If the exemption is repealed, a third thing will happen: religious Canadians who annoy the government for completely unrelated reasons will find themselves in the dock. Like all law in Canada, it will be enforced strictly against regime enemies, and not at all against regime pets.
Canadians really need to ask themselves and the Liberal government - why the obsession with words and speech? Are there not more pressing issues in Canada right now?
I would like to see PM Mark Carney and other Liberal cabinet members asked specifically - what are they hoping to accomplish with these laws regulating what speech is acceptable or not?
During the covid years, Liberals enjoyed the benefit of US social media censorship shutting down dissent here in Canada. It allowed them to pursue catastrophic policies with little pushback.
Since then, they have been trying to recreate that information environment. Bribes have created a compliant legacy media, and banning news reposting on FB brought the Boomers into the fold, but other social media and independent journalists remain as a problem to be solved.
Let this debate and commentary on "religious exemption" not distract us from the awful piece of legislation the overall bill is. This "religious exemption" change - important as it might be to get BQ support - is still just a red herring that is now getting everyone to focus on just this one item while ignoring all the other more sinister parts of the bill. Perfect Liberal party tactics.
As usual, Ms. Baron and the CCF identify the primary issue with absolute precision. Weather to exempt or not exempt religious speech from this abominable legislation is not close to being the primary issue and witnessing that becoming the primary talking point is soul-destroying. Great column!
Agree with scrappping it. Think that the obsession with this on the liberal side is pure politics to the lgbtq crowd more than anything. Why do we need an over broad definition of hate speech? Why can’t it be succinct and clear and anything else is responded to with more speech?
Have we become a nation unwilling to hear criticism and debate each other so that we want the state to legislate all speech rather than only truly hateful speech? I don’t know enough to make a good suggestion, but with the bloq on side with the liberals I’d guess this is going to happen and it will be rich when it’s an Islam leader who is in court defending himself against hate speech towards Jews. The bloq won’t care - they’re oppressive in their own right and Quebec has really restricted religious freedoms already. But the liberal voters might care at that point.
Growing up in Quebec I and my fellow co- race members/religionists
was called various names which I will not repeat to prevent being hauled before some officially bilingual Kanuckistan Star chamber now or in the future and having Matt and Jen and my fellow readers implicated and entries made into their AI files for administrative purposes. I of course responded in kind and everyone went away happily on their way. The mantra was “Sticks and stones…”
The intention of the hate speech law was meant to address the demagoguery of the Nazis against Jews that led to the Holocaust, or the KKK's terror campaign against black Americans in the Jim Crow South. It's not clear that such an approach was ever actually going to work, though: do such laws really change the way people think, and do they really prevent people from committing hate crimes? If the former Yugoslavia is an example, it simply doesn't work: Marshall Tito's regime kept a tight cap on old cultural animus and policed speech, but it all came boiling out in a series of vicious civil wars in the 1990s.
Meanwhile, the definition of hate speech has increasingly been applied to speech that is offensive or rude. Being dragged into the legal system is a heavy burden and punishment for people even if they're not ultimately convicted. The people expanding the boundaries of the definition don't seem to perceive the danger of having the tables turned on them, but the outrage over actions by the Trump administration south of the border should be utterly damning proof that it CAN happen.
So yes - get rid of the hate speech laws. The best defense against hate speech is more speech!
I'm inclined to agree that the law in question should be removed from the books altogether. Protecting vulnerable individuals and minorities in society is laudable, but the law threatens other vulnerable individuals and minorities to do so.
I agree that this law needs to be scrapped. Then we need a new law to prevent the harassment of people of faith and in particular, demonstrations at faith community buildings. The laws about picketing at abortion sites can be the model for similar legislation criminalizing disruptions at faith sites. We already have a model for the needed legislation.
The way to do these things properly while respecting free speech is called a "time, place and manner" restriction.
It's why the government can't pass a law preventing me from telling people about Jesus... but CAN pass a law preventing me from telling you about anything at 90 decibels while standing on the sidewalk outside your house at 2am. That law doesn't care what I'm saying at 2am and it doesn't care why you're accosting people on the street outside a hospital.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam and just about every other religion will be affected by this. As long as everyone knows that. Much of the issue is that few folks now are anywhere near as religious as their parents or grandparents were. So they really are not bothered by such restrictions.
The whole thing is an abomination, but whatever form it stays in, the real issue is that in Canada we have total inconsistencies in the enforcement of laws. So A gets 4 years for rape, but B gets 11 months so we don't have to deport him. The same will happen with this law based on what is the religion-du-jour.
Funny how religious extremism (faith-based positions contrary to both law and often widespread public opinion) is so often privileged and granted special exemptions in public discourse and regulation not because it's justified by compelling evidence from reality to arbitrate it as worthy of such treatment but because it's simply 'religious'. I'm almost sure there's no circular thinking going on there.
A rather elephant-sized problem, however, is going completely without any legal response but shares the same kind of (almost absent) circular thinking that allows equivalent privilege and special exemptions. One might imagine that fraud schemes that stole billions of taxpayer dollars that exploited Canada's 'reconciliation' policy of 'Just pay up' claim settlements (that with the help of the courts threatens private property ownership across the nation), that deployed accusations of racism to deter scrutiny, and looted the public treasury might gain a bit of attention. Granted, in the Somali case in Minnesota, sure... lots of outcry and legal investigations and widespread effects from the federal administration and even - gasp! - local prosecutors and police doing the hard work to bring the perpetrators to account for their theft. And that crime involved only a paltry billion or so dollars. But the unaccounted 34 billion in the budget this year alone allocated to Indian bands in Canada? How about we just start with the unaccounted 240 million for ground penetrating radar. I've heard from some native friends that a few million HAS been spent on GPR but that the remainder is... nobody knows and nobody can find out. And the reason seems quite religious in nature: legal privilege and special exemptions because it's indigenous-related. Same thinking. So the ethical response should be the same: get rid of the legislation that drives two tiered treatment and intentionally creates social division and civic dysfunction.
It should be quite simple. The law should, if it does not already, simply state that the advocation in the public space, of physical harm or violence against any individual, group, or community, is against the law. Problem solved. Hate is not a crime. Giving offence is not a crime.
The basic problem is that hate speech laws will always be incompatible with section 2 of the Charter.
It's delusional to think you can have free speech and simultaneously outlaw free speech that promotes hatred because hatred **is a feeling**. There is simply no way to square this circle. You can have one or the other, but you can never have both. And I think the truth is that most of the people trying to square that circle don't believe in free speech at all but have been raised on the idea that "free speech is good", don't want to think of themselves as bad, so they just redefine unfree speech as "free speech".
They're similar to the people who really do want to racially discriminate against certain groups, but have been raised to believe racism is bad and don't want to think they're bad. So they tried to redefine racism with an "akshually anti-racism to discriminate against people for the colour of their skin when we do it against the bad race people!".
The squaring of the free/hate speech circle is simply not possible. It's not a question of tweaking the law so as to better polish that turd into a gemstone. It's an impossibility.
Someone says the Roman Catholic Church protected pedophiles and is sexist, even misogynistic and has reproductive policies that are harmful... do you think some might hate Catholics for that? Because gee, protecting pedophiles and oppressing women seems kind of bad doesn't it?
You can do this for any group you like. Because people are people.. they do bad things. And unsurprisingly other people hate bad things and often hate people who do bad things and often hate people who don't hate the same people they hate.
Finally.. .with all due respect to Jewish groups wanting that exemption removed.. if you think that that's going to result in the Canadian government going after Muslims over the Jew-hatred in the Quran and in Muslim communities.. oh boy, do I have a bridge for sale for you. Given that Canada currently ignores the targeting of Canadian Jews by (mostly Muslims) who don't like the actions of a foreign government, I think that's an extremely naive take on how stronger hate speech laws will be used.
This is an interesting piece on a difficult issue. For me, the vital importance of protecting free speech only comes into play when we disagree with what another is saying. It’s uncomfortable, we are vehemently opposed to the viewpoint, we find it hard to grasp why one might hold such a view. Human nature being what it is and the diversity of our population means that many new Canadians and others in our midst have endured lives smashed by war, torture, death, corruption and unimaginable loss. Some may hold religious views not in keeping with Canadian values and as we have recently seen some seek revenge against the overseas tribe who hurt them. Believe me, they feel hate and you know it when you see it. There has been more blood shed in the name of religion over the centuries. Exemptions on religious grounds is completely anachronistic in Canada in 2025. But how to define hate is hard but necessary if we expect to contain the worst impulses of humans to seek revenge for past wrongs. From the river to the sea is no problem when taken out of context but when shouted angrily and repeatedly in a Jewish neighbourhood we know it stands in for eliminate the Jewish people in Israel. The police were not keen to arrest protesters because hate had not been legislatively defined. So there was no law broken. Many on- lookers, some of them in the Trudeau cabinet, who were inconvenienced by protesters were shocked to realize that this was protected by free speech. Yes it is difficult to know where the line is. But active hatred that seeks to divide Canadians and threatens violence against others or their property falls in that category for me. The task of our legislators is to figure out where that line is.
If the exemption is repealed, a third thing will happen: religious Canadians who annoy the government for completely unrelated reasons will find themselves in the dock. Like all law in Canada, it will be enforced strictly against regime enemies, and not at all against regime pets.
I’d been trying to find a succinct summary of this issue. Thank you The Line & Joanna Baron.
Canadians really need to ask themselves and the Liberal government - why the obsession with words and speech? Are there not more pressing issues in Canada right now?
I would like to see PM Mark Carney and other Liberal cabinet members asked specifically - what are they hoping to accomplish with these laws regulating what speech is acceptable or not?
During the covid years, Liberals enjoyed the benefit of US social media censorship shutting down dissent here in Canada. It allowed them to pursue catastrophic policies with little pushback.
Since then, they have been trying to recreate that information environment. Bribes have created a compliant legacy media, and banning news reposting on FB brought the Boomers into the fold, but other social media and independent journalists remain as a problem to be solved.
Let this debate and commentary on "religious exemption" not distract us from the awful piece of legislation the overall bill is. This "religious exemption" change - important as it might be to get BQ support - is still just a red herring that is now getting everyone to focus on just this one item while ignoring all the other more sinister parts of the bill. Perfect Liberal party tactics.
As usual, Ms. Baron and the CCF identify the primary issue with absolute precision. Weather to exempt or not exempt religious speech from this abominable legislation is not close to being the primary issue and witnessing that becoming the primary talking point is soul-destroying. Great column!
Agree with scrappping it. Think that the obsession with this on the liberal side is pure politics to the lgbtq crowd more than anything. Why do we need an over broad definition of hate speech? Why can’t it be succinct and clear and anything else is responded to with more speech?
Have we become a nation unwilling to hear criticism and debate each other so that we want the state to legislate all speech rather than only truly hateful speech? I don’t know enough to make a good suggestion, but with the bloq on side with the liberals I’d guess this is going to happen and it will be rich when it’s an Islam leader who is in court defending himself against hate speech towards Jews. The bloq won’t care - they’re oppressive in their own right and Quebec has really restricted religious freedoms already. But the liberal voters might care at that point.
Growing up in Quebec I and my fellow co- race members/religionists
was called various names which I will not repeat to prevent being hauled before some officially bilingual Kanuckistan Star chamber now or in the future and having Matt and Jen and my fellow readers implicated and entries made into their AI files for administrative purposes. I of course responded in kind and everyone went away happily on their way. The mantra was “Sticks and stones…”
Agreed absolutely. Well put.
The intention of the hate speech law was meant to address the demagoguery of the Nazis against Jews that led to the Holocaust, or the KKK's terror campaign against black Americans in the Jim Crow South. It's not clear that such an approach was ever actually going to work, though: do such laws really change the way people think, and do they really prevent people from committing hate crimes? If the former Yugoslavia is an example, it simply doesn't work: Marshall Tito's regime kept a tight cap on old cultural animus and policed speech, but it all came boiling out in a series of vicious civil wars in the 1990s.
Meanwhile, the definition of hate speech has increasingly been applied to speech that is offensive or rude. Being dragged into the legal system is a heavy burden and punishment for people even if they're not ultimately convicted. The people expanding the boundaries of the definition don't seem to perceive the danger of having the tables turned on them, but the outrage over actions by the Trump administration south of the border should be utterly damning proof that it CAN happen.
So yes - get rid of the hate speech laws. The best defense against hate speech is more speech!
I'm inclined to agree that the law in question should be removed from the books altogether. Protecting vulnerable individuals and minorities in society is laudable, but the law threatens other vulnerable individuals and minorities to do so.
We need something better.
I agree that this law needs to be scrapped. Then we need a new law to prevent the harassment of people of faith and in particular, demonstrations at faith community buildings. The laws about picketing at abortion sites can be the model for similar legislation criminalizing disruptions at faith sites. We already have a model for the needed legislation.
The way to do these things properly while respecting free speech is called a "time, place and manner" restriction.
It's why the government can't pass a law preventing me from telling people about Jesus... but CAN pass a law preventing me from telling you about anything at 90 decibels while standing on the sidewalk outside your house at 2am. That law doesn't care what I'm saying at 2am and it doesn't care why you're accosting people on the street outside a hospital.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam and just about every other religion will be affected by this. As long as everyone knows that. Much of the issue is that few folks now are anywhere near as religious as their parents or grandparents were. So they really are not bothered by such restrictions.
The whole thing is an abomination, but whatever form it stays in, the real issue is that in Canada we have total inconsistencies in the enforcement of laws. So A gets 4 years for rape, but B gets 11 months so we don't have to deport him. The same will happen with this law based on what is the religion-du-jour.
Andof course it lands in courts to see if the offender can stay in Canada or if their temporary visa/ whatever gives them a pass!
Funny how religious extremism (faith-based positions contrary to both law and often widespread public opinion) is so often privileged and granted special exemptions in public discourse and regulation not because it's justified by compelling evidence from reality to arbitrate it as worthy of such treatment but because it's simply 'religious'. I'm almost sure there's no circular thinking going on there.
A rather elephant-sized problem, however, is going completely without any legal response but shares the same kind of (almost absent) circular thinking that allows equivalent privilege and special exemptions. One might imagine that fraud schemes that stole billions of taxpayer dollars that exploited Canada's 'reconciliation' policy of 'Just pay up' claim settlements (that with the help of the courts threatens private property ownership across the nation), that deployed accusations of racism to deter scrutiny, and looted the public treasury might gain a bit of attention. Granted, in the Somali case in Minnesota, sure... lots of outcry and legal investigations and widespread effects from the federal administration and even - gasp! - local prosecutors and police doing the hard work to bring the perpetrators to account for their theft. And that crime involved only a paltry billion or so dollars. But the unaccounted 34 billion in the budget this year alone allocated to Indian bands in Canada? How about we just start with the unaccounted 240 million for ground penetrating radar. I've heard from some native friends that a few million HAS been spent on GPR but that the remainder is... nobody knows and nobody can find out. And the reason seems quite religious in nature: legal privilege and special exemptions because it's indigenous-related. Same thinking. So the ethical response should be the same: get rid of the legislation that drives two tiered treatment and intentionally creates social division and civic dysfunction.
It should be quite simple. The law should, if it does not already, simply state that the advocation in the public space, of physical harm or violence against any individual, group, or community, is against the law. Problem solved. Hate is not a crime. Giving offence is not a crime.
But does "from the river to the sea" count when chanted in a Jewish neighbourhood?
The basic problem is that hate speech laws will always be incompatible with section 2 of the Charter.
It's delusional to think you can have free speech and simultaneously outlaw free speech that promotes hatred because hatred **is a feeling**. There is simply no way to square this circle. You can have one or the other, but you can never have both. And I think the truth is that most of the people trying to square that circle don't believe in free speech at all but have been raised on the idea that "free speech is good", don't want to think of themselves as bad, so they just redefine unfree speech as "free speech".
They're similar to the people who really do want to racially discriminate against certain groups, but have been raised to believe racism is bad and don't want to think they're bad. So they tried to redefine racism with an "akshually anti-racism to discriminate against people for the colour of their skin when we do it against the bad race people!".
The squaring of the free/hate speech circle is simply not possible. It's not a question of tweaking the law so as to better polish that turd into a gemstone. It's an impossibility.
Someone says the Roman Catholic Church protected pedophiles and is sexist, even misogynistic and has reproductive policies that are harmful... do you think some might hate Catholics for that? Because gee, protecting pedophiles and oppressing women seems kind of bad doesn't it?
You can do this for any group you like. Because people are people.. they do bad things. And unsurprisingly other people hate bad things and often hate people who do bad things and often hate people who don't hate the same people they hate.
Finally.. .with all due respect to Jewish groups wanting that exemption removed.. if you think that that's going to result in the Canadian government going after Muslims over the Jew-hatred in the Quran and in Muslim communities.. oh boy, do I have a bridge for sale for you. Given that Canada currently ignores the targeting of Canadian Jews by (mostly Muslims) who don't like the actions of a foreign government, I think that's an extremely naive take on how stronger hate speech laws will be used.
This is an interesting piece on a difficult issue. For me, the vital importance of protecting free speech only comes into play when we disagree with what another is saying. It’s uncomfortable, we are vehemently opposed to the viewpoint, we find it hard to grasp why one might hold such a view. Human nature being what it is and the diversity of our population means that many new Canadians and others in our midst have endured lives smashed by war, torture, death, corruption and unimaginable loss. Some may hold religious views not in keeping with Canadian values and as we have recently seen some seek revenge against the overseas tribe who hurt them. Believe me, they feel hate and you know it when you see it. There has been more blood shed in the name of religion over the centuries. Exemptions on religious grounds is completely anachronistic in Canada in 2025. But how to define hate is hard but necessary if we expect to contain the worst impulses of humans to seek revenge for past wrongs. From the river to the sea is no problem when taken out of context but when shouted angrily and repeatedly in a Jewish neighbourhood we know it stands in for eliminate the Jewish people in Israel. The police were not keen to arrest protesters because hate had not been legislatively defined. So there was no law broken. Many on- lookers, some of them in the Trudeau cabinet, who were inconvenienced by protesters were shocked to realize that this was protected by free speech. Yes it is difficult to know where the line is. But active hatred that seeks to divide Canadians and threatens violence against others or their property falls in that category for me. The task of our legislators is to figure out where that line is.