There are more important things to be policing than our thoughts

28 January 2026

Canada has a serious and growing problem with hate‑motivated crimes against religious communities in Canada. In recent years, we’ve seen the burning of churches, shots fired at Jewish community schools, and vandalism of mosques and temples. These are evil acts that no Canadian should ever tolerate.

Protecting communities from such violence is essential. But the federal government’s proposed response, Bill C‑9, the Combatting Hate Act, is not the solution.

Instead of improving public safety, it opens the door to political interference in matters of faith and expression.

This is not a call for inaction. Canada already has robust legal tools to prosecute hate‑motivated offences including harassment, intimidation, mischief, and hate‑motivated violence. The Criminal Code provides clear definitions that have been tested and refined through decades of court decisions. What we need is enforcement to deter actual criminals.

The new bill, though perhaps well‑intentioned, lowers the threshold for what constitutes “hate” and creates ambiguity. When laws become vague, they become vulnerable to misuse.

A remarkably broad coalition of religious and civil‑society organizations from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to the National Council of Canadian Muslims, from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the Canadian Labour Congress have sounded the alarm. When groups with profoundly different worldviews raise the same warning, Canadians should pay attention.

On Jan. 21, I met with more than 30 local faith leaders alongside MP Andrew Lawton, a member of the Justice Committee who has studied the bill extensively. His concern is straightforward: by lowering the bar for what qualifies as hate, Bill C‑9 risks criminalizing legitimate religious expression and narrowing the space for open dialogue. Instead of uniting Canadians against genuine acts of hatred, it could divide communities and chill the free exchange of ideas that is fundamental to our democracy.

The bill also rewrites the definition of “hate.” At present, criminal hate is defined in our criminal code as “an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.” C-9 would change this to “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification, and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.”

This shift from intense and extreme to merely stronger than dislike is not a minor edit. It dramatically broadens the scope of what could be considered criminal expression.

Even more troubling is a late‑stage amendment introduced by the Liberal government with support from the Bloc Québécois. This amendment quietly removes long‑standing Criminal Code protections for individuals who express, in good faith, religious arguments or cite religious texts. Without these protections, Canadians could face prosecution and up to two years in jail for sharing beliefs. This is not a hypothetical risk; it is a direct erosion of a safeguard that has existed for decades. Supporters of the bill argue that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will protect religious expression. But forcing churches, mosques, synagogues, and other faith communities into lengthy, expensive Charter challenges is not a reasonable expectation. Rights should be protected proactively, not defended only after charges are laid. Silencing or intimidating these leaders, even unintentionally, weakens the social fabric that the bill claims to protect.

This debate is not about allowing hate to flourish. The laws against hate crimes on our books should be enforced.

The debate on C-9 is about ensuring that the definition of hate remains precise, that the law targets genuine wrongdoing, and that Canadians retain the freedom to express deeply held beliefs without fear of criminalization. Religion cannot be used as a shield for criminal acts, nor can it be treated as a liability for peaceful expression.

Let’s focus on locking up those who commit real acts of hate – not those who speak their faith in good conscience.

There are more important things to be policing than our thoughts | Opinion | pentictonherald.ca