Canada's proposed new anti-hate law wisely takes moderate, incremental steps, including limiting (but not banning) the use of symbols such as the Nazi swastika or those principally associated with groups designated terrorist by the government.ANGELOS TZORTZINIS/Getty Images
At a time when Canada’s social fabric is weakening at the seams and threatening to tear, the federal government’s proposed revisions to the criminal law on hate are welcome for their sensible, measured approach to the challenges inherent in placing limits on expression.
The Combatting Hate Act, tabled last month, is a major improvement over the anti-hate provisions of the Online Harms Act from early in 2024, a bill which did not become law. That act’s excesses included a maximum life penalty for hate-motivated offences and the creation of a peace bond (which included the possibility of house arrest) to prevent an individual from spreading hatred, based on nothing more than a “reasonable belief” they might do so – even in the absence of a previous conviction for that offence.
The proposed new law wisely takes moderate, incremental steps. Among the useful elements: criminalizing intimidation and obstruction outside religious or community centres; creating a standalone crime of committing a hate-motivated offence, with enhanced (but still reasonable) maximum penalties; and limits (but not a ban) on the use of symbols such as the Nazi swastika or those principally associated with groups designated terrorist by the Canadian government.
There is, however, one major misstep: the government would remove the requirement of an Attorney-General’s consent for the laying of a hate-promotion charge. That consent is a safety mechanism that helps ensure hate laws are used with due deliberation.
Opinion: An act of hate against one member of our Canadian family is an attack against all
It is only in recent years that this space has accepted the need for anti-hate laws. In the past, we argued that the marketplace of ideas would ultimately reveal hatred for the poison it is. That marketplace now seems an outmoded idea, in a world in which weed-like conspiracy theories, proliferating on social media, seek to strangle reason wherever they grow. And in a country in which some Jews now hesitate to wear a Star of David, and Muslim women to wear a hijab, hatred is on its way to being normalized. The poison may be winning.
Other steps, like banning the glorification of terrorism, have not been taken, another sign of the bill’s restraint. It may be loathsome to express support for Hamas, but should it be a crime? By contrast, Britain has gone down the wrong road in arresting hundreds of protesters for demonstrating in support of a group banned under anti-terrorism legislation.
And Bill C-9 proposes an appropriately narrow definition of hate, drawn from a 35-year-old Supreme Court ruling, and focused on detestation and vilification. Compare that to Britain’s definition, aimed at “hostility or prejudice.”
In the absence of a legal definition of hostility, Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service says it uses “the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.” No wonder more than 14,000 people were prosecuted for hate crimes in 2024, a staggering number. A remarkable 86 per cent were convicted. Yet Britain’s social fabric is no stronger for it.
Anti-hate bill could mean 10 years in prison for obstructing access to places of worship
Bill C-9, which still needs to be debated and passed by Parliament, wisely responds to emerging problems, such as protests outside of places of worship and community centres that frighten people, including children and the elderly, as they go about their everyday activities.
How this part of the proposed law will play out in practice is difficult to say. Some legal analysts say proving an intent to provoke a state of fear is difficult, even though the noise and images of hostility (including masked protesters) may be in and of themselves intimidating.
Still, some police forces have asked for a section of this type, arguing that it gives them a more precise tool than they currently have. This section certainly sends the necessary message that obstruction and intimidation at places of worship and other centres are crimes and will be treated as such.
These two new proposed offences should not be confused with bubble-zone bylaws passed by some municipalities. Those laws tend to create a protected zone within which protesters may not enter (much like those around abortion clinics under provincial laws). The new criminal offences of intimidation and obstruction would complement bubble-zone laws; more such municipal or provincial laws would be helpful.
The Liberal government’s proposed new law sends the message that hatred won’t be tolerated, while finding a better balance than the Trudeau government’s heavier-handed approach.