Canadian legislators are planning to remove religious exemptions from hate-speech laws. The move is part of an effort to crack down on hateful symbols. The proposed bill would criminalize the display of the Nazi swastika and the SS symbol. The legislation would also repeal the requirement for the Canadian attorney general to sign off on hate propaganda offenses. Reports of hate crimes, particularly antisemitic incidents, have been increasing in Canada.
13 days ago
The Canadian Liberal Party, in collaboration with the Bloc Québécois, is advancing amendments to remove religious exemptions from the country's hate-speech laws under Section 319 of the Criminal Code.1 This change aims to strengthen measures against hateful symbols, specifically criminalizing the display of the Nazi swastika and the SS symbol, which are often used in antisemitic attacks.1
The amendments also eliminate the requirement for the Attorney General's approval in hate propaganda prosecutions, potentially streamlining enforcement.1
Canadian law currently prohibits inciting hatred against identifiable groups but includes defenses for expressions based on religious beliefs or texts.1 Removing these exemptions could broaden the scope of punishable speech, with "hatred" redefined as an emotion stronger than disdain, involving detestation or vilification.1
This revision is part of Bill C-9, which a senior government source described as reaching a consensus among parties.1
Reports indicate a surge in hate crimes in Canada, particularly antisemitic incidents following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, with further increases in 2024.1 A B'nai Brith Canada report highlighted this trend, underscoring the need for tougher laws against symbols targeting Jewish communities.1
The government views the removal of exemptions and symbol bans as essential to combat this escalation.1
Conservative Party lawmakers oppose the bill, arguing that the targeted symbols and crimes are already illegal under existing statutes.1 They criticize the changes for lowering the threshold for "hatred," potentially threatening free speech and legitimate expression, and removing key safeguards like Attorney General oversight.1
This opposition frames the amendments as unnecessary censorship.1
Christian groups, including the Ontario-based Christian Legal Fellowship, have urged retention of religious exemptions, arguing they align with justice and equality principles.1 They warn that removal could undermine the constitutional integrity of hate-speech laws and infringe on religious freedom.1
Broader advocacy highlights ongoing threats to religious protections in Canada.1
Recent developments amplify concerns, such as Quebec's proposed ban on public prayer, which Montreal Archbishop Christian Lépine likened to forbidding thought itself.1 Additionally, a 2024 parliamentary committee suggested removing "advancement of religion" from charitable purposes, posing risks to faith communities.1
Canada's 2021 census revealed a decline of nearly 2 million Catholics over the previous decade, amid growing disaffiliation.1
Assess Catholic doctrine on hate speech versus religious freedom
Catholic teaching firmly upholds religious freedom as an essential dimension of human dignity, rooted in the natural law and divine revelation. This right ensures that individuals are immune from coercion in matters of faith, allowing them to seek truth, adhere to it, and live accordingly without external force. At the same time, the Church unequivocally condemns expressions of hatred or harm toward others, viewing them as grave sins against charity and the common good. The tension between these principles—often framed today as "hate speech" versus religious liberty—arises in contexts where religious expression might offend or injure. Catholic doctrine resolves this by affirming religious freedom's broad scope while imposing moral limits: freedom does not extend to actions or words that deliberately violate the dignity of others, incite grave harm, or undermine just public order. This balance reflects the Church's commitment to both personal conscience and communal harmony, as articulated in key documents like the Second Vatican Council's Dignitatis Humanae and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The cornerstone of Catholic teaching on religious freedom is the inherent dignity of the human person, created in God's image and endowed with reason, free will, and a moral obligation to pursue truth, particularly religious truth. As the Second Vatican Council declares, "the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is not merely a civil liberty but a natural one, grounded in the person's ability to respond freely to God's call. Society and the state must recognize this in law, refraining from imposing truth by force, since "the truth cannot be imposed except by virtue of its own truth."
This doctrine builds on earlier teachings, such as Pope John XXIII's Pacem in Terris, which affirms everyone's right "to be able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his conscience," and Pope Leo XIII's emphasis on the inviolable dignity that even God reveres.[10†L1 (footnote 40)] Pope John Paul II extended this in Centesimus Annus, describing religious freedom as "the source and synthesis" of other human rights, enabling individuals to live in truth and conform to their transcendent dignity. He warned that without it, authentic progress falters, as seen in totalitarian regimes that suppress conscience. Theologically, this freedom aligns with the Church's mission to preach the Gospel without coercion, respecting the supernatural gift of faith that must be freely embraced.
In practice, religious freedom encompasses not only private belief but public expression, including communal worship and dialogue. Pope John Paul II reiterated this in addresses to the United Nations and other bodies, stressing that no human power can command or prohibit internal acts of religion, though external expressions must respect social nature. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine reinforces that states must not force actions against conscience or hinder conformity to it, while clarifying that this freedom is no "license to adhere to error." Thus, doctrine prioritizes immunity from coercion, fostering a space where diverse beliefs can coexist without state-imposed uniformity.
While religious freedom protects sincere expression of faith, Catholic doctrine strictly limits speech that sows hatred, discord, or injury to others' dignity. The Church views such expressions—akin to modern "hate speech"—as contrary to the commandment to love one's neighbor, equating them with sins against charity. Deliberate hatred, especially wishing grave harm, is a grave sin, as "hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil" and becomes mortal when desiring serious injury. Christ’s teaching to "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" sets the standard, demanding peace of heart over vengeful anger. [1†L4 (footnote 96)]
The Catechism further prohibits attitudes or words causing unjust injury to reputation, including rash judgment (assuming faults without foundation), detraction (disclosing known faults without reason), and calumny (spreading falsehoods that harm others). These vices undermine the truth and foster division, violating the Eighth Commandment. Pope Pius XII echoed this in Anni Sacri, condemning those who "profusely sow the seed of hatred, of discord and of rivalry" or provoke rebellions through deception, insisting that Christian justice arises not from violence but law.
Distinguishing between the person and evil acts, the Church allows "hatred of the evil that he does as an enemy" but deems personal hatred incompatible with Gospel liberation, which requires forgiveness even of offenses. In wartime or conflict, this extends to respecting non-combatants and condemning genocide as a mortal sin, with a moral duty to resist such orders. Applied to speech, this means religious expression cannot justify inciting harm; fundamentalism that imposes views or denies others' rights is rejected, as it manipulates truth for power. Pope John Paul II highlighted dangers in Centesimus Annus, noting how ideologies—religious or otherwise—can lead to totalitarianism if unchecked by respect for freedom and truth.
Catholic doctrine harmonizes these principles by subordinating individual freedoms to the common good and just public order. Dignitatis Humanae explicitly qualifies religious freedom "within due limits," meaning it does not permit actions disrupting fundamental rights or societal peace. For instance, while one may profess faith publicly, this cannot include calumny or incitement to violence, as such acts violate the dignity all persons share. The Church's social teaching, as in Centesimus Annus, integrates religious liberty into a hierarchy of rights, where it enables seeking God but must align with moral responsibilities like family life and truthful work.
In contemporary terms, "hate speech" challenging religious freedom might involve state censorship of doctrinal teachings (e.g., on marriage or sin), which the Church opposes as coercion. Conversely, speech genuinely hateful—targeting groups for extermination or defamation—falls outside protected liberty, as it contradicts charity. The 2025 Note on AI and Human Intelligence reinforces this by citing protections for reputation and privacy in digital spaces, linking them to broader dignity concerns.[10†L2 (footnote 168)] Democracy thrives when guided by truth, not relativism or fanaticism; without this, freedoms erode into manipulation.
Theological nuance arises in interpreting limits: pre-Vatican II emphases on the Church's freedom evolved to include individual conscience, a "homogeneous continuity" without new principles but deeper application. Where sources might diverge historically, recent teachings like Vatican II take precedence, prioritizing non-coercive dialogue.
In summary, Catholic doctrine elevates religious freedom as vital to human flourishing, shielding conscience from coercion while mandating pursuit of truth. Yet it firmly rejects hate speech as antithetical to love, reputation, and peace, limiting expression that harms dignity or incites evil. This framework promotes a society where faith is lived freely but responsibly, fostering dialogue over division. By rooting both in Christ's commandment to love, the Church offers a path to authentic liberty amid pluralism.