Canada’s Bill C-9: Combatting Hate or Criminalising Faith? A Critique of the “Anti-Christian” Shift in Religious Freedom, By Charles Taylor (Florida)
On March 25, 2026, Canada's House of Commons passed Bill C-9, the "Combatting Hate Act," by a vote of 186-137. Liberals and the Bloc Québécois supported it; Conservatives, NDP, and Greens opposed. The bill now heads to the Senate, where critics hope it can still be amended or stopped. Framed as a response to rising antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia, the bill introduces new Criminal Code offences: intimidation or obstruction of access to places of worship and community sites (up to 10 years imprisonment), enhanced penalties for hate-motivated crimes, and measures against public display of certain hate or terrorist symbols. On the surface, protecting physical access to churches, synagogues, mosques, and schools sounds reasonable. The deeper controversy lies in what the bill removes: the long-standing "good faith" religious defence in Section 319 of the Criminal Code. This defence previously protected expressions of opinion "on a religious subject" or "based on a belief in a religious text" when made in good faith. By stripping this safeguard — as part of a deal to secure Bloc support — the bill opens the door to prosecuting religious speech that some might interpret as "wilful promotion of hatred" against protected groups, particularly those defined by sexual orientation or gender identity. Christian leaders and organisations, including the Campaign Life Coalition, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and groups like the Canadian Centre for Christian Charities, argue the change is not neutral. It disproportionately threatens biblical teaching on marriage, sexuality, and human nature. Traditional Christian doctrine holds that marriage is between one man and one woman, that sexual relations outside that are sinful, and that humans are created male and female. Verses from Leviticus, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, or Genesis are central to sermons, Bible studies, and pastoral counselling. Without the religious defence, publicly quoting or explaining such passages could be challenged as "prejudicial" or hateful toward LGBT+ individuals, even if presented as theological teaching rather than incitement to violence. Pro-life advocates worry that strong statements on abortion or euthanasia might also face scrutiny under broadened "hatred" interpretations. Cardinal Frank Leo of Toronto has written to Senators urging amendments, citing serious concerns for faith communities. Pastors and pro-life voices warn of a "new level of hostility" and "persecution under a cloak of supposed legality." The bill's supporters, including Justice Minister Sean Fraser, insist it "won't criminalise faith" and point to clarifications that sermons, prayer, and religious education are not targeted. Yet critics note that vague terms like "hatred" leave room for activist complaints, investigations, and chilling effects — especially in a country already shaped by prior laws like the conversion therapy ban (Bill C- The Slippery Slope Pattern This fits a broader pattern in Canadian policy. What begins as protection against genuine violence or vandalism can expand into regulation of ideas. Removing the religious exemption tilts the balance away from Charter-protected freedom of religion and expression (Sections 2(a) and 2(b)) toward subjective feelings of offence. Real-world risks include: Police or human rights bodies investigating pastors for traditional sermons. Self-censorship in churches to avoid complaints. Uneven application: similar strong language from other faiths might be treated differently depending on political sensitivities. A Better Approach to Hate and Freedom No one defends actual violence, vandalism of churches, or incitement to harm. Existing laws already address threats, assault, and property damage, with sentence enhancements for bias motivation. The good faith religious defence helped keep hate speech provisions constitutionally narrow, as recognised by the Supreme Court of Canada. By gutting that defence, Bill C-9 risks turning subjective "hate" into a tool that silences dissent on moral questions. In a pluralistic society, robust debate — including religious debate — on sexuality, family, and ethics should remain protected, not chilled by fear of prosecution. The Senate now holds the line. Senators should restore the religious defence or add clearer, stronger safeguards for sincerely held beliefs, worship, and peaceful expression. Uniform protection under the Charter, applied even-handedly, serves all Canadians better than bespoke expansions that favour certain sensitivities over others. Canada has long prided itself on multiculturalism and religious liberty. Bill C-9 tests whether that commitment still includes Christians who hold to historic teachings — or whether public expression of those teachings is now negotiable. If quoting Scripture on contested moral issues becomes risky, the "hate" label may ultimately undermine the very social cohesion the bill claims to protect. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/03/canadian-liberals-pass-anti-christian-bill-that-would/
