Liberal Bill C-9 is a Direct Assault on Freedom of Religion in Canada

There is yet another dangerous bill that the Liberal government has proposed to Parliament. They tend to write their bills in a way that sounds like it is something that every Canadian could and should get behind, but there tends to be a poison pill or some hidden agenda that is sought to be advanced in their bills. The bill that I am talking about this time is Bill C-9; the Bill to Combat Hatred.

I will keep my commentary on this short as I have included in this article the text of a letter that I will be sending to the Senate members. This bill has already moved from the House of Parliament to the Senate for their perusal. This bill was forced through Committee and Parliament by the Liberals with decreased scrutiny through legislative methods, and we are in a situation where we are now relying on the House of sober second thought to examine this bill and either amend the dangers out of it or kill it outright. This is why I still support the continued existence of the Senate in Canada.

This bill purports to criminalize hatred in this country by essentially criminalizing speech, among other things. We have freedom of thought and expression according to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the government is seeking to undermine those rights using subjective language and changes to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Specifically, Bill C-9 seeks to repeal from the Criminal Code sections 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b), which state, in short, that “No person shall be convicted of an offence” under subsections (2) and (2.1), “(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;”. This protection is critical in order to protect us from the creeping demonic goal of criminalizing our Holy Scriptures.

Sean Fraser has stated that those protections will remains, but his word carries no weight if the protections are eroded by the wording of the laws of the nation. Marc Miller has stated, as someone who claims to be a christian with "deep beliefs", that, "In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals. I don’t understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible, though there are other religious texts that say the same thing,". "Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke … or be a defence. There should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges,". This man who claims to hold to Biblical doctrines is openly stating that the words of his own religious Scriptures are a basis of hate and that those who may speak these words aloud should be open to the possibility of criminal prosecution.

This bill is so egregious that it is even getting worldwide media coverage with headlines proclaiming the truth that our own media ignores; namely that this government and this legislation is seeking to criminalize the Bible. The world is aghast at this legislation and the majority of Canadians are completely unaware of it and its implications.

In my letter below, my position on this legislation is laid out, and I encourage you to read it for yourself. It is not exhaustive of my concerns with this bill, but I tried to keep it concise while fully iterating my concerns. Our Senators are busy and don't have time to read lengthy letters from all the citizens of Canada. If you agree with my points as laid out, I encourage you to also send this letter, or any parts of it with your own changes made to it, to all of the Senators in Ottawa. They will soon be looking at this bill, so we cannot waste time. Also, please consider sharing the text of this letter with others who may not be aware of the dangers in this bill and encourage them to also contact the Senators. Public outcry will still sway Senators where Liberal ideologues in Parliament will ignore us, so numbers matter.

If you would like to send a letter to the Senators yourself, you can find their contact information here.

If you want to read the legislation for yourself, you can find it here.

If you would like to see the paragraphs of the Criminal Code that the legislation seeks to repeal, you can find the Criminal Code here. Scroll down to section 319(3)(b) and (3.1)(b) to find the clauses that are protecting us for now, but which appear to be an obstacle for the Liberals.

If you think that this is not an imminent danger to us, consider this. Quebec has passed a secularism law and has used the Notwithstanding Clause of the Constitution to bypass aspects of the Constitution to do so. To be clear, I believe that the governments should retain the power to use the Notwithstanding Clause, if for no other reason than as a protection against Federal legislation, but this use is egregious. This new law is already presenting challenges to the practice of religious rights in Quebec, as you can read about in the article entitled, "New secularism law is looming over Way of the Cross marches on Good Friday in Quebec".

The Democracy Fund has written an article explaining this bill and some of the dangers that it contains. An excerpt from the article reads, "TDF litigation director, Mark Joseph, said: “This is a direct attack on religious freedom and free expression. By removing the religious defence while codifying an ambiguous concept of hatred, the government has facilitated the potential prosecution of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and other believers. Even academic discussions may be caught by this new hate speech law. TDF lawyers have represented clients wrongly charged with hate-motivated offences; the threshold to bring these charges is currently low. If the bill becomes law, we expect the Crown to pursue more charges against churches and pastors in the coming days."

We are fast approaching a time when we will see criminal prosecution of people for voicing their deeply held beliefs like what has been happening it the U.K. British citizens have been confronted and arrested by the Police for online comments that are deemed hateful to the measure of 30 per day; 10,000 per year, while actual crimes go uninvestigated and unpunished. I think it is in London where over 90% of theft cases have gone unsolved while mean tweets are being investigated. This is the direction that our Europe loving Prime Minister wants to take the country, and it is time for us to stand up right now.

I will close this article with a quote by Albert Camus, a French Philosopher from the mid 20th century. He stated that "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants". His position was that those who pursue positions of authority in order to control others rarely announce their true intentions to those whom they seek to lead. Instead, they hide their ambitions in the words of protection, safety, and concern for our well-being. Given what I have seen of the Liberal Party as a whole and Mark Carney in particular, I think that this theory is accurate.

Please find below the text of my letters to our Honourable Senators.

 

Dear Honourable Sir or Madam of the Senate,

I am writing to you today as you prepare to examine Bill C-9 in the coming days and weeks. This bill has been forwarded by the Liberal Party of Canada as a means to combat hate. As you begin to discuss this bill in the Senate, I encourage you to consider the following issues.

There are currently laws on the books that address issues of hate between individuals, religions, organizations and people groups. These laws have been on the books for generations and have been entirely adequate to address and prosecute real hate issues while recognizing the importance of the freedoms of thought, religion and expression that are tantamount to our way of life. These freedoms are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that extend these rights to all Canadians, regardless of race, creed or religious affiliation. The problem is not found in our existing laws, but rather in the inconsistencies found in the enforcement of those laws.

Of particular concern to me is the amendment that the Bloc Quebecois offered in exchange for their support of the bill. This amendment seeks to remove specific protections from the Criminal Code of Canada for religious persons and organizations. The removal of these protections are downplayed by the Liberal and Bloc Quebecois caucuses, but the impact of the removal of these protections will have long lasting consequences.

The bill seeks to repeal paragraphs 319(3)(b) and 319(3.1)(b), which state, in short, that “No person shall be convicted of an offence” under subsections (2) and (2.1), “(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;”. This is, of course, in reference to section (2) which states that guilt is incurred by a person who publicly communicates in such a way as to wilfully promote hatred. This communication can occur in the course of a social media post, a teaching session in a religious context or a sermon that is posted for online access by the public or even a statement made on the street. This removal of protection for religious purposes is a dangerous step to take with this legislation.

Our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins with the preamble that states, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”. This document that lists our inalienable freedoms begins with the declaration that God is the supreme ruler and leader of this land. Any language that seeks to remove that supremacy of Him and His Word is in direct violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and as such, I argue that this legislation is in violation of the Charter if it includes the Bloc Quebecois amendment, and will be subject to a Charter challenge in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The arguments against this position that have been thus far offered by the Liberal Ministers of the government include Sean Fraser’s statement that, “Canadians will always be able to pray, preach, teach, interpret Scripture, and express religious belief in good faith, without fear of criminal sanction.” December 9. 2025. This statement was designed to assuage the fears of Canadians, yet if the written law does not implicitly protect this freedom, then Mr. Fraser’s words are simply empty platitudes.

Furthermore, the words of Marc Miller appear to directly contradict Mr. Fraser’s words, and potentially reveal the truth of the purpose of this legislation. Mr. Miller, I believe when speaking in Committee, stated, “How do we constitute this as being said in good faith? Clearly, there are situations in these texts where statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke…or be a defence.” There is too much ambiguity and subjective language in this legislation that leaves it open to interpretation by Police, Crown Prosecutors and Attorney’s General. All legislation needs to be written and examined in such a way as to expose any and all potential means of abuse, by either current or future governments. This legislation is rife with opportunities for abuse, not just in the future, but even the day after it becomes the law of the nation.

In regards to the specific repeals that the government is seeking, we have to ask ourselves this simple question; if the protection that churches and pastors currently enjoy will remain intact, what is the purpose of removing the one barrier to the government abusing this new legislation? If they have no plans to turn against those who wield their respective Scriptures as proofs of our closely held beliefs, then why are they looking to remove our protections? It should be a non-issue to retain those protections in order to pass this legislation. The Bloc Quebecois has an objective and the Liberals are in support of whatever gets this bill passed, but our protections and freedoms must be upheld, or we will lose much more than we gain.

We live in a society that guarantees freedom of expression, through the use of spoken words and printed words, delivered either directly or through print or recording by all means of transmission. This freedom does not protect us from being offended by the words of others, which is a protection that Mr. Miller’s words indicate he would like to see this legislation enact. Freedoms of speech and thought do not only apply to myself, but also to those with whom I disagree. As much as I may not like their words, they have the right to speak them without fear of criminal reprisals. This protection must remain in place for all Canadians.

As I have already stated, there are laws in place that protect against acts of hate. This legislation does nothing to protect Canadians any more than we are already protected. What it does do is to actually seek to remove protections that Canadians have enjoyed for decades.

The Senate is known as the House of sober second thought; I encourage you to put aside political affiliations and examine this legislation in light of the damages that it will inflict upon Canadians while not actually providing any protections that are not already in place. This legislation is more an act of public relations for the government while sneaking in a dangerous back door to religious persecution at the hands of the government. Our laws have been in place for a long time and have stood the test of time. There is no reason to implement new laws to combat an old problem that legislation cannot fix.

I would posit that religions have done a better job of directing morality than politicians ever have, or will ever be able to do. I encourage you to reject, in its entirety, Bill C-9. Protect the freedoms of Canadian citizens and encourage the Justice system to enforce the laws on the books more effectively. Additionally, politicians need to refrain from setting apart any people group from the others in order to purport to protect their rights above the rights of anybody else. We all share the same rights, and raising one group above any others only serves to create the division and hatred that the government states that it is trying to curtail. This is an attempt to solve a problem that the government has created by means of its own statements and policies that it has set out over the years. If government would stop perpetuating the division, Canadians would come together again of our own accord.

Thank you.