At first it seems paradoxical to believe indifference leads to intolerance. How can apathy lead to a purposeful spite? It can, if that agnostic coldness is only superficial and instead seeks to oppress. This is what parts of the West exhibit when it comes to free speech. They talk the talk but simply ignore the walk. An example is the recent debate around Canadian hate-speech laws.

The political party Bloc Quebecois recently planned to propose an elimination of the religious exemption to Canada’s hate speech laws. The current law allows for exemptions from criminal charges "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." The current exemption may seem like a nice state-issued grace. But what one considers an “opinion” or not is a dangerous slippery slope for criminal wrongdoing, particularly when debating the divine. The proposed change to the law also would define “hatred” as an “emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.” Do we really trust government to know what is stronger than disdain but just the right amount of vilification? It seems that speech laws are not always the best prosecutorial taste tests.

According to a CBC article, the proposed amendment is now in question. We hope opposing voices are being heard. The Canadian Conservative Party argues that it “lowers the legal standard for ‘hatred,’ threatening free speech and targeting legitimate expression.” Sadly, it should be of little surprise that this radical proposal originates with the Bloc Quebecois. It follows a recent plan in Quebec to eliminate public prayer. Montreal Archbishop Christian Lepine said to “forbid public prayer would be somewhat like forbidding thought itself.” That seems to be the unspoken point.

The Left attacks free speech through religion, one of its favorite bugaboos. It sees faith’s power in contrast to the state. If faith was only considered in the utilitarian sense, as a fungible idea no different than another part of a culture, perhaps a shrugged indifference would be expected. But because it is at the center of people’s souls and consciences, it is much more and progressives know it.

Faith is an animating eternal truth which defines people’s existence and their daily living. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas said it well in his opinion in Mahmoud v. Taylor when he referred to “the enduring nature of religion -- and the Constitution’s respect for it.” Canada plainly disrespects religion and by this proposal seeks to make the enduring fleeting. Not being able to speak about the very precepts of your faith would perhaps be liberalism’s crowning achievement. For example, if a Canadian in his persuasive conviction cannot quote Christ’s direction “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), then what can one say there?

The orator and lawyer Robert G. Ingersoll wrote that “The Agnostic does not simply say, ‘I do not know [if God exists].’ He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know...” It seems it is not enough to just agree to disagree in Canada. Progressives say they believe in robust free speech. But casually saying you believe in something does not make it so. Maybe that is why the Left says it so easily, because worthwhile speech ultimately means very little to them.

Alan Loncar is an attorney in Macomb County, Michigan.

Image: AT via Magic Studio