Canada aims a Bill at believers while protecting extremists

Canada faces a troubling moment when the federal government claims to be fighting hate, yet directs its energy toward policing faith instead of confronting the violence already happening on our streets. Bill C-9 was supposed to deal with genuine threats. It was meant to ban public displays of swastikas and terrorist insignia, and create stronger penalties for intimidation. Most of that is already covered by existing law, which tells you this bill is more political show than real action. But the compromise the Liberals appear willing to make to get this bill passed crosses a line no government should ever cross in a free country.

The Bloc Québécois wants the Criminal Code’s longstanding protection for religious expression removed. Today, someone accused of promoting hatred can defend themselves if they expressed a belief rooted in religious teaching, as long as it was done in good faith. It is not a loophole for extremists, and the courts have never treated it as such. What it does is protect ordinary Canadians who speak about their faith in public without fear that a prosecutor will put them on trial for quoting Scripture.

The Bloc points to the case of Adil Charkaoui, an imam who preached in Montreal days after the October 7 Hamas terror attack, calling for God to “kill the enemies of the people of Gaza and to spare none of them.” Quebec prosecutors decided this did not meet the threshold for hate speech and refused to lay charges. This decision shocked the Jewish community and confused many citizens. But it was not due to the religious defence. It was due to cowardice in the provincial prosecution service. Instead of addressing that failure, the Bloc now proposes to weaken the rights of every religious Canadian.

Rather than hold law enforcement accountable for ignoring threats, they want to make it easier to prosecute Canadians for expressing beliefs that have been taught for thousands of years. Traditional views about marriage, sexuality, and family—still held by millions of Canadians—are routinely labelled hateful by activists who believe disagreement is violence. Minister Marc Miller offered two Old Testament passages as examples of verses he finds unacceptable. He ignored the fact that Christians do not apply ancient punishments literally, and that Christianity rejects violence, execution, and coercion. But that is the problem. Too many politicians assume they understand faith better than the faithful.

A father posting concerns about gender ideology affecting his teen should not fear police attention. A mother calling a drag-queen story time event inappropriate for children should not face possible prosecution. These debates are uncomfortable, but they are legitimate. Democracies settle disagreements through discussion, not censorship.

This is not speculation. Countries that have travelled this road show us where it leads. In the United Kingdom, police have arrested citizens for what they post online. In 2018, Scottish comedian Mark Meechan was convicted under the Communications Act for a crude joke on YouTube. In 2021, a 19-year-old was visited by police for tweeting lyrics from a rap song that someone found offensive. In 2022, a British veteran was arrested for sharing an image deemed “offensive,” prompting the officer to tell him, “You’ve committed a crime by causing anxiety.” These are verifiable incidents, and they illustrate the danger of criminalizing expression based on subjective feelings.

Now imagine applying that same logic to religious expression in Canada. The government is already creating the conditions by erasing a defence that protects good-faith discussion of theology, morality, and Scripture. When elected officials are shielded from liability inside Parliament—where they are free to say anything without consequence—it becomes even more hypocritical. They can accuse, insult, and mislead without fear, because parliamentary privilege protects them. But under the proposed changes, a pastor quoting a biblical teaching could be exposed to criminal charges. A double standard that favors the political class while punishing ordinary Canadians is not justice. It is a warning.

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once said, “The First Amendment… rests on the belief that every person should be free to think and speak as he wishes, not as the government commands.” American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us that “the church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but the conscience of the state.” The principle is universal even if the words are American. A free society never allows the government to decide which beliefs are acceptable.

Canada once understood this. Our Charter affirms freedom of conscience, religion, expression, and peaceful assembly. Those freedoms are not granted by Ottawa. They are inherent. Government’s role is to protect them, not rewrite them. When a government believes it can decide which interpretations of Scripture are unacceptable, or which religious beliefs are allowed in public life, it stops serving the people and starts reshaping them. That is social engineering. It is a new strain of ideological activism dressed up as public safety.

This is only the beginning if Canadians stay silent. Today, the issue is religious expression. Tomorrow, it could be which charities qualify for status, which schools can operate, which sermons are “approved,” and which traditions are labelled harmful. Government has no business deciding which religions are right or wrong. It has no authority inside our homes or places of worship. The very idea should alarm anyone who values freedom, regardless of their faith.

I am angry at what this represents. I am disappointed that more Canadians are not pushing back. Most of all, I am afraid for my grandchildren, because once a government claims the right to police belief, the burden shifts to citizens to prove their innocence. That is not the country I grew up in, and it is not the Canada we should leave behind.

The Liberal government increasingly behaves as though it can pick winners and losers in every sector of life, from hiring practices to speech to cultural norms. Now it appears ready to decide which forms of worship are safe enough for public discussion. That crosses a line, and once crossed, it is difficult to restore.

Canada belongs to its people, not its politicians. We can reclaim it, but only if we understand what is at stake. The state must never stand between a person and their faith. History has shown where that path leads, and free nations are wise enough not to follow it.

I want Canada back.