Tag Archives: Bill C-9



Posted on by

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

In recent weeks, public discourse in Canada has turned sharply toward Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act. On its face, it sounds reasonable: strengthen our ability to address hate crimes and online hate speech.

But protecting Canadians from real harm is not the same thing as expanding criminal law into areas that are already covered by existing legislation — and that expansion carries real risks to charter rights, free expression, and ordinary citizens.

This isn’t a fringe concern. It’s a constitutional concern.

⚖️ Canadian law already addresses hate conduct ⚖️

Canada’s Criminal Code already contains robust provisions to deal with hate-motivated offences:

  • Section 318 prohibits advocating genocide.
  • Section 319 makes it a criminal offence to publicly incite hatred or willfully promote hatred against identifiable groups.
  • Separate provisions exist for threats, intimidation, and mischief based on protected characteristics.

Courts have used these provisions to convict individuals engaged in actual harm, not merely offensive speech. Law-enforcement agencies already have the tools they need to prosecute violent conduct, including hate-motivated violence.

In other words: we are not defending a legal vacuum. The current law already covers serious criminal conduct.

Bill C-9 expands, rather than clarifies, legal discretion

One of the most troubling changes proposed by Bill C-9 is the removal of the requirement that the Attorney General’s consent be obtained before hate-propaganda charges proceed.

For decades, this safeguard ensured that prosecutors would exercise legal judgment and discretion before bringing charges involving nuanced and sensitive issues of expression. Removing this gatekeeper opens the door to expanded prosecution — and potential misuse — of criminal laws against speech.

That’s not theoretical. It’s legal advice echoed by civil-liberties organizations who warn that discretion without checks inevitably leads to inconsistent and ideologically skewed enforcement.

This is not about protecting extremists — it’s about ensuring that ordinary citizens are not drawn into criminal proceedings for controversial but non-violent expression.

The definitions remain unclear — and that matters

Bill C-9 attempts to define “hatred” more precisely, but precision in law enforcement isn’t created simply by putting words on paper. Many terms remain subjective and open to interpretation.

What one person sees as strong political opinion, another might see as “hate.” Historically, courts have been cautious about defining these concepts because:

  • Context matters,
  • Intention matters,
  • And words have different meanings in different settings.

Yet Bill C-9 lowers the threshold for criminal charges and shifts the burden toward the speaker — not the listener.

That’s why legal scholars worry that the threat of prosecution — even if convictions are rare — can chill free speech, peaceful protest, and legitimate debate.

Removing the “good-faith” safeguard is dangerous

Currently, the Criminal Code contains a section — Section 319(3) — that protects statements made in a good-faith attempt to describe or discuss religious texts or beliefs, even if those statements might offend.

A recent committee vote accepted an amendment that would remove this defence entirely. This has profound implications:

  • Reading from religious scripture in a devotional context could be misinterpreted as “promoting hatred.”
  • Preachers, teachers, and authors could be exposed to criminal investigation for discussing sacred texts.

This “removal of the good-faith defence” isn’t a minor technical tweak — it’s a substantive change that affects how ordinary citizens engage in religious and philosophical discourse.

This matters because free expression is a foundation of Canadian democracy

The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly held that freedom of expression is protected under Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That protection includes speech that is controversial, offensive, or unpopular, so long as it doesn’t directly cause harm.

Bill C-9 tilts the balance toward criminalization of speech that is non-violent and controversial — and in doing so, it risks eroding confidence in our legal system as a protector of fundamental rights, not a weapon against dissent.

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.

What citizens can do now

Parliamentarians are elected to represent the views and interests of Canadians. When a bill touches on core freedoms, citizens have every right — and every reason — to engage:

Our rights are not granted by Parliament — they are protected by law and deserve protection from overreach.

In closing

Bill C-9 may be well-intentioned in its aspirations, but intention is not law.

We do not need legislation that duplicates existing protections.
We should not accept laws that expand criminal liability in ways that chill free expression and jeopardize civil liberties.

A strong democracy protects people from harm, but also from the overreach of its own institutions.

Let’s defend both.

SUBMISSION OF THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION INC. 

Posted on by

TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

 RE: BILL C-9 , THE COMBATTING HATE ACT

SUBMISSION OF THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION INC. 

TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

 RE: BILL C-9 , THE COMBATTING HATE ACT

                   The Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. (CAFE) was formed in 1983 and is incorporated by Letters Patent as a non-profit organization under the laws of the Province of Ontario. CAFE has intervened in many court cases and human rights cases, especially Canadian Human Rights Commission prosecutions under the old and now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. CAFE stands for the maximizing of freedom of speech within Canadian society. We believe that bad speech can be counteracted by good speech, not suppression.

                    CAFE is utterly opposed to Bill C-9 as an outrageous infringement on free speech.

                            “ I am Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” These inspiring words of former PrimeMinister John Diefenbaker form the opening of the Canadian Bill of Rights (1960). What an inspiring vision of a free and constructive society! The trade off for being able to freely express one’s own thoughts and beliefs is to tolerate the same freedom in expression from others.

                  However, that is not the Canada of the last decade. Canada has descended into a cancel culture, where certain views are deplatformed. Last summer U.S. Gospel country singer Sam Feucht had numerous municipal venues cancelled because officials did not approve of his conservative religious views. “

                “Cities across Canada have canceled tour performances from Sean Feucht, a right-wing Christian musician with ties to the Trump administration and the Republican Party.

The cancellations include Quebec City, where the city said it pulled a contract for Feucht’s planned free Friday show at the ExpoCité venue due to “new elements.” (The Independent, July 25, 2025) 

            Under the Emergencies Act, now ruled  by the Federal Court of Appeal  as having been  unjustifiably invoked by the Government, protests were declared illegal and people who had supported the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy had their bank accounts seized.

              Several years ago, Parliament plunged into the world of history and declared that holocaust denial was a form of hate punishable by two years in prison. Emboldened, others have tried to declare one view of history to be ensconced in law. NDP MP Leah Gazan has three times introduced a private member’s bill which would make it illegal to question or deny accounts of death and abuse at residential schools.

                Increasingly, there is only one correct progressive view on controversial social issues. Contrary views are to be silenced or suppressed. Many of the provisions of C-9 follow this pattern of thought control

                Writing in the National Post (January 23, 2026), Terry Newman captures this atmosphere of suppressed and forbidden speech:   “In 2016, Jordan Peterson, who was a University of Toronto psychology professor at the time, expressed his concern that proposed federal human rights legislation would treat his refusal to use alternate pronouns like “they” “ze” and “zir” as hate speech. This led to protests, a loss of funding and an endless stream of hit pieces.The following year at Wilfrid Laurier University, Lindsay Shepherd, who was a teaching assistant at the time, showed a short clip of Peterson debating gender-neutral pronouns in front of her communications class.Shortly afterwards, she was brought into a closed-door meeting, where she was accused of a number of ridiculous things, including “neutrally playing a speech by Hitler,” and was told that even showing the clip and asking the students to discuss it was legitimizing Peterson’s views.

               These are all high-profile events, which might lead you to believe that, if this is all that’s happening on university campuses, things aren’t really that bad. But several campus surveys have suggested otherwise. A 2025 survey found that more than half of students were reluctant to discuss transgenderism and the Israel-Hamas conflict. Almost half wouldn’t even talk about politics, and a majority were in favour of limiting free expression on campuses.This kind of thinking isn’t limited to universities. A 2023 Angus Reid survey found that 58 per cent Canadians believed it was acceptable for universities to ban speakers who promote offensive views on race and gender.”

         In a recent article, John Carpay, Director of the Centre for Justice and Constitutional Freedoms highlighted censorship on campus: “Since the 1990s, the cancer of censorship has been tolerated and coddled by university officials across Canada. Predictably, this cancer has spread. It is no longer limited only to pro-life groups.

              Today, the vast majority of Canadian universities have a strong commitment to “diversity,” “equity” and “inclusion” in their mission, vision, and values statements. They impose woke ideology on all students and faculty. They have a very limited willingness to uphold free expression, open inquiry, and the pursuit of truth.

                      The Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Institutional Capacity-Building Grants of the federal government also undermines free speech and the pursuit of truth. In order to qualify for these grants, universities must impose mandatory training for students, faculty, and staff on “anti-oppression” and “unconscious bias” strategies. However, the biggest funders of public universities are Canada’s provincial governments, not the federal government.

                  It would take not just a book, but a large encyclopedia set, to document all the cases of Canadian universities and student unions censoring speech on campus in the past 30 years. The following are just a few examples.

                    In 2017, McMaster University in Hamilton allowed a loud, angry mob to shout down Jordan Peterson, then a professor at the University of Toronto, and prevent him from speaking. The university’s president has not apologized.

               Mount Royal University, in addition to firing Widdowson because of her public disagreement with woke ideology, also cancelled its instructor Mark Hecht, in response to people claiming to be offended by his 2019 Vancouver Sun column that criticized diversity.

                In 2019, Simon Fraser University cowered to extremists by cancelling a panel discussion titled “How Media Bias Shapes the Gender Identity Debate.” The panelists included Meghan Murphy and Jonathan Kay, and moderator Lindsay Shepherd. In violation of the Criminal Code, trans activists threatened to physically disrupt the event by engaging in property destruction and false fire alarm activation. SFU, like so many other universities, practiced cancel culture under the guise of “safety and security.” (Real Women of Canada Newsletter, January 30, 2026)

The Hate Law

            It must be clearly understood that the “hate law”, Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code, which became law in 1971 was never about suppressing hate — a human emotion, but about suppressing certain political or religious points of view.

              Its very origins were steeped in politics. The Canadian Jewish Congress had been lobbying for several decades for anti-free speech legislation to suppress expressions highly critical of Jews. Accordingly, the fix was in, when the Royal Commission on Hate Propaganda consisted of two former presidents of the Canadian Jews Congress,including its Chairman Dean Maxwell Cohen. Not surprisingly, the Royal Commission proposed serious restrictions on freedom of opinion, which became the “hate law”, passed by Parliament in 1971.

            Also, the Canadian elite, especially the Liberal Party were in the process of fundamentally changing Canada’s immigration policy with the long range view to replace the European founding/settler people. Massive Third World immigration would predictably generate resistance as it had in Britain; for instance, Enoch Powell’s famous “Rivers of Blood” speech of 1968. A “hate” law would help mute strong opposition. Indeed, that’s what happened. The first convictions under the hate law were Don Andrews and Robert Smith of the Western Guard for publishing strident anti-immigrant views in a newsletter which, it was indicated at trial, had all of 106 subscribers. Both were sentenced to six months in prison.

              A survey of the application of the “hate law” demonstrates how intensely political it has been. No person on the left has ever been charged under this law. The victims have been exclusively Whites and people with views that might be seen as “right wing.” Only two non-Whites have ever been charged under the “hate law.” None has been convicted. 

             In 2025 Ron Banerjee of Toronto, a vocal Hindu nationalist and associate of the Jewish Defence League, was charged for inflammatory statements he made during a confrontation at a Sikh Gurdwara in Brampton. Mayor Patrick Brown had demanded that Banerjee be charged. Late in 2025, the charges were quietly dropped. 

            The only other non-European ever charged was Chief David Ahenakew of Saskatchewan. He was a founder of the Assembly of First Nations and a Cree chief. In 2002, he made controversial statements about Jews, based on things he’d heard while serving with the Canadian Armed forces in post-war Germany. On appeal, he was acquitted.

        There are plenty of virulent anti-American  statements but no proponent of this form of hatred has ever been charged. There are numerous defamatory statements about Christianity and, in the wake of the discovery of anomalies in the soil near the old Kamloops Residential School, over 150 Christian churches have been the victims of serious vandalism or arson. There have been few charges and none for hate.Scandalously, then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau all but excused the hatred and the arsons directed against Christian churches: ” Trudeau on July 2, 202 stated: “I understand the anger that’s out there against the federal government, against institutions like the Catholic Church. It is real and it’s fully understandable, given the shameful history that we are all becoming more and more aware of and engaging ourselves to do better as Canadians.”[The Catholic Register, January 13, 2024]

                   In many of its publications, the Government of Canada, especially Heritage Canada defames Canada’s founding/settler European people as racists and occupiers who all but stole Native land.

                 Under Canada’s ‘hate law” regime Christians and Europeans or Whites can expect no protection. The Supreme Court made it clear in Whatcott 2013 that the anti-hate provisions, at least in terms of Human Rights Commissions do not apply to Whites or Christians as they are not “vulnerable minorities.”

                   Thus, the “hate law” is not really about fighting hate nor is it about providing equal protection to all Canadians. It functions to limit criticism of certain privileged groups.

                  We submit that Bill C-9 will make a bad situation even worse.

                  Specifically,

                 1. CAFE opposes the proposal to not require the provincial Attorney General’s consent for laying charges under this law. The original “hate law” required the consent of the Attorney-General as a check against hasty police action resulting from the prejudice of senior police officers or public pressure. For two years, for instance, there have been strident demands by Jewish lobby groups that more “hate” charges be laid. The consent of the Attorney-General is by no means a failsafe protection of free speech and dissent but it IS something. That there are demands that this safeguard be done away with illustrates an unhealthy desire to silence dissent.

               2. CAFE is vehemently opposed to the banning of the display of certain symbols in public places. It is explained that these would be symbols of various terrorist groups and the swastika. This latter symbol makes our point that this law is entirely political. If the swastika is to be banned why not the flags of such odious regimes as North Korea which has brutalized its people or the hammer and sickle, the emblem of communism, which, in the 20th century piled up over 100-million victims, many time the number of victims attributed to the National Socialists who flew the swastika.

            Flags and symbols are important means by which people express their identity and affiliation. Many people in Regina sport the green and yellow of their hometown Roughriders. Canadians travelling abroad often make certain they have  a Canadian flag as a lapel pin or badge so that they are not mistaken for Americans. An expression of one’s affiliation may be odious to a person of the opposite affiliation. Israeli flags are offensive to many Palestinians, just as the emblems of Hamas are offensive to fervent Zionists. Curbing the display of certain symbols because they are offensive to some people is an outrageous and discriminatory assault on one’s freedom of belief and expression. As noted, not all offensive symbols would be banned — an impossibility as the capacity to feel offended is unlimited.

             The social contract for free expression requires the toleration of the opposite view. Annoyance or offence never justifies violence.

           3. Perhaps the most outrageous and totalitarian measure in this bill is that it will   “create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors.” Here clearly it is opinions that are being targetted. A person who commits an offence punishable by 14 years in prison could, if the offence was motivated by hatred of a privileged group, have an additional sentence of up to LIFE IN PRISON, even, if he did not receive the maximum of 14 years. This is criminalizing opinion. 

             For instance, a man is drunk and exits a bar in a foul mood. He dislikes homeless people. He sees a homeless person, hollers “take this, you bum!” and punches him in the face, breaking his nose and causing injury. He might be sentenced to, say, six months in prison for assault causing bodily harm. Homeless people are not a privileged group under the “hate law.”

           Take the same scenario. The drunk, in this case, dislikes homosexuals. On exiting the bar, he sees a homosexual, hollers “that this, you fag!” and punches him in the face, breaking his nose and causing injury. He is sentenced to six months for assault causing bodily harm. However, homosexuals are one of the privileged classes and, under C-9, the sentence could be increased on the basis that the crime was committed because of hatred against a privileged group.

           Yet, in both cases the injury is the same — a broken nose and facial injuries. The homeless victim suffers no less pain than the homosexual victim. This provision is offensive to any notion of equality.

We ask that the Committee accept these respectful submissions and those of many other critics of the Bill and urge its defeat. — Paul Fromm, Director

The Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.,

P.O. Box 332,

Rexdale, ON.,

M9W 5L3,

CANADA.

416-428-5308

CAFE PROTESTS BILLS C-8 & C-9

Posted on by

CAFE OPPOSES BILLS C-8 & C-9

https://www.bitchute.com/video/RGjKuqoWagsb

The Midnight Man, [1/5/2026 1:20 AM]
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”
John Diefenbaker

Well, not any more. If you dissent, our wretched leadership and powerful minorities want to shut you up

I’ve seen the Canada of my youth that cherished free speech become a crabbed, mean cancel culture, now contemplating even greater restrictions. So, on my birthday I braved bitter cold to lead about 15 CAFE associates to join a rally at Hamilton City Hall to oppose the Liberals’ latest forays into thought control on the Internet. [I fly the Red Ensign the flag of the REAL Canada.]


CAFE supporters contributed the bulk of the 30 people who gathered at Hamilton City Hall to oppose the police state censorship bills C-8 AND C-9.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/RGjKuqoWagsb

Portage–Lisgar MP warns Bill C-9 could ‘criminalize’ Bible passages

Posted on by

Portage–Lisgar MP warns Bill C-9 could ‘criminalize’ Bible passages

  • Steven Sukkau
  • Dec 19, 2025 Updated 2 hrs ago

Facebook Twitter

A Manitoba Conservative MP is warning that the federal government’s proposed Combating Hate Act could threaten religious freedom, claiming amendments tied to Bill C-9 may allow prosecutors to “criminalize quoting the Bible.”

Brandon Leslie, the Portage–Lisgar MP, posted the warning on Facebook this week, calling the legislation “Orwellian overreach” and urging Canadians to reject it. He also promoted a petition suggesting Liberal-Bloc amendments could be used to prosecute people who share scripture from the Bible, Quran, Torah or other religious texts.

“The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community,” the petition says, arguing that freedom of expression and religion must be protected.

Leslie repeated the accusations in Question Period, accusing the Liberals of trying to “police the thoughts of Canadians” by “making amendments to criminalize sections of sacred texts.” He linked Bill C-9 to broader cultural grievances, claiming Liberals “tacitly support tearing down statues” and are waging a war on “values, faith and heritage.”

Bill C-9 would criminalize intimidation or obstruction at religious and cultural sites, introduce tougher penalties for hate-motivated crimes, and ban public displays of Nazi or terrorist symbols except for legitimate purposes. Supplied

“Canadians do not want a government that wages war on their values, their faith, and their heritage,” he told the House.

**New criminal offences target intimidation and hate symbols**

Bill C-9 was tabled in the House of Commons on October 7, and aims to update hate-crime provisions, create new offences against intimidating or blocking access to religious and cultural sites, and ban the public display of Nazi and terrorist hate symbols unless for journalism, education, religion or art.

If passed, Bill C-9 would make it a criminal offence to intimidate someone in order to stop them from entering places of worship, cultural centres, schools, seniors’ homes or cemeteries, with penalties reaching up to 10 years in prison.

The bill would also make it illegal to intentionally obstruct access to those same locations, though it includes an exception for people who are there solely to obtain or communicate information — intended to protect peaceful protest and information sharing.

Another major component of the legislation is the creation of a new hate-crime offence that increases penalties when an underlying Criminal Code offence is motivated by hatred toward an “identifiable group,” such as those defined by race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, age or disability.

Finally, the bill proposes a new hate-propaganda offence that would prohibit the public display of Nazi swastikas, SS bolts or symbols linked to terrorist entities. The measure includes defences to allow legitimate purposes such as journalism, education, artistic expression or religious context, ensuring those uses would not be captured by the criminal prohibition.

The law would also allow police to seek wiretap warrants and DNA orders for intimidation crimes, and judges would be able to impose bail conditions like no-contact orders or geographic restrictions, subject to judicial discretion and review.

The Charter review explicitly states that “hatred” is defined as extreme vilification, not dislike or discomfort, and that the bill would not criminalize expression that merely “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”

It also clarifies that legitimate religious expression, including quoting sacred texts, does not meet the legal threshold for hate promotion unless it is used with wilful intent to encourage violence or extreme vilification.

Christine Van Geyn: Changes to Bill C-9 aren’t combating hate — they’re criminalizing faith

Posted on by

Christine Van Geyn: Changes to Bill C-9 aren’t combating hate — they’re criminalizing faith

The Bible is the most banned book in history, precisely because it is powerful and points to an authority beyond the reach of government

Author of the article:

By Christine Van Geyn, Special to National Post

Book burning
Photo by iStock/Getty Images Plus

To secure Bloc Québécois support for its censorious Bill C-9, the Liberals have reportedly agreed to a troubling trade: removing the long-standing religious defence from Canada’s hate-speech laws. This would be a mistake.

Bill C-9, the Carney government’s combating hate act, would expand criminal prohibitions on expression and increase penalties for speech offences, including online speech. Now, the bill may also gut the defence that protects good-faith religious opinion or speech rooted in religious texts.

Throughout the justice committee’s hearings, Bloc MPs fixated on this defence. Their central example, repeated to nearly every witness, was a group prayer delivered by controversial imam Adil Charkaoui at a Quebec pro-Palestinian rally in 2023. In that prayer, Charkaoui asked God to “kill the enemies of the people of Gaza” and take care of the “Zionist aggressors.”

Those comments were rightly condemned. They are grotesque. Complaints about them were investigated, and the RCMP prepared a report. It was reviewed by three Crown prosecutors, who concluded that no charges were warranted.

As Quebec’s director of criminal and penal prosecutions put it, “The evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the words spoken constitute incitement to hatred against an identifiable group” under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code.

One may argue that “Zionist” was just code for “Jews.” One may also believe that praying for death is morally abhorrent. But the decision not to charge Charkaoui turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence.

And even if it had involved the defence, one inflammatory prayer at a political rally is not a justification for dismantling a safeguard that protects millions of Canadians from state intrusion into matters of faith.

The religious defence has also been essential to the constitutionality of the hate-speech prohibition itself. In R v Keegstra, the Supreme Court wrote that the offence is a minimal impairment on the right to freedom of expression, in part because of “the presence of the Sec. 319(3) defences.” The courts upheld the law because the religious exemption exists. Remove it, and the constitutional floor collapses.

But even beyond constitutional risk, removing the defence is a profound moral and civil liberties mistake. We should not want, let alone empower, prosecutors to criminalize any form of prayer.

Religious texts across traditions contain pleas for justice against enemies, metaphors for divine retribution and expressions of anguish, symbolism and cosmic struggle. This is not the realm of the police. If the state begins parsing Psalms or Hadiths line-by-line in a courtroom, then we have forgotten why the Charter exists at all.

Advertisement 1

Trending

In practice, the defence is already exceedingly narrow. It has rarely been invoked and, based on my case law search, has never succeeded. Courts have also rejected attempts to cloak hateful speech in religious language.

In R v Harding, for example, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed a lower court’s finding that the defence does not shield speech that wilfully promotes hatred merely because it is embedded with religious language, because then “religious opinion could be used with impunity as a Trojan horse to carry the intended message of hate forbidden by Sec. 319.”

Religious expression is messy, symbolic and deeply human. It concerns the nature of justice, suffering, good and evil — the most intimate dimensions of identity and conscience. These are precisely the areas where the criminal law must not tread. We do not want the government parsing religious texts, or religious speech, especially given that most of our political leaders are absolutely ignorant of religion, including, in some cases, their own religion.

For example, in a shocking display at the justice committee, Liberal committee chair Marc Miller claimed to Derek Ross, executive director of the Christian Legal Fellowship, that portions of the Bible are “hateful.” Miller then doubled down on X, writing, “I say this, in particular because I am a Christian,” which is in itself mind-boggling.

It’s dangerous for politicians to believe they can use statutes to sanitize scripture they don’t even properly understand. Criminal law is the state’s most violent instrument. It should not be swung at the human soul.

The Bible is the most banned book in history, precisely because it is powerful and points to an authority beyond the reach of government. A government that fears religious speech is not fighting extremism — it’s fighting competition.

The proposed amendment to Bill C-9 would take Canada down a dark path. We should never have criminalized belief in the first place. Strip away the religious defence, and Canada will not be combating hate, it will be criminalizing faith. The defence must be maintained. (National Post, December 4, 2025)

Brief to Commons Committee on Justice & Human Rights re: Bill C-9 by Canadian Constitution Foundation

Posted on by

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

Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns: Liberal Hate Crimes Bill (C-9) Raises Free Speech Concerns

Posted on by

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)

CANCEL CULTURE: THEY DIDN’T LAUGH AND YOU WON’T GET THE CHANCE: Calgary venue cancels comedian Ben Bankas over Indigenous joke

Posted on by

: Calgary venue cancels comedian Ben Bankas over Indigenous jokes

A Calgary casino cancelled a performance by Toronto comedian Ben Bankas after receiving two complaints about jokes he made regarding residential schools.

Oct 9


 
READ IN APP
 
Source: Facebook

Author: Quinn Patrick

A Calgary casino cancelled a performance by Toronto comedian Ben Bankas after receiving two complaints about jokes he made regarding residential schools.

“They said that they got two complaint emails, and they forwarded one of them to me,” Bankas told True North. “I guess some woman saw the video on Facebook and was offended.”

The video, posted to social media by Bankas on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, showcases him from a previous set saying that he’d just returned from Winnipeg, and it was like “an Indigenous zombie apocalypse.”

“I was thinking it’d be nice if there’s, you know, some sort of school we could send them to,” he continued. “Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. Say what you want about the residential schools, but you know, it’s nice architecture… I’m just saying it like those schools… If you wanted to go to a residential school now, in 2025 it’d be like $40,000 a year. Those motherf**kers got it for free.”

He was scheduled to play at the Grey Eagle Casino on the Tsuut’ina Nation in Calgary on Oct. 24, but the venue cancelled after receiving two complaints.

“This comedian goes by the name of ‘Ben Bankas,’ is due to perform at your event centre on October 24 2025 as advertised on social media,” reads the complaint shared with Benkas. “I would strongly advise your team to reconsider unless some sort of public apology is made to the Indigenous people of Canada.”

The comedian had performed in Calgary several times at the Yuk Yuk’s comedy club in recent years before moving to the Deerfoot Inn & Casino for larger seating capacity.

“For two years I was doing sold out shows at Yuks and then we stepped up to Deerfoot, and then this was like the next step up,” said Benkas. “I think they still should have done the show even though they were offended,” reflected Benkas. “But with everything that’s going with Bill C-8 and C-9, it’s a…weird time.”

Bill C-8 is currently before Parliament for its second reading, which would make changes to the Telecommunications Act. Section 15.2 (1) of one of the Bill’s parts enables the federal government to “prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specific person, including a telecommunications service provider.”

The justification for doing so includes “any reasonable grounds to believe it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, or degradation.”

Meanwhile, Bill C-9, entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), was introduced last month.

The proposed legislation would define “hatred” in the Criminal Code.

When asked whether he faced any other backlash from the video, Bankas said there were a few “death threats and weird DMs (direct messages).”

“One person said they ‘were going to hunt me down like the animal I was,’” he said.

Before the show was cancelled, roughly 1,700 of 2,300 available tickets had been sold. While those who purchased tickets have been refunded, the two parties involved are still sorting out payment.

“It’s unconfirmed if they’re going to pay me because there was a guarantee,” he said. “It wasn’t a percentage of ticket sales. So it’s up in the air whether they’re going to pay me or not. I think they should.”

When True North contacted Grey Eagle Casino, they stated the show was cancelled due to “unforeseen circumstances” but declined to comment on Bankas’ financial situation.

Outside of the recent venue cancellation, Bankas said his career is going great.

“Audiences love it. The shows are all selling out. Pretty much everything is sold out for the next two months,” he said. “I just put out a special aimed mostly towards a Canadian audience called Invasion. It’s on my YouTube channel.”

The show at Grey Eagle Casino has been relocated to Yuk Yuk’s comedy club in Calgary for seven shows between October 24 and 27.

Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns Liberal Hate Crimes Bill Raises Free Speech Concerns

Posted on by
  1. s
Liberal hate crimes bill raises free speech concerns

Liberal hate crimes bill 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.

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.

CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas said that while he’s pleased to see that the federal government has tailored its provisions on intimidation and obstruction of places of worship to capture criminal conduct rather than protected speech and protest, he is concerned that the new definition of “hatred” will chill legitimate expression.

“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.”