| Are Canada’s New Laws a Risk to Free Speech? Growing Concerns About Bill C-11, C-8, and C-9 In recent years, the Canadian government has passed or introduced several new bills that critics say could limit basic rights like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and even freedom of association. These rights are protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but new laws may be putting them at risk. The most talked-about of these is Bill C-11, also known as the Online Streaming Act. It became law in April 2023. But now, two newer bills, Bill C-8 (focused on cybersecurity) and Bill C-9 (focused on hate crimes), are raising even more concerns about what these laws mean for ordinary Canadians, especially those who use the internet to share opinions, create content, or take part in peaceful protests. What Is Bill C-11? Bill C-11 gives the federal government, through the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), new powers to regulate online streaming services like YouTube, TikTok, and Netflix. The government says the bill is about making sure Canadian content is promoted online. But many people worry that it gives the CRTC too much control over what people can see, hear, and say on the internet. For example: The CRTC can influence the algorithms that decide what videos show up on your feed. It may prioritize certain voices while hiding others, especially those that don’t match the government’s definition of “Canadian content.” Although user content is said to be “mostly exempt,” platforms like YouTube could still be forced to adjust or limit what content is promoted or allowed. Many creators in Alberta, like comedian Spencer Streichert and YouTuber J.J. McCullough, have spoken out. They say the bill risks silencing diverse voices, especially immigrants and independent creators who don’t meet the government’s narrow content rules. What’s in Bill C-8? Bill C-8, introduced in June 2025, is Canada’s newest cybersecurity law. It aims to protect important systems like banking, electricity, and telecom networks from cyberattacks. It creates a new law called the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (CCPSA). Here’s what it does: Forces certain companies (like internet providers) to have strong cybersecurity plans. Requires companies to report cyberattacks to the government. Gives the federal Industry Minister the power to order companies to take action, including possibly cutting off internet or phone services to protect security. Supporters say this is necessary for national safety. But critics, including civil liberties groups, warn that it could be used to limit people’s access to the internet – possibly without a warrant, court approval, or even telling the person involved – and force the topic of Digital ID. The bill also allows for strict secrecy. That means companies may not be allowed to tell you why your service was cut or how to challenge the decision. “A digital ID tied to access and services risks becoming a tool of control rather than convenience. We must ensure that technology serves freedom—not replaces it.” — Dr. Leslyn Lewis, speaking on digital governance issues, 2023 This raises serious questions about transparency, due process, and even freedom of association—especially if online groups or communities are suddenly blocked or restricted without clear reason. What Is Bill C-9? Bill C-9, introduced in September 2025, is called the Combatting Hate Act. It changes the Criminal Code to add tougher rules around hate crimes and hate symbols. Here’s what the bill does: Makes it a crime to intimidate or block access to places like churches, community centers, or cemeteries. Bans the public display of hate symbols, like Nazi swastikas or symbols from known terrorist groups. Creates a new hate crime offense that adds extra punishment if someone commits a crime with “hateful intent.” Changes the legal definition of hatred, now described as strong feelings of “detestation or vilification.” Removes the rule that required the Attorney General’s permission to start hate speech prosecutions. “We have seen the rise in hate-fueled actions across this country. Communities need to know that the law protects them from intimidation and vilification.” — Peter Julian, public statement, September 2025 The goal is to protect communities from hate, but some groups worry that the bill may go too far. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Egale Canada have warned that peaceful protests could be misunderstood or criminalized under the new rules. But HOW does one define the emotion “hate” into a legal context? This becomes subjective by nature and now our justice system is responding to individual levels of mental toughness rather than demonstrably justified or unjust. For example, if someone protests near a public building or church and is seen as too loud or emotional, they could be accused of intimidation. Even if their goal was simply to express an opinion. This raises concerns about freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. How These Laws Work Together Each bill focuses on something different—streaming content, cybersecurity, and hate speech. But taken together, they show a bigger trend: more government control over what Canadians say, share, and access, especially online. Critics argue that: Bill C-11 affects what content people can find and share online. Bill C-8 could allow the government to cut off someone’s internet without warning. Bill C-9 could make it easier to criminalize protests and controversial opinions. All three bills give more power to federal officials and create rules that limit transparency and public debate. This could lead to situations where people are punished or silenced without knowing why or how to defend themselves. “Freedom of speech is not just the right to say things people agree with—it’s the right to say things others may not want to hear. Government cannot be the gatekeeper of acceptable opinion.” — Dr. Leslyn Lewis, remarks shared on her official website and social media platforms, 2023 Alberta’s Growing Frustration In Alberta, these laws have added fuel to long-standing concerns about Ottawa’s growing control over areas like media, energy, and individual rights. Dr. Dennis Modry, founder and CEO of the Alberta Prosperity Project, says these laws are part of a larger problem. “This is not how democracy is supposed to work,” he said. “Canadians should not be afraid to speak, associate, or create content that doesn’t match the federal government’s viewpoint.” According to an Angus Reid poll, nearly three-quarters of Albertans feel that their interests are not fairly represented in Ottawa. That feeling is now growing stronger, especially as more people see these bills as threats to basic freedoms. Why It Matters Canada has long been seen as a country that respects free speech, open debate, and democratic rights. But with these new laws, many are asking whether that is still true. While protecting people from hate, cyberattacks, and misinformation is important, it’s also important to protect the rights and freedoms that make Canada a democratic country. When the government gains new powers to control content, limit access to services, or silence protests, it must be held accountable. These bills are not just about policy—they are about how much control the federal government should have over what Canadians can say, see, and do. For many, especially in Alberta, the answer is clear: less control, more freedom. |
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Brief to Commons Committee on Justice & Human Rights re: Bill C-9 by Canadian Constitution Foundation
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
TO: The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
RE: Canadian Constitution Foundation brief on Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code
(hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)
November 4, 2025
The CCF
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (“the CCF”) has prepared this brief to outline our
concerns with Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and
access to religious or cultural places).
The CCF is a non-partisan charity dedicated to defending Canadians’ rights and freedoms
through education, communications and litigation. The CCF is involved in dozens of cases per
year in defence of the constitution. The CCF has been involved in landmark cases involving
freedom of expression, including Saskatchewan v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, and Ward v Quebec,
2021 SCC 43. The CCF successfully challenged the invocation of the Emergencies Act in February
2022, where the Federal Court found the invocation was ultra vires and the regulations violated
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ protections of expression and security against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The decision remains under appeal. The CCF also offers
free online courses for members of the public, including courses on the fundamentals of
Canada’s constitution and a course on freedom of expression. I have co-written three books that
discuss free expression: Pandemic Panic, Free Speech in Canada and Maple’s Garden.
The CCF’s concerns
Bill C-9 proposes major changes to Canada’s hate propaganda regime. These changes will lead
to more people being investigated, charged, and prosecuted for their words. Hate against
people is wrong, and our society must confront hate and condemn it. But the criminal law is not
the right tool for every social scourge. The criminal law comes with a loss of liberty, and our
highest level of social stigma. Expanding the possibility of putting people in prison for their
words, or even being labelled hate propagandists, also risks capturing speech that may merely
offend. The scope of debate on controversial topics of public importance will be limited and
chilled if the threat of criminal sanction is expanded and looms over our civil discourse.
The Charter right to freedom of expression guaranteed in section 2(b) protects all speech,
including speech that offends, and even hate speech. The guarantee is content neutral. The
question before the courts in cases involving extreme speech is always about when limits can be
Page 1 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
imposed on speech, not whether speech is protected. To ensure the widest possible scope of
debate and the search for truth, it is vital that the threshold for criminal sanction of speech is
high. Bill C-9 would lower this threshold, remove safeguards against politically motivated
charges, remove political accountability for charges, would create a risk of overcharging to force
plea bargains, expand the availability of hate offences beyond the criminal law, and risks limiting
constitutionally protected protest activity.
Canadians are not safer when we do not know what people believe. The criminal law can never
remove hate from an individual’s heart. Instead, the criminal law should be oriented towards
doing what it can do: restricting violence and threats of violence, which includes intimidation,
harassment, and blockading. The concept of hatred is subjective, and when opinion is
criminalized, we make martyrs out of hatemongers and draw more attention to their vile
viewpoints. Criminalizing opinion forces hateful speech underground and online, where
individuals can get trapped in cycles of radicalization, and where hateful ideas are not
confronted with the truth. In the end, as John Stuart Mill warned in his famous defence of free
speech in On Liberty, suppressing opinions prevents the exchange of error for truth, and
deprives us of the clearer and livelier perception of the truth that comes from its collision with
falsehood.
The primary duties of Parliament are to represent the electorate, hold the executive
accountable, and uphold Canada’s constitutional democracy. Parliament has an obligation to
ensure laws it passes are in keeping with our constitution, including our constitutional
protection for freedom of expression. Some of the proposals in Bill C-9 are very likely unjustified
violations of this protection, guaranteed by the supreme law of Canada. Others are unnecessary
because they are redundant in light of Canada’s existing laws.
Accordingly, the CCF’s primary recommendation is to withdraw Bill C-9.
In the alternative, the CCF proposes six amendments that could reduce, though not eliminate,
the risk that C-9 unjustifiably violates freedom of expression.
Amendment 1: The definition of hate in Bill C-9 must exactly track the case law.
The Criminal Code prohibits the public incitement of hatred in section 319(1) and the wilful
promotion of hatred in section 319(2).
Public incitement of hatred prohibits the communication of a statement in public that incites
hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the
peace.
Page 2 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
Wilful promotion of hatred prohibits communicating statements, other than in private
communication, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.
If Parliament wishes to provide a statutory definition of “hatred” for offences in section 319 of
the Criminal Code, this statutory definition must precisely track the definition that has been
outlined by the Supreme Court as high enough to protect freedom of expression.
In R v Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697, the majority of the Supreme Court held that “the term
‘hatred’ connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with
vilification and detestation.” The court in Keegstra warned that there is a danger that a court
may improperly infer hatred from statements he or she personally finds offensive. This is why
the court recognized the need to circumscribe the definition of “hatred” in such a precise
manner.
In R v Andrews, [1990] 3 SCR 870, Cory J.A. stated that: “Hatred is not a word of casual
connotation. To promote hatred is to instil detestation, enmity, ill-will and malevolence in
another. Clearly an expression must go a long way before it qualifies within the definition in [s.
319(2)].”
More recently, in Saskatchewan v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11, the Court reiterated that: “…the
legislative term “hatred” or “hatred or contempt” is to be interpreted as being restricted to
those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and
“vilification”.” This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite
the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other
harmful effects” (emphasis added).
In Whatcott, Justice Rothstein struck down a Saskatchewan provision that outlawed speech that
“ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” protected groups because that
definition of hatred “could capture a great deal of expression which, while offensive to most
people, falls short of exposing its target group to the extreme detestation and vilification which
risks provoking discriminatory activities against that group” (emphasis added).
The definition of hatred laid out in C-9 is a lower threshold than that set out in Keegstra.
Section 319(7) of -9 defines hatred as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and
that is stronger than disdain or dislike” (emphasis added).
The proposed definition removes the requirement that the speech be the “intense and
extreme”, and now merely requires that the emotion “involve” detestation or vilification rather
Page 3 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
than be “clearly associated” with detestation and vilification. It also lowers the standard by
defining hate as the emotion associated with detestation “or” vilification, rather than
detestation “and” vilification.
While the Minister of Justice has suggested that the intention of the bill is to reflect the case law
and paraphrase the words of the court, the most important aspect of the law, if passed, that a
future court will consider is the actual text. The intention of the Minister will likely be argued,
but Parliament does not vote on the Minister’s statements: it votes on the text. If Parliament is
to legislate the definition of hatred, it risks violating constitutional rights if it departs from the
words the court has already upheld as constitutional limits on free expression.
Recommendation 2: Maintain the requirement for attorney general consent for hate crime
offences
Currently, any prosecution for a hate propaganda offence in section 319 of the Criminal Code
requires consent of the attorney general. This requirement is an important institutional
safeguard on the abuse of this especially sensitive provision of the Criminal Code.
Determining whether someone will face a prison sentence for the words they speak requires
political accountability, and charges require a careful balancing of the public interest and the
constitutional guarantee for freedom of expression.
There are serious risks associated with removing the requirement of attorney general consent,
including the risk of arbitrary, inconsistent, or selective enforcement based on political or
ideological grounds. It also risks charges that have no chance of conviction on the basis of
speech that offends the public. This risks chilling lawful political debate and dissent.
There is an additional concern that removing attorney general consent will allow for the
possibility of private prosecutions. While private prosecutions for criminal offences are rare in
Canadian law, the subjective nature of hatred combined with the current climate of political
polarization makes the risk of abuse of private prosecutions for this type of law especially
concerning.
Recommendation 3: Remove the standalone hate offence in proposed section 320.1001(1)
The law currently treats hatred as an aggravating factor at the sentencing stage. If an offence is
motivated by hatred, the sentencing judge can take that into account and impose a more
serious sentence. This should not be changed.
Page 4 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
Bill C-9 proposes the creation of new standalone hate crime offences that layer on top of
another offence. And this is not confined to criminal law. Bill C-9 proposes that everyone who
commits an offence contrary to any act of Parliament that is “motivated by hatred” is guilty of a
separate offence.
This dramatically expands criminal liability. It could make quasi-criminal or even regulatory
offences criminal offences if they are “motivated” by hatred. This approach is duplicative
punishment for criminal offences, and it risks transforming non-criminal offences into criminal
offences that carry with them terms of imprisonment and the social stigma of the criminal law.
By creating the possibility of a duplicate offence with high penalties, Bill C-9 creates a risk of
overcharging. Crowns, no longer constrained by the requirement of attorney general consent,
may pressure defendants to plead guilty by layering the threat of more serious hate charges on
top of other criminal – or even quasi-criminal – charges. Hatred should remain a sentencing
consideration.
Recommendation 4: Remove the prohibition on “hate symbols”
Bill C-9 makes it an offence to wilfully promote hatred by displaying listed hate symbols,
including the Nazi Hakenkreuz, or hooked-cross1, the Nazi double Sig-Rune, also known as the
SS bolts, as well as symbols that are “principally used by, or principally associated with” listed
terrorist organizations.
To be clear, the display of these symbols to wilfully promote or incite hatred are despicable. But
the proposal in Bill C-9 is flawed for at least four reasons.
First, Canadians are not made safer if we do not know that someone down the street from our
home holds racist and evil views. We are better off knowing who holds disturbing opinions so
that we can openly confront those viewpoints, or stay away from such people. Every year our
newspapers feature at least one story about a local crank flying a Nazi symbol. And every year
we are reminded that these symbols, though horrible, are legal. Driving these symbols
underground through the criminal law grants them more power and mystique than they
deserve.
1 Bill C-9 calls this symbol the Nazi swastika, which is a common misnomer. The word swastika is a Sanskrit word for
an ancient and sacred symbol in Eastern religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.
Page 5 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
Second, the existing hate propaganda offences can already capture the use of symbols if those
symbols are used to wilfully promote or incite hatred. Under the current law, the display of
these symbols alone is not sufficient for a charge. Bill C-9 could change that. While the Minister
has suggested that this provision is intended to supplement the existing wilful promotion of
hatred offence to place more emphasis on the use of hate symbols, the text leaves significant
room for interpretation. The text could easily be read to mean that the display of these symbols
on their own can now be grounds for an offence. And to reiterate, Parliament votes on the text
of the Bill, not on the intentions of the minister, and a court interpreting the law will look first at
the text.
Prohibiting the symbols alone would also capture too much expression. While it is distasteful,
foolish and inaccurate to compare any Canadian parliamentarians to Nazis or terrorists, we
often see these comparisons made by some disaffected citizens exercising their freedom of
expression. Some of these comparisons are made using these symbols, and this common type
of political speech could now be subject to criminal sanction.
There is also too much ambiguity in the text of the provision, as it would prohibit symbols that
are “principally used by” or “associated with” terrorist groups, or symbols that “nearly
resemble” the symbols of terrorist groups or that are “likely to be confused” with those
symbols.
Recommendation 5: Remove new provisions on intimidation
Bill C-9 would make it an offence to engage in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of
fear in a person in order to impede their access to places of worship or cultural centres.
This provision is duplicative and can lead to confusion among law enforcement. The Criminal
Code already prohibits intimidation under section 423, harassment under section 264, and
mischief under section 420. Provincial highway traffic statutes also prohibit blockading roads.
When protests blockade roads or building entrances, police can already use these tools to
remove them. The rule of law requires the enforcement of the law, not the creation of new and
increasingly narrow laws when police fail to act.
Recommendation 6: Keep the defences of truth and good faith religious opinion in section
319(3)
Page 6 of 7
Christine Van Geyn
Litigation Director
Canadian Constitution Foundation
cvangeyn@theccf.ca
There has been some suggestion that the defences to hate propaganda offences in section
319(3) of the Criminal Code should be repealed. These defences provide that no person shall be
convicted of wilful promotion of hatred if the statements were true or were a good faith
expression of an opinion on a religious subject or based on a belief in a religious text.
These defences must be maintained.
The courts have considered the religious belief defence in 319(3), and the existence of this
defence has been core in the analysis that found the offence of wilfully promoting hatred to be
a justified limit, in for example, Keegstra. Removing this defence would open up the legislation
to a new constitutional challenge. It is also worth noting that there has never been an instance
where the defence was argued successfully.
The courts have interpreted the defence as a narrow one, and found that it does not operate so
as to shield speech that wilfully promotes hatred merely because it is embedded with religious
language. The court in R v Harding, 2001 CanLII 21272 (ON CA) held that: “Although expression
of religious opinion is strongly protected, this protection cannot be extended to shield this type
of communication simply because they are contained in the same message and the one is used
to bolster the other. If that were the case, religious opinion could be used with impunity as
a Trojan Horse to carry the intended message of hate forbidden by s. 319.”
Removing the religious defence, combined with removing the requirement for attorney general
consent, would lead to investigations and charges based on good faith but misunderstood
religious dialogue, and would inevitably lead to a chill on religious debate or even good faith
political debate on moral topics out of fear of severe criminal sanction.
Page 7 of 7
IRST READING: Another NDP bill threatens to jail Canadians for speech
FIRST READING: Another NDP bill threatens to jail Canadians for speech
Two years in jail for any Canadian caught ‘condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying’ Indian residential schools
First Reading is a Canadian politics newsletter curated by the National Post’s own Tristin Hopper. To get an early version sent directly to your inbox, sign up here.
Article content
T
For the third time in two years, a member of the NDP has introduced a private members’ bill
Last week, the House of Commons completed its first reading of Bill C-254, a private members’ bill introduced by the NDP’s Leah Gazan that would criminalize “residential school denialism.”
As the bill’s text states, any Canadian found to be “condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying the Indian residential school system” could be punished with up to two years in jail.
Article content
B
A judge would also be able to order the forfeiture of “anything by means of or in relation to” the speech offence.
“Since the discovery of unmarked graves (we have seen) an increase in denialism about what occurred in the residential schools. This is horrific,” said Gazan in a Friday statement on Parliament Hill.
Article content
This is the second time Gazan, the MP for Winnipeg Centre, has put forward a bill to jail who she’s called “residential school denialists.” She introduced an identical bill in the 44th Parliament.
Article content
Bill C-254 also comes just 16 months after a private member’s bill by the NDP’s Charlie Angus that proposed to jail Canadians for speaking well of fossil fuels.
The Fossil Fuel Advertising Act, which died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament in March, would have prescribed strict punishments for any Canadian caught in the act of “promoting” a “fossil fuel, a fossil fuel-related brand element or the production of a fossil fuel.”
Article content
If a normal citizen had been caught perpetrating such a promotion, the punishment could be as severe as a $500,000 fine. If done as a representative of an oil company, it would have prescribed a two-year jail term.
Gazan’s reintroduced bill comes just as an upstart B.C. political party, OneBC, is campaigning hard against the notion that the summer of 2021 had yielded a wave of previously undiscovered graves at the sites of former Indian residential schools.
“No graves in Kamloops. No genocide. No wrongs left to reconcile. No land, cash, or power grabs. No looking back,” read a social media post by OneBC leader Dallas Brodie responding to Bill C-254.
The “unmarked graves” phenomenon began in May 2021 when Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation in B.C. garnered international headlines by announcing that a ground-penetrating radar survey had found “the remains of 215 children” at the former site of the Kamloops Indian Residential School.
A
The statement would prompt then prime minister Justin Trudeau to lower the flags on federal buildings to half-mast for an unprecedented five months.
Four years later, none of the 215 have been confirmed as graves, and Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc is now referring to the 215 as “anomalies.”
In August, a poll by the Angus Reid Institute found that Canadians still generally believed that Indian residential schools constituted a form of “cultural genocide” against Canadian Indigenous people (68 per cent agree vs. 23 per cent disagree).
Nevertheless, that same poll found that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous respondents were doubtful that the 215 anomalies were actually children’s graves
A majority of Canadians (Indigenous respondents 56 per cent, all respondents 63 per cent) said Canada should “only accept the claim if further information is publicly available to verify through excavation.”
Article content
Article content
In 2021, Gazan twice referred to the 215 as lying in a “mass grave” — a claim that went beyond Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc’s initial statements, which had said simply that the 215 were unmarked burials.
Gazan changed this to “unmarked graves” in a June 1, 2021 House of Commons statement, and has not mentioned the alleged Kamloops Indian Residential School burials in her Parliamentary statements ever since.
Private members’ bills very seldom become law, and Bill C-254 does include multiple caveats under which a charge of “denialism” can be dismissed. Defences of Indian residential schools are allowed if it’s an “opinion based on a belief in a religious text” or if the accused is able to establish that “the statements communicated were true.”
The bill also specifies that Canadians are allowed to say whatever they want in “private conversation.”
Long before Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc ever commissioned a ground-penetrating radar survey at the Kamloops Indian Residential School, the seven-year-long Truth and Reconciliation Commission inquiry concluded that Canada’s system of Indian residential schools had featured outsized rates of student mortality, particularly in the pre-First World War era.
Article content
As per the Commission’s 2015 final report, an estimated 3,200 children had died while attending Indian residential schools, predominantly from outbreaks of tuberculosis. Many of those were buried in on-site graveyards that were subsequently abandoned.
Senior Liberal Would Jail You for Quoting the Bible
Liberal MP moves to muzzle “hateful” religious scripture
Liberal MP Marc Miller is defending his remarks about limiting religious defences in hate speech cases, stating freedom of worship is not threatened.
Nov 02, 2025
Source: Facebook (Marc Miller)
Liberal MP Marc Miller is defending his remarks about limiting religious defences in hate speech cases, stating freedom of worship is not threatened, but public incitement of hatred should not be shielded by citing scripture.
Miller, who chairs the House Justice Committee, made headlines Thursday after questioning if Canada’s Criminal Code allows too much leeway for individuals to defend hate speech by referencing religious texts.
“There are religious texts that say [hateful things],” he told committee witnesses, specifically referencing Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans. “Clearly, there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke or be a defence.”
On Friday, he reinforced the message online, writing: “There should be no defence to the crime of publicly inciting hatred because, for example, someone relied on Leviticus 20:13 or Deuteronomy 22:22, which prescribe death to homosexuals and adulterers.”
The remarks sparked criticism from conservative commentators and faith advocates, who accused Miller of targeting scripture and religious speech.
“Mark Carney’s Minister wants to CONTROL which Bible passages can be read at church,” political commentator Jasmin Laine posted on X, citing Miller’s reference to Biblical chapters “hateful to LGBTQ people.”
Miller responded on the platform: “That couldn’t be further from the truth. You can read whatever you want. However, if you commit a public hate crime, you shouldn’t be able to use it as defence to what otherwise would be a public hate crime. This isn’t rocket science.”
The debate centres on Section 319 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes the willful promotion or public incitement of hatred against identifiable groups.
Miller did not propose immediate amendments to the law, but questioned whether current exemptions reflect the government’s intent.
“We have to be honest about what is being said, how it’s being justified, and whether our laws are working the way we say they are,” Miller told the committee.
Free Speech Persecution — Abuse BY Process:
Pro-lifer arrested for defending the unborn needs your help with his mounting legal bills
Alexander Kissiakov of Montreal was eventually acquitted of the charges, but he’s seeking $15,000 to help cover his legal expenses.
LifeFunder
Help arrested pro-lifer cover legal expenses: LifeFunder
(LifeSiteNews) – Alexander Kissiakov of Montreal, who was arrested and charged for standing in front of an abortion clinic handing out pamphlets to pregnant women to tell them about the psychological consequences of abortion, is asking the pro-life community to help him cover the legal costs he incurred for promoting a pro-life message.
On October 31, Kissiakov launched a LifeFunder to raise $15,000 to help cover legal expenses. It is only now that he can tell his story, as the court had issued a peace bond that prevented him from speaking publicly about his case until now.
“If you find my cause honorable and have the means to contribute, your support would be deeply appreciated,” Kissiakov said.
In September 2022, Kissiakov was arrested after protesting in front of an abortion clinic, where he gave a pamphlet to a person he thought was a patient but later turned out to be a nurse at the clinic who was offended by what he was doing.
“Following a renewed desire to ‘live by faith’ after watching Pastor Chuck Baldwin’s sermon, I stood on September 13, 2022, in front of an abortion clinic to distribute informational pamphlets to pregnant women about the psychological consequences of abortion — because I believed they had the right to know,” he said.
“Most declined to take one, and I respected their choice as they respected my right to be there.”
Kissiakov said that after the nurse said “no” to taking a pamphlet, the police were later called. He was wearing a shirt that quoted Psalm 22:10 on the front: “From my mother’s womb you have been my God.”
When police arrived, he was told to leave right away by the security guard, and that if he did not, the police would remove him. He made it a point to ask the police if he was under suspicion of committing a crime, and he was told he was not.
He said that he asked many times if he was being charged and was told he was not. Eventually, Kissiakov said, “police became agitated. They grabbed me violently, my phone fell, and the recording stopped.”
“They searched me while I was against the wall without informing me what crime I had committed or whether I was under arrest. After repeated demands for clarification, the police finally said that I was under arrest,” he said.
He was told by one officer that he had done “mischief.” He later learned that he was charged with two counts of criminal harassment, one toward the nurse and one toward the users of the clinic.
He was also charged with one count of mischief for allegedly having “prevented, interrupted, or interfered with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property exceeding $5,000 (the abortion clinic).”
“In other words, what began with the police assuring me I had committed no crime ended in three criminal charges,” he said.
After the trial, with the help of his video evidence, all charges against him were dropped after it became clear to the judge that he was told by police that he was not being charged, with him saying, “one officer even submitted a written confession to that effect.”
“The nurse claimed that I had followed her and tried to enter the clinic, but her account contradicted both my video evidence and the Crown’s own submissions,” he noted.
“She further alleged that I told her, ‘According to God’s law, one cannot have an abortion.’ I believe she confused the biblical verse on my T-shirt for words I had spoken, as I made no such statement. The judge found the nurse’s testimony unreliable and dismissed that charge.”
Kissiakov said the court determined that he was not in the wrong, with him saying, “neither security nor the police witnessed any interaction between me and the patients. Video evidence showed that I approached women briefly and always politely.”
“The court ruled that none of this behavior met the threshold for intimidation required under section 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, and that there was no evidence any patient actually feared for her safety. Filming women’s faces while expressing opposition to abortion did not constitute harassment. I was acquitted on this charge as well,” he noted.
Surveillance footage confirmed that he has never blocked access to the clinic.
Kissiakov noted that although he was acquitted on all charges “due to insufficient evidence,” the judge expressed “serious concern about statements I made during my testimony.”
He paraphrased her remark below:
“He claimed to act under the supremacy of God, above human law; believed he had a duty to inform only women, expecting less violent reactions from them; wished to position his camera lower to better film women seeking abortions; continued filming one woman after she refused his pamphlet; defied repeated police orders because he believed his conscience overrode them; admitted lying to men to reach women with his message; and acknowledged his actions were politically incorrect and unwelcome but necessary to follow his conscience. The court warned that if the prosecution pursued a peace bond under section 810, it would be inclined to consider it.”
Kissiakov agreed to the peace bond, which is said to be “why I have been unable to speak publicly about this matter until now.”
“I am now seeking $15,000 to help cover my legal expenses. If you find my cause honorable and have the means to contribute, your support would be deeply appreciated,” he said.
German Political Prisoner Alfred Schaefer Moved
German Political Prisoner Alfred Schaefer Moved
German political prisoner Alfred Schaefer has been moved, without explanation, to a new prison. Here’s his address. You might want to drop a letter of encouragement to this “man behind the wire.”
Alfred Schaefer
JVA Bernau
Baumannstr. 81
83233 Bernau
Germany
Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns of Threats to Free Speech From Bill C-8
| On Thursday, CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas was in Ottawa with other free speech advocates for the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to talk about the problems with Bill C-8, a federal bill to make changes to Canada’s telecommunications and cybersecurity laws. As written, section 15.2 could give the government sweeping powers to cut off Canadians’ phone or internet service in the name of cybersecurity, even for minor or suspected threats – no need for any warrant. Ministers would be able to issue secret orders to telecom companies like Bell or Rogers, with huge fines for those who disclose the minister took this action. |
Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns: Liberal Hate Crimes Bill (C-9) Raises Free Speech Concerns
Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns: Liberal Hate Crimes Bill (C-9) Raises Free Speech Concerns
The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is concerned that key aspects of the Carney government’s proposed hate crimes legislation would unduly infringe on freedom of expression.
Among other changes to the Criminal Code, Bill C-9 would establish a standalone hate crime provision that would allow for up to life in prison for committing an act motivated by hatred, would create new intimidation and obstruction crimes related to buildings used for religious worship or primarily by identifiable groups, and would establish a new crime of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying certain symbols such as terrorist flags or Nazi swastikas in a public place. [But not the communist hammer and sickle or the Israeli flag.]
The CCF has identified the following concerns:
- Overbreadth of the hate-symbol provision (s. 319(2.2)): It could chill legitimate speech in cases where it is unclear whether a symbol is “principally associated with a terrorist group” or “resembles a symbol” outlawed under the provision;
- Extreme sentencing under the new hate crime offence (s. 320.1001): A person who commits mischief against property motivated by hatred could face up to seven years in prison, rather than the current two years;
- Removal of Attorney General oversight: The bill would allow police to charge a person with hate speech without receiving the Attorney General’s consent, which is an important safeguard for freedom of expression that has been part of Canada’s law for decades; and
- Lowering the threshold for “hatred”: The definition of “hatred” added as a new section 319(7) appears to lower the bar for hate speech set by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases like R v Keegstra and R v Whatcott, which could chill speech and public debate.
CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron questioned the need for parts of the bill considering Canada already has “robust hate propaganda laws. Creating new offences for hate-motivated crimes and lowering safeguards like Attorney General oversight is unnecessary and invites excessive prosecutions,” she said. ‘The new hate symbol offence only targets displays done with the intent to promote hatred, but without Attorney General consent as a safeguard, there is a real risk that people using these symbols in art, journalism, or protest will be charged first and vindicated later,” Baron added.
“I’m also very wary that banning hate symbols could be a slippery slope,” Dehaas said. “In free countries, we ought to criminalize violence, not speech, so this sets a worrying precedent.” (Canadian Constitution Foundation, September 19, 2025)
Antifa is very real, just follow th
Antifa is very real, just follow the money…
I have been punched by them. And I can confirm that Antifa is not a “myth”…
| Richie McGinnissOct 18 |
Opinion:
Thank you for reading and supporting PolitiBrawl. Continue to support independent journalism by becoming a paying subscriber on Substack today:
There has been a lot of chatter about Antifa since Trump and his DOJ declared them a domestic terrorist group, and the left continues to claim that Antifa doesn’t exist.
I embedded with Antifa and their allies during the so-called “Summer of Love.” Chronicled in my book, RIOT DIET, I mostly refer to them as the “Umbrella Gang,” classified as anyone who was wearing black bloc to conceal their identities and carrying an umbrella or a shield to thwart law enforcement’s non-lethal munitions. Here’s the thing: If I walk up to someone in the streets and ask, “Hey, bro, are you Antifa?” Most especially if they are actually an active member of the group, their answer will be, “no” likely followed by some unpleasant names like “fascist” or “nazi”, which in a big crowd could easily earn me a punch to the head.
And for those who claim Antifa can’t possibly exist because it doesn’t have a leader my answer is simple: Antifa is decentralized and incognito by design.
Antifa’s members converse in encrypted chat networks and their twitter accounts hide behind anonymous banners. A dynamic leader is not required because their marching orders have not changed since the beginning: Trump is Hitler and Americans must do everything possible, including acts of violence, to keep him and his Nazi sympathizers from fulfilling their agenda. I have received death threats from members of this group. I have been punched by them. And I can confirm that Antifa–contrary to what Democrat Congressman Jerry Nadler claimed–is not a “myth.”
When covering protests, occasionally I will spot Antifa flags or patches. They are displayed by newbies or posers who can’t help but proudly display the logo of the organization that is most effective when it remains anonymously hidden behind a black mask and an umbrella or shield.
A message from our sponsor (piece continues below)
s)
Much like shell corporations, secret societies, 4Chan boards, and yes, radical Islamist terror cells, Antifa’s actual members and contributors are obscured behind a web of nonprofits and front groups. They show up to much larger protests and use these demonstrations as staging areas to achieve their goals.
The overwhelming majority of those who attend these forward-facing protests are normies who simply see the flyer on social media and want to pick up a free sign then feel part of something bigger: the “resistance” or the never-Trump tribe. But with the increased police presence comes an opportunity for a small group of well-organized and scurrilous agitators. Their aim is to antagonize police and create a spectacle of violence. If anyone within the protest appears to align with Trump, or asks a question that they deem to be slightly “faschy”, or even films something unsavory on a public street, they will be surrounded and harassed… or worse.
These individuals come well prepared. I’ve seen them utilize tools like leaf blowers (to blow away tear gas) metal saws (to cut through nonscalable fencing) and molotov cocktails (to firebomb police). They employ advanced tactics: heat resistant gloves to throw tear gas back at the cops, turtled shields that would be the envy of any Roman Legionnaire, lasers to blind cops, even trumpets to communicate orders of retreat and attack, as if on the battlefield during the Revolutionary War. Their allies in the media have parroted the idea that Trump and his ilk are all fascists, so they believe their cause is just as righteous as those of George Washington, Lincoln, or General Patton fighting Hitler in WWII.
Do these people pledge allegiance or go through a rigorous initiation process? No. Are they part of a complex network of safe houses, regional cells, and clandestine group chats where they plan the next clash? Yes.
If and when the police crack down, or when counter protesters fight back, then they are able to say, “look at Trump and his fascist friends!” During 2020, this played out like clockwork in hotspots such as Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, DC, etc. Now it’s happening in many of those same places today. Back then it was Black Lives Matter. But now that BLM has been proven to be an abjectly corrupt nonprofit, they have pivoted to new monikers, new catch phrases. Yet the same old playbook remains.
Take the example of the No Kings protests that are taking place nationwide today. Since the start of Trump 2.0, “No Kings” has staged bi-monthly protests in thousands of towns and cities across all fifty states. The fundamental building blocks for this scale of demonstrations include but are not limited to printed signs, permits, transportation, social media campaigns, media outreach the list goes on. All of this stuff requires money. “No Kings” is primarily funded by “Indivisible”, which has received over $7.6 million from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation since 2017. So while the “No Kings” movement claims to be grassroots, its primary donor is a billionaire who made his money through the same capitalistic practices that the most extreme elements of these protests claim to oppose.
It may not come as a surprise to the reader that Soros’ Open Society Foundation bankrolled the bail funds that ensured rioters would be let back onto the streets within hours of committing violent crimes against police. Soros was also the primary funder of progressive prosecutors’ campaigns in liberal urban enclaves throughout the United States. Many of those prosecutors are still doling out sweetheart sentences to violent rioters today.
So as the protests unfold over the course of Trump’s second term don’t forget:
Antifa is very real. The protests are primarily funded by billionaires who want to control the narrative. These protests are used as cover for rioters to agitate violence and sow the seeds of unrest. And the next time someone tells you that Antifa is just an idea, feel free to send them my way: @richiemcginniss.
BRITISH DISGRACE
BRITISH DISGRACE
