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.