You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Freedom of Expression’ tag.
Bill C-9, officially titled the Combatting Hate Act and introduced in September 2025, amends the Criminal Code to address rising hate crimes by creating new offences, codifying a definition of “hatred,” and streamlining prosecutions. Key provisions include a new hate-motivated crime offence applicable to any Criminal Code violation (potentially carrying enhanced penalties, including life imprisonment in severe cases), criminalizing the willful promotion of hatred through public display of certain hate or terrorism symbols, and removing the requirement for Attorney General consent in hate propaganda cases. The bill also introduces offences for intimidating or obstructing access to places of worship, schools, or community centres used by identifiable groups. While presented as a response to increased antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other hatreds, critics argue it expands state power over expression in ways that threaten fundamental freedoms.
A particularly alarming development is the proposed amendment—supported by the Liberals in a deal with the Bloc Québécois—to repeal section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code. This longstanding defence protects individuals from conviction for wilfully promoting hatred if, in good faith, they express an opinion on a religious subject or based on a religious text. Removing it would expose pastors, priests, imams, and everyday believers to prosecution for faithfully teaching or quoting sacred scriptures on contentious issues like marriage, sexuality, or morality. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has warned that this risks criminalizing core religious doctrine, disproportionately targeting Christianity’s traditional teachings while undermining freedom of religion under the Charter.
Beyond religious discrimination, Bill C-9 erodes cognitive liberty—the right to hold and express unpopular thoughts without fear of state punishment—and free speech more broadly. By codifying a definition of “hatred” as detestation or vilification (explicitly stating it does not include mere dislike, disdain, or offence), the bill arguably lowers the high bar set by Supreme Court precedents like R. v. Keegstra and Whatcott, potentially chilling debate on public issues. Removing Attorney General oversight for prosecutions invites politically motivated charges, while broad new offences around symbols and obstruction could capture peaceful protest or artistic expression, despite carve-outs for legitimate purposes like education or journalism.
This bill exemplifies a broader authoritarian drift in Canada, where the state increasingly polices thought and belief under the guise of combating hate. Existing laws already prohibit incitement to violence and genuine hate propaganda; expanding them risks turning disagreement into crime and faith into liability. Cognitive liberty demands that Canadians can think, speak, and worship freely, even when offensive to others—yet Bill C-9 subordinates these rights to subjective interpretations of “hatred.”
As Parliament debates this legislation amid reports of a Liberal-Bloc agreement to strip religious protections, citizens must demand its rejection or substantial amendment. True tolerance protects unpopular speech, including religious conviction; suppressing it paves the way for tyranny. Canada’s Charter promises freedom of conscience, religion, thought, and expression—Bill C-9 puts them all at grave risk.
References
- Official text of Bill C-9: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-9/first-reading
- Department of Justice summary: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/c9/index.html
- Charter Statement on Bill C-9: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c9_2.html
- Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops on religious exemption removal (December 2025): https://www.cccb.ca/media-release/proposed-restrictions-on-religious-freedom-bill-c-9/
- CBC News on Bloc-Liberal deal to remove religious defence (December 2025): https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c9-hate-speech-religion-9.7001891
- National Post on implications for faith (December 2025): https://nationalpost.com/opinion/changes-to-bill-c-9-arent-combating-hate-theyre-criminalizing-faith
- LEGISinfo page for Bill C-9: https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-9
- Canadian Civil Liberties Association concerns: https://ccla.org/press-release/ccla-bill-c-9-risks-criminalizing-peaceful-protest/
Emanuel Brünisholz, a Swiss repairman, has made headlines for refusing to pay a fine imposed for a social-media comment stating what he says are biological truths: that there are only two sexes as determined by skeletal evidence. Because he wouldn’t pay the fine, he opted instead to serve 10 days in jail. He was convicted under Switzerland’s anti-discrimination laws (Art. 261bis), which have been expanded to include “sexual identities” beyond race, religion, etc. His statement was judged to belittle the LGBTQI community and violate human dignity, though Brünisholz insists he was speaking objective biological fact. (Reduxx)
This case is deeply troubling, because it illustrates a slippery slope: when a judge or prosecutor can criminalize speech that claims a biological fact, simply because some group interprets it as hateful. That is not far off from what proposed Canadian legislation threatens. The Combatting Hate Act, introduced in September 2025, would make it a criminal offence to “wilfully promote hatred” against identifiable groups (including on grounds of gender identity) by any public display or speech. It also aims to streamline prosecutions for “hate propaganda,” remove some procedural checks, and broaden the definition of hate. Critics warn that this will give activist minority claims outsized power over what counts as acceptable speech. (Government of Canada)
If Brünisholz’s case was an outlier, then Canada’s proposals make clear this is a trajectory, not a one-off. Under the proposed laws, someone could theoretically be prosecuted (and even imprisoned) for speaking truths about biological sex if a court determines that such statements violate the new definitions of hatred or hate speech. That means what is scientifically or biologically reality could become illegal speech, depending on who is offended and how strong the activist pressure is. In a Western democracy that claims to defend freedom of expression, this is simply unacceptable.
We must not accept that the mere possibility of offending a protected group is enough for criminal sanction. We must resist laws that hand over the power to judges or prosecutors (or activist complainants) to decide what biological truths are “hate.” Because once speech can be criminalized based on activist interpretation, the foundations of open, free inquiry, reason, and reality are at risk.
Key Comparisons: Swiss Case vs. Proposed Canadian Laws
| Feature | Swiss Case (Brünisholz) | Proposed Canadian Laws (Combatting Hate Act / related bills) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of statement | Emphasis on binary sex; “only man and woman” skeleton argument | Biological sex, gender identity claims could be targeted under new definitions of hate |
| Punishment | Fine convertible to 10 days jail if unpaid | Proposed penalties include imprisonment, removal of procedural protections |
| Law basis | Anti-discrimination / hate speech law expanded to “sexual identities” in Switzerland | Criminal Code, Criminal Code’s hate propaganda provisions, amendments to CHRA, etc. |
| Risk of censorship | High — statement considered “belittling” a protected class despite appeal to biological evidence | Also high — definitions are broad; courts could side with activist interpretations over scientific or factual speech |
| Freedom of speech concern | Biologically rooted fact may be criminalized if deemed insulting or hateful | Same concern: scientific / truth claims could be suppressed if they conflict with activist definitions of what counts as acceptable speech |
Why This Matters
- Biological Truths Are Not “Opinions” Alone: Things like male vs. female biological sex are backed by sciences like genetics, anatomy, forensic anthropology. If those become “hate speech” when expressed, then reality is subject to legal veto by ideological enforcement.
- The Power to Define “Hate” is the Power to Silence: Under Canadian law, if definitions of hatred or hatred-motivated speech expand (especially by removing required consent, or giving prosecutors more discretion), then more speech becomes liable—not because it causes harm, but because someone claims it does.
- Free Speech is Not Optional: Western democracy is built in part on being able to speak even unpopular or uncomfortable truths. If truth becomes legally risky, we’re no longer free—even if the penalties aren’t always applied.
- Precedent Matters: Once speech is criminalized for some, even “harmless” speech tomorrow could become the target. Laws tend to expand in scope over time. The Brünisholz case shows how “harmless to some, hateful to others” becomes a legal equation.
What to Watch & What to Do
- Monitor what the final definitions are in Canadian bills: how they define hatred, “wilfully promoting hatred,” “identifiable groups,” and what defenses are permitted (e.g., truth, scientific basis).
- Watch penalties: whether fines only, or possibility of imprisonment; whether Criminal Code or human rights tribunal; how strong the burden of proof is.
- Pay attention to how administrative procedures work: whether prosecutors need prior approvals, whether individuals or groups can privately instigate charges/complaints, whether there’s ability to appeal.
- Support and defend free speech, especially for dissenting or scientific views. Speak out when persons are penalized for expressing what others call “politically incorrect truths.”
References
- “Swiss Man Opts For Jail Time Instead Of Fine After Being Charged Over ‘Transphobic’ Social Media Post”, Reduxx, Sept 26, 2025 — Brünisholz case. (Reduxx)
- “Combatting Hate Act: Proposed Legislation to Protect Communities Against Hate”, Government of Canada, Sept 19, 2025 — summary of proposed amendments, hate definitions, penalties. (Government of Canada)
- “Canada Introduces Legislation to Combat Hate Crimes, Intimidation, and Obstruction”, Department of Justice Canada news release, Sept 19, 2025 — details on new offences including intimidation, obstruction, containing identity grounds. (Government of Canada)
Having recently gotten into a discussion about the misnamed “Gender Affirming Care” with some of my acquaintances we broached many contentious topics but one point that stuck out was when we got into pronoun territory.
My interlocutor was brought up the idea that the shortening of names – like Stan for Stanley – was a preference and that people were just being polite by referring to the individual as they would like to be referred to.
I stumbled a bit on proposing a counter argument for this point – in hindsight it is fairly straightforward to construct a response.
If a person insists on calling a self proclaimed “Stan”, “Stanley” it might indeed be considered a bit offensive. So how is this different that using she/her pronouns for a male who is under the false notion that he is female?
Well, Stan and Stanly are both terms that are technically correct for the person in question. Is it inconsiderate to ignore their wishes, yes certainly, but here in this free society we don’t have to associate with people who we judge are inconsiderate toward us.
The male expecting people to use “she/her” when to referring to him is a completely different case. Pronouns and preferred names are not in the same category of linguistic use. In English pronouns are sexed, thus males are attributed he/him and females are attributed she/her.
If you hold a set of beliefs that do not comport with reality – that is a male believing that he is somehow a woman (adult human female) – that is perfectly fine. Your personal belief about your reality are of no concern to anyone else in society.
The expectation though of people outside your gender delusion to play along with and be party to your departure from the material reality we all share is not acceptable, especially if you are a person that sees the harm Gender Ideology does to women and society.
Thus, the argument of using a preferred name vs. a pronoun is distinctly a false equivalence as in the first case two real descriptors that accurately represent reality are being offered. In the second case using the “wrong” pronouns is a decision to comport with reality or the decision to ignore the evidence your senses are reporting and submit to someone else’s interpretation of reality – no one is obliged to do so.
Both cases associated with someone is who you perceive to be offensive is not usually not a mandatory experience. Occasionally being offended in society is a part of life and one must learn to deal with it.
Compelling the speech of others is a distinctly authoritarian notion and should not be encouraged in a society that values freedom of thought and expression.
1/ The current controversy in Saskatchewan shows how the gender debate has become the perfect storm for loss of confidence in the Charter. The Charter has never commanded universal respect among Canadians but in recent years these doubts have increased.
2/ The Charter was introduced by Pierre Trudeau over opposition from the provinces. The notwithstanding clause was one of a series of compromises which won the grudging support of 9 provinces. Quebec did not agree and has used the notwithstanding clause regularly.
3/ Public support for the Charter has grown because it was believed to secure broadly shared values of equality between individuals and limitations on state authority. It was seen as reinforcing democratic government by protecting the fundamental conditions for democracy.
4/ More recently academic and now judicial thinking has adopted a new concept of human rights based on ameliorating the condition of oppressed groups, even at the expense of traditional values of liberty and equality.
5/ This new concept of rights has pushed the courts further into the realm of policy making for which the judicial process is not designed. Bad decisions will happen and as they become more frequent the need for a political safety valve has increased.
6/ A basic problem is that court procedures are intended to resolve a clear conflict between two parties. There are often many different perspectives to a Charter issue and all of these perspectives are seldom adequately represented in court.
7/ The rules of evidence make it difficult to present a full picture of the complexity of an issue like pediatric gender transition. The scientific background has to be presented through expert witnesses who submit written reports. This is a costly process.
8/ The high costs of bringing a Charter case mean that many cases are brought by groups receiving government funding. The government is using the Charter litigation to advance the interests of favoured groups in a way that bypasses the legislative and public debate.
9/ Judges of course follow the media and in most cases they can rely on their own general knowledge to aid in understanding the evidence presented in court. However, on the issue of gender medicine Canadian media coverage has been hopelessly biased.
10/ A judge who reads the Globe and Mail and listens to the CBC will have heard nothing about the international controversy over gender medicine. There has been no coverage of the closure of the Tavistock gender clinic of the policy changes in Sweden, Finland and Norway.
11/ Strict rules of evidence exist because court cases are intended to provide a final resolution to a dispute. There are provisions to re-open a criminal conviction where new evidence is discovered after trial in other types of cases the decision is final after the final appeal.
12/ Public policy, on the other hand, should be constantly revised as new and better evidence emerges. New evidence on pediatric gender transition is emerging rapidly but it is being ignored by Canadian media and policy makers.
13/ There is a risk that when Canada finally realizes how harmful the current approach to pediatric transition has become, the ability to change course will be hindered by Charter judgments made on the basis of faulty and limited evidence.
14/ In these circumstances, use of the notwithstanding clause may be a necessity but it is worth considering that we would not be in this mess if our major institutions did not show such disregard for the Charter’s protection of freedom of expression.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…