Bill C-9, the "Combatting Hate Act," passed third reading in Canada's House of Commons on March 25, 2026, by a 186-137 vote, with Liberals and the Bloc Québécois in support, while Conservatives, NDP, and Greens opposed it. The bill now advances to the Senate. Introduced by Justice Minister Sean Fraser, it amends the Criminal Code to address hate propaganda, hate-motivated crimes, and obstruction of access to places of worship or community spaces used by identifiable groups. Key elements include new offences for wilfully promoting hatred through certain hate or terrorism-related symbols, a specific "hate crime" add-on for offences motivated by bias, and penalties (up to 10 years in some cases) for intimidating or obstructing access to religious/cultural sites. The bill codifies aspects of the Supreme Court's definition of "hatred" (extreme detestation and vilification) and removes the Attorney General's consent requirement for some hate propaganda charges in certain versions.
The Core Controversy: Removal of the Religious Defence The most contentious change is the repeal of the longstanding "good faith" religious exemption in Criminal Code section 319(3)(b). This provision previously protected individuals from conviction for wilful promotion of hatred if they expressed opinions "in good faith" on a religious subject or based on a belief in a religious text. This defence was not absolute — it applied alongside the high threshold for "hatred" established by courts (not mere disagreement or offense, but extreme vilification). Its removal, secured via a deal with the Bloc Québécois to gain support for the bill, has drawn sharp criticism from Christian leaders, civil liberties groups, and constitutional experts.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) issued an open letter urging the government to retain the exemption, warning it creates uncertainty for clergy, educators, and believers teaching traditional doctrines. Other faith voices, including from evangelical and LDS communities, echoed concerns about a chilling effect on peaceful religious expression. Critics, including Campaign Life Coalition and groups like the Catholic Civil Rights League, argue the bill — framed as combating rising antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other biases —opens the door to criminalising core biblical teachings on sexuality, marriage, gender, and human anthropology. Passages in Leviticus, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, or Genesis on male-female creation could be interpreted by ideologically motivated complainants, police, or judges as "promoting hatred" against protected groups defined by sexual orientation or gender identity. Even if convictions remain rare due to Charter safeguards, the threat of investigation, arrest, legal costs, and public stigma could deter pastors from preaching, churches from counselling, or parents from discussing faith with children. From a Christian perspective, this development represents a profound erosion of religious liberty and a direct assault on the ability of believers to uphold scriptural authority in public life: Scripture as Hate Speech? Christianity holds that the Bible is God's inspired Word (2 Timothy 3:16), revealing objective moral truth about human sexuality as ordered toward the complementary union of male and female (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19). Teachings on sin, repentance, and redemption — including that all people (straight or otherwise) fall short and need Christ — flow from love, not animus. Equating faithful exposition of Romans 1 or similar texts with "hatred" subordinates divine revelation to subjective "feelings" or state-approved orthodoxy on sexual autonomy.
This inverts justice: the state now risks punishing the proclamation of historic Christian ethics while claiming to protect "dignity." False Neutrality and Multicultural Double Standards: The bill's supporters invoke multiculturalism and inclusion, yet the removal of the religious defence disproportionately burdens traditional Christianity, that maintain consistent sexual ethics rooted in creation order. Secular progressive views on gender and sexuality receive de facto state preference, while dissent is reframed as bigotry. True pluralism would safeguard robust debate and conscience; this approach enforces a thin secular consensus, echoing patterns seen in Finland's Päivi Räsänen case or UK street preacher incidents. Removing the defence signals that biblical truth claims are no longer tolerated as "good faith" but treated as potential threats. Chilling Effect and Rule of Law: Lowering procedural safeguards (e.g., Attorney General consent) and broadening tools for "hate" complaints empower activists and overzealous officials. Christians and pro-life advocates already face hostility; this could escalate to persecution "under a cloak of legality," as Campaign Life Coalition warned. History shows such laws expand beyond initial intent, targeting not just extremists but ordinary believers. Canada's Charter guarantees freedom of religion and expression (sections 2(a) and 2(b)), but courts have sometimes balanced these against equality rights in ways that favor the latter. Without explicit statutory protection for religious texts, uncertainty grows.
Broader Cultural Shift: This fits a pattern where Western governments, influenced by identity politics, prioritise protecting certain groups from "offense" over classical liberties. It undermines the Gospel's public witness — preaching, teaching, and living out faith without fear. Christians are called to speak truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), pray for authorities (1 Timothy 2:1-2), and stand firm (Ephesians 6:13), even under pressure. Ultimate victory rests not in parliaments but in Christ's resurrection and the transformative power of the Gospel, which has historically advanced human dignity against pagan practices, including slavery and infanticide. Defenders of the bill argue it targets real harms like antisemitic symbols, obstruction of worship, or incitement without broadly criminalising faith. Justice Minister Fraser has stated it "will not criminalise faith" and that Charter rights remain.
However, the rushed process, limited debate in committee, and explicit removal of the religious safeguard fuel scepticism. Conservatives attempted amendments to preserve the defence but failed. The bill now faces Senate scrutiny, where Trudeau-era appointees dominate, making passage likely unless public pressure mounts through calls, emails, and prayer — as urged by faith leaders. Constitutional challenges are probable if it becomes law, testing Charter limits. For Christians, this underscores the need for vigilance: faithful witness amid cultural hostility, robust legal advocacy, engagement in democratic processes, and reliance on the One who overcame the world (John 16:33). Canada's experiment with expansive hate speech laws risks turning moral and theological disagreement into criminal territory, weakening the foundations of a free society that once accommodated deep religious convictions. Honest history and consistent principles, not selective enforcement, should guide responses to genuine hatred, without sacrificing the right to proclaim unchanging biblical truth.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/canadas-house-of-commons-passes-anti-christian-bill-that-would-criminalize-quoting-bible