(LifeSiteNews) — Canadians have been reluctant to recognize just how much their country has changed over the past decade. Although Canadian Christians are beginning to wake up, there are still many who are persuaded that there is a ceiling to how totalitarian the Canadian government can get.

I heard from many, for example, who insisted that the Carney government’s Bill C-9 – which removes the “hate speech” exemption for sincerely-held religious beliefs – was “fixed” at committee when the Liberals announced that their legislation would not apply to “worship, sermons, prayer, religious education, peaceful debate, or even the good faith of reading and discussion of religious texts.”

However – and this is the important bit – this is only the case as long as people do not, in the eyes of the government, “willfully promote” hatred against groups such as LGBT people.

READ: Party switch forces former pro-life Conservative to adopt Liberals’ abortion stance

As always, the terminology here means everything. Many Canadian Christians might shrug and think: Well, I don’t say anything willfully hateful, and I abhor violence – so I’ll be fine. My church will be fine. My Christian institution will be fine. Perhaps. But let’s take a look at what the Canadian government actually says about terminology directly relating to this debate.

One example would be “deadnaming,” a term invented to refer to using the previous name of a trans-identifying person after they have assumed an alter ego. An example of “deadnaming” would be referring to “Caitlyn Jenner” by his birth name “Bruce Jenner” – in any context.

On the Canadian government’s official website under the “Women and Gender Equality Canada” section, the government details its view of “gender-based violence” (GBV), gives tips on how Canadians can stop gender-based violence, and then provides some helpful descriptions of “what gender-based violence can look like.” Some are standard and should not be controversial – sharing intimate photos, pressuring someone into sex, assuming consent, and controlling behavior, for example

Then, the government lists “deadnaming,” prefacing examples of this “gender-based violence” with a trigger warning. The government presents the following scenario, and asks Canadians to identify it:

Someone from your school who transitioned and now identifies as a girl has been posting about her journey on social media. People begin making negative comments about her appearance and deadnaming her online. When you mention it to a friend, they dismiss it as “just trolling.”

So – is this “gender-based violence”? The required answer, according to the government:

This is a case of technology-facilitated violence, where the person is experiencing emotional violence due to their gender, gender identity, gender expression, or perceived gender in the digital world.

Deadnaming – using someone’s former name without their consent and despite being advised of their true name – is a form of aggression that is demeaning and disrespectful, as it actively denies their identity.

Obviously, there is no good excuse for being a jerk online. But if you do not accept the fundamental premises of gender ideology and say so online, this, according to the government, is “a case of technology-facilitated violence” and “emotional violence.” The government advises Canadians to track cases of such “violence”:

First, you might consider talking to a safe adult for advice on how to proceed. If she is open to it, help her document and report what has happened. Keep a record of messages, usernames, and any other relevant information. Report harmful content to the platform where it is appearing.

Here, by the way, is the government’s description of “gender-based violence”:

While we often think of violence as “just physical,” GBV typically falls into four categories: emotional violence, physical violence, economic abuse, and sexual violence. Emotional violence aims to harm the person emotionally by making them feel worthless, guilty, devalued, lonely, hurt, angry, or sad.

READ: Trump admin will continue to fly LGBT ‘pride’ flag at Stonewall Monument

Again, notice that “emotional violence” – which could include publicly disagreeing with the premises of transgender ideology – is listed along with physical and sexual violence. One of the key vulnerabilities listed throughout the government website that indicates susceptibility to “gender-based violence” is “gender identity or perceived gender identity.”

You may have never lifted a finger against another human being; you may never have engaged in aggressive or cruel behavior online. But nonetheless, if you publicly oppose aspects of LGBT ideology, you might, by this definition, be considered guilty of “gender-based violence.” The government has not just legally redefined terms like “gender” and “sex” – they have also redefined terms such as “violence.”

This is precisely why, despite Liberal assurances that Bill C-9 and other censorship legislation will not infringe on the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadian Christians to articulate and defend what they believe, they cannot be trusted. Canadian Christians should not be lulled into complacency. Our religious freedoms are at stake.