{"id":26583,"date":"2017-11-09T08:38:38","date_gmt":"2017-11-09T13:38:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/?p=26583"},"modified":"2021-10-07T11:02:20","modified_gmt":"2021-10-07T15:02:20","slug":"standing-committee-votes-to-retain-s-176-of-criminal-code","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/intersection\/2017\/11\/09\/standing-committee-votes-to-retain-s-176-of-criminal-code\/","title":{"rendered":"Standing Committee Votes To Retain S. 176 of Criminal Code"},"content":{"rendered":"
This entry is part 1 of 2 in the series Section 176<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>

\"\"<\/p>\n

For as long as Canada has had a criminal code it has been a crime to be violent towards religious officials or to disrupt a religious service. Those \u201ccrimes against religion\u201d are contained in section 176 of the code, which makes it an offence to \u201cunlawfully obstruct or prevent\u2026 a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling,\u201d or otherwise assaulting or committing violence against a clergyman or minister.<\/p>\n

The federal government was intent on removing s. 176 from the Code in its Bill C-51.  As the bill was being reviewed by the parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights<\/a> the committee members were inundated by letters of opposition from the people of Canada.  On November 8, the Committee voted NOT to remove section 176.  It now goes before the floor of the House of Commons for a vote.  Members of Parliament should accept the decision of the Committee and keep s. 176.<\/p>\n

Section 176 played a major role in keeping in check religious passions against minority religious groups. Back when most Canadians were Christians of only three or four different stripes (now referred to as the \u201cmainstream\u201d churches), there was significant opposition to any new religious groups. It was not uncommon for violence to break out against new fledgling groups.  Read the historical accounts of newcomers like the Salvation Army and Jehovah Witnesses to understand more fully what I am saying.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of Canada\u2019s most recent case<\/a> dealing with Section 176 was in 1985. The Court noted, \u201cThere is no difficulty in concluding that this prohibition, with its consequent penal sanctions, serves the needs of public morality by precluding conduct potentially injurious to the public interest.\u201d The lower courts continue to follow this as good law.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court has showed an uncanny appreciation that the historical necessity for s. 176 remains salient for our time. In an age that mocks and reviles religious opinion and worship, there is a need for protection from those malcontents who would disturb the faithful from peaceful assembly.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Today, the fear is not that someone from the \u201cmainstream\u201d churches would attack a religious service; rather, it is that so-called social justice warriors may disrupt the \u201cpowerful religious community\u201d to eradicate some assumed injustice in order to protect those they deem to be oppressed.  See Don Hutchinson’s article<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The government\u2019s stated justification for Bill C-51<\/em> is to \u201camend, remove or repeal passages and provisions that have been ruled unconstitutional or that raise risks with regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms<\/em>.\u201d And, further, that it seeks to \u201crepeal several obsolete or redundant criminal offences.\u201d However, repealing section 176 does not fit either of those categories, as the Supreme Court said the section was in the \u201cpublic interest.\u201d<\/p>\n

The government argued s. 176 was redundant: other sections of the Code were sufficient to protect the religious communities in the same way as s. 176 has done throughout the years.  However, as Derek Ross, of Christian Legal Fellowship<\/a> points out, \u201cCanadian law has long recognized that criminal prohibitions may overlap and cover similar conduct. A person can even be convicted of multiple offences arising from the same matter in various circumstances, including where the different \u201coffences are designed to protect different societal interests.\u201d\u201d<\/p>\n

Section 176 has a specific context in mind \u2013 people engaged in worship.  Most other nuisance crimes are geared more around property rights \u2013 such as s.175 and s.430 of the Code.<\/p>\n

It is almost as if the government is embarrassed that the Code especially protects religion. The onus is on the government to make clear that it has the best interests of the religious communities in mind when it makes such a dramatic change.  So far, I am not convinced why this expunge is necessary.<\/p>\n

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, in response to the growing opposition, suggested that section 176 is being removed because it refers only to Christians and male clergy<\/a>. This is simply unacceptable as it doesn\u2019t use the word Christian. But, even if the problem is that section 176 refers to Christians and male clergy, then the solution is simple: amend the section to be more inclusive.<\/p>\n

Given that the Standing Committee has voted in favour of retaining section 176, we hope that our parliamentarians will see that this government\u2019s attempt to remove it was an unwise move. Religious people and their religious services continue to have need of the protections that this provision provides.  For a recent case in point see the story of the vandalism at an Ottawa church<\/a> in June of this year.<\/p>\n

To follow the parliamentary process of Bill C-51 see here.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This entry is part 1 of 2 in the series Section 176<\/a><\/div><\/div><\/div>

For as long as Canada has had a criminal code it has been a crime to be violent towards religious officials or to disrupt a religious service. Those \u201ccrimes against religion\u201d are contained in section 176 of the code, which makes it an offence to \u201cunlawfully obstruct or prevent\u2026 a clergyman… More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ts_fic_featured_image_caption":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[137],"tags":[357,150,138,148,141],"series":[356],"class_list":["post-26583","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-criminal-code","tag-freedom-of-religion","tag-law-and-religion","tag-religion","tag-religious-freedom","series-section-176"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26583","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26583"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26583\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26583"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26583"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26583"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=26583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}