Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2018-11-08 12:00:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Hon. Rob Nicholson",
        "fr": "L'hon. Rob Nicholson"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"5645485\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, the member said he was confused when we were talking about the protection of religious freedom. I was completely confused when I saw the bill repealing a section of the Criminal Code. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5645486\" data-originallang=\"en\">I checked the section in the Criminal Code, and the Liberals would repeal the section that specifically protects members of the clergy and people from having their religious services disrupted. I asked the question, and one of the members said that it would still be mischief if one caused a disruption at a religious service, and that if one threatened a member of the clergy, it would still be assault. I said that it was not the same thing as causing a ruckus at a hockey game or a disruption somewhere else or a fistfight at a bar. It is not the same. Even people who do not attend religious services agreed with me that this is more egregious. It is more serious if one disrupts people's right to practice their religion.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5645487\" data-originallang=\"en\">Therefore, I say to members of the government that if they want to better protect religious institutions, then make sure that the laws do not weaken those protections. Do not make it a hybrid offence for someone to go after a member of the clergy. That is a mistake and sends the wrong message.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"5645485\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, le d\u00e9put\u00e9 dit ne pas avoir bien compris quand nous parlions de la protection de la libert\u00e9 de religion. Pour ma part, je n\u2019ai pas compris du tout quand j\u2019ai vu que le projet de loi abroge un article du Code criminel.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5645486\" data-originallang=\"en\"> J\u2019ai v\u00e9rifi\u00e9 l\u2019article du Code criminel, et les lib\u00e9raux voudraient abroger l\u2019article qui justement prot\u00e8ge les membres du clerg\u00e9 et emp\u00eache qu\u2019on perturbe les services religieux. J\u2019ai pos\u00e9 la question et un des d\u00e9put\u00e9s a r\u00e9pondu que perturber un service religieux constituerait toujours un m\u00e9fait et que menacer un membre du clerg\u00e9 serait encore consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme une agression. J\u2019ai dit que ce n\u2019\u00e9tait pas la m\u00eame chose que de chahuter pendant un match de hockey ou de d\u00e9ranger ailleurs ou encore de se battre dans un bar. Ce n\u2019est pas la m\u00eame chose. M\u00eame des personnes qui n\u2019assistent pas \u00e0 des services religieux reconnaissent que c\u2019est plus grave. C\u2019est plus s\u00e9rieux si quelqu\u2019un emp\u00eache une personne de pratiquer sa religion comme elle en a le droit.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5645487\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Par cons\u00e9quent, je dis aux d\u00e9put\u00e9s minist\u00e9riels que, s\u2019ils veulent mieux prot\u00e9ger les institutions religieuses, ils doivent veiller \u00e0 ce que les lois n\u2019affaiblissent pas ces protections. Il ne faut pas faire d\u2019une agression contre un religieux une infraction mixte. C\u2019est une erreur et un mauvais signal.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2018/11/8/rob-nicholson-2/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/rob-nicholson/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1396/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "10370019",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Government Orders",
        "fr": "Ordres \u00e9manant du gouvernement"
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Criminal Code",
        "fr": "Le Code criminel"
    },
    "h3": {
        "en": "Motions in amendment",
        "fr": "Motions d'amendement"
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2018/11/8/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2018%2F11%2F8%2F"
    }
}