The Liberal government's push to pass new hate crime legislation is sparking a fierce debate over religious freedom in Canada. In an effort to secure support for Bill C-9, the Liberals have reportedly agreed to a key demand from the Bloc Québécois that critics argue would effectively criminalize certain expressions of faith.
The Core of the Controversial Compromise
Bill C-9, introduced to ban the public display of symbols like swastikas to incite hatred and create new offences for hate crimes and religious obstruction, is largely seen as redundant. Existing laws already criminalize public incitement of hatred and religious obstruction. However, the political impetus to be seen as addressing a rise in antisemitism, including attacks on synagogues, has driven the government to seek its passage.
The pivotal compromise involves removing a crucial section from the Criminal Code. Currently, Section 319(3)(b) provides a defence against hate speech charges if a person, in good faith, expressed "an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text." The Bloc Québécois insists this exemption must be erased for the bill to gain their support.
The Charkaoui Case and Provincial Inaction
Observers note the Bloc's motivation appears linked to the case of Adil Charkaoui, a Montreal imam. In late 2023, shortly after the October 7 Hamas terror attack, Charkaoui preached to a crowd, referring to "Zionist aggressors" and asking Allah to "kill the enemies of the people of Gaza and to spare none of them."
Despite the inflammatory rhetoric, Quebec prosecutors decided not to lay charges for inciting hatred. They concluded the speech did not meet the threshold for prosecution. This decision was widely criticized for failing to provide a judicial explanation and for signaling to Jewish Canadians that the justice system might not protect them.
Critics of the Bloc's proposed amendment argue that the problem in the Charkaoui case was not the religious exemption in federal law, but a failure of provincial prosecution. "The problem was cowardice within the Quebec Crown prosecution service," the original analysis states, suggesting the solution lies in enforcing existing laws, not stripping away fundamental freedoms.
A Dangerous Assault or Necessary Reform?
Legal experts like lawyer Christine Van Geyn have warned that the Bloc's changes transform Bill C-9 from a redundant piece of legislation into a direct threat to religious liberty. The concern is that without the good faith defence for religious argument, expressing traditional or scriptural opinions on sensitive topics could be construed as a hate crime.
The government finds itself in a difficult position, needing the support of at least one other party to pass the bill. By acquiescing to the Bloc's demand, they are enabling what opponents call an extreme measure to address a problem of provincial enforcement. The debate highlights the tension between combating genuine hate speech and preserving the foundational Canadian right to freedom of religion and expression, even for unpopular or controversial beliefs.
The outcome of this legislative maneuver, expected to be debated in Parliament, will have significant implications for how faith, speech, and tolerance intersect in Canadian law for years to come.
