Canada’s Bill C-9 marks a worrying development in the country’s legal approach to speech and “hate-motivated” crimes. Introduced in September 2025 by the Minister of Justice, the bill passed third reading in the House of Commons last month by a vote of 186-137, with support from the Liberals and Bloc Québécois, and opposition from the Conservatives, NDP, and Greens.
The legislation is framed as a response to “rising incidents of hatred,” including antisemitism, which accounts for almost 70% of all police-reported religious hate crimes in Canada. It proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that expand offences related to hate-motivated conduct, including intimidation or obstruction of access to places of worship and other cultural or religious sites.
It also introduces standalone hate crime offences where an underlying criminal act is motivated by hatred toward identifiable groups, and it criminalises the public display of certain symbols associated with terrorist organisations or the Nazi swastika. In addition, the bill codifies a definition of “hatred” as involving “detestation or vilification” that goes beyond mere dislike, drawing from existing Supreme Court jurisprudence but applying it more broadly across the law.
The bill also makes structural changes that have raised genuine concern among Christian communities. Most notably, it removes the longstanding “good faith” religious defence found in section 319(3) of the Criminal Code.
That provision had historically protected individuals who expressed opinions based on sincerely held religious beliefs or sacred texts, provided those expressions were made in “good faith.”
Yet for many, its removal reflects a worrying shift in how Christian speech may now be treated under Canadian law. Without this explicit safeguard, expressions of biblical teaching, particularly concerning Christian morality and sexual ethics, may be more vulnerable to prosecution.
The bill also eliminates the requirement that the Attorney General approve certain hate propaganda charges before they proceed. This change lowers a procedural safeguard that previously acted as a check against inappropriate or overly broad prosecutions. Even if the legal threshold for conviction remains high, the pathway to investigation and charge becomes easier, and that alone has implications for how individuals assess legal risk.
A fundamental concern among Christian leaders and organisations is how these changes may affect the public expression of Christianity and its core doctrines. Biblical teaching on matters such as human sexuality, sin, repentance, conversion, and moral order—drawn, in particular, from passages such as Romans 1 or 1 Corinthians 6—has long been part of Christian preaching and discipleship.
Under the framework proposed in the bill, such teachings could be evaluated in light of whether they are perceived to involve “detestation” or “vilification,” particularly if they are understood as applying to protected identity groups. As such, the legislation will introduce a dangerously subjective element to the law, which could see people prosecuted because somebody else chose to take offence.
Even where no incitement to violence exists, the determination of whether speech crosses a legal line would rest with prosecutors and courts, taking into account context, intent, and audience receptions—much of which is largely subjectively evaluated.
This introduces a level of legal ambiguity and uncertainty that will, undoubtedly, have a chilling effect on Christian expression. Individuals may refrain from lawful expression, not because it is prohibited, but because the cost of testing that boundary is too high. In effect, the bill will indirectly undermine the notion of democracy, which hinges on the free expression of the people. The terrifying possibility of complaints, police involvement, costly legal proceedings, and public scrutiny can be enough to discourage even lawful speech.
For clergy, educators, and lay Christians, this could translate into a reluctance to preach certain texts of Scripture, teach particular doctrines of the faith, or engage in public moral discourse. The result may not be widespread prosecution of Christians, but rather, a gradual relegation and ultimate silencing of public Christianity.
