Can Canada combat hatred and protect religious freedom?

The debate about a new law to combat hatred in Canada is turning into a campaign to stand up for religious freedom. In reality, both goals – combating hatred and respecting religious freedom – require more than just adopting Bill C-9, with or without amendments. The debate itself provides opportunities for faith communities in Canada to show a better way forward.

In my November Christian Courier column on Bill C-9, I raised concerns about the imprecise definition of hatred, the expansion of police powers and the limited effectiveness of criminalizing speech to combat hatred. Since then, the House of Commons study committee for this bill has received many submissions from other Canadians expressing similar concerns. In addition, 37 civil society organizations signed a public letter to the Minister of Justice last October, calling for major changes in the bill’s approach to combating hatred.

The issue of religious freedom came to public attention at the end of last year when the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to remove a “good faith” religious exemption under the current prohibitions on hate speech in subsection 319(3) of the Criminal Code. The exemption protects controversial religious statements from charges of inciting hatred if they are made in good faith. This Bloc move is consistent with Quebec’s principle of “laïcité/secularism,” which I discussed in my January column “Prayer rooms: A political hot spot.” On December 9, the Liberals agreed to support the Bloc’s amendment to get their support for the bill.

The Conservative Party immediately launched a public campaign calling the decision an attack on religious freedom and rallied religious leaders, suggesting that their party is the only champion of religious freedom in Canada. The debate about Bill C-9 has become an issue of religious freedom instead of finding ways to combat hatred.

Chill on religious speech

How much of a threat to religious freedom is this? The good faith religious exemption to hate speech charges has rarely been used in court and has never determined the outcome of a legal case. At the same time, the less precise definition of hatred and increased police power to lay hate charges in Bill C-9, if it is adopted as is, could make the “good faith” defence more significant in the future.

In a carefully worded submission to the justice committee in November, the Canadian Centre for Christian Charities (CCCC) analyzed the fine line between “good faith” religious speech and using religious speech to foster hatred.

“Like virtually any idea, text or tool, biblical passages can likewise be appropriated for nefarious purposes. But the case law is clear that ‘statements’ or ‘passages in religious texts’ are not, in fact, ‘clearly hateful,’” the submission reads. “The fact is that different religions often make mutually exclusive truth claims, which naturally creates tension amongst worldviews, and could be viewed by some as offensive and hurtful. But this is not and cannot be akin to a criminal hate speech offence.”

CCCC says retaining the good faith exemption ensures the free exchange of ideas in a democratic society, while Canada already has laws that forbid the use of religious speech to foster hatred.
The most damaging part of this turn in the Bill C-9 debate, in my view, is that it reinforces negative public perceptions about religion as a problem in society instead of a positive influence. It also reinforces current trends to consign religion to private spaces only. In addition, there is widespread concern that removing the exemption could have a chilling or silencing effect on public religious dialogue. Unfortunately, a campaign to preserve this exemption, in defence of religious freedom, will not address the real barriers to robust religious pluralism in Canada, which would also be the best antidote to the increasing hatred and polarization that lies behind the need for Bill C-9.

A different path

What might be a more helpful response by faith communities? In my view, their strategy needs to be multi-layered. First, faith leaders should publicly recognize that religious speech is sometimes used to harm others, to create reasonable fears for safety and, in some cases, threaten their survival in society. When I listen to transgender youth, for example, describe the impact of some religious speech they have received, their fears are legitimate. I hear similar concerns about antisemitism and islamophobia. After listening well, faith leaders could do more to publicly counter religious speech that does not respect the dignity of others and stand in solidarity with those who are negatively impacted by such speech.

Second, Canadians need to create more space for inter-religious dialogue, which will foster greater understanding and a more robust pluralism in Canada. Faith leaders could demonstrate an alternative approach to pluralism that more fully respects the human rights of those who disagree about basic beliefs and has rights-based mechanisms to resolve conflicts where the free expression of one religion is used to oppress others.

Leaving it to the police to moderate the tensions that will arise in a healthy pluralist society means leaving it to officials who are not well-trained in this area and do not have the time or skills to do more than intervene in high crisis moments. Canada needs something better than Bill C-9. If the current focus on the threat to religious freedom engages Canadian faith leaders to see this as an opportunity, rather than a defensive reaction, the outcome could both reduce hatred and advance religious freedom.

Residential school denialism as hate speech

The Assembly of First Nations is in favour of Bill C-9’s objectives, but wants to see Indian Residential School denialism included in the bill as a specific form of hate speech. For Indigenous Peoples, the public denial of what happened to them in residential schools is similar to the public denial of the Holocaust to Jewish people, which is included in the prohibitions of hate speech in Canadian law. This issue illustrates the limitations of criminalizing speech to combat hatred. Broad-based, sustained public education and awareness are needed, as was repeatedly stated by former Justice Murray Sinclair, Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

(Photo: Murray Sinclair addresses residential school survivors during opening keynote of the Shingwauk 2015 Gathering. Credit: Archkris/Wikimedia).