Does Canada Have a HATE Problem?
Following 71 days of “sober, second thought,” and after adopting a final amendment to include the hanging noose as a hate symbol, Canada’s 105-seat Red Chamber, passed the bill on June 4, 2026 ... and sent it back to the House of Commons for approval. Then on June 18, 2026, Bill C-9 received Royal Assent and became law. In my view, “sober, second thought” failed the aging senators and was absent in the Red Chamber on the day of their final decision, and I am not alone in my sentiments:
While there are varying perceptions as to the severity of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim discrimination in the country, factually, Jewish Canadians were the most targeted religious group in 2025, accounting for 79.3% of all religiously -motivated hate crimes (70% in 2024).
Statistics Canada
First Nations do not like the bill because it did not make residential school denialism a punishable crime;
Faith groups do not like the bill because it fails to protect good-faith, religious speech and could have a chilling effect on the reading of Scripture;
The Canadian Civil Liberties and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group do not like the bill for its unprecedented overreach, one that could criminalize dissent, political expression and peaceful assembly;
The Canadian Labour Congress does not like the bill because it could restrict strike protest picketing and collective bargaining;
Egale Canada, guardians of the LGBTQ+++ community do not like the bill because it threatens their rights, freedoms and could criminalize peaceful protests;
Independent Jewish Voices (IJV Canada) do not like the bill because of the potential for broad targeting of vulnerable communities and its over-broad categorization of symbols;
The Coalition for Charter Rights and Freedoms do not like the bill because it (a) “creates vague and subjective criteria that will perpetuate systemic bias, (b) will be used to silence dissent on issues that challenge the status quo, as well as by politicians, lobbyists and advocates for foreign governments who want to silence opposition, (c) undermines freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, given that its severe penalty of up to 10 years in prison if found guilty, will create a chill on protest, and (d) shields institutions from accountability, including religious institutions, merely because of the buildings they are using to host events or activities.”
Even the British Columbia Humanist Association (BCHA) does not like the bill, warning it risks silencing religious dissent.
“The irony is that these laws would criminalize Jesus Christ, Himself, for the story where He entered the temple and overturned the tables of the money changers.”
BC Humanist Association, November 17, 2025
None of this mattered. Bill C-9 passed anyways: 186 Members of Parliament voted in favour: 137 opposed and 10 paired. The Liberals and Bloc Québécois (no surprise) voted in favour; the Conservatives and NDP largely opposed.
The Seeds for Bill C-9
Deep-seated historical prejudices, coupled with recent global geopolitical conflicts have led to an increase in hatred and targeted hostility towards Jews in Canada. In fact, according to Statistics Canada, the Jewish community remains the most targeted religious group here at home. 1
Then came the infamous October 7, 2023 ... and antisemitism coincidentally surged forward in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s hard response to Hamas’ large-scale attack, when terrorists raped, burned, bludgeoned, and slaughtered a path through civilian Jewish crowds. Not unlike Major General Sherman’s March to the Sea with its destruction, desolation and death, Hamas left a trail of women and children to sob at the inexplicable carnage and losses. The final death toll was 1,195!
When Israel responded in defense, the anti-Israel racism percolating below the surface exploded ... and the street chaos and university encampments that followed, led by pro-Palestinian student activists shouting absurdly nutty stuff like: "Say it loud, say it clear, we support Hamas here" ... spread like a tsunami across McGill, York, Concordia, and the University of Toronto, to name a few. Couple this with weak-kneed, craven administrators who “leaned into political cowardice” ... and showed “a reluctance to implement their own codes of conduct even when they relate to safety issues” ... and suddenly antisemitism became a normalized hate-reality in Canada. Our nation has seen almost 150% rise in antisemitism incidents since pre-October 7. 2
Elie Wiesel never spoke truer words than when he said, “Antisemitism begins with the Jews, but it never ends with them.” Christians should take note!
So yes, Canada has a hate problem ... and Bill C-9 is the Federal government’s answer to this ugly, growing tide in Canada. The Combatting Hate Act introduced in September 2025 is intended to reduce this radical antisemitic upsurge and secure better tools to prosecute and create new offenses, including threatening people at their places of worship and displaying hate symbols. The bill also targets anti-Muslim, Islamophobia, transphobia and homophobia. I assume Christians too – but that thought is seldom found in public space or debate. Unless you have been lost in Rat’s Nest Cave in scenic Alberta or one of the tens of thousands busy visiting food banks in ‘Tronna’, Ontario, then you will know that Canada has come through a season of unprecedented Jew-hating. It has not been Canada’s “Finest Hour.”
As I watched the protests unfold, two things seemed obvious: (1) Canada is failing our Jewish friends, as we watch the community being brutally hated and targeted by antisemites of every stripe, and (2) the university-educated student protesters astonishingly demonstrate a simplistic, binary (oppressors / oppressed), an incoherent understanding of the geopolitical complexities involved in the Middle East ... bizarrely waving flags like “Queers for Palestine,” ... about as meaningful as “Chickens for KFC”. Never mind the incoherency of their arguments, it appears they hate white colonialists more than brown radical, Islamic, jihadists who behead queers.
Equally unable to articulate specific historical facts or details about the conflict ... like “Which River” and “Which Sea” do you mean ... it begs the question of the value in their university education. The word that comes to mind is “moron” – a Bible word, by-the-way (Gk. “moros”; Matt. 5:13, 22; 7:26; I Cor. 1:25) meaning dull, insipid, a condition of moral deception. But I digress!
Bill C-9 is about protecting Jews, Muslims and others from hate-motivated crimes and intimidation about their religious / cultural practices. Fair enough. Meanwhile, politicians timidly watch Christian churches burn to the ground, with barely a whimper!
The Growing Threat to Freedoms
Our reputation as a free nation is eroding – which is precisely why Bill C-9 has led Canadians to a national discourse and debate. Sure, we still have the forms, like Parliament Buildings with scripture from the Bible embedded into its stone, the Maple Leaf Flag and July 1st., but the substance is disappearing faster than the Bay of Fundy tides leave Hopewell Rock in New Brunswick. The examples in Canada are endless:
Narrowing the scope of permissible speech / belief
We should remind ourselves that while the Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants freedom of expression, it also allows for “reasonable limits”:
“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” (Charter, 1982, Section 1). In comparison, the U.S. First Amendment governing free speech provides far stronger, more absolute protections than Canada's Charter of Rights, explicitly stating that Congress “shall make no law”. There are no exception clauses in the First Amendment.
In plain language, Canadian Charter rights are not absolute; they can be limited to protect other rights or societal values that those in power consider significant. Said another way, there is a ‘hierarchy of rights’ that is slowly developing in legal disputes
within this country and it is placing the beliefs of many ... lower than the rights of others. Examples are legion, but here are a few refreshers.
Christian organizations seeking grants have had their applications flagged by the government for being on the wrong side of social, cultural issues;
Canada’s Supreme Court 2018 ruling against faith-based Trinity Western University (7-2), a Christian institution looking to establish a law school.
Then there is pressure by Societies against professionals. Anyone remember the over-reach of the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) that required remedial social media retraining for Jordan Peterson, because of his public outspokenness? His right to speak had nothing to do with the practice of psychology! It had to do with shutting him up – even when he was off-duty.
It would seem a working strategy for secularists
to diminish religious influence in Canada, so that
they can initiate agendas more quickly
and more comprehensively.
Growing trend towards ‘National Security threats’ and government surveillance.
The Canadian government continues to find the “National Security Threat” argument useful. Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangree, the ‘Gun Buy-Back Guy’, who admits he knows nothing about guns ... has now set his sights on Canadian liberty through his rebooted Lawful Access Bill C-22 (2026; formerly C-2) – to allow police and intelligence services to intercept and gain quicker access to private digital information. Even the Americans have said Bill C-22 will "drastically expand Canada’s surveillance and data-access powers ....” No kidding! The specifics include ...
Lower the evidentiary standards for police access to subscriber information from “reasonable grounds to believe,” to a much weaker, less factual “reasonable grounds to suspect,” – the lowest standard in Canadian criminal law;
Leverage electronic service providers to by-pass encryption or create ‘back-doors’ to data – so undermining Canadian protections;
Require that electronic service providers be required to keep digital metadata for up to six months – giving law enforcement more direct access to it ... and something that will certainly excite hackers (yes, there are risks to metadata retention);
The sweeping wording will touch telecom companies (e.g., Shaw, Rogers, Bell) and any business and/or professional practice that provides digital services or stores user data in Canada (e.g., hospitals, lawyers, doctors, educational institutions). The capture and releasing of private information about ordinary Canadians connected to no crime, and much of it without a court order, will be made law;
AND, did you know that Canada’s Privacy Commissioner has been pushed out from any oversight role?
“Three recent federal measures – Bill C-8, C-22, and C-34 ... form the foundation of an emerging surveillance state that can resemble the “social credit” system that is now in force in communist China.”
John Carplay, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, July 24, 2026
The government’s track record on privacy is not good. A coming surveillance culture where obedience will be rewarded and deviation punished seems inevitable in this country. 3
Increased and normative, pre-emptive use of the ‘Notwithstanding Clause’
(NWC). Section 33 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows legislatures to override certain Charter rights, originally intended for rare use in response to judicial activism. It is called the “Notwithstanding Clause.” Quebec’s newly-minted Premier and Nationalist, Christine Fréchette said: “It’s an important tool for Quebec, for our nation.” No doubt! Did you know that the NWC has been invoked by Quebec 72 times to override the Charter and the rights of Canadians in that province? So when you think Quebec, don’t just think poutine and Cirque du Soleil. Think Bill 21 (passed in 2019) and Bill 9 (2026).
Canada’s ‘Notwithstanding Clause,’ allows legislatures
to override Charter rights. I wonder how
many of our rights will disappear as time goes on?
Economic freedom and property rights being undermined.
I think all Canadians remember the 2022 ‘Freedom Convoy’ protests over COVID-19. When the government invoked the Emergencies Act, they did not merely prosecute people; they went after their livelihood as well — freezing bank accounts, suspending insurance, and seizing trucks. Two Federal Courts and an Appeals Court ruled unanimously against the government ... but even as you read this, the government is still in court fighting the decision.
This current government has moved to control what you see (Bill C-18 On-Line News Act; Bill C-11 On-Line Streaming Act) ... what you say (Bill C-9) ... and how you live (Remember the earlier government-mandated EV sales by 2035?).
Why Should Christians Care?
The short answer is because ...
There are key areas where this legislation intersects directly with Christian convictions, teachings, and church life;
It risks criminalizing peaceful protest by Christians, among others;
In the hands of secularists or the religiously biased, it can be a tool to weaponize the law against Christians;
The bill creates a specific “intimidation” and “obstruction” offense” - one that introduces a level of ambiguity that risks tighter scrutiny and discriminatory prosecution. To illustrate, “423.3 (1) Every person commits an offence who engages in any conduct with the intent to provoke a state of fear in a person in order to impede their access ...” Note that the language “a state of fear” is vague and open to subjectivity; how can someone know ‘intent’?
It removes the previous “Good faith” religious defense currently in Canada’s Criminal Code - with the potential to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Tanakh, the Quran, and other sacred texts.
“The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has argued that the good faith defence helps ensure that criminal law does not capture the expression of sincerely-held religious beliefs.”
Janet Epp Buckingham
Christians should not forget the Quebec Factor! Most Canadians know where the Government of Quebec lands when it comes to the practice of language and religion:
When it comes to language, nothing trumps French! In Quebec, you must serve customers in French; no such rule for English however. If you are English, you take your chances! Quebec's Charter of the French Language (Bill 101), restricts access to English public schools and requires commercial signage and public posters to be predominantly or solely in French. The newer Bill 96 (June 1, 2022), now called Law 14, brings even tighter provisions. BTW - in the spirit of transparency, I was born and raised in Montreal, lived in the former separatist enclave of Pointe-aux-Trembles, have family living there, and pastored there. I have some experience from which to speak.
When it comes to religion, the province has been on a political crusade to remove it from the public square, heavily enforcing a strict state secularism. Prohibiting public employees from wearing religious symbols, to restricting religious practices like organized street prayer in public spaces – Bills 21, 94, 62 and 9 have faith-folks stuck “between a rock and a hard place.” When it comes to the practice of religion, La Belle Province is not a ‘friend’ of the religiously devoted.
So, why is this important here, given that Bill C-9 – is Federal? Well because when C-9 was originally tabled by the Canadian government, eliminating the "religious exemption” was NOT part of the Federal government’s proposal. You heard right!
Here is what happened. The Liberals were still a minority government and needed the support of another party. The Bloc Québécois (BQ), opportunists that they are, stepped up! That same federal political party whose core value is independence from Canada ... said they would support the Liberal bill, but in return demanded a repeal of the long standing “Good faith” religious exemption in the Criminal Code. They argued that religious texts and beliefs should not be used as a legal loophole to justify speech that is deemed hateful. The Liberal Party of Canada agreed.
So, Quebec’s post-Catholic radical secularism that we see being driven by the BQ and shaping the province ... has NOW landed on the shores of the REST of CANADA – and will in time (a) replicate itself throughout all of Canada — not just Quebec, and (b) threaten the rights of religiously devote Canadians. Christians should pay attention.
Removing the religious exemption clause will
create uncertainty for all those who teach or
discuss religious teaching, including rabbis,
imams, priests, pastors and others.
What is the ‘Religious Defense’ Argument?
In Section 319(3) of the Canadian Criminal Code, there is a “religious exemption” that says that people cannot be convicted on charges of willful promotion of hate if the speech is based in “good faith” on the interpretation of a religious text. The code reads, in part:
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person 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;
So, when I blog (a) “God has willed that there be two genders (Genesis 1:27; 5:2) – that humans would be either male or female. We are not our own creators and who and what we are, as revealed in the creation account is the truth” ... or (b) I write “Can Men Get Pregnant? (Feb., 2026) and express that the idea is nonsensical — then my expression of my religious opinion here constitutes a justifiable exemption and is strongly protected — even though transgender ideologues would likely be unhappy. But then, they are seldom happy, so it hardly matters.
Bill C-9 has repealed this specific ‘religious defense.’ A person who now makes a religious statement that someone finds controversial, upsetting or feels hurt by, will not be able to use the legal defense that they said those words in “good faith.” Be assured, it is only a matter of time before activists and idealogues use Bill C-9 as a punitive law, a kind of blunt object, against those it was designed to help. Christians especially represent a target-rich opportunity for secularists who do not like expressions of religious belief. Indeed, if I were prophesying, which I am not, it would not surprise me if one of the first test cases to Bill C-9 is someone within the Queer community facing off against a practicing Christian. Sure, it’s a guess – but not an impossible scenario.
A word of caution to believers. The “good-faith” defense was never an iron wall that shields against speech that crosses into hatred ... and Christians should not ignore this point. To illustrate, in a 2001 case R. v. Harding, a Christian pastor distributed pamphlets that depicted Muslims in a highly negative way, adding that they were violent and hateful as well. When the “Good-faith” defense was invoked ... the court replied — ‘Don’t think so!’ Why? Because the pastor had made sweeping statements that were not grounded in Scripture. The court was not wrong, in my view, in saying the “Good-faith” defense cannot "be used with impunity as a Trojan Horse to carry the intended message of hate forbidden by s. 319.”
Finnish MP, Päivi Räsänen—a Christian—was
found guilty (Mar. 2026) of inciting hatred, not
for quoting Scripture, but for characterizing homosexuality as a “developmental disorder.”
Lesson: It will not likely be a text that gets
you in trouble; it is the commentary that follows,
where the courts will go looking.
The Good News!
There is some “Good News.” Actually ... two pieces of good news.
The word "Hatred" within Section 319 of the Criminal Code is defined as an emotion of an "intense and extreme nature" This high threshold was the result of a Supreme Court ruling in R. v. Keegstra (1990) that said hatred "connotes emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation".
The Bill C-9 proposed by the Liberals and with the help of the Quebecois, was that the government’s version offered a much less precise definition of what hatred is. In fact, it initially wanted to define "hatred" in the Criminal Code as merely “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.” Thankfully, Member of Parliament Roman Baber pushed for an amendment, asking that the Supreme Court of Canada’s own definition of hatred be restored ... saying, hatred must be of an “intense and extreme nature” — important qualifiers. This language was restored! I consider that a win!
You are free to speak until someone is ‘offended,’
seems to be the path the government is
committed to going down.
A second piece of good news is that Attorney General approval is required before proceeding with any charges. When it first appeared in Bill C-9, this safeguard had been removed, eliminating that extra layer of oversight. It has now been restored. I consider that a win as well.
Bill C-9 is now law and its provisions came into force on July 18, 2026. On the heels of the ugly, violent protests we have witnessed against Jews here in Canada, few would argue that strong hate crime protections are not necessary.
Still, Bill C-9 goes too far, and Christians need to be alert moving forward. Striking the “Good faith” charges, (a) will lead to the criminalizing of deeply held religious belief and (b) make it easier to prosecute someone who has an opinion that is different from the main. When those in power can define “fear” and “intimidation” as they wish, then weird things can happen. The punishment, by-the-way, for being found guilty of an indictable offense under subsection (1) or (2) is “liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.”
Some reading here will be thinking, “Too far-fetched.” Well actually, these days, nothing is “too far-fetched.” Need examples: (a) more than 2 genders, (b) men having babies, (c) people with pronouns, not names. Still think I’m fear-mongering? Well, Liberal MP and Quebecer Marc Miller, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, certainly thinks parts of the Bible contain language that is “clearly hateful” (Global News, Dec, 2, 2025).
“There are religious texts that say [hateful things],” Miller 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.” Miller says he’s a Christian – yet he appears to only talk about his ‘faith’ publicly when it involves Bill C-9, which frankly I find ‘convenient’ of him. But that’s just me!
In time I foresee it will not be acceptable to advocate for
Christian values in the public square – only the secularists will be permitted to do so.
Being a Christian is NOT extreme, as the 25 Scripture verses etched into our Parliament buildings testify to. Still, given today’s hateful climate, it remains to be seen how bold - or timid - believers will become, when choosing to share their Christian worldview in private or in the public square. For sure, the risks to our freedom of religion and freedom of expression have gone up several notches – and the religiously biased or bigoted will find Bill C-9 a convenient tool to wield politically-motivated charges to support their imagined victimhood by Christians. Just ask our Jewish friends currently enduring ugly and hateful antisemitic acts. “OnlySaying ...”
1. In Canada, the number of antisemitic incidents grew from 6,219 in 2024 to 6,800 in 2025, more than three times higher than in 2022. Around the world, 2025 saw the highest number of deaths from antisemitic attacks in over 30 years (ABC News, Melanie Lidman. AP., April 13, 2026).
2. House of Commons. “Heightened Antisemitism in Canada and How to Confront It. Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Reports/RP13248912/justrp27/justrp27-e.pdf
Comments