Kill The Christian.
You are the one we despise
Day in day out your words compromise lies
I will love watching you die
Soon it will be and by your own demise
Buried in hypocrisy
Lacerate your faith in God
Morally diseased
On the cross of Calvary your body bashed defeated stabbed
Blessing as you hate
Loyal to your enemies
Monetary faith
As him you will pay for the lies of your prophecy
Satan wants you dead
Kill the Christian, kill the Christian
Kill the Christian, kill the Christian
Kill the Christian, kill the Christian, kill the Christian
Armies of darkness unite
Destroy their temples and churches with fire
Where in this world will you hide
Sentenced to death, the anointment of Christ
In due time your path leads to me
Put you out of your misery
The death of prediction
Kill the Christian
Kill the Christian, dead!
Feel free to republish this at will, because, as we all know, no Christian has ever been attacked, killed, or prosecuted on the basis of their faith.
h/t
FIRE THEM ALL!!!!
Repost from Ezra
Ezra, that kind of rubbish is almost as good as Shawn Murphy MP for PEI suggesting the former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney should be hung, while carefully shielded by House of Commons immunity.
Most other people would have called this treason. Maybe the bozos who are propagating this stuff might want to study this section of the Criminal Code.
Criminal Code
PART XIII: ATTEMPTS — CONSPIRACIES — ACCESSORIES
Counselling offence that is not committed
464. Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who counsel other persons to commit offences, namely,
(a) every one who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment to which a person who attempts to commit that offence is liable; and
(b) every one who counsels another person to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 464; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 60.
Well if the brilliant people down at the AHRC don’t recognize what is wrong with the lyrics then I will just have to keep my 0.45 calibre muzzle loader in the closet, and an infantry style bayonet/dagger under my pillow! I guess the physics degree with some interest in ‘shock waves’ may just come in handy.
I believe the ‘defence of necessity’ is still available in Canada per Perka v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232
The essential criteria for the operation of the defence is the moral involuntariness of the wrongful action measured on the basis of society’s expectation of appropriate and normal resistance to pressure. The defence only applies in circumstances of imminent risk where the action was taken to avoid a direct and immediate peril.
I suppose admonitions to “Kill the Christian, dead!” would be satisfactory in a court of law.
These people are complete and utter whack jobs on the government dime.
Pray tell Comrade Andreachuk what other groups of people is it safe to suggest that we kill?
Comrade Andreachuk should be relieved of her duties and be required to read the Gulag Archipelago.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
yawn. traffic drops and mcmillan goes for the old stand bys.
Aren’t these published lyrics also an act defined as a ‘Hate Crime’ in Sections 318 and 319 of our Criminal Code?
They aren’t private communication; they are public; the fact that they may be purchased only by a small number is irrelevant.
Section 318 refers to an act of ‘advocating genocide’, which means ‘supporting or arguing for killing members of an identifiable group’ distinguished by their race, colour, religion, ethnicity. Well, these two ‘songs’ identify the target groups as Christian and white. The intention or motivation is to kill members of these groups: Christian, white.
Section 319-1, is the public incitement of hatred, which refers to statements in a public place that incite hatred against an identifiable group in ‘such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace’.
The communication of these statements includes the telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means. This includes recorded statements. I think a published music disc fits quite well into these criteria.
Therefore, this can be charged as a hate crime. It’s not a matter for the corrupt HRCs but for the criminal courts.
And yawn, Davidson continues to wallow in left-tard hypocrisy like a pig.
So only certain chosen groups warrant a valid complaint against human rights violations, eh Davidson? You people are beyond sick.
We Chritians should wear all this hate against us as a badge of honour. After all in the final analysis we will all be in heaven and the rest will all be in hell. We should pity them all….
Hey Jeffie, how’d that Kraft Dinner event work out for ya at Yonge & Dundas?
Loser.
Yes, Jeff is definitely on to something.
I don’t get it, isn’t this what all of you wanted?
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.
St John
Keep slaying them Kate. Bring us the truth is important to us backwards people. We can see past the idiots who want to ignore, slither and accommodate people of such crap. “FIRE EVERY DAMN ONE OF THEM”.
Oh. Lighten up pipples.This is just the jihadist version of Jingle Bells. Nothing new to see here in multi-culti Canuckistan. Move along.
Kate says “Yes, Jeff is definitely on to something.” Did you mean “Jeff is definitely ON something”?
Robert, it is the duplicity and hypocrisy of HRC positions that is the issue here. I agree that these no-talent morons shouldn’t be hauled before the HRC non-court; nor should Steve Boisson have been either.
I happen to disagree with both their approaches, but the double standard and juvenile rationlization of HRCs is way beyond the pale. I object to tax dollars being used as a bully pulpit to target some, and shelter others, strictly based on their faith or colour of their skin.
Robert, how do you explain why no non-Christian has been slapped back by HRCs, other than their approach that it’s impossible for Christian to be victim of hate crime, as Ms Andreachuck’s position makes crystal clear?
touche Kate.
we all take “parts” of the summer off, and spend november – december putting on a winter coat made up of turkey dinner calories.
“if you hate the right people, the HRC will pat you on the back”
good summation.
Two Jesuits murdered in Moscow:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805499.htm
Happy All Saints Day.
The eventual triumph of good over evil is the promise that we Christians celebrate today.
We expect this hatred by those dark powers who fear the enlightened message that each individual has free will and has the power within himself to make his own choices.
It’s an eternal struggle that has taken on a particularly vicious form today, where our educators are something different than our enlighteners.
Those particular verses threatens me in no way. It makes my faith that much stronger.
Curious how the culture has changed since Easy Rider’s famous passage by Jack Nicholson, who said ‘it is our freedom that they hate.’
The more vindictive the attacks, the more I understand that it is our freedom that they hate.
Rube-ert said: “I don’t get it, isn’t this what all of you wanted?”
No rube, this is what we -expected-. What we all want is for these HRC types to be unemployed.
Y’unnerstand the difference now?
Robert, how do you explain why no non-Christian has been slapped back by HRCs
How do you know that? Did you or someone else ask everyone what their religion is or are you just assuming that all those neo-nazis are Christian.
Aside from that, Shamrock, you still haven’t explained why everyone here isn’t happy that free speech won another victory. The way some of you are acting it looks like you’d be happier if the HRC had ruled the other way. It even looks like Edwina is beside herself shrieking that the case should be prosecuted under Canada’s hate speech laws.
What we all want is for these HRC types to be unemployed.
=================================================
that and maybe held accountable for past DISCRIMINATION at their hands
=================================================
lefties??
ya all understand the meaning of EQUALITY????
Robert McClelland – the first rule of blog etiquette is the courtesy of using only the individual’s blog name. You never move out of this privacy. You’ve shown a lack of courtesy. I’m surprised that someone of your political bent (NDP, Liberal) would behave in such a manner.
The second, is not a rule of the blog but of facticity and logic. That rule is: stick to the facts. Please provide proof of my ‘shrieking’. Thankyou.
Now, with reference to the validity of the music being described as Either Free Speech OR an aspect of a Hate Crime, I again, reject that it is free speech.
You see, my understanding of free speech is that its opinions, as expressed freely, are open to debate, dissent, discussion. A dogmatic expression from the pulpit, so to speak, is not free speech. It’s dogma.
And I refer you, Robert McClelland, to Sections 318 and 319 of our Criminal Code. It’s pretty specific as to the definition of Hate Speech. The phrase ‘advocating genocide’is defined as supporting or arguing for the killing of members of an identifiable group, identified by race, religion, ethnicity.
Section 319 refers to the public communication of this agenda.
It seems to me to be fairly simple. Could you explain to me why this group should not be prosecuted for advocating killing members of an identifiable group, merely because they are members of that group? Oh, and if you consider it to be ‘free speech’, I’d appreciate your analysis of why it is that, and how hate speech, as defined in Sections 318, 319, wouldn’t be ‘free speech’. Thankyou.
There has to be a crime for there to be a hate crime.
You want them charged with blasphemy?
As “comrade” Andreachuk writes …
“while the content and tone of the communications appear on the face of them to be discriminatory, there is very little vulnerability of the target group.”
If you read the lyrics the target “group” is Christ. Been there, done that.
Neither you nor Levant are serious about this, as evidenced by a total lack of curiosity about the Florida Death Metal band who authored this song —
+
“Deicide has received considerable controversy relating to their albums and lyrics, which include vehement anti-Christian themes. This was reinforced by frontman Glen Benton branding an inverted cross into his forehead. Drummer Asheim of Deicide said “The whole point of Satanic music is to blaspheme against the church”, “I don’t believe in or worship a devil. Life is short enough without having to waste it doing this whole organised praying, hoping, wishing-type thing on some superior being”.[13]
[…]
Santolla stated he is a Catholic and this has received a small amount of shock and ridicule from some metal fans. In spite of this, Deicide’s eighth studio album The Stench of Redemption album received rave reviews, and is one of their biggest sellers yet.”
+
The only people who could be made to feel discriminated against are those who really believe in a personal Satan — the types who go into hiding on Halloween and are frightened by the Harry Potter subculture. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7703990.stm
As Deicide’s drummers says “life is short enough”
Perhaps you could start a rumour with this —
Shortly after, the guitar roles were then filled by […] Vital Remains guitarist Dave Suzuki.
Following the tour, Suzuki was replaced by Ralph Santolla, formerly of Death, Iced Earth and Sebastian Bach.
http://www.antichrist.net/james/dethmetl.html
Could you explain to me why this group should not be prosecuted for advocating killing members of an identifiable group
Because Music World, the defendant in this case, didn’t write the lyrics in question. Charging them under Canada’s hate speech laws would open up a nasty can of worms (ie. do we then charge bookstores for selling Mein Kampf).
Why not, Robert? Macleans was charged for republishing portions of America Alone.
Robert McClelland – I don’t think your answer makes much sense.
I agree that ‘Music World’ the store shouldn’t be prosecuted but the band that wrote or sang the ‘song’ ought to be. Music World is not a group; the band is the group to which I refered in all my posts.
Now, can we move out of the realm of diversions, and get to the real issue – which is whether or not this type of ‘speech’ is free or hate. Your first post declared it as ‘free speech’.
Again, I ask you, Robert McClelland, why you feel this group should not be prosecuted under the Criminal Code for hate speech, advocating the killing of a defined group and why you define it as within the realm of ‘free speech’.
Macleans was charged for republishing portions of America Alone.
When was Macleans charged under Canada’s hate speech laws? Do try to keep up, Kate. And for the record, I thought that complaint was as frivolous as I think this one was.
but the band that wrote or sang the ‘song’ ought to be.
They’re an American band. As far as I know, Canada’s hate speech laws do not apply to people outside of Canada. As for whether or not it constitutes hate speech, I don’t think it does. The song does not say “Kill the Christians”, therefore I think the previous commenter, dizzy, has it right when they say the lyrics concern only one, long dead, Christian; Christ. I also think dizzy has it right that prosecuting this group would amount to prosecuting them for blasphemy.
Hey rube-ert, that Mark Steyn guy the HRC’s went after? He lives in AMERICA. You know, like the clowns who wrote the lyrics to the song?
What you’re fishing for is for somebody here to say these people should be charged for slandering Christianity while Christians like Father whatisface should get a free pass when they go after gays. That’s what you’d like to pretend SDA is all about, and what guys like The Phantom want.
Too bad so sad rube-ert, that it just ain’t so. There shouldn’t -be- a Human Rights Commission. It shouldn’t exist. Neither should the “hate speech” laws. Government should never EVER have the power to go after anybody for something they said, printed, recorded, carved, wrote in smoke, whatever.
Are you getting this, rube-ert? This kind of obtuse behavior is what gives you a bad name, y’know.
Mcleans was investigates, as was Stein. Sure. Neither of them were convicted though. Same thing here – the band was investigated and the case was dropped.
I don’t like the double-standard (the treatment of the revd. vs the treatment of the band), and I think the HRCs should be disbanded entirely, but don’t go off the deep-end on this one or you’ll just end up looking silly.
As for Coren’s article … if there was a point in it, I missed it. What was he trying to say? That complaining about Christian verses being read in public schools isn’t “brave”? Who cares? What’s it got to do with bravery? Coren’s articles are often insightful, but when he talks about religion he comes off as a complete twit.
Robert M. is quite wrong when he says, ” . . . the lyrics concern only one, long dead, Christian; [sic x 2] Christ”.
What DO they teach these kids today?
There were NO Christians when Christ lived. He was JEW, for Pete’s sake.
Smarten up, Robert. (That’s a rhetorical imperitave.)
“Could you explain to me why this group should not be prosecuted for advocating killing members of an identifiable group”
Because Music World, the defendant in this case, didn’t write the lyrics in question.
Charging them under Canada’s hate speech laws would open up a nasty can of worms (ie. do we then charge bookstores for selling Mein Kampf).
Posted by: Robert McClelland
Why not, Robert? Macleans was charged for republishing portions of America Alone.
Posted by: Kate
Maclean’s offered us an excerpt from one of their [former?] columnists. It wasn’t a news piece — they are in effect saying that this meets the quality standards of their august magazine. [And it probably does]
Book & record stores would be rare indeed if they were required to stand behind everything on their shelves in the same way.
That’s problably why there are so few Christian book stores.
Regarding Robert’s example, I can buy Mein Kampf from my local private Jewish-owned bookstore — it doesn’t have a “Staff Recommends” card, but it’s there.
Only Chapters has removed theirs.
The Phantom is absolutely correct.
There must be no government imposed restriction on speech, period.
Yes, frivolous indeed Robert M., just as it would be to put out a CD with a rap to “F*** the Jooooos”.
Lucy might have a problem with such a CD, and would probably win a pantload of our cash by hauling the retailer before the Kangaroo Kourts of Kanada.
These HRC hypocrits appear to be taking self-destruct lessons from the MSM.
Robert McClelland – the song DOES say to kill Christians.
Read the words, where it says, ‘Kill the Christian’ and I don’t think you can justify this term as meaning ONLY one ‘Christian’, Jesus Christ, who is, after all, already dead. It has to be extended to anyone who is described as Christian – and living, ie, able to be killed. Furthermore, read where it says, ‘destroy their temples and churches with fire’. And, this act of violence fits the description of a hate crime, Section 318.
Now, you are deviating from dealing with the issue. Your first deviation was to refer only to the store where the disc was bought. Now, your second deviation is to say ‘oh well, they aren’t Canadian’. That’s not the point. The issue is whether their words are free speech or hate speech.
Your attempt to slither out of dealing with this by saying that the words refer to only one ‘long dead Christian’ are illogical. A song advocating killing someone can’t, logically, refer to anyone who is ‘long dead’.
So, I again ask you, do you consider that there is such a thing as ‘hate speech’ that could be prosecuted (not by the HRCs but the criminal courts)? Or is all speech, as Phantom believes, free?
I happen to agree that there IS such a thing as hate speech, as defined by the Section 318. This definition has nothing to do with the specious HRC definitions. It refers to anyone who is advocating violence against a specific identifiable group.
I don’t think the promotion of such an agenda has anything to do with freedom of expression. So, if someone with some emotional or other authority is advocating that people of X-religion be killed, I don’t think that this fits in with the idea of free speech. If this same person is criticizing the beliefs of X-religion, then, it is most certainly free speech.
Kate:
I agree with you on this one. These lyrics are offensive and promote hate. I disagree with the decision of the human rights tribunal (at least the portion cited on the linled site).
But aren’t you spreading this so-called band’s message by publishing their words on your website. I suspect more people read this blog than buy Deicide’s albums. Isn’t your lack of concern support for Andreachuk’s decision that Christians are not really all that vulnerable?
As a Christian we should expect this Jesus was NOT joking when he said that to emulate Him you had to “pick up a cross & follow Him”.
Besides its say’s to rejoice when people persecute you for Christ’s sake. We are travelers in the world, our real home elsewhere.
What people believe mostly about Christianity is really what I call Churchinaity. It comes from heretical teachings (Jesus being married, no resurrection, no virgin birth, a ton of other stuff) made normal by Hollywood to countless people. The plays on phony preachers & the real crooks using Christians to line there own pockets. Heck their was even a Pagan play in the first Century ridiculing this trait in the Christian community, of giving for charity or helping the down trodden. Plus the whacko’s who always seem get the press, that are called Christians even if they aren’t. Same with the smug self righteous group who ought to know salvation is by grace threw faith, not deeds. Least any man should boast.
I figure Catholic Christians have even more slurs come their way. Over the usual false pre-conceptions of years by the same suspects.
Last year 3 million Christians where killed world wide. But who cares eh? Where not likely to go after you. Indeed where told to pray for those who persecute us, & bless those who curse us.
Personaly because we live in a pluralistic society, these folks can sing any foul thing they want. Its up to people to buy or not there poisen. Thats the best way to fight it. These commisions are nothing but Inqisitions by activists who hate Western values.Christians in particular now but it will widen in the future if they survive.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=how+many+christians+have+died+this+year+&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2
Devin – exposing to criticism and debate someone’s dogma and call-for-violence against a group is not the same as that original act of advocating violence against people.
ET:
I agree, but would it not be better to let these simpletons continue to wallow in obscurity than give them, and their lyrics, the exposure and publicity they crave?
Also, I think their is a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between a hate crime and a human rights code violation here…
Devin…please tell us what you know about Section 13 of the HR code?
“Also, I think their is a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between a hate crime and a human rights code violation here”… um Devin, read Ezra.
According what understanding of Christianity is Jesus Christ considered “already dead”?
According what understanding of Christianity is Jesus Christ considered “already dead”?
It is upon the understanding of Scripture. However, I believe you mean “remained dead”. Not only does the Scripture teach that He has not remained dead, it instructs that He cannot die again. I have found Romans 6 to be very helpful as it is the foundation for the Identification Doctrines.
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?
4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.
Thanks, Kate, Ezra, and Mr. Boissoin for bringing to our attention the ongoing duplicity of the HRCs.
Bluetech:
Which human rights code? There is federal human rights legislation and an Act in each province…
The one that Kate refers to when she says : ‘This is not a hate crime’
On what basis does the HRC say that Christians are not persecuted in Canada. I am confident that many gay employers screen employees who show overt Christianness on their resumes. Given the level of anti-Christian sentiment within that community, it is a given that this is happening. I would speculate that many feminists also don’t hire Christians.
Yet, who knows. Is there any organization which reports acts of antiChristianism in Canada? If there was, I suspect people would report it more. In my workplace, I experience a coldness from secularists which I conclude betrays an anti-Christian sentiment.
Little study has been done on the issue in Canada and I suspect that many Christians would not want to work for people who hate them. I wouldn’t.
Lastly, if one looks at the global, rather than the local, you will see that Christians are the most persecuted religion on the planet. Chiefly by Muslims in the Middle East and in Indonesia. Christians are murdered daily. One would speculate that if there is such antiChristianism amongst global Muslims, that this would also exist amongst and unknown percentage of Canadian Muslims. Certainly there are examples of horrifically bigotted comments by Muslims in the UK.
No, dear HRC bureaucrat, you are wrong. There are compelling reasons for Christians to believe that people hate us, and given the lack of any real studies of anti-Christian hatred in Canada, one must question how she could have come to the conclusion that she did.
Kelly and Bluetech:
I prefer not to read Ezra, but since you asked…
Ezra is either being dense or intentionally misleading, as usual, in his writings. As a lawyer, he knows (or ought to know) that the elements of the hate crime provision of the Criminal Code are not met here. A violation of Alberta’s human rights legislation, perhaps, but its no hate crime for MusicWorld to sell an album with these lyrics. Even the band would never be convicted of a hate crime.
Ezra is not being dense. Rather, he has spot-lit the typical HRC attitude that the personal dislikes and prejudices of the HRC commissioners are to be taken as axiomatic truth; Canadians ought to think just like the all-knowing HRC elite, and by God! … er… by your personal concept of universal good and without any attempt to exclude any indigenous peoples’ expressions of spirituality except for the one that got Himself nailed up … they’re going to.
If you read him, you will see that Ezra does not think that the obscure band in question should be censored or charged. He does not want the HRC’s fatuousness to applied evenly to everyone everywhere – he wants all the HRCs to disappear.
check out voice of the martyrs if you want to see christians being persecuted.
Now, you are deviating from dealing with the issue.
No I’m not. You asked me if this group should be prosecuted for hate speech and I said no for two reasons.
So, I again ask you, do you consider that there is such a thing as ‘hate speech’ that could be prosecuted
This is a new question, ET. If the speech is intended for the purpose of invoking hatred of an identifiable group of people then I do believe it should be prosecuted.
I should also add that I believe a pattern of using speech to invoke hatred of an identifiable group needs to be established for a case to proceed.
Andreachuk is simply wrong: Christians are persecuted in Canada every day, especially those who are active or motivated by pro-life issues—abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia—and those who honour the biblical belief about marriage—between one man and one woman.
No doubt, Andreachuk doesn’t hang around much with committed Christians—probably just the “Sunday, social” Christians, whose commitment to biblical principle is tenuous, at best.
A very quick, sketch survey of Christian persecution in this “nice” country, some of the most egregious carried out by the HRCs themselves: think Boissoin, Fr deValk, Bishop Henry, Scott Brockie, the Knights of Columbus, the doctors of Ontario, who’ve been targeted lately . . . and the serious chill it puts on the freedom of expression of other Christians who believe what they do. (E.g., I work in a public institution, which is rife with political correctness: it’s unaware, anti-Christian default position—it glorifies the gay community with prominent posters and advocacy, and carries out pagan ceremonies and Gaia worship at assemblies—are blatantly anti-Christian. I keep my mouth shut: if I “outed” myself, I’d probably, at the least, be sent to re-education sessions, be under constant surveillance and, possibly, lose my job. Think of Chris Kempling. Staff members regularly say, “Jesus!” as a swear word: years ago, I brought this to the attention of a very PC principal who’d given us a little “be sensitive to what others think” talk. He refused to bring this issue to the staff’s attention. Can you imagine if we’d been saying “Allah” or “Mohammed” as a swear word?)
University campuses: pro-life student groups, which are overwhelmingly comprised of Christians (usually Catholic) are denied student council funding—to which they contribute—for telling the truth about abortion and not toeing the PC party line. At campus organization fairs, their materials have been seized and destroyed, with administration turning a blind eye.
Many Christian couples no longer foster parent: even if they only care for infants—as did two couples I know, who really needed the income and were among the best the agencies had—were removed because they wouldn’t agree to sign a pledge that they would affirm and nurture the perceived “gayness” of any child they might foster.
What about the pro-life ad that showed a picture of a pregnant woman and pointed out that abortion is available for nine months of pregnancy? The Canadian Advertising Standards Association pulled the ad because they said it was “misleading”. It absolutely was not. Canada has no abortion law and, indeed, abortions can be procured up to birth in this “nice” country.
Then there’s Linda Gibbon, a pro-life grandmother, who stands within the prohibited space outside abortion clinics—violent union picketers have no such restrictions placed on their picketing—and prays or quietly speaks with women going in (she’s saved babies!): non-violent civil disobedience is what Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. used. She’s been jailed for years: our own political prisoner of conscience. Here. In “nice” Canada, I’m not making this up. (Is Amnesty International up in arms? Not on your life.)
Check out the Catholic Civil Rights League for a catalogue of anti-Christian bigotry in Canada. As I’ve said, I’ve just presented here the very tip of the iceberg, which is getting bigger by the day: talk about chill!