Discriminatory hate is not a good thing. Neither, however, is the latest bill by the federal Liberal government against it. With good cause, civil liberties organizations and conservative commentators warn that Bill C-9 could do more to chill legitimate speech than curb actual hate.
Bill C-9 creates a new offense allowing up to life imprisonment for acts motivated by hatred against identifiable groups. It also creates new crimes for intimidation or obstruction near places of worship or community buildings used by identifiable groups. The bill even creates a new hate propaganda offense against displaying terrorism or hate symbols.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) warns the legislation “risks criminalizing some forms of protected speech and peaceful protest—two cornerstones of a free and democratic society—around tens of thousands of community gathering spaces in Canada.” The CCLA saw no need to add to existing hate laws.
The bill also removes the requirement that the Attorney General consent to lay charges for existing hate propaganda offences. The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) calls this a major flaw, noting it removes “an important safeguard for freedom of expression that has been part of Canada’s law for decades.”
Strange as it sounds, hatred just won’t be what it used to be, should this legislation pass.
Previously, the Supreme Court of Canada said hatred requires “extreme manifestations” of detestation or vilification that involve destruction, abhorrence, or portraying groups as sub-human or innately evil. Instead, Bill C-9 defines hatred as “detestation or vilification” stronger than “disdain or dislike.” That’s a low threshold.
Notably, the legislation also punishes a hateful motivation more than whatever supposed crime accompanied it. For example, if a criminal conviction prompted a sentence of two years to less than five years, a hateful motivation would add up to an additional five years of jail time.
Now, most Canadians would look at this list and not be too worried about facing jail under the new offenses. Regardless, this legislation is still a problem given how the “hate” label is applied far too widely.
Two years ago, the 1 Million March for Children took place across Canada to protest the teaching of transgender concepts to school children, especially the most young. Although such opposition is a valid position, unions, LGBT advocates, and even Newfoundland and Labrador Conservatives adopted the “No Space For Hate” slogan in opposition to the march.
Given this context, how many citizens with traditional values would protest a drag queen story hour a short space from a public library? In recent times, a safe space has been redefined as a location where only people who believe in you and support you are present. Attendees will demand that police charge the protesters and accuse police of implicit hatred if they fail to do so.
The police, some of whom participate in Pride week or go to police stations with rainbow colours in June, will never want to appear insensitive or intolerant. They will do the same as what they do when someone attacks a home invader. The resident is charged with assault and the courts can sort out whether they used excessive force.
Now police will charge and judges will rule on whether someone’s protest went too far. Identity politics is all-too-much a concern for judges and police, who are taught about it in their “sensitivity training.” The clear preference of the state is apparent.
If a demonstrator is charged and convicted for hate, the Liberal government will wash their hands of the particular decision. They will say, “We stripped ourselves of the powers to have discretion in this area. It was never our decision to charge or convict these people. The system is doing its job. We must fight hate everywhere.”
While most Canadians would associate the term “hate symbol” with a swastika, a few people have suggested Canada’s former flag has been co-opted for racist purposes. In 2022, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network called out the flag in an educational resource entitled, “Confronting and preventing hate in Canadian schools.”
The flag, used nationally from 1957 to 1965, was listed under “hate-promoting symbols” for its alleged use by “alt-right/Canada First movement” to recall when Canada was predominantly white. “Its usage in modern times is an indicator of hate-promoting beliefs,” the resource insisted.
It should concern most Canadians when their heritage is viewed as hateful by a federally-funded organization. Unfortunately, this new anti-hate legislation jeopardizes not only past symbols of our heritage, but it’s past values. Rest in peace, free speech.
