The federal Liberal government, in a political agreement with the Bloc Québécois, is advancing legislation that critics argue declares an unnecessary war on religious freedom in Canada. The contentious Bill C-9, currently under review by the House of Commons Justice Committee, proposes to strip away long-standing legal safeguards that protect freedom of expression and religious belief.
The Core of the Controversy: Eliminating a Vital Defence
At the heart of the debate is a specific amendment to Canada's hate speech laws. Currently, Section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code provides a critical defence. It states that a person cannot be prosecuted for expressing, "in good faith," an argument or opinion based on a religious belief or "based on a belief in a religious text."
This provision is not a minor legal loophole. The Supreme Court of Canada has explicitly recognized this defence as a constitutional necessity. It acts as a vital buffer, ensuring that laws criminalizing hate speech do not infringe upon the fundamental freedoms of religion and expression guaranteed by the Charter.
Bill C-9, as amended with Bloc Québécois support, seeks to remove this protection. If passed, individuals could face criminal prosecution and imprisonment for up to two years for expressing sincere religious convictions that state authorities deem offensive or hateful.
Political Deal Sparks Alarm Among Faith Communities
The Liberal government insists the bill is required to protect religious communities from hate. However, commentators like Andrew Lawton argue the opposite is true. The legislation, he contends, will expose people of faith to prosecution for quoting their own sacred scriptures, from the Bible and Torah to the Quran and other religious texts.
The political manoeuvring became clear when the Liberals secured Bloc Québécois support for the bill by agreeing to eliminate the religious text defence. The Bloc has long sought this change, having unsuccessfully attempted similar amendments in the previous Parliament.
Liberal MP Marc Miller, chair of the Justice Committee, underscored the intent behind the move. During a committee meeting, he pointed to specific books like Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Romans, stating there was "clear hatred" in some passages. "Clearly there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful," Miller said. "They should not be used to invoke or be a defence." He was explicit that prosecutors should be able to "press charges" in such cases.
Broader Implications for a Free and Diverse Society
The potential consequences extend across Canada's diverse religious landscape. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, and Buddhist communities all hold a vast range of beliefs on morality, sexuality, and culture. These beliefs sometimes conflict with prevailing secular views and can be found objectionable by some Canadians.
Critics of Bill C-9 assert that in a free society, the response to offensive ideas is robust debate and persuasion, not criminal sanctions. The existing legal framework already criminalizes the advocacy of genocide and the wilful promotion of hatred. The problem, as noted by Lawton, is not a lack of law but a lack of enforcement, citing the 2023 case of Montreal Imam Adil Charkaoui, who was not charged after calling for the extermination of Jews in a prayer.
By removing the good faith defence for religious expression, the law would shift from targeting malicious incitement of violence to policing theological interpretations. This creates a precedent where the state determines which religious doctrines are acceptable, a move described by opponents as a form of state-sanctioned anti-religious bias.
As Bill C-9 progresses through committee, it raises profound questions about the balance between preventing hate speech and preserving the foundational liberties that allow Canada's pluralistic society to function. The outcome will signal whether the legal system continues to provide a shield for sincere religious belief or becomes a tool for its suppression.
