Earlier this month, I interviewed Jose Ruba, a Canadian who has struggled with same-sex attraction, for my LifeSiteNews podcast (The Van Maren Show). He detailed how Trudeau’s so-called “conversion therapy ban” would make it illegal for people like him to seek the therapy that they want to live the lives they desire, and the ugly totalitarian over-reach the legislation represents. Ruba testified before the Justice Committee to explain why the Liberal bill is dangerous along with several other Canadians with similar experiences in the hopes that parliamentarians would amend the law.
Canada’s “conversion therapy ban” is part of a wave of such laws being passed worldwide, an effort that constitutes the next step of the LGBT agenda to move from “equality” and “tolerance” to criminalizing opposition to their lifestyles and ideology. The traditional Christian position is being demonized in the mainstream press in truly vile ways, with words and religious practices being equated with violence. The BBC’s LGBT correspondent Ben Hunte, for example, lumped prayer for those with same-sex attraction into the same category as rape, stating: “While some violent practices which may be classed as conversion therapy, such as ‘corrective rape’, are already covered by existing criminal offences, many religious practices, such as ‘group prayer’, are not.”
In summary, “conversion therapy bans” are necessary because “violent practices” such as “group prayer” are not yet banned as criminal offences. Don’t think that prosecution won’t follow such laws, either. Olaf Latzel, a pastor of the Evangelical Church of Germany St. Martini in Bremen, was recently given a fine of 8,100 euros for making comments opposing homosexuality during a marriage seminar. Those who do not believe that these laws will not be used to prosecute and silence Christian speech have not been watching the LGBT agenda unfold over the past several years, and have not been listening to what our ideological opponents are saying.
One thought on “Three reasons why Canada’s so-called ‘conversion therapy ban’ would criminalize Christian speech”
Sam says:
“While some violent practices which may be classed as conversion therapy, such as ‘corrective rape’, are already covered by existing criminal offences, many religious practices, such as ‘group prayer’, are not.”
Does NOT say:
“In summary, “conversion therapy bans” are necessary because “violent practices” such as “group prayer” are not yet banned as criminal offences.”
It says two things:
1) “violent practices which may be classed as conversion therapy, such as ‘corrective rape’, are already covered by existing criminal offences”; and,
2) “many religious practices, such as ‘group prayer’, are not [covered by existing criminal offences]”
There is no conflation of religious practices and violent practices in the quoted article.
“While some violent practices which may be classed as conversion therapy, such as ‘corrective rape’, are already covered by existing criminal offences, many religious practices, such as ‘group prayer’, are not.”
Does NOT say:
“In summary, “conversion therapy bans” are necessary because “violent practices” such as “group prayer” are not yet banned as criminal offences.”
It says two things:
1) “violent practices which may be classed as conversion therapy, such as ‘corrective rape’, are already covered by existing criminal offences”; and,
2) “many religious practices, such as ‘group prayer’, are not [covered by existing criminal offences]”
There is no conflation of religious practices and violent practices in the quoted article.