The debate on combatting hatred continues

The proposed new law to combat hatred, Bill C-9, is creating animosity instead of bringing together various groups who could help to address the increase in antisemitism that led to its introduction. Bill C-9, with amendments, has now received a third reading in the House of Commons, by a vote of 186 Yeas and 137 Nays, and has moved to the Senate for another round of heated debate. Church leaders and members are being asked by various lobby groups to defend the Bible and religious freedom by pressuring senators to reverse one amendment in Bill C-9, while little attention is given to actions that could help to reverse the increase in antisemitism and Islamophobia in Canada.   

When Bill C-9 was introduced in September 2025, serious concerns were raised about major components of the proposed changes to the Criminal Code and whether changing the Criminal Code was even an effective way to combat hatred. (See my November 2025 opinion piece and February article in CC.) Ironically, a new issue, first raised in a parliamentary committee, has turned a debate about combatting hatred into a highly partisan and polarized public fight about who best defends the Bible, Christianity and the religious freedom of Christians in Canada. Fear of losing religious freedom and threats to Christianity are being used to rally faith communities behind narrow campaigns to change one provision, instead of joining forces across religious and cultural divides to counter the rise in anti-semitism and Islamophobia in communities across the country. 

As I watch what is happening, it also seems to be a case study of how Canada’s political climate could become more like the current polarized U.S. culture. Or perhaps Canadians could choose to do something different and demonstrate how to live together in a diverse, pluralistic society, something the world desperately needs.   

How did it come to this?  

In response to a particular incident in Quebec, Bloc MPs proposed an amendment to remove an exemption for religious speech that is part of the existing criminal code section on hate speech. Liberals agreed to get Bloc support for the bill. Polievre’s Conservatives immediately launched a social media campaign claiming that they were the only party to defend the Bible, Christianity and religious freedom in Canada. To address the concern about religious speech, the Liberals then added a new amendment. They also forced quick passage of the bill in response to political pressure that they were not doing enough to stop antisemitism.  

It should be noted that two other amendments addressed two of the bigger weaknesses in the original bill. More than 30 civil society groups remain opposed to the increase in discretionary police powers and violations of the rights to freedom of expression and assembly.  

A difference in words 

When I boil it down, the dispute seems to hinge on the difference between two imprecise legal concepts. Under the old exemption, if someone used religious speech “in good faith,” they could not be charged for hate speech. Under the new amendment, police will have to show that the use of religious speech was intended to “willfully promote hatred” in order to lay charges for hate speech. Both concepts are difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and both are susceptible to different interpretations by police officers who may want to use the law to remove a disruptive person from public places. 

Consider the commonly cited example of a preacher publicly reading a Bible text that includes harsh, condemnatory language about unbelievers or enemies of God’s chosen people. What is the line between “good faith” and “bad faith” use of such a text? What evidence would be required to show “willful promotion of hatred”? I don’t read much about the legal difference between those two concepts in the social media messages about attacks on Christianity. The differences may be significant, and perhaps wise senators will come up with a third, better option. 

Better use of time and energy 

Words are important. But, is a highly emotive fight over these words the most effective use of time to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia? I wonder what the outcome might be if Christian leaders, instead of rallying their troops to defend the Bible, spent time and energy organizing inter-faith and inter-cultural initiatives to demonstrate love for neighbours of all religions. I wonder what would happen if faith leaders publicly acknowledged that, in reality, sacred texts are sometimes used to foster hatred, and then developed common guidelines for good practices and held each other more accountable for breaches that are disrespectful and harmful to others. I wonder what the outcome would be if faith leaders joined with other civil society groups to put forward alternative ways to help ensure that all protests are respectful and expand public spaces for dialogue, inter-cultural exchanges and co-operation. 

Love and respect drive out fear and hatred. The Criminal Code never will.