Canada’s Hate Speech Bill Sparks Religious Freedom Debate, Legal Experts Clarify

Canada’s Senate is currently reviewing a controversial hate speech bill that has triggered widespread debate about religious freedom, with social media awash with claims that the legislation “criminalizes the Bible.” Legal experts and government officials, however, maintain that such interpretations significantly mischaracterize the proposed law.

Bill C-9, known as the Combatting Hate Act, passed Canada’s House of Commons on March 25 and is now undergoing Senate review. The legislation must still complete two additional readings and receive Royal Assent before becoming law, with the Senate having completed only its first reading on March 26.

The proposed reforms to Canada’s Criminal Code aim to strengthen existing hate speech provisions by codifying a formal definition of “hatred” based on Supreme Court rulings, making it easier to prosecute hate crimes. According to Justice Minister Sean Fraser, these changes respond to rising antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia across the country.

“Hatred is a high threshold involving vilification and detestation,” explained Ian McLeod, spokesman for the Department of Justice, in an April 2 statement. “Religious sermons, texts and teachings delivered in good faith, including the Bible, would not meet this standard.”

The legislation has sparked particular controversy over an amendment that removes a specific religious exemption from Canada’s criminal code. Currently, Section 319(3)(b) states that a person shall not be convicted “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”

This change prompted Catholic and Muslim leaders to express concerns about potential impacts on religious expression. In a joint statement, several religious organizations called for a thorough Senate review to ensure protection of civil liberties and fundamental freedoms.

Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, a lawyer and director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, cautioned that without alternative language, the removal of this exemption “could lead to the persecution of some religious minorities.” She noted that despite Charter protections for religious freedom, “a state authority could adopt an excessively negative interpretation of some religious sermons and teachings” under the proposed changes.

Richard Moon, professor emeritus of law at the University of Windsor, emphasized that courts have narrowly defined hate speech to focus on “extreme speech” that amounts to the vilification or detestation of group members.

“The examples they give are things like describing the members of a group as subhuman, as animalistic, as inherently violent,” Moon explained. He dismissed claims that people would be unable to discuss the Bible as “plainly wrong.”

Justice Minister Fraser has defended the removal of the religious exemption, noting that “in nearly 20 years of this defense existing, we are not aware of a single case in which courts relied on section 319(3)(b) to acquit an accused.” He has repeatedly stated that Bill C-9 “will not criminalize faith.”

The bill specifies that expressions that merely “discredit, humiliate, hurt or offend” do not constitute hatred, and includes clauses clarifying that only expression communicated with the intention to promote hatred or antisemitism would be captured by the offenses.

The Conservative Party has opposed the bill, while the Bloc Québécois joined the Liberals to ensure its passage in the House. Previous attempts to remove the religious exemption had also generated misinformation campaigns.

The controversy illustrates the tension between strengthening protections for vulnerable groups and preserving freedom of religious expression – a balance the Senate must now carefully consider as it continues its review of the legislation.