While Parliament is presuming to ban speech it doesn't like, maybe it should also consider making it a criminal offence to call people "homophobes" if they disagree with the direction their legislators are taking. Fair's fair, after all.

In a 141-110 vote this week, Parliament gave its assent to adding the term "sexual orientation" to Section 318(4) of the Criminal Code, making gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, and whomever else this vague term may refer to, among the identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda. If affirmed by the Senate, those found guilty of this offence will face as much as five years behind bars.

[. . . .]

Section 319 is also wrong-headed. Subsection 1, makes it a crime to publicly incite hatred where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. That is reasonable: The state should prosecute those who use hateful speech to incite others to riot, kill, assault or otherwise harm another person or group. But subsection 2 makes it a crime just to speak ill of another. It makes criminals of "every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group."

In the case of sexual orientation, this is an invitation to run roughshod over religious freedom.

Robinson argues that won't happen because there is a "religious belief" exemption in the Criminal Code and protection of religious rights in the charter. But that didn't help Hugh Owens, a Saskatchewan resident who ran an ad in a local newspaper with references to scripture (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), alongside an image of two male figures holding hands, with a red circle and slash on top of them.

His case went to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and then its Court of Queen's Bench. In December, Justice J. Barclay upheld the decision against Owens, and said, "When the use of the circle and the slash is combined with passages of the Bible, it exposes homosexuals to detestation, vilification and disgrace."

Were this case to be tried today with the weight of the Criminal Code behind it, instead of facing a $1,500 fine, Owens might be doing time.

Our society holds dear the separation of church and state so that the state-imposed doctrine of tolerance will not be used to harass those who hold beliefs that rest on a higher authority.

Experience suggests the courts cannot be trusted to interpret the addition of sexual orientation to this section of the Criminal Code with the moderation that Parliament intends. Before the courts are given licence to destroy the churches and imprison its preachers, Parliament must revisit this decision. Parliamentarians should pare down the criminal law to eliminate the special status for certain identifiable groups, and limit the criminal sanction strictly to those who incite others to violence.

No one should live in fear of attack by an angry mob. A mob driven by hate is a great threat to public security. However, a mob driven by political correctness is an even greater threat to personal liberty.