Why? Canada is in the midst of a national debate over same-sex marriage. And the Catholic Prime Minister Paul Martin, who calls himself a strong Roman Catholic, has vowed to sign pending same-sex marriage legislation which, combined with the Canadian hate crimes laws of 2003, threatens to strike at the very heart of Canada's religious liberty.

An openly-gay member of the Canadian Parliament, Real Menard, recently showed open contempt for Ottawa's Archbishop Marcel Gervais when he testified on same-sex marriage. Menard accused him of having a stone age morality, adding that the notion of marriage being linked to the raising of children is "from the time of the Flintstones."

Church officials are concerned that they will be vulnerable to lawsuits when priests refuse to marry homosexuals. There's already been a lawsuit against the Knights of Columbus in British Columbia in which a lesbian couple accused the Knights of discrimination because the local KOC chapter refused to rent them a hall for their wedding reception.

Indeed, several weeks ago Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said that he cannot guarantee full protection to religious organizations that refuse to marry homosexuals.

Some gay activists in Canada are promoting the idea that the Catholic Church should lose its tax-exempt status.

You don't have to commit an act of violence in Canada to be guilty of a hate crime. You only have to be guilty of publicly inciting hatred (Section 319). The law states further that if you make statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace, you can be arrested.

Take the case of Bill Whatcott, a Canadian pro-life activist who heads a group called Christian Truth Activists. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal told him to stop distributing literature describing gay marriage as sodomite marriage, and he refused. Whatcott's flyers were termed "offensive" and an "affront on the basic tenets of our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co- existence", according to Steve Camp of the Edmonton police hate crimes unit.

Will this kind of legal threat to religious liberty be imported to the United States?

Maybe. New hate crimes legislation was introduced into both the House and Senate in May 2005. The legislation intends to increase the latitude of existing hate crimes laws supposedly without limiting expressions of belief by people of faith.

The 1968 U.S. hate crimes laws cover only acts of violence, unlike Canada's inciting of hatred against specific groups. The new bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2005 (H.R. 2662), introduced by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) in the Senate and Rep John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) in the House, adds sexual orientation, gender and disability to the categories covered under the existing law.

The House version, however, adds yet another category, "gender identity," making it the first time "trans-gendered" persons have been recognized by name in federal legislation.

Ninety-six members of the House have co-sponsored the bill (91 Democrats and 5 Republicans). In the Senate, 43 senators are sponsoring it (38 Democrats and 5 Republicans).

Sen. Kennedy has been trying to expand hate crimes laws for over a decade. Thus far, religious groups have succeeded in rallying Congress to defeat these potential threats to expressions of religious faith. But this new bill claims to have solved the problem. It has even received the good housekeeping seal of approval from the ACLU. "This carefully crafted measure shows that you can prosecute hate crimes without attacking freedom of expression," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU legislative counsel.

The following subsection is supposed to assuage all fears that expanded hate crimes laws will be used against Christians and other people of faith who oppose such measures as same-sex marriage.

Evidence of expression or association of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules of evidence governing the impeachment of a witness.

In other words, whatever a defendant has said, or whatever groups he has belonged to, cannot be presented as evidence in a trial. This is supposed to protect not only his freedom of speech but also the people and groups he has associated with. Presumably, the Catholic Church, the Catechism, the Bible, and the local parish priest are thereby saved from being dragged into the hate crimes trial of a deranged Catholic who violently assaults a homosexual.

But notice the all-important qualification: Unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense then both expression and association can be brought to bear on the case of a hate crime. Judges will decide what evidence is relevant.

Given the climate of judicial activism, it will take more than the support of the ACLU or the ADL to convince most people that this bill is not a step in the wrong direction. All it would take is a judge deciding that Catholic teaching on homosexuality is necessarily relevant as evidence in the trial of any practicing Catholic who commits a hate crime. The precedent would be set until overturned or confirmed on appeal.

If you doubt that could happen just recall the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage. The Court found that barring homosexuals from marriage was an example of irrational bias.

Also consider the two Supreme Court decisions of today regarding the display of the Ten Commandments. The court ruled that displaying the Ten Commandments inside a courthouse must be examined on a case by case basis to determine if the display is neutral and doesn't overemphasize the religious nature of the Ten Commandments.

The court also ruled, in a separate case, that the Ten Commandments could be displayed outside at the Texas state capitol.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent said the ruling was not grounded in a "consistently applied principle," and challenged the majority to consider "what distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority...." Exactly!

What will the ACLU do with this opinion? The same ACLU that recommends the new hate crimes legislation. Expect a rash of lawsuits during the Christmas season over displays of the Crèche. This kind of decision could provide a federal precedent for the kind of actions now being prosecuted in Canada's Human Rights Tribunals and its hate crimes units.

The example of Canada should warn us that further hate crimes legislation, no matter how deftly worded, is a bad idea.

For the latest Catholic news, the Window recommends the Catholic News Agency. Click here to visit their site.

Please add us to your address book so that The Window will always arrive in your in-box not your bulk or junk e-mail folder.