In a move that’s igniting fierce debate across Canada and beyond, the Liberal government’s latest push to expand hate speech laws is being blasted by critics who say it could put people of faith squarely in the crosshairs of criminal prosecution.
Bill C-9 — dubbed the “Combatting Hate Act” — cleared the House of Commons on March 25 and is now heading to the Senate. Introduced by Justice Minister Sean Fraser, the legislation promises to crack down on rising hate crimes. But opponents argue it may come at a steep cost: free expression, particularly for religious Canadians.
At the center of the controversy is a major change buried within the bill — the elimination of a long-standing legal safeguard that has protected religious expression in certain hate speech cases. That defense has historically ensured that statements rooted in sincerely held religious beliefs, including citations from sacred texts, could not automatically be deemed criminal.
Now, that protection is on the chopping block.
Faith leaders — both Christian and Muslim — are warning that sermons, theological debates, and even quoting scripture could suddenly become legally risky. Meanwhile, the Liberal government, backed by some Jewish advocacy organizations, insists the goal is straightforward: combatting antisemitism and hate-fueled violence, not policing religion.
Conservative Member of Parliament Andrew Lawton isn’t buying it.
“Bill C-9 makes it easier for people of faith and others to be criminally charged because of views that other people take offense to,” he said. “The bill weakens protections for freedom of expression and freedom of religion, especially with the removal of the longstanding religious defense, which has stipulated that religious beliefs and religious texts expressed in good faith cannot be seen as ‘hateful.'”
Lawton and other critics say the issue isn’t just theoretical. They point to statements from within the Liberal ranks that suggest certain Biblical passages could be viewed as inherently hateful — and therefore potentially prosecutable.
“It’s not for government to decide which religious beliefs are legitimate or not,” Lawton added. “People of faith can and should debate this. But it’s incredibly concerning when a Liberal cabinet minister says that certain verses of Scripture are so inherently hateful that prosecutors should be able to press charges against those who quote them.”
Those concerns were fueled during a House justice committee hearing last October, when Liberal MP Marc Miller openly questioned whether some Biblical passages could ever qualify as being expressed in “good faith.”
“In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals,” Miller said. “I don’t understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible, though there are other religious texts that say the same thing. How do we somehow constitute this as being said in good faith? Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke … or be a defense.”
That line of thinking gained traction in December, when Liberal MPs joined forces with the Bloc Québécois to strip the religious defense from the bill during committee review.
Beyond the religious speech debate, the legislation also introduces new criminal offenses. It would outlaw the willful promotion of hatred through the public display of certain extremist symbols, including those tied to terrorist organizations or Nazism. It also creates a broader hate-crime category, applying enhanced penalties when crimes are motivated by factors like race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
To its defenders, the bill includes guardrails. It explicitly states that speech does not qualify as hate simply because it “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.” It also clarifies that discussions on public issues — including religious discourse — remain protected, as long as they do not deliberately promote hatred.
But critics remain skeptical.
Lawton warns that vague language and subjective standards could open the door for abuse. He fears activists and “bad actors” could weaponize the law to silence dissenting views, particularly those rooted in traditional religious teachings.
“The bill simply shouldn’t pass,” he said. “My colleagues and I tried to minimize the harms of the bill as best as we could. We were able to make some improvements by amendment in the committee stage, but many of the key concerns still remain. We tried to put in strong language affirming that good faith religious beliefs could not be classified as hateful but the Liberals rejected these amendments.”
Justice Minister Fraser has pushed back forcefully, insisting that fears about religious persecution are overblown.
“Canada’s commitment to freedom of religion is unwavering. Freedom of religion is a fundamental guarantee under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nothing in this amendment changes that,” Fraser said. “Canadians will always be able to pray, preach, teach, interpret scripture, and express religious belief in good faith, without fear of criminal sanction.”
Still, the timing of the legislation comes as Canada reports a sharp and sustained rise in hate crimes. Government data released in March shows police-reported incidents have increased for six consecutive years — surging 169% since 2018.
Canada is not alone. Countries including Scotland, Australia, and members of the European Union have all tightened hate speech laws in recent years. In one high-profile case in Malta, a Christian man faced potential jail time simply for publicly sharing his personal testimony about leaving homosexuality — though he was ultimately acquitted after a three-year legal fight.
Meanwhile, concerns about free speech aren’t confined to Canada. U.S. Vice President JD Vance and the State Department have increasingly raised alarms over censorship trends in Europe, warning that efforts to curb hate speech can sometimes collide with fundamental freedoms.
As Bill C-9 heads to the Senate, the battle lines are clearly drawn: a government arguing it’s tackling hate — and critics warning it may be redefining it in ways that put core liberties at risk.
