Download Print-Friendly Version
Canada just dodged a religious freedom bullet, at least temporarily.
My decision to move to Canada from Brazil to pursue a Master of Laws and continue my legal career was influenced by the fact that Canada both respects individual freedoms and provides a strong social safety net.
But that defining balance was recently challenged by Canada’s Bill C-9, the “Combatting Hate Act.” The proposed federal legislation was presented in response to purported rising intolerance, including a rise in reported hate crimes, ongoing hostility online, and social polarization.
Bill C-9 was recently put on hold after much public outcry against it. On its face, the bill sounds like a good thing. But its mechanics would have jeopardized freedom of expression and freedom of religion in significant ways.
What Bill C-9 Would Have Done to Religious Expression
Bill C-9 would have altered Canada’s Criminal Code relating to hate-motivated behavior and intimidation, including by adding new criminal offenses. While these measures are presented as protective—aimed at preventing threats before they escalate—the broad scope of the offenses raises concerns that ordinarily lawful speech or protest could unintentionally become unlawful. Some of the most concerning provisions of the bill are as follows.
On its face, the bill sounds like a good thing.
The law also would have removed the “good faith” religious defense in Section 319 of the Criminal Code, which is particularly concerning. This defense previously allowed individuals to express views based on religious texts without fear of prosecution, provided they acted sincerely. Removing it risks placing the state in the position of judging theology as hateful. This is not about protecting extremists; it is about maintaining constitutional space for conscience and preventing the inadvertent criminalization of sincere belief.
Further, the law would also have enhanced penalties for existing offenses if those offenses were motivated by hatred against protected grounds such as race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The motivation of the speaker would be determined not by the speaker, but by the listener’s reaction—a switch from an objective legal standard to a subjective one. Fear is personal and variable, so under the new law, the most sensitive observer could determine the legality of speech.
By narrowing what is lawful speech and making a listener’s subjective reaction to speech legally significant, Bill C-9 creates legal uncertainty for individuals expressing sincere beliefs grounded in religious conscience. The law could pressure people to self-censor, not because their actions are harmful, but because their words or presence might be interpreted as intimidating to listeners who disagree with them, subjecting them to the criminal law’s reach. Ordinary expressions of faith, such as reading from scripture or teaching traditional views on sexuality, family, or moral guidance, could potentially be interpreted as hateful under the bill, creating uncertainty for individuals trying to sincerely live according to their religious beliefs. For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, teaching the Family Proclamation could potentially be interpreted as hateful under the proposed law. While such prosecution is unlikely, the mere possibility creates a concerning sense of legal uncertainty for Latter-day Saints and others trying to express their faith.
The consequences extend beyond religious communities. Labor groups have warned that picket lines or protests could be affected if someone claims to feel intimidated. When law measures emotion rather than action, criminal behavior becomes unpredictable. These concerns with Bill C-9 are about protecting sincere expression rather than defending harmful speech.
Context for the Bill
Some context may help explain why Canada would propose Bill C-9. The province of Quebec has a strong secular tradition inherited from France known as laïcité, which prioritizes strict separation between religion and state in public life. This worldview influences Canadian debates on freedom of religion and expression. Although Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and religion, the French–Quebec view holds that these rights should be significantly limited in the public square, allowing secularism to prevail.
This framing risks shutting down meaningful discussion.
While these numbers provide context for why the government frames Bill C-9 as necessary, statistics alone do not determine how the law is debated or applied. The way the bill is named and discussed can influence public perception, shaping the conversation around hate and safety before questions about its scope, limits, and impact on fundamental freedoms are even considered. In this sense, the political framing of the legislation plays a role almost as significant as the underlying data.
When legislation is presented in a way that equates questioning its scope with tolerating hate, it can chill open discussion, debate, and lawful expression. Even the name of the legislation does significant political work. By calling it the Combatting Hate Act, the debate is framed so that raising legitimate concerns about its scope can be interpreted as tolerating hatred. Those questioning the bill’s impact on freedom of expression, religious conscience, or lawful speech risk being seen as opposing justice rather than defending constitutional protections or advocating for careful, balanced lawmaking. This framing risks shutting down meaningful discussion before it can begin.
Moving Forward
Even in democracies that value freedom, governments may, at times, push the limits of civil liberties in the name of public order. This is not to suggest that overreach is inevitable, but rather that expanded legal powers always carry a risk that warrants careful scrutiny. While these powers are typically subject to judicial review, vigilance is important whenever new laws, like Bill C-9, would grant authorities broader discretion over what constitutes “intimidating” or “hateful” speech.
Canada’s legal system has long managed to accommodate disagreement while maintaining public order. Bill C-9, as currently drafted, raises serious questions about procedural fairness, clarity in the law, and the protection of fundamental freedoms. From my perspective as an international lawyer, Bill C-9 highlights the fragility of liberty when legal systems evaluate emotions over intentions. True tolerance is not the absence of offense; it is the careful balance of safety, justice, and conscience. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are cornerstones of Canadian law, enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and they protect both offensive and minority viewpoints, provided they do not incite violence. Canada now faces the challenge of preserving that balance while addressing perceived threats of hate and intimidation.
The post How Canada’s Bill C-9 Would Have Reimagined Religious Liberty appeared first on Public Square Magazine.
Continue reading at the original source →