Dear Editor,
How may we interpret the phrase “hate speech”? Does it necessarily mean that because one person disagrees with another person about their beliefs and practices and tries to persuade the other person to change, that this mean that hatred for the person is involved?Jesus Christ spoke against the church at Laodicea for being “lukewarm,” that is, the state of being “neither cold nor hot,” and he called on them to change for the better. What was His motivation behind the rebuke? Revelation 3:19 reads: “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Be zealous therefore and repent.” The problem is that “hate-speech” is a deceptive phrase. It is usually interpreted as speech that might incite violence against a minority group, whose practices are different from the majority in a society. In the courts of the European Union, for example, just a quotation from the Holy Scriptures that shows that God has forbidden homosexuality, has been interpreted as “hate-speech” against homosexuals, even when no explanation was made of the Scripture. This has resulted in Christians being tried in court and sentenced to imprisonment. However, when Christians quote Scriptures that show that God has forbidden homosexuality, we do so out of genuine concern for the welfare of homosexuals. If a person is not shown that their practice is forbidden by God, how will they know that they are sinning against God, and how will they be able to give up a sinful practice and do what is pleasing in the sight of God? The Prime Minister has linked his thoughts about introducing “hate-speech” laws to trying to reduce crime and violence; but even this is deceptive. It is a deceptive tactic, regularly used by the United Nations and their agencies, in which the prohibition against a practice, that is agreed by all persons to be unacceptable in any society, is widened to include other practices that not everyone would accept should be prohibited. For example, “gender-based violence” prohibits domestic violence, such as a husband physically abusing a wife. Everyone would accept that domestic violence is “gender-based violence”. However, “gender-based violence” includes not using the transgender pronoun, that a transman or a transwoman may want to be referred to as, and even includes legally denying a girl or a woman the right to abort a child. Now these last two examples, many people would not accept as legitimate examples of “gender-based violence”. In the same way, “hate-speech” may be the use of words, that degrade or dehumanise people of African descent, and we should all agree that this is not acceptable speech; but it is widened to include speaking out against homosexuality, even quoting a Scripture that shows that God has forbidden homosexuality. We should not agree that pointing out sin and calling people to repentance, should be something that is illegal, for which a person may be arrested, tried in court and sentenced to punishment or to a great fine. What is the motivation for thinking about the introduction of “hate-speech” laws? It is one of the ways of undermining the law that forbids buggery, the regular way homosexuals engage in sexual relations. It is one of the ways of legalising same-sex relationships, transgender relationships, gender identities, sexual orientations, and abortion. This is the clear intent of “The Samoa Agreement,” which was signed recently by the Government of Jamaica. Article 10, Section 4 reads: “The Parties undertake to prevent, combat and prosecute all forms of sexual…discrimination in the public and private spheres”. (General Section, page 31) Article 9, Section 2 reads: “The Parties shall commit to the promotion of universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without discrimination based on any ground, including sex, or other status…They commit to fighting all forms of…instances of advocacy of hatred…” (General Section, page 28). Article 20 reads: “The Parties, recognising the importance of tackling all factors contributing to violent extremism in all its forms, including religious intolerance, hate speech…commit to opposing violent extremism and foster religious tolerance”. (General Section, page 43)I believe that the Government of Jamaica is deceptively trying to get rid of the law that forbids buggery and the law that defines marriage as the voluntary union between a man and a woman, by thinking about introducing “hate-speech” laws. I am,Shaphat Elijah