Proposed Hate Speech Law Removes Religious Defence in Canada

A significant shift in Canada’s legal landscape is on the horizon. The federal government’s proposed changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act, specifically regarding hate speech online, are sparking intense debate. At the heart of the controversy is the planned removal of a long-standing provision: the defence that statements made in good faith based on a religious belief are not hate speech.

This move, championed by Justice Minister Arif Virani, signals a firm stance that religious conviction cannot be used as a blanket justification for expressions that vilify or threaten identifiable groups. The government argues this update is crucial for protecting vulnerable communities in the digital age, while critics warn it could stifle religious freedom and open the door to subjective interpretations of hate.

The Core of the Change: Closing a “Loophole”

The current Canadian Human Rights Act contains a clause (Section 13.1) that shields individuals from hate speech complaints if their communication was made “in good faith” and “was, in the opinion of the Tribunal, relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit.” Crucially, it adds that any opinion expressed “in good faith” under a religious belief is deemed to be on a matter of public interest.

The new legislation, Bill C-63 or the *Online Harms Act*, seeks to repeal this specific protection. The government’s position is clear: while religious belief is fundamentally protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it should not serve as an automatic legal shield for hate.

Minister Virani’s Stance: Protecting Dignity in a Digital World

Justice Minister Arif Virani has been unequivocal in defending the proposal. He frames it as a necessary modernization for an era where online hate can spread with unprecedented speed and impact.

“The defence that exists right now is overly broad,” Virani has stated. He emphasizes that the change is about targeting the most extreme forms of hateful expression—the kind that calls for violence or genocide, or that seeks to dehumanize groups based on race, religion, sex, or other protected grounds.

“Religion is no excuse for hate,” Virani has asserted, a phrase that has become a central tenet of the government’s argument. The intent is to ensure that when hate speech is adjudicated, the focus remains on the harmful effects of the words themselves, not solely the speaker’s professed motivation.

Understanding the Legal Context and Concerns

To grasp the debate, it’s important to understand the two main legal avenues for addressing hate speech in Canada:

* The Criminal Code: Prohibits the willful promotion of hatred or genocide. This is a high bar, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and prosecutions are rare.
* The Canadian Human Rights Act: Addresses discrimination and hate speech as a civil matter. The proposed changes would empower the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to hear complaints about hate speech online and order remedies, such as takedowns and financial penalties.

The removal of the religious defence applies specifically to this civil process under the Human Rights Act.

Key Arguments For the Change

Proponents of the bill argue that the existing defence is a dangerous anachronism. Their case rests on several points:

* Closing a Legal Loophole: They contend the clause has been used to justify blatantly hateful rhetoric under the guise of religious commentary.
* Aligning with Supreme Court Direction: Supporters point to past Supreme Court rulings which have indicated that while religious belief is free, the *manifestation* of that belief can be limited to prevent harm to others.
* Protecting Vulnerable Communities: The core aim is to provide a more accessible legal recourse for groups targeted by online hate, particularly LGBTQ+ individuals, religious minorities, and racialized communities.
* Good Faith is Still Considered: Minister Virani notes that the general “good faith” and “public interest” defences remain in the Act. The removal specifically targets the *special* protection given to religiously-motivated speech.

Key Arguments Against the Change

Opponents, including some religious leaders, free speech advocates, and legal experts, voice deep concerns:

* Chilling Effect on Religious Expression: The primary fear is that individuals will self-censor legitimate religious teachings or moral positions on issues like marriage, sexuality, or doctrine for fear of a costly and reputation-damaging human rights complaint.
* Subjectivity and Weaponization: Critics worry that the definition of “hatred” is subjective. They fear complaints could be weaponized against traditional religious views simply because they are unpopular or disagreeable to some.
* Undermining Section 2(a) of the Charter: There is a concern that this specifically targets religious expression in a way that could violate the Charter guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion.
* Due Process and Burden: The civil tribunal process, with a lower burden of proof than criminal court, could force religious individuals or organizations into lengthy, expensive battles to defend their speech.

Navigating the Delicate Balance: What Comes Next?

This proposal sits at the classic crossroads of fundamental rights: the freedom of religion and expression versus the right to live free from hate-promoted discrimination and violence.

The government insists the bill includes robust safeguards. The definition of hate speech is tied to Supreme Court jurisprudence, which sets a high threshold of “detestation” and “vilification.” Furthermore, the Tribunal would have to find that the speech was “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.”

The coming parliamentary study of Bill C-63 will be critical. Committees will hear from legal scholars, civil liberty organizations, religious institutions, and community advocates. Amendments to clarify definitions, strengthen procedural protections, or modify the penalty structure are likely to be proposed.

The Bottom Line for Canadians

The debate over removing the religious defence from hate speech law is more than a legal technicality. It is a profound conversation about the limits of tolerance in a pluralistic society.

* For some, it is a long-overdue step to ensure no ideology, religious or otherwise, is granted a free pass to incite hatred.
* For others, it represents a perilous step toward allowing the state to arbitrate on the boundaries of acceptable religious teaching.

As this legislation moves forward, all Canadians have a stake in watching closely. The outcome will shape not only our online discourse but also the delicate framework of rights and responsibilities that define a free and respectful society. The challenge for lawmakers will be to craft a law that unequivocally targets genuine, harmful hate speech without inadvertently silencing the sincere—and sometimes uncomfortable—convictions that are also part of Canada’s diverse fabric.