Intellectual freedom in Canada: Can't be defamed means can't be believed?

The United Nations is attempting to criminalize "defaming" religion.

Someone wanted to know what I meant when I responded to that in an earlier post: “A religion that can’t be defamed can’t be believed either.”

It is purely a matter of logic: Only an unbeliever would defame the religion. If it becomes illegal to defame the religion, what follows?

The evidence for its falsehood cannot be seriously discussed, because believers will see any such discussion as defamation. But then neither can the evidence for its truth be seriously discussed.

So there can be no serious defense of the religion!

Beyond the reach of criticism means beyond the reach of truth.

Then, given that there can be no serious defense of the religion, the most likely reason – I do not make a case here, but merely cite the reason that most people will quietly assume – is that the religion is false.

Now, why would any religious person want to put their religion in that position?

It is no accident that the United States – which has enjoyed a great deal of religious freedom - has the largest proportion of serious Christian adherents in the Western world, whereas European "state churches" are mostly on life support.