Michael Bator<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Michael Bator<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Feb 19, 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n In recent weeks, public discourse in Canada has turned sharply toward Bill C-9<\/strong>, the Combatting Hate Act<\/em>. On its face, it sounds reasonable: strengthen our ability to address hate crimes and online hate speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But protecting Canadians from real harm is not the same thing<\/strong> as expanding criminal law into areas that are already covered by existing legislation \u2014 and that expansion carries real risks to charter rights, free expression, and ordinary citizens<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This isn\u2019t a fringe concern. It\u2019s a constitutional concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Canada\u2019s Criminal Code<\/strong> already contains robust provisions to deal with hate-motivated offences:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Courts have used these provisions to convict individuals engaged in actual harm<\/em>, not merely offensive speech. Law-enforcement agencies already have the tools they need to prosecute violent conduct<\/em>, including hate-motivated violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In other words: we are not defending a legal vacuum.<\/strong> The current law already covers serious criminal conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the most troubling changes proposed by Bill C-9 is the removal of the requirement that the Attorney General\u2019s consent<\/strong> be obtained before hate-propaganda charges proceed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For decades, this safeguard ensured that prosecutors would exercise legal judgment and discretion<\/strong> before bringing charges involving nuanced and sensitive issues of expression. Removing this gatekeeper opens the door to expanded prosecution \u2014 and potential misuse<\/strong> \u2014 of criminal laws against speech.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s not theoretical. It\u2019s legal advice echoed by civil-liberties organizations who warn that discretion without checks<\/em> inevitably leads to inconsistent and ideologically skewed enforcement<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is not about protecting extremists \u2014 it\u2019s about ensuring that ordinary citizens are not drawn into criminal proceedings for controversial but non-violent expression<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bill C-9 attempts to define \u201chatred\u201d more precisely, but precision in law enforcement<\/em> isn\u2019t created simply by putting words on paper. Many terms remain subjective and open to interpretation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What one person sees as strong political opinion, another might see as \u201chate.\u201d Historically, courts have been cautious about defining these concepts because:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet Bill C-9 lowers the threshold<\/em> for criminal charges and shifts the burden toward the speaker \u2014 not the listener.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s why legal scholars worry that the threat of prosecution \u2014 even if convictions are rare \u2014 can chill free speech<\/strong>, peaceful protest, and legitimate debate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Currently, the Criminal Code contains a section \u2014 Section 319(3)<\/strong> \u2014 that protects statements made in a good-faith attempt to describe or discuss religious texts or beliefs<\/strong>, even if those statements might offend.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A recent committee vote accepted an amendment that would remove this defence entirely. This has profound implications:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This \u201cremoval of the good-faith defence\u201d isn\u2019t a minor technical tweak \u2014 it\u2019s a substantive change<\/strong> that affects how ordinary citizens engage in religious and philosophical discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly held that freedom of expression<\/strong> is protected under Section 2(b)<\/strong> of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms<\/em>. That protection includes speech that is controversial, offensive, or unpopular, so long as it doesn\u2019t directly cause harm<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bill C-9 tilts the balance toward criminalization of speech that is non-violent and controversial<\/strong> \u2014 and in doing so, it risks eroding confidence in our legal system as a protector of fundamental rights<\/strong>, not a weapon against dissent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We do not have to choose between safety and freedom. But we do have to defend the established legal framework that already holds violent and threatening conduct to account<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Parliamentarians are elected to represent the views and interests of Canadians. When a bill touches on core freedoms, citizens have every right \u2014 and every reason \u2014 to engage:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our rights are not granted by Parliament \u2014 they are protected by law<\/strong> and deserve protection from overreach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bill C-9 may be well-intentioned in its aspirations, but intention is not law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We do not need legislation that duplicates existing protections. A strong democracy protects people from harm<\/em>, but also from the overreach of its own institutions<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s defend both.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why Bill C-9 Is a Solution in Search of a Problem Michael Bator Why Bill C-9 Is a Solution in Search of a Problem Why Bill C-9 Is a Solution in Search of a Problem Michael Bator Feb 19, 2026 … Continue reading Why Bill C-9 Is a Solution in Search of a Problem <\/h1>\n\n\n\n
Why Bill C-9 Is a Solution in Search of a Problem<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n⚖️ Canadian law already addresses hate conduct ⚖️<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nBill C-9 expands, rather than clarifies, legal discretion<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The definitions remain unclear \u2014 and that matters<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nRemoving the \u201cgood-faith\u201d safeguard is dangerous<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nThis matters because free expression is a foundation of Canadian democracy<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nWhat citizens can do now<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\nIn closing<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
We should not accept laws that expand criminal liability in ways that chill free expression and jeopardize civil liberties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/MICHAEL-BATOR.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"