Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Canada’s revived “hate speech” bills could criminalise lawful expression, threaten online evangelisation, and expand state power, critics warn, arguing that subjective definitions risk censorship, wrongful convictions, and chilled religious debate.

Reviving Canada’s “hate speech” legislation is likely to complicate online evangelisation.

Critics are raising red flags about Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, Bill C-9 and Bill C-373, which proposes removing a defence based on religious opinion from criminal law.

The three legislative proposals are distinct.

C-373 is a pending private member’s bill demanding the removal of “Good Faith Defence” protections around religious freedom and freedom of speech.

If passed, C-373 would open the door to unbridled lawfare. The bill would also further force Canadians to self-censor by narrowing the rights of the accused.

The biggest of the three Bills is C-63, which has been on ice since the 2024 elections.

Now, activists want Mark Carney’s leftist government to thaw it out and bulldoze the proposed legislation into law.

As Radio Canada reported, activists are calling for the same draconian e-safety protocols “now in effect in the European Union, United Kingdom and Australia”, which activists claimed “had addressed the problem”.

They also want C-63’s proposed harsh punishment for online “haters” to be made even harsher.

Notably, blame for the Bill’s lack of progress was bestowed on pesky people getting “caught up in debates about freedom of expression and censorship.”

Alarm Bells

To be fair, C-63 does have some good woven into it.

Such as the proposal to legislate mandatory reporting to combat online pornography and the sexual exploitation of kids.

However, that is about as far as the good goes, argued civil liberties groups.

Publishing their concerns, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) explained in September last year that “parts 2 and 3 of the bill are where the proposed laws’ problems lie.”

“Part 2 of Bill C-63 would introduce a new hate-motivation offence.

“This means spray-painting [perceived to be] racist words on a wall could be considered as bad as murder, and worse – at least, more harshly punishable – than sexual assault.”

Keeping a light on the devil in C-63’s details, BCCLA, declared government reassurances that the law “won’t actually be used” were naïve.

“At best, it’s naïve to claim that the new laws will not be used in negative ways, after Parliament has authorised these uses,” they said.

As a general rule, “if the government is saying it doesn’t want a piece of legislation to be used the way it is written, then the legislation shouldn’t be passed into law!”

Innocent people will be hurt, BCCLA asserted.

The process of mounting a defence will be punishment enough.

Many “would rather plead guilty to an offence that carries a lesser penalty, rather than risk life imprisonment.”

BCCLA slammed the proposals, concluding that “Part 2 of Bill C-63 risked drastically increasing the potential for wrongful convictions in Canada.”

Raising similar protests, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) argued that the bill would “criminalise language”.

This was tricky because “language is subjective, it shifts depending on context”.

Echoing BCCLA, CCF used the same vandal example.

A vandal could be sentenced to life in prison if the vandalism were to be interpreted as “hateful”, under the C-63 proposals.

Ultimately, CCF asserted, C-63 blurs the line between what’s “awful, but lawful, and criminal hate speech”.

C-63 inserts “the process is the punishment” into Canadian law, CCF added.

A consequence of that will be more people before the courts for exercising “protected expression”.

C-63’s gaps are obvious.

Ultimately, its proposals are also analogous to blasphemy laws. (See here. Specifically here, here, and here.)

There’s way too much room for subjective interpretation.

The “hate speech” ban is easily weaponised, and there are no real repercussions for accusers pushing false accusations.

Nothing in the legislation discourages gaslighting or bearing false witness.

C-63’s authors appear to have left this out in the hopes that existing laws will suffice.

Naïve indeed.

Hurt Feelings

Although the bill is dead in the water, civil liberties are not out of the water.

C-63 has a successor, and it’s circling for victims.

Carney’s government appears to have carved out C-63’s harsh hate speech proposals and transplanted them into a new Bill called C-9:

“An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)”

Staunchly opposed, CCF are petitioning to have the C-63 sequel stopped.

“While prejudice and discrimination should be condemned,” CCF affirmed, “C-9 gives the government new power to subjectively determine which words and ideas are acceptable.”

More speech will be criminalised, and people potentially imprisoned for hurting someone’s feelings.

The bill ditches important safeguards against “political or ideological targeting,” CCF added.

“Even minor regulatory breaches could be turned into serious crimes if labelled ‘motivated by hatred’.”

Listed among their concerns, CCF said, was the “outlawing of specific [symbols] and images.”

This will not end hate, they exclaimed, it’ll drive that hatred underground, “making it harder to confront.”

Most damaging of all, C-9 “threatens religious discourse.”

Consequently, CCF concluded,

“The best answer to hate speech is free speech, not the censorship of it.

“If Bill C-9 proceeds as written, it will chill debate, silence dissent, and erode one of the most fundamental freedoms in our democracy.”

Whether intended or not, the fabric of Canada’s esafetyism push has a lot in common with the Communist Chinese Party’s new online Code of Conduct.

18 new restrictions have been described as the CCP putting a leash on Christians.

Called Regulations on the Online Behaviour of Religious Clergy, “the clergy may still speak—but only through the Party’s megaphone.”

The CCP’s code of conduct effectively bans all online Christian evangelisation.

Given the evidence, Canada’s e-safety bills could very well do the same.

___

Image courtesy of Adobe.