A free society depends on more than elections. It depends on the ability of citizens to speak openly, express unpopular opinions, debate moral questions, and practice their faith without fear that the state will punish them for doing so. That is why Bill C-9 should concern every Canadian, regardless of political affiliation or religious belief.
Supporters describe Bill C-9 as a necessary measure to combat hatred and protect vulnerable groups. No reasonable person supports genuine hatred, violence, intimidation, or discrimination. Yet the problem with laws such as Bill C-9 is that they often begin with noble intentions and end by giving governments and prosecutors greater power to police speech. History repeatedly shows that when governments acquire new powers to regulate expression, those powers rarely remain limited to the most extreme cases.
One of the most troubling aspects of Bill C-9 is its removal of longstanding protections for religious expression. For decades, Canadian law recognized that statements made in good faith on religious subjects deserved special consideration. That’s gone now, raising legitimate concerns among faith communities who regularly discuss moral and social issues rooted in their religious traditions.
Christians have been especially concerned that advocacy rooted in Scriptures that conflict with contemporary social orthodoxy could lead to a backlash rooted in complaints, investigations, or prosecutions. Government officials insist that ordinary Bible reading or preaching will not be criminalized. Perhaps they are correct. But it is also possible that under new hate speech definitions, more people will be dragged through investigations, legal proceedings, public denunciation, enormous financial costs, and even criminal convictions.
The debate surrounding Bill C-9 has also exposed a growing democratic deficit in Canada. Across the country, thousands of Canadians contacted their Members of Parliament. They wrote letters, signed petitions, attended meetings, sent emails, and made phone calls expressing concern. Churches, faith organizations, civil-liberty groups, and ordinary citizens urged lawmakers to reconsider the bill or amend its most controversial provisions.
Despite this rare level of public engagement, the concerns of these objectors were ignored. The legislation moved forward regardless. Politicians appeared more interested in advancing a predetermined agenda than listening to the people they represent.
This should trouble Canadians even if they support Bill C-9. Democracy is not merely about winning votes in Parliament. It is about maintaining a meaningful connection between elected representatives and the citizens they serve. When large numbers of people engage respectfully in the political process and feel completely unheard, public trust inevitably erodes.
Canadians should also pay attention to developments abroad. In Finland, Christian politician Päivi Räsänen became the target of a years-long legal battle after posting a Bible verse and expressing traditional Christian views on sexuality. Although she was ultimately acquitted, the case demonstrated how hate-speech laws can be used to place religious believers under investigation for expressing views that were once considered mainstream. The process itself became the punishment. Years of legal uncertainty, public scrutiny, and financial costs sent a chilling message to anyone who might hold similar beliefs.
Will a case parallel to Räsänen’s emerge here? Despite governmental assurances, citizens have reason to be skeptical. Laws are not judged solely by how current governments promise to use them. They must also be judged by how future governments, prosecutors, and activists could use them.
Free speech is an illusion if citizens can only say things that government officials approve of. It is most important when it protects unpopular, controversial, or dissenting opinions. Free societies have traditionally trusted citizens to debate ideas openly and expose bad ideas through argument rather than censorship. Once governments begin deciding which opinions are acceptable and which are potentially criminal, the boundaries of permissible speech inevitably become political.
Canada has long prided itself on protecting freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression. Those freedoms are not obstacles to democracy, but its foundation. They protect minorities, dissenters, and people of faith from the shifting winds of political fashion.
Bill C-9 may have been introduced with good intentions, but good intentions are not enough. Canadians should be concerned whenever legislators seek to restrict expression, remove longstanding legal protections, and expand the state’s authority over what citizens may say. The freedom to speak, preach, debate, and disagree peacefully is too important to sacrifice.
If Canada wishes to remain a truly free society, it must resist the temptation to trade liberty for the promise of greater social harmony. History suggests that once freedom is surrendered, it is rarely recovered without a struggle.
