\u2018To call for the prosecution of thought, specifically for beliefs you personally find inconvenient, is a stance more befitting of a tin-pot dictator than a Canadian parliamentarian,\u2019 noted one observer.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
![\"Featured](\"https:\/\/www.lifesitenews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/shutterstock_2206832841-e1762035325386-810x500.jpg\")
Doidam 10\/Shutterstock<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By Doug Mainwaring<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(LifeSiteNews<\/a>) \u2014 A leading member of Canada\u2019s Parliament said<\/a> that certain passages of the Bible are \u201chateful\u201d because of their stance towards homosexuality, and further suggested that publicly reciting those passages should be prosecuted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During a Thursday, October 30 discussion<\/a> in Ottawa about hate propaganda laws, Marc Miller, a current member of Canada\u2019s House of Commons and the Chairman of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights, pushed the idea that \u201cgood faith\u201d defenses were unacceptable when it comes to Christians referring to passages of the Bible that he personally finds \u201chateful.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans \u2014 there\u2019s other passages \u2014 there\u2019s clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals,\u201d insisted Miller. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI don\u2019t understand how the concept of good faith can be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible \u2014 there are other religious texts that say the same thing \u2014 and somehow say that this is good faith,\u201d said Miller. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cClearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke, be a defense, and there should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges,\u201d averred Miller. \u201cI just want to understand what your notion of good faith is in this context where there are clearly passages in religious texts that are clearly hateful.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Every single Christian in Canada needs to hear about this. Spread it far and wide. pic.twitter.com\/KBhktagDrR<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 Canada Proud (@WeAreCanProud) October 31, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Miller\u2019s comments were directed at Derek Ross, Executive Director and General Counsel of the Christian Legal Fellowship, who testified before Miller\u2019s committee. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI don\u2019t know that I would agree with that characterization, Mr. Chair, that passages are categorically hateful, especially not passages in the Bible,\u201d said Ross in response. \u201cIf members of Parliament are of the view that passages of the Bible are hateful, that\u2019s something that Canadians should be aware of.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ross added: \u201cWhen it comes to some of these fundamental questions, we want to preserve room for people to engage in dialogue both critical of religious texts, and relying on religious texts to seek and discern truth without fear of being labeled a blasphemer, or a criminal, or a hatemonger by those who find their beliefs offensive and would try to silence them.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Others outside the committee hearing were more pointed in their reactions to Miller\u2019s stunning condemnation of the Bible as \u201chateful.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI find it abhorrent when MPs sitting in Ottawa\u2014or anyone in positions of power\u2014use their voice to attack faith,\u201d said<\/a> Alberta MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly) Dan Williams, the province\u2019s Minister of Municipal Affairs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHere, Marc Miller, a former Trudeau front bench Minister and current MP, calls the Holy Bible \u2018hateful\u2019 and asks if prosecutors should be able to press charges based on what scripture you read in church or synagogue,\u201d he observed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe wider implication is of course one we are familiar with from the media and from progressives in the public square: namely that Christians and Jews themselves are steeped in hatred,\u201d Williams continued. \u201cThis intentional mangling of our faith is gross. Full stop. And those who are actually pushing this hate should be called out.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n When Miller used profane language<\/a> to accuse Williams of \u201cDeliberately missing\u201d his point, X user \u201cVesper\u201d called Miller out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s truly a spectacle to behold an elected official, who holds the \u2018honorable\u2019 title of \u2018Member of Parliament,\u2019 descend into a profane language because his ideological litmus test for scripture was not universally adopted,\u201d said<\/a> Vesper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYour performative outrage is as transparent as it is embarrassing. You deliberately conflate a critique of your political agenda with an endorsement of violence, a lazy and intellectually barren tactic for someone in your position,\u201d the X-user explained. \u201cTo then call for the prosecution of thought, specifically for beliefs you personally find inconvenient, is a stance more befitting of a tin-pot dictator than a Canadian parliamentarian.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n He continued:<\/p>\n\n\n\n And as for your language? To stand in the people\u2019s house and accuse people by saying\u201cmake s[***] up\u201d about what constitutes acceptable belief before demanding the state punish those who disagree with you is the real disgrace. You have confused vulgarity for vigor, and in doing so, you have disgraced the very title you purport to hold. One expects sober judgment from the Honorable Member; you have offered us the petulance instead. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps, before you next demand others be prosecuted for their beliefs, you should take a moment to re-acquaint yourself with the principles of liberal democracy you\u2019ve sworn to uphold. Assuming, of course, you can do so without resorting to cussing and sounding like a vulgar child.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s truly a spectacle to behold an elected official, who holds the \u201chonorable\u201d title of \u2018Member of Parliament,\u2019 descend into a profane language because his ideological litmus test for scripture was not universally adopted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Your performative outrage is as transparent as it is\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n