Available in Audio Format:

Although further study of Bill C-9, the government’s Combatting Hate Act, was paused for a couple weeks following the Christmas break, it is scheduled to resume soon. The debate will continue, especially around religious freedom and the proposed removal of the religious defence to the crime of promoting hatred.  

Hate Speech Laws 

Canada’s hate propaganda laws have been in place for decades. These include a prohibition on advocating genocide, public incitement of hatred likely to lead to a breach of the peace, and the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group. More recently (2021), conversion therapy was added to the Criminal Code as another form of “hate propaganda.”  

The law is right to prohibit the incitement of violence or genocide. Christians across the country recognize the evils of such speech. But when it comes to prohibiting the promotion of “hatred”, it becomes easier to censor ideas, beliefs, or opinions.  

As Paul Coleman inquires in his book Censored: “Where does the greater risk lie, in allowing citizens to speak controversially and offensively, or in allowing the state to censor the speech that it considers to be controversial and offensive?” That’s the question that continues to be debated in Canada’s Justice Committee.  

Hate Speech Stories 

Coleman attempts to answer that question, not just with technical legal arguments, but by surveying multiple “hate speech” cases across Europe. He writes: “this survey of fifty ‘hate speech’ cases is perhaps the greatest argument against ‘hate speech’ laws: they are simply unworkable in practice … The concept of ‘hate speech’ is so slippery that it can be applied to almost any speech and any situation: a pastor’s sermon, a protestor’s sign, a private conversation – there are no discernable limits.”  

In many ways, the conversation around Bill C-9 deals with hypotheticals. The religious defence has always been a defence to the crime of promoting hatred, so there is speculation involved in what will happen if it is removed. But in addition to arguments from within Canada, other Western countries can be used as examples of problems and pitfalls with hate speech laws.  

While Coleman noted 50 cases, we’ll just highlight a few in this article. 

Anthony Rollins was arrested while preaching on the streets of Birmingham, UK, in 2008, for expressing his belief that homosexual conduct is morally wrong. While the arrest was later deemed wrongful, the fact that the arrest happened in the first place points to challenges with hate speech laws. Such laws will be difficult to enforce consistently and appropriately.  Ambiguity regarding their scope means you cannot be too sure whether sharing a belief or opinion that some people find offensive could get you arrested. 

In 2001, a Muslim imam, Khalil el-Moumni, was prosecuted in the Netherlands after stating in an interview that homosexual behaviour was “detrimental to Dutch society.” He was later acquitted at trial, based on the fact that he had been speaking as a cleric and his remarks were based on religious texts.  

In Sweden, in 2004, Swedish pastor Åke Green was sentenced to one month in prison for strongly promoting contempt or disrespect for a group of people by condemning sexual immorality from the pulpit. Ultimately, the case was overturned on appeal. But going through trial is itself a costly ordeal, financially and emotionally. 

In 2009, Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, owners of a hotel in England, were having a discussion with one of their patrons. The conversation centred around religion, discussing whether Jesus was the son of God and whether the Muslim headscarf is a “form of bondage.” After the guest brought a complaint to the police, the Vogelenzangs were charged and subject to a 2-day trial. Although they “won” their case, they lost their business as the result of a major customer removing its business due to the complaint. Sharon commented: “Many people thought that when we won in court, everything would be OK. In reality, it has brought us to the brink of destruction, so it has not been a victory at all.”  

In 2011, during a national debate in Moldova surrounding including “sexual orientation” as a protected characteristic in the country’s non-discrimination laws, Marian Vitalie published a list of eight public figures that had publicly supported or attended LGBT events. While none of these public figures complained, a lobby group filed a complaint arguing that the list stigmatized and humiliated homosexuals. Vitalie was ordered to publish an apology and pay damages.  

Then there’s the ongoing case of Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen. In 2019, Räsänen posted on Twitter questioning her church’s involvement in a LGBTQ pride event. She posted this alongside Romans 1:24-27. Räsänen was arrested and charged with inciting hatred. She sat through 13 hours of interrogation. Additional charges were laid due to Räsänen sharing a 2004 booklet on marriage and sexuality, as well as commenting on the topic in a radio show in 2019. Räsänen has been acquitted at two levels of court in Finland and awaits a decision from the Supreme Court which heard her case in January. Presenting to the U.S. Congress recently, Räsänen noted: “Speech that is lawful today can become criminalized tomorrow. This should concern every person that values freedom. My case shows where this path can lead… When the state controls which ideas and beliefs may be expressed, democracy becomes fragile.”   

Conclusion 

Of course, each of these countries has unique hate speech laws that differ from Canada’s in a variety of ways. Yet Canada can learn from these countries what not to do.  

Even when cases are dismissed or people are acquitted, the process itself reveals a problem. Hate speech laws make it more likely that police will attempt to charge people with hate speech for stating their beliefs. Removing the religious defence to hate speech minimizes the importance of religious freedom allowing Canadians to express their beliefs in public or in private.  

As the Committee resumes its study of Bill C-9, continue to communicate with your Member of Parliament, asking them to oppose the removal of the religious defence. You can do so using ARPA Canada’s EasyMail. Additionally, consider attending the Bill C-9 rally on Parliament Hill in support of religious freedom on March 12, 2026.