Liberal hate crime bill C9 raises free speech concerns

[blackbird]

Liberals just introduced a new bill C9 allegedly to fight against hate crime, but like everything Liberals do, the problem lies between the lines and how it could be used.

One problem is with these kind of bills, they give unlimited power to government to control society and individuals and there is very little  or no protection for how it will be used.

They make the claim that there is no risk to fundamental freedoms, but that could be open to interpretation and used in a way to to suppress individual freedoms of expression and freedom of speech.

quote

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is concerned that key aspects of the Carney government’s proposed hate crimes legislation would unduly infringe on freedom of expression. 

Among other changes to the Criminal Code, Bill C-9 would establish a standalone hate crime provision that would allow for up to life in prison for committing an act motivated by hatred, would create new intimidation and obstruction crimes related to buildings used for religious worship or primarily by identifiable groups, and would establish a new crime of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying certain symbols such as terrorist flags or Nazi swastikas in a public place.

The CCF has identified the following concerns: 

• Overbreadth of the hate-symbol provision (s. 319(2.2)): It could chill legitimate speech in cases where it is unclear whether a symbol is “principally associated with a terrorist group” or “resembles a symbol” outlawed under the provision;
• Extreme sentencing under the new hate crime offence (s. 320.1001): A person who commits mischief against property motivated by hatred could face up to seven years in prison, rather than the current two years;
• Removal of Attorney General oversight: The bill would allow police to charge a person with hate speech without receiving the Attorney General’s consent, which is an important safeguard for freedom of expression that has been part of Canada’s law for decades; and
• Lowering the threshold for “hatred”: The definition of “hatred” added as a new section 319(7) appears to lower the bar for hate speech set by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases like R v Keegstra and R v Whatcott, which could chill speech and public debate.

CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron questioned the need for parts of the bill considering Canada already has “robust hate propaganda laws.”

“Creating new offences for hate-motivated crimes and lowering safeguards like Attorney General oversight is unnecessary and invites excessive prosecutions,” she said.

“The new hate symbol offence only targets displays done with the intent to promote hatred, but without Attorney General consent as a safeguard, there is a real risk that people using these symbols in art, journalism, or protest will be charged first and vindicated later,” Baron added.

CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas said that while he’s pleased to see that the federal government has tailored its provisions on intimidation and obstruction of places of worship to capture criminal conduct rather than protected speech and protest, he is concerned that the new definition of “hatred” will chill legitimate expression.

“I’m also very wary that banning hate symbols could be a slippery slope,” Dehaas said. “In free countries, we ought to criminalize violence, not speech, so this sets a worrying precedent.”

unquote

Liberal hate crimes bill raises free speech concerns - Canadian Constitution Foundation

The Liberal party seems to have a penchant for wanting to control everyone's life to the nth degree or as much as they can get away with.

This is not respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Who is to be the judge as to what is acceptable speech?  What if someone who disagrees with you claims you are breaking this law simply because he doesn't agree or opposes your right to your opinion or comments?  Then you could become the target of the state and be placed in the position of having to hire lawyers and defend yourself.  Or you could even be imprisoned for years while your case finds its way through the legal system.  This kind of thing puts a very heavy hand on freedom of expression or freedom of speech and will tend to suppress it.

This leans more toward authoritarianism or a brand of totalitarianism.   Orwell's 1984, Big Brother knows best.

Edited September 21, 2025 by blackbird

[CDN1]

White people are being conditioned to unilaterally disarm and submit to a socially engineered genocide across Western societies.

They'll call you Nazis while they do it. This is all pre-emptive framing, weaponized dissent and censorship. A means to an end.

 

 

[Gaétan]

People must have the right to say and think whatever they want, as long as they do not incite or plot crimes, and paid speech is not free speech.

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

Liberals just introduced a new bill C9 allegedly to fight against hate crime, but like everything Liberals do, the problem lies between the lines and how it could be used.

One problem is with these kind of bills, they give unlimited power to government to control society and individuals and there is very little  or no protection for how it will be used.

They make the claim that there is no risk to fundamental freedoms, but that could be open to interpretation and used in a way to to suppress individual freedoms of expression and freedom of speech.

quote

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is concerned that key aspects of the Carney government’s proposed hate crimes legislation would unduly infringe on freedom of expression. 

Among other changes to the Criminal Code, Bill C-9 would establish a standalone hate crime provision that would allow for up to life in prison for committing an act motivated by hatred, would create new intimidation and obstruction crimes related to buildings used for religious worship or primarily by identifiable groups, and would establish a new crime of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying certain symbols such as terrorist flags or Nazi swastikas in a public place.

The CCF has identified the following concerns: 

• Overbreadth of the hate-symbol provision (s. 319(2.2)): It could chill legitimate speech in cases where it is unclear whether a symbol is “principally associated with a terrorist group” or “resembles a symbol” outlawed under the provision;
• Extreme sentencing under the new hate crime offence (s. 320.1001): A person who commits mischief against property motivated by hatred could face up to seven years in prison, rather than the current two years;
• Removal of Attorney General oversight: The bill would allow police to charge a person with hate speech without receiving the Attorney General’s consent, which is an important safeguard for freedom of expression that has been part of Canada’s law for decades; and
• Lowering the threshold for “hatred”: The definition of “hatred” added as a new section 319(7) appears to lower the bar for hate speech set by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases like R v Keegstra and R v Whatcott, which could chill speech and public debate.

CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron questioned the need for parts of the bill considering Canada already has “robust hate propaganda laws.”

“Creating new offences for hate-motivated crimes and lowering safeguards like Attorney General oversight is unnecessary and invites excessive prosecutions,” she said.

“The new hate symbol offence only targets displays done with the intent to promote hatred, but without Attorney General consent as a safeguard, there is a real risk that people using these symbols in art, journalism, or protest will be charged first and vindicated later,” Baron added.

CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas said that while he’s pleased to see that the federal government has tailored its provisions on intimidation and obstruction of places of worship to capture criminal conduct rather than protected speech and protest, he is concerned that the new definition of “hatred” will chill legitimate expression.

“I’m also very wary that banning hate symbols could be a slippery slope,” Dehaas said. “In free countries, we ought to criminalize violence, not speech, so this sets a worrying precedent.”

unquote

Liberal hate crimes bill raises free speech concerns - Canadian Constitution Foundation

The Liberal party seems to have a penchant for wanting to control everyone's life to the nth degree or as much as they can get away with.

This is not respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Who is to be the judge as to what is acceptable speech?  What if someone who disagrees with you claims you are breaking this law simply because he doesn't agree or opposes your right to your opinion or comments?  Then you could become the target of the state and be placed in the position of having to hire lawyers and defend yourself.  Or you could even be imprisoned for years while your case finds its way through the legal system.  This kind of thing puts a very heavy hand on freedom expression or freedom of speech and will tend to suppress it.

This leans more toward authoritarianism or a brand of totalitarianism.   Orwell's 1984, Big Brother knows best.

Drawing the line between unacceptable Behavior and legitimate protest is always the problem with these bills.

Putting a no protest bubble zone around religious buildings or the like would probably work out fine, but when you start getting into trying to define hate speech and symbols and the like you inevitably run into massive problems. Remember when the okay signs suddenly magically became a symbol of white power because some guy on fourtran trolled a bunch of lefties? 

[herbie]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

A person who commits mischief against property motivated by hatred could face up to seven years in prison, rather than the current two years

You should be happy! punishment is worse, just like you wanted.

Our freedom to hold candle light marches waving Swastika flags is gonna be taken away! Aaayyiiiieeeeeh!

[CDN1]

29 minutes ago, herbie said:

You should be happy! punishment is worse, just like you wanted.

Our freedom to hold candle light marches waving Swastika flags is gonna be taken away! Aaayyiiiieeeeeh!

It will be selectively applied. Most of the left honestly believes you can't be racist towards White people.

You're still misrepresenting that swastika at the convoy protests? It was attached to a sign calling Trudeau Hitler.

[PIK]

Pro palastinain protests will be excempt?

[Barquentine]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Drawing the line between unacceptable Behavior and legitimate protest is always the problem with these bills

I agree. Nobody wants thought police. And people should be allowed to wear a hijab, a cross, or even a swastika if they want. Just don't cross the line into calling for violence or lesser rights for 'others'.

And don't pass bills that leave too much room for interpretation by the police or courts.

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

I agree. Nobody wants thought police. And people should be allowed to wear a hijab, a cross, or even a swastika if they want. Just don't cross the line into calling for violence or lesser rights for 'others'.

And don't pass bills that leave too much room for interpretation by the police or courts.

Rare case when we agree. 

Like i said i can get behind 'bubbles' to make sure people can get to their school or place of worship without fear or the like but blanket bans are just too unwieldy and prone to abuse in both directions. 

[blackbird]

Britain has completely gone mad with their hate crime law.  Police in Britain are now arresting about 30 people a day for offensive comments.

If someone on social media or anywhere feels you have made an offensive comment, you may be arrested in Britain.

The same kind of thing could happen here in Canada with the new proposed C9 bill being put forward by the Carney government.

"Michael Higgins: U.K. policing of hate crimes should be a warning to Canada

Opinion by Michael Higgins

British police can arrest a citizen or have them placed on a hate register if a social media post or other action is perceived as “ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment or dislike,” writes Michael Higgins.

If you want to find out how bad it can be when police are allowed to decide what is hateful, look no further than the U.K., where an average of 30 people a day are arrested for offensive comments.

Then there are the people — about 13,000 a year — who are not arrested but put on a register for “non-crime hate incidents.”

Hanging out “soiled underpants” on the washing line can get you on that register if a neighbour “perceives” they are being targeted.

With a new bill, C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, the Liberals would hand over to the police the power to decide what is hate. The bill would repeal the requirement for the attorney general to lay hate charges, “streamlining the process for law enforcement to more effectively address such cases,” says the bill, rather innocently.

“By removing this step, law enforcement would be able to act quickly to counter hate speech and protect communities,” it says.

Joanna Baron, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, worries that the new bill could impact free speech and lead to more prosecutions."

For the whole article:

Michael Higgins: U.K. policing of hate crimes should be a warning to Canada

Edited September 23, 2025 by blackbird

[herbie]

I'd go for absolute free speech if they'd make a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to throw rotten tomatoes to go along with it.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

I'd go for absolute free speech if they'd make a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to throw rotten tomatoes to go along with it.

I don't know that that would work out to your advantage......