Will Bill C-9 stop hate crimes?

A young woman was attacked on an Ottawa bus because she was wearing a hijab. A Jewish woman was stabbed while shopping for kosher food at a Loblaws store. These are two shocking examples of the significant increase in hate crimes reported to police in the last year. In response, it is not surprising that the federal government has introduced a new Combatting Hate Act, Bill C-9. Will it stop hate crimes? Will Jews, Muslims, queer persons or women feel more safe because of it? Are there unintended consequences?

Defining ‘hate’

The new Bill C-9 redefines hatred and makes it easier for police to lay charges as a hate crime. It also adds to existing prohibitions in the criminal code. It would make it a crime to obstruct or intimidate anyone going to a place of worship or a cultural center for identifiable groups. And it would criminalize the willful display of certain symbols to incite hatred.

Defining hatred in law is a challenge. Hatred, in Bill C-9, is defined as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike,” with broad exceptions for using symbols for legitimate purposes or “public interest.” The vagueness and the range of exceptions mean that any case will be contested in lengthy court battles.

While the intent is to protect minorities, the bill expands police and state powers in ways that will allow those in power to decide whether speech and symbols are in the “public interest” or not. Watching trends in the United States suggests caution about adding tools for law enforcement agencies to use at their discretion to detain and arrest people for speech acts in high emotion contexts. There are legitimate, major concerns about this bill, as there were about an earlier bill that died before the last election. No change is a likely worst outcome.

More police isn’t the answer

We will never police our way out of hate. There is no evidence to show that prosecuting intolerance fosters greater tolerance. Freedom of expression, which is central to democracy, and freedom from hate speech are too important and too nuanced to leave to the police to maintain. It takes collective action by citizens at all levels to create and maintain a civil society where minorities can feel safe enough to live well.

Prevention is recognized as preferable, and the federal government has allocated about five million dollars a year to fund community-based projects. The interesting list of funded projects includes innovative community projects and targeted research, such as determining what kind of counter speech can redirect persons away from online sites that are it designed to radicalize visitors. But all the projects are small-scale and can’t compete with the reach of social media platforms that have inciting hatred and outrage built into their operating systems. Broad societal initiatives are needed, starting with more robust civic education and media literacy in school systems across the country. Public campaigns might learn from efforts to stop smoking and best practices in prevention of bullying.

What about the church?

It is easy for Christians to think this is not our problem – for now. In reality, freedom of expression will only be present for my views if I also fight for that freedom for those with whom I disagree. After World War II many Christian churches apologized for not standing up for the rights of Jewish people earlier. At this moment, perhaps Christians should recognize in advance the ways that Christian speech is once again being weaponized to incite hatred and violence and take more explicit actions to combat hate speech that leads to violence, as history taught us. Perhaps it is time for more multi-faith and cross-cultural activities that are designed to include those who are drawn to online, extreme influencers.