Justice committee  Essentially, we don't. We strongly believe in freedom of religion, and of course, the freedom to hold no religion. We think all citizens ought to be treated equally under the law, and that should also include criminal proceedings. If one commits a hate crime, just simply being ab

Justice committee  Do you mean as the law currently stands?

Justice committee  Yes, we do.

Justice committee  Yes, we do. We just urge caution that any measures taken are done cautiously and judicially, and there's no overreach.

Justice committee  No, we lean towards more of a civil libertarian position with respect to free speech, but we certainly acknowledge that there are limits. This is a great debate to have as to where that red line is. We don't object to government action when needed, if that's your question, and ce

Justice committee  Would you like to comment on that specifically?

Justice committee  Absolutely. In particular harassment, things like doxing, and misinformation campaigns are real problems that we're facing.

Justice committee  That would be the revealing of personal information like addresses and phone numbers to the public against the intended target's permission.

Justice committee  One of our own members was a victim of this when he was promoting the idea of removing public prayers from his city council in Saskatchewan.

Justice committee  With respect to equality, it definitely is better, as I mentioned in my opening remarks. Weddings and funerals, for example.... Obviously, a non-religious funeral should get the same protection as a religious funeral and presumably both fall under that category. With the religiou

Justice committee  No, not religious groups or anything I could find with my research.

Justice committee  That's interesting. Essentially, equality rights are the mandate of our organization. We want to seek equal rights for all religious groups and non-religious people as well. So yes, as I outlined in my opening remarks, subsection 176(1) is worded in a way that implies there's a

Justice committee  Well, of course. Freedom of speech is essentially the best corrective we possess as a species for making progress in whatever realm it may be, technological, scientific, ethical, or philosophical. Some of the issues that religion tackles are some of the most important philosophic

Justice committee  I originally intended to speak mostly about section 296, but then I noticed that I couldn't find a single objection. That wasn't the case with section 176, so I decided to address that a little bit more. For section 296, as best I can tell, at least within the House of Commons, t

Justice committee  No, but that's a good argument for cleaning up the wording, if it were to be retained in any way, shape, or form. I would add, and perhaps you could answer this question for me, does it apply to secular humanist officiants as well?