Urback: Canada’s hate speech laws don’t need a rewrite. They need to be enforced

2025/12/16 Leave a comment

Agree:

…Whether that was a reasonable conclusion is a matter of debate (who, I wonder, was Mr. Charkaoui referring to when he called for the killing of Zionists?), but the religious exemption under the Criminal Code is not what got him off the hook. And even if Mr. Charkaoui was charged with hate speech and he decided to lean on 319(3)(b) as a defence, the Crown could still make the case that his statements were not a “good faith” reading of a religious text, and that he was willfully promoting hatred with an intention that went well beyond an interpretation of scripture. It seems the problem here – as with many other instances of, for example, protesters intimidating people outside of their homes or places of worship, or individuals spreading hateful messages at public events – is one of enforcement of existing laws and a willingness to prosecute, and not of a subsection defence in the Criminal Code.

It is easy to see why many people would think scrapping the religious exemption is a good thing. Why wouldn’t we want to remove any crutch upon which bigots can rely to get away with spreading messages of hate? But on principle, we should demand government restrictions on speech to be as narrow as possible, so that the law doesn’t end up criminalizing good-faith readings of religious texts. In his capacity as chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Marc Miller, now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, cited Bible verses he personally considers “hateful.” That’s fine as a matter of personal opinion, but alarming when the government is opening the door to criminal conviction. 

Source: Canada’s hate speech laws don’t need a rewrite. They need to be enforced

Filed under Hate crimes, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , , , ,

Le Devoir Éditorial | Une réforme au succès incertain [religious hate speech exception] and related commentary

2025/12/12 Leave a comment

We will see how this works in practice and whether it is enforced:

Heurter des convictions, des croyances ou des visions du monde, c’est le propre de la liberté d’expression. C’est par la réprobation sociale, et non le risque de poursuite et d’emprisonnement, qu’une société démocratique respectueuse de l’équilibre entre les droits fondamentaux vient à bout des discours fiévreux et orageux.

Le Bloc québécois a souvent demandé aux libéraux d’en faire plus pour que la foi ne soit plus utilisée comme une excuse pour tenir des propos haineux. La formation s’appuyait notamment sur l’aversion suscitée par les propos d’un prédicateur incendiaire, Adil Charkaoui, qui implorait le Tout-Puissant de se charger des « sionistes agresseurs », au lendemain de l’invasion de la bande de Gaza par l’armée israélienne. « Assure-toi de n’en laisser aucun », disait-il. Il en appelait aussi à « recenser et exterminer » tous les « ennemis du peuple de Gaza ». Le Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP) n’y avait pas trouvé matière à déposer des accusations.

Les débordements et les excès de langage qui ont accompagné les manifestations pro-palestiennes, en particulier sur les campus universitaires, ont grandement influencé la teneur du débat entourant le projet de loi visant à lutter contre la haine. L’affichage de signes ou de symboles associés à des groupes inscrits sur la liste des entités terroristes sera désormais passible de poursuites, au même titre que le blocage des lieux de culte. La montée en force de l’antisémitisme a de quoi inquiéter, et elle doit être dénoncée avec vigueur.

La fin de l’exception religieuse dans le Code criminel marquera sûrement une nouvelle ère, et suivra une nouvelle jurisprudence de la Cour suprême, ultime arbitre de ces questions. Qui sait ce que le DPCP ferait des propos de Charkaoui avec ces nouvelles balises à sa disposition ?

Il n’en demeure pas moins qu’il y a des risques à baisser le seuil en vertu duquel un discours peut être qualifié comme haineux. C’est une porte ouverte à disposer de la question selon l’humeur politique du moment. La loi procurera de nouveaux outils d’intervention aux forces policières, mais seront-elles outillées pour s’en servir ? Départager la véritable haine de la croyance religieuse abêtie, dans ce nouveau contexte, exigera une analyse minutieuse. L’épreuve de la réalité viendra assez vite, car la véritable mesure de succès d’une loi (et son utilité) réside dans la capacité des pouvoirs publics de la faire respecter, sans engendrer de situations arbitraires.

Source: Éditorial | Une réforme au succès incertain

To hit convictions, beliefs or visions of the world is the characteristic of freedom of expression. It is through social reprobation, and not the risk of prosecution and imprisonment, that a democratic society that respects the balance between fundamental rights overcomes feverish and stormy speeches.

The Bloc Québécois has often asked liberals to do more so that faith is no longer used as an excuse for making hate speech. The formation was based in particular on the aversion aroused by the words of an incendiary preacher, Adil Charkaoui, who implored the Almighty to take charge of the “Aggressive Sionists”, the day after the invasion of the Gaza Strip by the Israeli army. ” Make sure you don’t leave any,” he said. He also called for the “identification and extermination” of all the “enemies of the people of Gaza”. The Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) had not found reason to file charges.

The overflows and excesses of language that accompanied the pro-Palestian demonstrations, especially on university campuses, greatly influenced the content of the debate surrounding the bill to combat hatred. The display of signs or symbols associated with groups on the list of terrorist entities will now be subject to prosecution, as will the blocking of places of worship. The rise of anti-Semitism is worrying, and it must be vigorously denounced.

The end of the religious exception in the Criminal Code will surely mark a new era, and will follow a new jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, the ultimate arbiter of these issues. Who knows what the DPCP would do about Charkaoui’s remarks with these new beacons at its disposal?

Nevertheless, there are risks to lower the threshold by virtue of which a speech can be described as hateful. It is an open door to dispose of the question according to the political mood of the moment. The law will provide new intervention tools for police forces, but will they be equipped to use them? Parting the true hatred of the dazed religious belief, in this new context, will require a careful analysis. The test of reality will come quite quickly, because the real measure of success of a law (and its usefulness) lies in the ability of the public authorities to enforce it, without generating arbitrary situations.

Lisée, Les amis de la haine:

Ailleurs dans le monde, des officiers religieux sont accusés, et parfois condamnés, pour ce genre de propos. En Belgique, au Danemark, en France, en Allemagne, en Suisse, pasteurs et imams savent que la tenue de propos extrêmes, même dans leurs temples, même en citant leurs dieux, peut avoir des conséquences, non seulement pour les cibles de leur haine, mais aussi pour leur propre liberté. Partout, ils peuvent plaider la liberté d’expression et la liberté de religion. Partout, les juges doivent mettre ces libertés dans la balance. Pas au Canada. Au Canada, l’exception sert de bouclier impénétrable pour la haine religieuse.

Elle n’est pas fréquente. En fait, rarissime. Élevé dans le catholicisme, je n’ai jamais entendu un curé citer les passages de la Bible susmentionnés. Les textes sacrés offrent aux célébrants le choix des thèmes, et la plupart choisissent d’en tirer des appels à la fraternité, à la compassion et à l’entraide. C’est pourquoi nous avons des religions apaisées. Mais aux religieux qui ne le sont pas, je ne vois pas pourquoi on donnerait le bon Dieu sans confession.

Elsewhere in the world, religious officers are accused, and sometimes convicted, for this kind of statement. In Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland, pastors and imams know that holding extreme remarks, even in their temples, even by quoting their gods, can have consequences, not only for the targets of their hatred, but also for their own freedom. Everywhere, they can plead for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Everywhere, judges must put these freedoms in the balance. Not in Canada. In Canada, the exception serves as an impenetrable shield for religious hatred.

It is not frequent. In fact, very rare. Raised in Catholicism, I have never heard a parish priest quote the aforementioned passages of the Bible. The sacred texts offer the celebrants the choice of themes, and most choose to draw calls for brotherhood, compassion and mutual help. That’s why we have peaceful religions. But to the religious who are not, I do not see why we would give the good God without confession.

John Ivison: How I changed my mind about the Liberals ending religious exemptions for hate speech

Baber’s impassioned performance at the justice committee made the case that stripping the religious defence was more likely to criminalize faith than combat hate.

He pointed out that the religious defence has never been used to acquit a defendant accused of public incitement of hatred. “When we start going down the road of criminalizing more and more speech, we kill free speech,” he said.

The Bloc amendment was aimed at separating religion from the state. But Baber said “everyday Canadians” should not have to fear quoting religious scripture. “That is definitely not something the state should engage in.”

He said the problem the Bloc is trying to solve in the Criminal Code does not exist.

Baber pointed out that the religious defence does not apply to the Section 318 of the Criminal Code on advocating genocide. Nor does it apply to the public incitement of hatred.

Proponents of removing the religious defence have pointed to controversial imam Adil Charkaoui who at a pro-Palestinian rally in Quebec in 2023 made a call “to kill the enemies of the people of Gaza” and “take care of Zionist aggressors.” However, the decision not to charge Charkaoui turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence.

“I’m so tired that there is no nuance in this place,” Baber told the committee.

“For goodness sakes, look at how much money we’re spending and there’s no professional thought. We’ve got to inject a little bit more professionalism into politics.

“You don’t need a fancy lawyer, you need someone to read the section. The problem you (the Bloc) are trying to solve does not exist. You cannot defend yourself with a religious exemption after inciting hatred or inciting violence. I implore you to please not do this.”

But, of course, the Liberals and the Bloc teamed up, and they did.

My takeaway from the gruelling hours of testimony at the committee was that the government made a Faustian bargain to gain passage of their bill.

They won, but it was not a clean win.

The removal of the religious exemption may well prove to be an assault on freedom of expression if misused, and its impact will have to be watched closely.

The Liberals will claim victory but if they rack up more wins like this, they will be ruined.

Filed under Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , , ,

Conservatives blast removal of religious exemption in hate-speech laws as ‘assault’ on freedom of speech

2025/12/03 Leave a comment

Arguably not needed given existing laws but recent occupations, obstructions, demonstrations supporting Palestinians have veered into explicit antisemitism and harassment of Jewish communities. The exemption should not be akin to a “get out of jail” card:

Opposition Conservatives say a deal between the governing Liberals and the Bloc Québécois to remove a religious exemption from Canada’s hate-speech laws, in exchange for passing a bill targeting hate and terror symbols, is an “assault” on freedom of speech and religion….

The Conservatives on Monday slammed the removal of that exemption as an attack on freedom of religion and of free speech, with the party quickly putting together a petition, which was circulated by its Members of Parliament.

“Liberal-Bloc amendments to C-9 will criminalize sections of the Bible, Quran, Torah, and other sacred texts,” Poilievre wrote on social media. “Conservatives will oppose this latest Liberal assault on freedom of expression and religion.”

Conservative Calgary MP Michelle Rempel Garner called on all other parties to oppose the amendment.

“I think it’s an unabashed attack on religious freedom,” Rempel Garner said.

Ontario MP Marilyn Glaudu, who serves as the Conservative critic for civil liberties, in a video on X, said the proposed change amounted to an “attack on people of faith.”

Fortin, the Bloc MP, agreed that the change will curb freedom of expression. However, he argued there must be limits on speech that propagates hate.

“I think this freedom of expression needs to be limited. You’re free to do what you want until you start harming others,” he said.

The bill itself seeks to create new offences around the intimidation and obstruction of sites used by an identifiable group, such as a religious or cultural centre, as well as make it a crime to promote hate by displaying hate symbols like a swastika, or those linked to listed terrorist entities.

The proposed amendments come amid widespread criticism about the Liberals’ bill, with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council calling for it to be withdrawn, along with dozens of advocacy groups. Critics warn that the new offences create the risk of police cracking down on lawful protests, and could lead to a targeting of Muslim and other racialized groups.

When it comes to the proposed removal of religious defences from hate speech laws, Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the CCLA’s fundamental freedoms program, said it raises concerns.

She pointed to how that defence is only available to criminal law dealing specifically with the wilful promotion of hatred and no other offence, even speech-related ones, such as public incitement to hatred, or uttering threats.

“The speech that needs to be criminalized in Canada is already criminalized, and there is no religious exemption applying to that,” she said.

She said the association has for years held concerns around the provision, targeting “the wilful promotion of hatred,” given how broadly it can be applied.

“The concept of hatred is subjective,” she told National Post in an interview on Monday, “so we are always worried about risks of abuse and censorship of unpopular or offensive opinions through this provision. So we fear that removing this religious exemption might gradually erode the protections and increase the scope of this provision.”

Steven Zhou, spokesman for the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said in a statement on Monday that it was “gravely concerned and surprised” about the reported deal to remove the exemption for religious beliefs, saying that doing so “opens the door to a deeply troubling censorship regime.”

Khaled Al-Qazzaz, executive director of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, said in a statement that it rejects the removal of the religious exemptions, saying it considers doing so “an attack on all places of worship and religious schools.”

Derek Ross, executive director and counsel for the Christian Legal Fellowship, a national association for lawyers and law students who identify as Christian, said removing the exemption for religious opinions could lead individuals to self-censor and create an overall “chilling” effect.

The law must balance competing interests, he said, but pointed to how it must protect those who are fearful of becoming “vilified or detested” because they express viewpoints held by a minority.

Khaled Al-Qazzaz, executive director of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, said in a statement that it rejects the removal of the religious exemptions, saying it considers doing so “an attack on all places of worship and religious schools.”

Derek Ross, executive director and counsel for the Christian Legal Fellowship, a national association for lawyers and law students who identify as Christian, said removing the exemption for religious opinions could lead individuals to self-censor and create an overall “chilling” effect.

The law must balance competing interests, he said, but pointed to how it must protect those who are fearful of becoming “vilified or detested” because they express viewpoints held by a minority.

“It is a significant change to the law, and one that was not previously the subject of a great deal of discussion or debate by Parliament,” Ross said on Monday. “We hope that further consideration is given before such a move is made.”

As part of the deal with the Bloc, the Liberals are also expected to back off plans to eliminate the need for a provincial attorney general’s sign-off to pursue a hate-propaganda prosecution. The move will likely be supported by both the Bloc and Conservatives.

Fortin, Bussières McNicoll and Al-Qazzaz all said they agreed with maintaining the additional check and balance before charges are laid, which could have a cooling effect on freedom of expression.

Quebec’s Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette, who has called on the federal government for years to remove the religious exemption defence, celebrated the deal between Liberals and Bloc on social media.

Source: Conservatives blast removal of religious exemption in hate-speech laws as ‘assault’ on freedom of speech

Filed under Hate crimes, Multiculturalism, Religion Tagged with , , , , , ,

Liberal deal with Bloc means hate-speech laws will lose exemption for ‘sincerely held’ religious belief

2025/12/02 Leave a comment

This will create considerable debate and will likely lead to court challenges. A good faith or “sincerely held” clause should not be a “get out of jail” card, but in the end, it will depend on context and specifics, and would to extreme religious extremists and positions:

The Liberals have agreed to remove religious exemptions from Canada’s hate-speech laws to secure Bloc Québécois support to help pass its bill targeting hate and terror symbols, National Post has learned through a source close to the talks.

Currently, the law exempts hateful or antisemitic speech if it based in good faith on the interpretation of a religious text, but that immunity is set to be removed. Additionally, the Liberals are expected to back off plans to eliminate the need for a provincial attorney general’s sign-off to pursue a hate-propaganda prosecution.

The removal of the religious exemption is expected to come via an amendment to the Criminal Code in the form of Bill C-9 at the parliamentary justice committee that will be supported by both the Liberals and Bloc, a senior government source confirmed.

The source was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss party negotiations publicly.

“We do have Bloc partnership,” the source said. “The bill is in a place now, even with those Bloc amendments, that everyone is happy,” they added in reference to Liberal and Bloc MPs.

Bill C-9, which fulfilled a campaign promise Prime Minister Mark Carney made during the spring election, was his minority government’s first major justice bill introduced earlier this fall by Justice Minister Sean Fraser.

It seeks multiple changes to the Criminal Code to confront the issue of hate, with the Liberals citing a rise in police-reported incidents in recent years, particularly in the wake of sustained anti-Israel protests over the last two years.

Chief among the proposed changes is creating a new offence for intimidating someone to the point of blocking their access to a place of worship or another centre used by an identifiable group, as well as criminalizing the act of promoting hate by displaying a hate or terror symbol, such as one tied to a listed terrorist organization or a swastika.

The Opposition Conservatives have lambasted the current effort as censorship, saying provisions already exist within criminal law to counter hate, and that the bill’s proposal to remove the requirement for a provincial attorney general’s (AG) consent to lay a hate propaganda charge took away an “important safeguard,” according to the party.

The Liberals are now expected to accept another amendment eliminating that change from the bill entirely. That, too, was a Bloc request.

When the bill was first presented back in September, the Liberals argued that removing the AG requirement would help streamline the process of laying hate propaganda charges, while critics said it was an additional check on a charge with serious implications for free speech.

Once the amendments are passed, the Liberals and Bloc are expected to vote the bill through committee and the House of Commons. However, it is unclear when the justice committee will debate clause-by-clause amendments to the bill.

The House is scheduled to rise on Dec. 12.

The original text of the bill did not contain changes to the existing religious defences for hate speech, but the Bloc has consistently raised the need for it to be addressed.

Currently, Section 319 of the Criminal Code contains an exemption stating no person shall be convicted of promoting hateful or antisemitic speech if they expressed “in good faith” an opinion “based on a belief in a religious text.”…

Source: Liberal deal with Bloc means hate-speech laws will lose exemption for ‘sincerely held’ religious belief

Filed under Hate crimes, Multiculturalism Tagged with , , ,

New hate-crime bill must confront the enforcement gap

2025/10/29 1 Comment

As in most areas, implementation and enforcement are important in themselves as well as for government credibility. Some of these suggestions are more realistic than others. Linguistic expertise may be less important given ongoing improvements in translation software for some languages:

…To have real impact, Ottawa’s new hate-crime bill must establish, fund and train specialized prosecution units, specifically on sections 318–320 of the Criminal Code and on digital evidence so that prosecutors are less inclined to vacillate when faced with complex hate-crime files.

For instance, developing linguistic expertise so investigators can examine hate content in minority languages would greatly help in properly translating, transcribing and admitting key evidence in court. Protection under the law should not be weakened by the legal system’s linguistic blind spots.

Finally, the upcoming reforms must guarantee support for victims and witnesses all the way through prosecution to verdict — not just during the initial complaint stage. Otherwise, communities that face repeated targeting cannot be expected to engage with enforcement efforts.

Such fundamental steps are what transform recognition of hate crime into deterrence.

The case of the Montreal man being found not criminally responsible after a Jewish man was attacked reinforces that communities will accept humane outcomes if they also see consistent deterrence. Right now, they don’t.

Unless enforcement is prioritized, the new bill could amount to a replay of ambition without results.

Beyond any doubt, Canada has become proficient at counting hate. Lawmakers now have the chance to prove we can also punish it. Victims have shown courage by reporting; it is time for Parliament to show equal valour by closing the enforcement gap.

Daniel Robson is an independent Canadian journalist specializing in extremism, terrorism and crime, focusing on national and community security, and the legal, institutional and policy dimensions of public safety. X: @DanielRobs77090

Source: New hate-crime bill must confront the enforcement gap

Filed under Hate crimes, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,