October 1, 2026
“So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said to them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.’” (Acts 4:18-20).
For centuries, Christians have wrestled with the tension between obedience to civil authorities and faithfulness to God's commands. That tension is receiving renewed attention in Canada, where C-9, Canada’s “Combating Hate Act”, has recently passed the Senate. The legislation significantly expands the country's hate-speech framework and removes a longstanding protection for religious expression.
The bill, which passed the Senate on June 5, was introduced in response to concerns about rising hate crimes against Jewish and LGBTQ communities. Supporters argue that stronger legal tools are necessary to combat hatred and protect vulnerable groups. Critics, however, warn that the legislation may place religious speech at greater risk of prosecution.
At the center of the debate is Section 319(3)(b) of Canada's Criminal Code. For decades, that provision provided a defense against hate-propaganda charges when statements were made in good faith based on a religious text, like the bible. Bill C-9 removes that protection. This change raises a question for Canadians that seems unlikely for Americans: Can a Christian face criminal liability for expressing beliefs rooted in scripture?
Although Canada had no written Bill of Rights at its founding, Canadian courts later recognized that free public discussion is essential to democratic governance, and Parliament later adopted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, classifying Freedom of Speech as a fundamental freedom
However, in the last half century, Canadian courts have often balanced that freedom against competing governmental interests in ways that have concerned religious-liberty advocates.
In R. v. Spratt, for example, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld restrictions on pro-life demonstrations near abortion clinics (4). The protesters’ conduct was limited to being present within the legally restricted access zone and holding signs that said “you shall not murder” near the clinic entrance, but never blocking it. Notably, one of the protesters spoke to clinic workers about “the love of God, forgiveness, and redemption.” Nevertheless, the court concluded that the restrictions were permissible.
Similarly, in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld sanctions against flyers expressing opposition to certain sexual practices in explicitly religious terms. To many observers, the decision signaled a willingness to classify some religiously motivated expression as hate speech even when no threat of violence was present.
Viewed in isolation, each case could be defended on its own facts. Taken together, along with many other cases, however, they have contributed to concerns that the scope of protected religious expression and free speech in Canada is narrowing.
Those concerns were reflected during parliamentary debate over C-9. Anthony Housefather, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience, acknowledged in debate that to be convicted, “The person must knowingly and intentionally want to promote hatred, and that would apply to somebody reading the Torah, the Quran, the Bible, or any religious text.” The central question would be whether the speaker intentionally promoted hatred.
Bill C-9 defines “hatred” as an emotion that involves detestation or vilification. Critics argue that terms such as “hatred,” “detestation,” and “vilification” are inherently difficult to define and may leave citizens uncertain about what speech remains protected. If courts are given broader discretion to determine when religious expression crosses the line into C-9’s standard of criminal conduct, many fear that lawful speech today will become punishable tomorrow, especially when relying on religious texts.
Bill opposers highlighted concerns of their constituents’ ability to freely express their religious beliefs during debate. Jenny Kwan, member of parliament, said, “Changing the laws... and then further criminalizing people who want to exercise their democratic right to freedoms of speech and freedom of expression is wrong.” These members cited the concerns of hundreds of religious groups of many different faiths, all of which expressed a genuine concern about whether or not simply quoting scripture could be a ticket to facing prosecution. These members want Canada to enforce the existing hate speech laws, not change the law to thin individual liberties.
The concern extends beyond Canada. Most recently in Ireland, a 78-year-old pastor was convicted for preaching John 3:16 outside of a hospital that performed abortions. He was not preaching about abortion or blocking the entrance; he was preaching the gospel from a distance, relying on one of the most fundamental verses of the Christian faith.
For Christians, this issue is important. Christianity is not merely a private set of spiritual preferences. It makes claims about truth. It proclaims a particular understanding of human nature, sin, repentance, and salvation. Christians may express these convictions with charity, humility, and love, but they cannot abandon them without ceasing to proclaim Christianity itself.
Nonetheless, Christians should recognize that C-9’s implications are not an entirely new phenomenon. The early Church did not flourish because it enjoyed legal protections. It flourished because believers remained willing to bear witness despite social hostility and political pressure. The apostles did not defend their mission primarily by appealing to civil liberties. They appealed to a higher authority.
That conviction remains relevant today. Christians should continue to defend freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, not merely as constitutional principles but as conditions necessary for the pursuit of truth. This news from Canada should lead American Christians to do four things: First, we must be thankful to God that we live in a Country that has an explicit constitutional right to freely speak about issues grounded in our faith. Second, we must continually advocate for a limited Government and vote for representatives who champion religious freedom. Third, we must pray for our brothers and sisters abroad who are experiencing these hardships that limit their ability to freely minister to their communities. Fourth, we must continue to hold the church accountable and encourage believers to share the good news of our savior, Jesus Christ.
___
Share with others
