Canada enacts hate crime law that removes long-standing religious exemption
Canada’s Parliament passed the Combatting Hate Act (Bill C‑9) to strengthen hate‑crime prosecution while removing a long‑standing exemption for religious expression. The law increases penalties, protects places of worship, bans hate symbols, and repeals a Criminal Code section that allowed convictions only if the expression was not in good faith. Cardinal Frank Leo of Toronto urged lawmakers to ensure clear protection for freedom of religion, conscience, and expression. The article notes the law will take effect on July 18 and has prompted concerns among Catholic leaders.
3 months ago
Canada’s Parliament approved the Combatting Hate Act (Bill C‑9), which strengthens penalties for hate‑motivated offenses and adds protections for places of worship, but it also repeals a long‑standing “good‑faith” exemption that shielded individuals from conviction for expressing religious opinions. 1
The new statute, receiving Royal Assent on 18 June 2026 and taking effect on 18 July 2026, increases sentences for hate‑based crimes and criminalises intimidation or blockage of access to religious sites. It further bans the promotion of terrorism and certain hate symbols. 1
Bill C‑9 eliminates a section of the Criminal Code that previously allowed a defence of “in good faith” when a person expressed an opinion derived from a religious text or belief. This repeal means that religious arguments can no longer be used to escape liability for hate‑motivated conduct. 1
Cardinal Frank Leo of Toronto appealed to legislators to amend the law so that it clearly protects freedom of religion, conscience, and expression, warning that the removal of the exemption could infringe on religious liberty. 1
The legislation is part of a broader effort by the Canadian government to combat hate crimes and safeguard vulnerable communities, reflecting growing concerns about hate‑motivated violence and the need for stronger legal tools. 1*
Investigate Catholic doctrine on freedom of religion versus hate‑crime legislation
Catholic teaching affirms freedom of religion as a right grounded in the dignity of the human person, primarily meaning immunity from coercion in matters of belief and worship. At the same time, the Church teaches that unjust discrimination and violence against persons are to be denounced. So, Catholic doctrine does not oppose laws that protect people from aggression; rather, the key question is whether a given “hate-crime” regime protects the person and the common good—or whether it overreaches into coercing conscience or suppressing legitimate religious witness.
Vatican II teaches that “the human person has a right to religious freedom,” meaning that people must be “immune from coercion” by individuals, social groups, or any human power. This immunity covers being forced “to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly.”
Importantly, the Council grounds this right not merely in what individuals feel, but in the person’s nature: a being with “reason and free will” who can bear responsibility. Therefore, the right should be recognized “in the constitutional law whereby society is governed,” so it becomes a true civil right.
The Council adds that the right to religious freedom “continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation” to seek and adhere to truth, and that its exercise should not be “impeded, provided that just public order be observed.”
So Catholic doctrine draws a boundary: religious freedom is protected, but it is exercised within the demands of justice and public order.
Vatican II also clarifies that the doctrine of religious freedom has a foundation in the dignity of the person and has “roots in divine revelation,” and it is “entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.”
This means the Church does not treat religious freedom as a compromise with faith, but as something compatible with how faith is to be chosen and lived—not imposed.
Even though the sources provided do not directly define “hate-crime legislation,” they do establish clear moral principles about how the state must treat persons.
For example, Dignitas Infinita reaffirms that every person, “regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity” and that “every sign of unjust discrimination” is to be avoided, especially forms of “aggression and violence.”
It further denounces the grave evil of people being “imprisoned, tortured, and even deprived of the good of life solely because of their sexual orientation.”
While Dignitas Infinita is focused on sexual orientation, the underlying principle is broader: the Church insists on protection of human dignity and opposition to unjust discrimination and violence.
Pope Leo XIV similarly frames religious freedom as essential in a just society, warning that when religious freedom is denied, communities undergo “slow disintegration,” where “trust gives way to fear, suspicion replaces dialogue, and oppression breeds violence.”
Given the sources, Catholic doctrine provides principles rather than an explicit blueprint for modern hate-crime statutes. However, compatibility can be assessed by checking whether the law serves the Church’s two core concerns:
Catholic teaching would generally support state action that:
This aligns with Pope Leo XIV’s warning that oppression and denial of freedom generate a cycle of fear and violence, so laws that reduce violence and protect vulnerable persons can be seen as helping to preserve conditions for genuine freedom and reconciliation.
Catholic doctrine would raise serious concerns if a “hate-crime” framework is used to:
That would conflict with the Council’s definition of religious freedom as immunity from coercion “to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs,” whether privately or publicly.
And if the law is applied in ways that effectively deny communities the “moral space” where conscience may be formed and exercised, it would also run against Pope Leo XIV’s insistence that the right to religious freedom is “not optional but essential” and a “cornerstone of any just society.”
Using only what the provided Catholic sources clearly support, a faithful way to evaluate such legislation is:
If the answer to these is generally positive, Catholic doctrine provides grounds for saying the law can be compatible with religious freedom. If the law treats religious conscience and belief as punishable simply due to disagreement, Catholic doctrine indicates a conflict with religious freedom as immunity from coercion.