interrogation to be quizzed about his political or religious expression is a violation of 800 years of common law, a Universal Declaration of Rights, a Bill of Rights and a Charter of Rights. This commission is applying Saudi values, not Canadian values.ⁱ

Mr. Levant’s points are valid and piercing. The original intent for these tribunals was to settle petty issues, but now they have evolved into an entirely different animal—to legislate what you can say and what you cannot say. But, you might ask, what does this have to do with you and me, and our lofty goal of preaching the Gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people?

Friends, we are headed for a total gag on the Three Angels’ Messages. Soon it will be illegal to speak openly about the identity of the little horn power of Daniel 7, the true Sabbath day of Creation, and the fact that Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life. We have been warned time and time again in the Bible and in the Spirit of Prophecy that times will get harder, and so these recent developments should not be a surprise to us. Even in many church denominations, an overly apologetic attitude must of necessity precede any reference to sin and sinners. Friends, Jesus is coming soon and He wants us to know of the developments just on the horizon so that we can be prepared for them. May God give each of us the love of Christ so that we can tell it straight and still be tactful and loving. Let us hold on to the words of Peter and the other apostles, “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

 

---

 

i http://www.ezralevant.com/2008/01/kangaroo-court.html