The government’s proposed anti-hate law is a necessary response to extremism

The legal threshold for criminal hate promotion in Canada is already exceptionally high. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that only the most extreme forms of wilful, public incitement to hatred, rising to a level that risks serious harm, meet that standard. This high standard is important to protect free speech and should not be diluted. Most importantly, removing the statutory religious defence does not override the Charter. Freedom of religion remains constitutionally protected, as does freedom of expression. Courts remain bound to interpret criminal law in light of those protections. Some opponents of the amendment worry that faith-based teachings could be misinterpreted as hate speech. That concern should not be dismissed. But the legal safeguards already built into Canadian law remain firmly in place. Let me be crystal clear: as a proud Conservative, as someone firmly opposed to the risks of government overreach, a strong supporter of religious freedoms and a fearless advocate for free speech, I would not support legislation that I believed opened the door to criminalizing religious expression. I do not believe Bill C-9 does that. Removing the religious defence was not something Jewish advocacy organizations pressed for in the current debate over C-9. But neither should it become a reason to stall the broader bill. Seen another way, the amendment reinforces a simple principle: We should all be equal before the law should we cross the line into advocating violence or terrorism. For me, the most significant element of Bill C-9 is the creation of a specific offence related to the public display of symbols linked to listed terrorist entities. It is narrowly tied to organizations that Canada has formally designated as terrorist groups under existing law, a designation mechanism seen as robust and credible by both the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada. Those groups are hostile to Canada, to Canadians, to our values and to our way of life, and are recognized as such. The question boils down to whether restricting the public glorification of listed terrorist entities is a reasonable limit on expression in a democratic society. In my view, it is. When individuals are able to publicly display the symbols of designated terrorist organizations without consequence, everyone’s confidence in the justice system takes a hit. It signals a society’s weak law enforcement. And it signals that we are willing to tolerate the behaviour of those who seek to impose their own law on our streets. This erosion of the rule of law has real consequences for communities that find themselves targeted, including the Jewish community, which has faced sustained harassment and intimidation over the past year. Standing as an ally to that community does not require abandoning my free speech principles. It requires recognizing that the glorification of terrorism is part of a broader campaign to intimidate everyday Canadians into compliance. Regardless of how Parliament resolves any single amendment, the reality remains: Canada needs to take action to restore confidence in the justice system. The promotion of Islamist and other violent extremisms in our streets cannot be ignored. The persistent harassment of Canadians, Jewish and otherwise, has already become normalized, and we have resigned ourselves collectively that our justice system is powerless to stop it. Bill C-9 is not a cure-all. No single piece of legislation is. It is, however, a signal of intent to roll back the erosion of the rule of law and ensure that our justice system reflects both our commitment to freedom and our responsibility to protect Canadians. That balance is not easy. But it is achievable and worth defending.