We had a nearly full house at the monthly meeting of the Canadian Association for Free Expression in Toronto tonight. Good news from our speaker and former political prisoner Bill Whatcott. His projected three week re-trial on “hate” charges stemming out of his infiltration and leafletting of the 2016 Toronto Gay Pride (?) parade is over after four days.
Next Wednesday is final submissions and then the judge will consider this dynamic Christian’s fate.
At the last minute, on Monday, Mr. Whatcott opted for a trial by judge rather than jury. The judge is Ann Molloy who has a reputation for fairness and has made some rulings that have not endeared her to the woke. Also a vocal Christian who is seeking to run for Mayor of Toronto picked up a number of signatures on his nomination forms at the meeting.
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:
Encourage thoughtful, evidence-based debate rather than reactionary politics.
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.
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.
Political Prisoner Les Bory Heads to Court Monday, Denied Disclosure & A Laptop to Prep
REXDALE, January 2, 2025. Political prisoner Les Bory made a rare call from prison today. Monday he heads to Court in Brantford in a landmark free speech trial which sees the state trying to curb online dissent.
“They’ve scheduled a two week jury trial,” Mr. Bory told CAFE. Sixteen videos Les Bory recorded online are at issue. “I still haven’t seen the disclosure from my lawyer. I was never provided with a computer to help prepare my defence,” he adds.
“I was supposed to have a bail review every 90 days, but I have had no such reviews,” he says. Meanwhile the nation’s streets are awash with villains charged with murder or brutal assault out on easy bail. The highly politicized Canadian justice system punishes dissident thought or speech harshly, but shrugs at brutal deeds. Mr. Bory has been in prison since February 14, 2023 — nearly two years.
Mr. Bory, who has no criminal record, is charged with three counts of uttering threats, specifically against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, police and Jews. Far more seriously, he is charged under Sec. 319 of Canada’s notorious “hate law” for wilfully promoting hatred against a legally privileged group, in this case Jews. For this he could get two years in prison. Most seriously he is charged under Sec. 318 of the “hate law” with promoting genocide, against Jews.
This is the first time Sec. 318 has been used. It required the consent, Mr. Bory states, of the federal Attorney-General. For this, Mr. Bory could receive up to five years in prison. Conditions at Maplehurst Detention Centre are crowded and violent. “I have one of the shittiest jobs, cleaning out segregation cells. Some of these prisoners make a horrible mess,” Mr. Bory explains. “But it gets me out of my cell and moving about.”
Mr. Bory’s trial will be held in Ontario Superior Court at 70 Wellington Street in Brantford and commences at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, January 6,
Whatcott files hate crime complaint against Karen Pinder and Ingrid Barta and Court Update
Email starts:
Subject: I would like to report a Hate Crime, advocating murder
Bill Whatcott <billwhatcott@gmail.com>
To: vpd.diversity@vpd.ca, campus.security@ubc.ca
Date: Jul 15, 2024, 4:49 PM
Dear Vancouver Hate Crime Unit, CC: UBC Campus Security,
I would like to report the UBC Professor Dr. Karen Pinder and Ingrid Barta, who is also employed at the University of British Columbia, for Public Incitement of Hatred/Wilful Promotion of Hatred, Section 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code. Attached is a screen grab of their public statements celebrating the attempted murder of US Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump. I do not believe students who are conservative are safe with these two women holding positions of authority on campus. Left leaning students could take this type of endorsement of violence by a senior faculty member to heart with potentially terrible consequences.
Sincerely,
Bill Whatcott
Phone: 403-598-0478
End of E-mail
——————————————————–
Public Incitement of Hatred Section 319 (1)
Everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an offence.
Wilful Promotion of Hatred Section 319 (2)
Everyone who by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an offence.
——————————————————-
To be clear. These women should absolutely be fired from their positions at the University of British Columbia if the university wishes to maintain any credibility.
When it comes to police and courts I am not a huge fan of these two nasty women facing a criminal process for their awful public speech, but…….
Bill Whatcott arrested and criminally charged with Mischeif after the University of Regina called the police in 2014 on him in an effort to shut down his peaceful speech against abortion and homosexuality on the campus. Bill eventually prevailed in court and the University was found to have unjustly infringed on Whatcott’s Charter right to publicly engage in debates on moral issues on the publicly funded campus.
Every university that I went to, including the University of British Columbia, have called the police on me and attempted to have me criminally prosecuted when I attempted to hold a sign, preach, or hand out flyers expressing views they disagreed with on their campuses. When I was a student, 100% of my faculty at MacEwan university supported hate crime laws and believed it was an offense to call a biological male a male if the said male claimed he was a woman.
Karen and Ingrid are on the far left of the political spectrum and are the sorts who like hate crime laws. One can also reasonably conclude that in Ingrid’s case, given she is still wearing a face diaper on her avatar of her now deleted X account, she likely supports the coercive mask mandates. In spite of the “science” conclusively showing that face masks are appropriate for stopping sputum and blood droplets when working over open wounds, but they do absolutely nothing to slow the spread of airborne viruses when wearing them all day long in public; Ingrid was likely very sad the day the government stopped coercing people to wear face diapers.
So, in light of this, it seems reasonable that the sorts of people who support state control of speech, should at least live by their own rules. In my view the speech of these women is far more hateful than my flyer. I never celebrated the murder of anyone. In my flyer the warning against unhealthy practices is clear, as well as the offer of redemption through the shed blood of Jesus Christ to homosexuals who wish to have their sins forgiven.
“If we say we have fellowship with Him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:6-9
These two women posted on X they want a prominent Conservative dead, period. They offer no pathway to redemption for conservatives. Their speech simply wishes death to a conservative politician because they hate him and what he professes to believe in.
Woke Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Epstein argued to the judge who oversaw my bail hearing in 2018, that my speech could cause “psychological harm” to LGBT Canadians. She worried my speech would cause “harm” to homosexuals across Canada if I didn’t have stringent bail conditions imposed on me, limiting my right to say anything in public regarding homosexuality, including even my own criminal charges that I was now facing.
If this is the metric leftists want, what about the psychological well being of conservative students who are forced to attend Karin Pinder’s classes? What about conservative students who are required to work in a subordinate role with Ingrid Barta? If adult homosexuals are too delicate to bear my words warning them about the risks of HIV, anal warts, anal cancer and a host of other maladies, related to their promiscuous and high risk sexual behaviour, shouldn’t young students be protected from two women who publicly celebrate the attempted murder of a conservative political figure?
I filed the hate crime complaint today and will follow up by phone tomorrow. We will see if the Vancouver Police are consistent in protecting everyone equally from “hate speech.” Thanks to hateful women like these two, everyone on university campuses across Canada feel they must be left or far left. Conservative can’t safely express themselves without fear of being discriminated against and cancelled. This must change. Conservative lives matter!
On other news. I was in court briefly today in front of Justice Bonnie L. Croll. She set my next hearing in Practice Court to Monday, August 12, 9:00 am, Toronto time. Today, I was informed the court will set aside 2-4 weeks for my “hate crime” trial. My trial date should be set at the August 12 Practice Court hearing. The zoom link will be: https://ca01web.zoom.us/j/65919371490
In Christ’s Service,
Bill Whatcott
“Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” James 1:21
Bill Whatcott speaks at the Shelburne Ontario Freedom rally. This rally is a monthly event and for a small town has remained amazingly resilient. I was blessed to see a few dozen folks of all ages and walks of life come to the rally to witness for freedom. I shared about my upcoming second “hate crime” trial with them and exhorted them to continue fighting for freedom.
Last week, April 1st, I attended a pro-freedom/anti-carbon tax rally in St Catharines, ON. Over the course of the day (the rally went from 11:00 am to 7:00 pm) over 100 people came and went.
At the St. Catharines rally I was pleased to meet this fellow who I have known for a few years through e-mail. He lives in St. Catharines, but is very supportive of Alberta’s energy industry and considers himself to be closer to Alberta in terms of values than Ontario. Note Tamara Lich’s autograph on his sign.
While Ontario’s leaders, Ford, Trudeau, Chow, Horwath, etc….. are huge disappointments, my travels since coming to Ontario to prepare for my second criminal hate speech trial is telling me there are still lots of good people in this province and indeed I am seeing a very positive backlash against wokeism, homofascism, and cancel culture. Ontarians know they have lost their freedom, they are waking up and they want a non tyrannical government that listens to them back again.
Federally-funded “anti-hate” group only covers hate from “extreme right,” founder says
[Cosmin Dzsurdzsa and the folks at True North may be surprised that the massively federally and BMO-funded Canadian Anti-Hate Network have had no time to denounce extremists and hateful comments from the left over the Israel-Hamas war because they were focused on the “extreme right”. We at CAFE are not surprised. The war on an emotion — hate — was never really about hate. It was about suppressing nationalist opinion and shielding Jews and privileged non-White minorities from serious criticism. The pernicious “hate law”, Sec. 318 & 319 of the Criminal Code were introduced by supposed civil libertarian Pierre Trudeau in 1971. In its sordid 52 year history, no Jew, no non-White, with the exception of Indian Chief David Ahenakew, was ever prosecuted for of convicted for hate. Thirty years of agitation by the Canadian Jewish Congress led to the stacked Cohen Commission on hate propaganda in 1965. This was a key year. In this year, dark forces were changing our immigration laws to eventually let in hordes from the Third World to replace Canada’s European founding/settler people That being the goal, they changed our flag from the Red Ensign which celebrated our European origins the the present rather vapid Pearson pennant. If you’re going to imposed the brazen flim flam of replacing the founding/settler people, you can anticipate some opposition. Hence, the speech suppressing hate” and similar provincial anti-free speech clones. Still, it’s refreshing to have Mr. Anti-hate Bernie Farber, a longtime operative of the former Canadian Jewish Congress admit that “anti-hate” is basically anti-White. — Paul Fromm
A federally-funded “anti-hate” organization says its relative silence on weeks of antisemitism has been because it only has the resources to focus on hate from the “extreme right.”
Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) founding chair Bernie Farber made the admission on X in response to a post criticizing the organization for its silence on the recent wave of antisemitism following a terrorist attack on Israelis.
“It’s been a month since the terrorist attack on Israelis. This is the first post from anti-hate since then. I know your views because I’ve grown up knowing you. But it’s not just me calling this out,” posted the user, Ariella Kimmel. https://www.youtube.com/embed/9zsjNrOAuBk?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1
“Ariella, antihate.ca focuses on the extreme right. That is what it does. I wish we had the resources to do more. We just don’t,” replied Farber.
The organization has faced weeks of criticism for its sparse reporting on the ongoing anti-Israel protests engulfing Canada.
Farber’s admission sparked a backlash on social media. True North’s Andrew Lawton criticized Farber’s selective focus.
“Canada’s leading anti-hate activist, Bernie Farber, says (CAHN’s) silence on a month of antisemitism has been because they only focus on the ‘extreme right.’ Thanks for admitting this is all coming from the left then, Bernie!”, posted Lawton.
True North founder Candice Malcolm also joined in the criticism pointing to the fact that anti-Israel rallies across Canada were staged by the extreme left.
“As Andrew Lawton points out, the boss over at ‘anti-hate’ let the cat out of the bag. The reason they’re not covering the anti-Israel hatefests throughout Canada is because those rallies are led by the Left (including Islamists) not the scary Right,” wrote Malcolm.
The accusations against CAHN come amid nationwide demonstrations by supporters of Hamas. Major anti-Israel demonstrations have been held in cities such as Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Montreal following Hamas’ attack on Israel.
Despite the rise in antisemitic incidents during these protests, CAHN has not published any reports or public comments on the threats faced by Jewish communities from the far-left specifically.
The issue of antisemitism is not confined to Canada. In the United States, a 69-year-old Jewish man died following a confrontation with pro-Palestinian demonstrators in suburban Los Angeles. The Ventura County Sheriff’s Department is investigating the incident as a possible hate crime.
Holocaust Denial Now Punishable By Prison Time In Canada
It’s something that has been discussed in this country for years: the proposal of making Holocaust denial a criminal offence.
It was buried in Bill C-19, Division 21, Section 332. This wasn’t a stand alone Bill, but rather, slipped into a budget. Most likely, very few people know about it.
332 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2): Willful promotion of antisemitism (2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following: Defences — subsection (2.1) (3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1) (a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.
Forfeiture (4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
Exemption from seizure of communication facilities (5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2) or (2.1) or section 318.
Consent (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) or (2.1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
(3) Subsection 319(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order: Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945; (Holocauste)
Would “Conservatives” oppose this on free speech grounds? Would they fight for the principle that even controversial speech must be protected? Will they object to it being slipped into a budget? Not exactly.
Kevin Waugh, a “Conservative”, introduced Bill C-250, a Private Member’s Bill, that would do basically the same thing. Interestingly, Waugh’s lacked some safeguards that Bill C-19 had, such as remedies to prevent prosecution.
It’s unclear why this was introduced twice in the House of Commons. Perhaps Waugh’s Private Bill was a backup plan in case Schedule 21 got removed from the budget.
Both versions have the provision that consent from the Attorney General is required for a prosecution. While this may be seen as a check, it opens the possibility of politically selected cases.
Where’s Pierre Poilievre on this free speech issue? Where’s Maxime Bernier?
Remember the flack Iqra Khalid caught for M-103? That was a Motion simply to “study” Islamophobia, and she has heckled for a long time afterwards. She never proposed putting anyone in prison.
For what it’s worth, Senator Paula Simons was willing to speak out on this. However, she’s very much in the minority when it comes to addressing the subject.
Remembering A Free Speech Martyr & Christian Author, Malcolm Ross
A friend gave me his treasure trove of tapes and book and pamphlets among which are many recordings of CAFE meetings
I listen to a tape in short segments. I am most of the way through the talk given by Malcolm Ross June 25th 1998 “My 10 Year Battle for Vindication.” I’m pretty sure I bought Ross’ book from you at some point. [The book is Cross-Examination: Christianity on Trial –– BY Malcolm Ross fired for his religious writings on abortion and other issues appealed to Canada’s Supreme Court in 1990. This rare book is available for $25.00 plus $10 postage from C-FAR Books, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, CANADA.]
I will be turning the tape-recording in to a transcript. His explanation of the implications of the ruling of the Supremes is shocking a quarter of a century later — astonishing not a scintilla of genuine “evidence” that any real person felt they were in a “poisoned environment” in his classroom. Yet, the Supremes figured out that it was only reasonable to draw the inference of such !!
This, I fear, is what’s going to happen to Bill Whatcott, if he goes through the meatgrinder again. The Bible itself becomes ‘hate literature’ if published anywhere outside some little ‘safe space’ of a building properly registered with the gov’t as a ‘charity’ for purposes of income tax receipts
Ross cites a book to do with the doctrines of modern Juda-ism in which the “Holocaust” is understood to be an essential part of that religion.
There isn’t one person in a million who grasps that. I sure didn’t
What that means for Canada, is, after the recent amendment to section 319 of the Criminal Code, a person can be prosecuted for ‘blasphemy’ against the state-sanctioned religion, if some one of the Jud-aic persuasion, feels his or her dignity has been impugned by his questioning the Hollywood version of World War II.
