A clear, nonpartisan breakdown of Canada’s proposed Combatting Hate Act — what it does, what’s new, and what citizens should watch for.
“When does protest cross the line into harm? When does a symbol become an act of intimidation?”
That tension is being tested now in Parliament via Bill C-9 — Canada’s proposed Combatting Hate Act.
Link to Bill First Reading:
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-9/first-reading
Across the country, communities have witnessed acts of harassment, vandalism, and violent rhetoric targeting religious or minority groups.
The intent of Bill C-9 is unapologetically moral: to strengthen Canada’s laws against hate propaganda, ensure access to worship and cultural spaces, and close gaps left untouched by earlier amendments.
But lawmaking is never neutral. Every choice carries trade-offs. Should displaying a symbol — even one historically associated with hate — lead to criminal penalty? Could an artist or protester be swept up under a vague prohibition? Does the state gain more power than it should?
In this age of polarization and digital amplification, the lines are blurry. This article walks you through Bill C-9’s key features, what changes from current law, and what citizens should watch for — so you can decide whether it’s protection, overreach, or both.
What Bill C-9 Proposes (Plain-Language Breakdown)
Below is a side-by-side explanation of the main parts of Bill C-9 — the Combatting Hate Act — drawing from the bill text, Department of Justice summary, and commentary from experts.
1. Removal of the Attorney General Consent Requirement for Hate Propaganda Charges
What the bill does:
- Under current law, prosecutors must obtain the consent of the provincial Attorney General before initiating a hate propaganda prosecution.
- Bill C-9 would repeal that requirement for all hate propaganda offences.
- The justification given is that removing this step will allow law enforcement to act more swiftly in cases of hate speech or propaganda.
Why it matters:
- The Attorney General consent rule is seen by many as a check or safeguard ensuring that hate speech prosecutions are not misused for political ends, frivolous cases, or overreach.
- Removing it shifts more discretion toward police and prosecutors.
2. New Offence: Wilfully Promoting Hatred via Display of Certain Symbols in Public
What the bill does:
- The bill inserts a new subsection into Section 319 of the Criminal Code: subsection 319(2.2).
- It creates an offence for willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by displaying in a public place:
a. A symbol principally used by (or associated with) a listed entity (i.e. terrorist entity) as defined in the Code.
b. The Nazi Hakenkreuz (swastika) or Nazi double Sig-Rune (SS bolts).
c. A symbol very similar to (a) or (b) that might be confused with them.
- Penalties:
- Either by indictable offence with up to 2 years imprisonment or
- As a summary conviction offence (lesser penalty).
- The bill also resets the defence sections: one cannot be convicted if the display was for a legitimate purpose (journalism, education, art, religion) or with aim to point out hateful content so it may be removed.
3. Definition of “Hatred” — Codification
What the bill does:
- The bill adds a definition of “hatred” in subsection 319(7).
- It defines hatred as: detestation or vilification, stronger than mere dislike or offense.
- It explicitly clarifies that a statement does not incite hatred just because it discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends someone.
4. New Hate Crime Offence: When a Crime Is Motivated by Hatred
What the bill does:
- The bill inserts a new Section 320.1001: a standalone hate-motivated offence.
- This would allow any federal offence (or an offence under Bill C-9 itself) to be prosecuted as a hate crime if motivated by hatred toward protected grounds (race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, etc.).
- It adds elevated penalties depending on the seriousness of the base crime.
- The bill also ensures that if a charge under 320.1001 fails, the person may still be prosecuted for the “included offence” (i.e. the underlying crime) under existing rules.
5. Offences Related to Intimidation, Obstruction & Interference with Access to Religious or Cultural Spaces
What the bill does:
- Introduces Section 423.3: Intimidation — buildings used for religious worship etc.
- Anyone who engages in conduct with intent to provoke fear to prevent someone from accessing a building used primarily for religious worship, or used by an identifiable group for administrative, cultural, social, educational, or sports purposes, or as a seniors’ residence, is guilty of an indictable offence or summary conviction.
- Maximum penalty for such intimidation: up to 10 years in the most serious cases.
- Also includes an offence of obstructing or interfering with lawful access (even if not intimidating).
- Again punishable as indictable or summary offence, maximum up to 10 years in serious indictable instances.
- However, the bill includes an exception: a person is not guilty if they merely attend or approach near a building to obtain or communicate information.
6. Forfeiture & Procedural Provisions
What the bill does:
- Adds a forfeiture provision: if someone is convicted under sections (1), (2), (2.1), (2.2) or section 318 (existing hate propaganda law), anything used to commit the offence can be ordered forfeited to the Crown (provincial level) by the presiding judge, in addition to any punishment.
- Exemption for seizure of communications facilities: subsections 199(6) and (7) of the Criminal Code (which govern certain communication device seizure protections) apply, with adjustments, to these new provisions.
7. Transitional & Clarification Clauses
What the bill does:
- It clarifies that communications of statements do not count as incitement or hate just because they discredit, humiliate, hurt, or offend.
- It adjusts related Criminal Code definitions and cross-references to account for the new sections (e.g. in section 318, section 423).
What’s Really New — and Why That Matters
While some parts of Bill C-9 reinforce existing hate-crime laws, others mark a meaningful shift in how Canada approaches expression, accountability, and state discretion. Below is a breakdown of what’s actually new, and why it’s drawing both praise and concern from lawyers, civil-liberties advocates, and ordinary citizens.
A Faster Path to Prosecution — but Fewer Checks on Power
Removing the Attorney General’s consent might sound like bureaucratic housekeeping, but it’s a major change in how hate-speech charges begin.
Until now, that requirement acted as a buffer — ensuring that only the most serious, well-substantiated cases went forward. It prevented political pressure or local outrage from immediately translating into criminal prosecution.
By removing that step, C-9 gives police and Crown prosecutors the power to proceed directly — speeding up enforcement, but also raising the risk that borderline cases could go to trial without broader oversight.
For supporters, it’s a long-overdue modernization. For critics, it’s one less safeguard between ordinary citizens and the machinery of criminal law.
Criminalizing Symbol Display — A Necessary Update or a Slippery Slope?
Banning the public display of symbols tied to hate groups (like the Nazi swastika or terrorist insignias) is perhaps the bill’s most headline-grabbing provision.
Supporters say it’s common-sense — an overdue move that mirrors Germany, Austria, and parts of the EU, where such symbols are already banned.
Opponents, however, point to how “display” can be interpreted. Could an artist, journalist, or activist who posts an image for discussion be caught in the same net?
The bill does contain exemptions for education, news, and art, but critics argue that such defences still require being charged first — putting the burden of proof on the accused.
Codifying “Hatred” — A Definition That Clarifies (and Complicates)
C-9’s decision to define hatred in law is an attempt to bring consistency to court rulings that have historically relied on judicial interpretation.
By stating that “hatred” means detestation or vilification — not mere offense — the bill seeks to protect heated but legitimate debate.
Still, legal scholars note a paradox: by trying to codify such an emotional concept, the government risks freezing a fluid social value into rigid legal language. What “vilification” means to one generation may differ to the next — and enforcement could follow public mood rather than stable principle.
Creating a Stand-Alone Hate-Motivated Offence
Perhaps the bill’s most far-reaching addition is the creation of a new criminal category — a hate-motivated offence (section 320.1001).
Until now, hate was a sentencing factor, not a charge on its own. Judges could impose harsher penalties if hate was proven, but it wasn’t a separate crime.
Bill C-9 makes hatred a stand-alone charge, allowing prosecutors to lay it alongside other offences.
Critics worry this could expand the scope of criminalization: an act that’s already illegal (like vandalism) could become a second offence if motivated by hate, effectively doubling exposure to prosecution.
Supporters counter that this gives hate-motivated violence the gravity it deserves — aligning Canadian law with how terrorism and organized crime are treated.
Religious and Cultural Protection — Strengthening or Politicizing Faith Spaces?
Sections 423.3 and 423.4, which criminalize intimidation or obstruction of access to religious or cultural buildings, aim to deter the harassment of faith communities.
It’s a response to real incidents — attacks on mosques, synagogues, churches, and cultural centers that have become disturbingly frequent.
However, the law’s broad phrasing (covering any “building used by an identifiable group”) could potentially extend to political or ideological spaces.
Civil-rights groups warn this may blur lines between protecting people’s safety and policing dissent — especially if protests near certain institutions are deemed “intimidating.”
Transparency and Oversight — The Missing Safeguard
Across nearly every new power introduced, one phrase is conspicuously absent: independent oversight.
The bill introduces new offences and enhanced prosecutorial discretion, yet offers no additional transparency mechanism or regular reporting requirements.
In effect, Canadians would need to trust that these tools will only be used responsibly — a faith history rarely rewards.
The Direction of Travel
Bill C-9 modernizes hate-crime enforcement, clarifies definitions, and signals zero tolerance for hate propaganda — all laudable goals.
But it also accelerates the erosion of procedural safeguards that once ensured restraint.
By broadening the scope of “hate” and reducing the gatekeeping role of the Attorney General, the bill quietly shifts the balance of power away from democratic oversight and toward executive and prosecutorial discretion.
The central question, then, is not whether hate should be condemned — it’s whether we can do so without shrinking the space for lawful disagreement or criticism in the process.
Potential Risks and Criticisms — Where Freedom and Fear Collide
Bill C-9 is pitched as an overdue modernization of hate-crime law. But the way it rebalances discretion, definitions, and enforcement raises predictable — and important — concerns about civil liberties, consistency, and unintended consequences.
Chilling Effects: When “I Disagree” Becomes “I’m Afraid to Speak”
Even narrowly drafted speech laws can cast a long shadow. People don’t read statutes; they react to headlines and a general sense of risk.
- Self-censorship: Teachers, journalists, artists, faith leaders, activists — anyone who speaks on charged topics — may avoid legitimate criticism for fear it could be framed as “vilification.”
- Platform risk aversion: Institutions (schools, venues, broadcasters) may over-moderate controversial events or speakers to avoid legal or reputational exposure, narrowing the public square.
Why it matters: Democracies need messy debate. If the law is perceived as punitive or fuzzy, the safest move becomes silence.
Elastic Enforcement: The Problem of Discretion Without Guardrails
C-9 removes the Attorney General consent “gate,” speeding prosecutions — but also increasing the chance of uneven enforcement.
- Local politics creep in: What gets charged in one region may be ignored in another, not because facts differ, but because community pressures or institutional risk tolerance differs.
- Complaint-driven bias: Organized campaigns can swamp police with complaints, nudging action against disfavoured groups while similar conduct elsewhere attracts no response.
Why it matters: Uneven enforcement produces cynicism and the perception that law is a political tool, not a principled standard.
Symbol Bans: Necessary Line-Drawing or Slippery Slope?
Targeting genocidal and terror symbols has intuitive appeal — and clear international precedent — but still presents edge cases:
- Context ambiguity: News reporting, documentation of hate, satire, museum exhibits, or pedagogy can involve displaying prohibited symbols. Defences exist, but you may still be charged first, vindicated later.
- Scope creep: Once a mechanism exists to outlaw symbols, pressure grows to expand the list. Who decides, and by what transparent criteria?
Safeguard idea: A public, reviewable schedule of prohibited insignia with mandatory periodic review and explicit educational/journalistic exemptions that operate ex ante (before charges) rather than only as defences in court.
A New Stand-Alone “Hate-Motivated” Offence: Double Counting?
Making hatred a separate criminal count (not just a sentencing factor) elevates the moral gravity — but risks stacking charges for the same conduct (e.g., mischief + hate-motivated offence).
- Proportionality: Courts must ensure punishment fits conduct, not just motive.
- Proof challenges: Motive is legally tricky; prosecutors may lean on online history or associations, inviting invasive discovery fights and privacy tensions.
Safeguard idea: Clear Crown guidelines on when the stand-alone charge is appropriate (e.g., community targeting, pattern of conduct, demonstrable harm), and reporting on usage to monitor proportionality.
Vague Lines Between Harassment, Intimidation, and Protest
Protecting access to religious and cultural spaces is vital — but broad wording around “intimidation” can sweep in lawful protest if not carefully applied.
- Noise vs. nuisance vs. intimidation: Police discretion at the scene determines where the line sits; without tight guidance, enforcement can chill peaceful dissent around contentious issues tied to identity or belief.
- Viewpoint neutrality: Protection must apply evenly — regardless of which community or which side of a debate is at issue.
Safeguard idea: National operational guidance and training for police on C-9 thresholds, plus an independent complaint mechanism when protest-related charges are laid.
Identity-Based Enforcement Asymmetries
Hate laws are supposed to protect all identifiable groups equally. In practice, visibility, political salience, and media dynamics can skew attention.
- Under-protection: Smaller or stigmatized communities may struggle to be taken seriously.
- Over-correction: Highly mobilized constituencies may see over-enforcement that chills legitimate criticism.
Safeguard idea: Annual public statistics disaggregated by offence type, region, and target group — paired with outcome data (withdrawn, diverted, convicted) to detect skew.
Due Process and the “Process Is the Punishment”
Even with acquittal, the costs of investigation, charging, and trial (time, money, stigma) can be punishing.
- Defences exist but are reactive: Educational/artistic exceptions are meaningful only if applied before escalation.
- Collateral damage: Employment, immigration, and platform bans can follow mere allegations.
Safeguard idea: Crown pre-charge review standards that require documented consideration of public-interest factors, context exemptions, and proportionality — with reasons recorded.
Longer-Term Constitutional Friction
Canadian courts have upheld narrowly tailored hate-propaganda restrictions (e.g., Whatcott). But new categories and enforcement patterns could invite fresh Charter challenges under:
- s. 2(b) freedom of expression — overbreadth, vagueness, or disproportionate impacts;
- s. 7 security of the person — in extreme cases of state overreach;
- s. 15 equality — if enforcement patterns treat groups differently in practice.
Practical takeaway: Good laws survive scrutiny not just because they’re well-intentioned, but because they’re well-implemented with transparent limits and data.
Trust Deficit: Good Aims, Thin Accountability
C-9 adds offences and widens prosecutorial runway, but doesn’t pair them with strong oversight.
- No independent monitor dedicated to hate-speech/propaganda enforcement.
- No mandatory, standardized public reporting on charges, outcomes, and use of defences.
- No sunset or post-implementation review clause to recalibrate if harms outweigh benefits.
Safeguard idea: Bake in a five-year statutory review, plus annual public reports by Justice Canada (or an arms-length office) detailing enforcement metrics and civil-liberties impacts.
A Balanced Bottom Line
You can believe both of these things at once:
- Hate-motivated harassment and propaganda are real harms that merit serious legal tools; and
- Tools that police expression, motive, and symbolism must be narrow, transparent, evenly applied, and reviewed — or they will erode the pluralism they aim to protect.
C-9’s success will hinge less on its rhetoric than on its restraints.
Practical Safeguards and Accountability — What Parliament Should Add Before Passage
If Bill C-9 is to strengthen protection against hateful acts without undermining civil liberties, it must include guardrails built in—not left for courts to fix later. Below are concrete amendments and mechanisms we can advocate for.
Pre-Charge Review & AG Oversight Return
- Reinstate an independent gatekeeper: Before charges proceed, a senior Crown or Attorney General review should verify whether the case is in public interest and within the bill’s bounds. This doesn’t have to re-create the full original veto, but should require documented justification for moving forward.
- Record keeping of refusals: When prosecutors decline to charge under C-9 clauses, the reasons should be documented and reported (without compromising privacy), to discourage selective or capricious enforcement.
Binding Definitions + Procedures in Regulation
- Create regulations (not just bill text) to define:
- Which symbols are prohibited (with a published, reviewable list).
- Thresholds for “intimidation” vs. protest.
- Clear standards for when defensive exceptions (art, education, journalism) apply before prosecution.
- Regulations should be subject to parliamentary review (affirmative or negative order) so citizens have input.
Ex Ante Safe Harbours & Licensing
- Allow institutions (libraries, media, museums, schools) to seek preclearance for displaying or discussing sensitive symbols (e.g. swastika in historical context) without fear of prosecution.
- Grant a certificate of lawful use when a qualified body reviews the proposed display and provides brief justification, retroactive protection in case of complaint.
Reporting, Transparency & Independent Oversight
- Mandate annual public reports by the Department of Justice on:
- Number of investigations, charges, prosecutions, convictions, and dropped cases under each new section.
- Disaggregation by region, targeted protected classes, and outcome (guilty, acquitted, diverted).
- Create an arms-length oversight body or task the existing Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs or an Ombudsman to audit use of prosecutorial discretion, identify problematic trends, and issue public findings.
Sunset Clause & Mandatory Review
- Include a sunset clause: automatically expire or require reauthorization of the new C-9 provisions after, e.g., 5 or 7 years unless Parliament reconfirms them.
- Require statutory review within 3–4 years (midway), including public consultation, civil society input, and recommendations for amendment or repeal based on empirical evidence.
Judicial Safeguards & Burden of Proof
- Clarify that defence claims (e.g. artistic, documentary, religious context) must be presented before or during the Crown’s disclosure, not afterwards as a last-ditch argument.
- Explicitly restrict ex parte or secret evidence in prosecutions under C-9 — defenses and the accused must see the case against them.
- Prevent “stacking” overreach by prescribing that if a defendant is acquitted on the hate-motivated count, the related underlying offence cannot be penalized twice for same conduct without further scrutiny.
Practical Safeguards and Accountability — What Parliament Should Add Before Passage
Bill C-9 is a serious attempt to strengthen protections against hateful acts. It carries moral weight, and many of its aims are laudable. But legislation that intersects with speech, identity, and motive must be built with humility and scrutiny — because the wrong balance can hollow its own purpose.
If you care about both safety and freedom, here’s what you can do:
✅ Before You Engage With Bill C-9
- Read a plain version or summary of the bill, especially new sections (like 319(2.2), 320.1001, 423.3–423.4).
- Ask your MP / candidate:
- Will you support adding reporting and oversight mechanisms?
- Do you agree with a sunset clause for new powers?
- How will you protect legitimate expression (journalism, satire, protest)?
- Watch how institutions (courts, cities, civil society) respond.
- Share this article with your network.
- Pay attention to enforcement if the bill passes — report misuse, demand transparency.
