Imagine stepping up to preach on a Sunday morning, opening the Scriptures you’ve taught from for decades, and suddenly wondering if the words you’re about to read aloud could land you in handcuffs.
Sounds like something out of a dystopian novel, right? Unfortunately, for Canadian clergy and anyone who takes religious texts seriously, that scenario just moved a giant step closer to reality.
A Quiet Tuesday Night That Changed Everything
Last week, in a late-night committee meeting that most Canadians probably missed, politicians voted to delete a protection that has existed in the Criminal Code for generations. The clause used to say that no one could be convicted of hate propaganda for expressing, in good faith, an opinion based on their religious texts.
Poof. Gone.
The change came as part of Bill C-9, officially titled an Act to amend the Criminal Code (combating hate). Supporters insist it’s about closing loopholes. Critics call it the biggest assault on religious speech in modern Canadian history.
What Exactly Was Removed?
Let me put the old protection in plain language:
“No person shall be convicted of an offence [for wilful promotion of hatred] if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”
That single sentence has quietly shielded pastors, imams, rabbis, and everyday believers from prosecution when they teach traditional doctrines that clash with contemporary progressive values, especially around marriage, sexuality, and gender.
Now it’s history.
How Did This Happen So Fast?
The short version? Political horse-trading.
A Quebec separatist party made removal of the religious exemption their non-negotiable price for supporting the broader bill. The governing Liberals, needing votes to pass their legislation before Parliament rises, folded almost immediately.
One opposition member described the scene: eight straight hours of debate, then a sudden vote that passed while most of the country was asleep. Conservative members tried to filibuster, but the amendment cleared committee anyway.
The Government’s Defense: “Nothing to See Here”
The Justice Minister took to the airwaves with a familiar refrain: this changes nothing in practice. Religious leaders can still read their texts. Freedom of religion is protected by the Charter. The old exemption was “redundant.”
Forgive me if I find that reassurance less than comforting.
When has any government ever bragged about tightening a law because the old version was too lenient but never actually used? That argument actually makes the opposite point: if the exemption was never needed for acquittal, why the urgency to delete it now?
The Chilling Effect Is the Point
Here’s what defenders consistently miss: hate speech laws don’t need to secure many convictions to work. Their real power lies in self-censorship.
- A pastor wonders if preaching Romans 1 might trigger a human rights complaint
- A small church decides to skip certain Old Testament readings to avoid trouble
- Parents hesitate to teach traditional doctrine to their kids at home
- Religious schools quietly rewrite curriculum to stay on the safe side
None of these require a single prosecution. The threat is enough.
And let’s be honest: Canadian authorities have shown they’re perfectly willing to use state power against religious communities when it suits them. Remember churches padlocked during COVID while big-box stores stayed open? Pastors arrested for holding services? Fines in the hundreds of thousands?
That wasn’t ancient history. That was three years ago.
Specific Verses Now at Risk
People throw around phrases like “criminalizing the Bible” pretty loosely, so let’s get specific. Several passages teach things that directly contradict current Canadian human rights orthodoxy:
- Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 on homosexuality
- 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 listing various sins including homosexual practice
- Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah)
- Romans 1:26-27 on natural vs unnatural relations
- Multiple passages affirming binary male/female creation (Genesis 1:27, Matthew 19:4-6)
Teaching these texts as authoritative moral guidance, especially if done with any hint of disapproval toward certain behaviors, could theoretically meet the new definition of “wilful promotion of hatred.”
Yes, prosecutors still need to prove intent and other elements. But the explicit shield is gone, and the cultural pressure will do the rest.
This Isn’t Just About Christians
Jewish and Muslim leaders have raised concerns too. Traditional Islamic teaching on the same topics is, if anything, more explicit. Sikh and Hindu scriptures contain passages that progressive activists might find objectionable on gender roles or caste.
The principle here affects every faith community that believes ancient texts speak with authority over modern life.
Where the Bill Goes From Here
Bill C-9 still needs third reading in the House of Commons, then Senate approval, then Royal Assent. In theory, amendments could be reinserted. In practice, the government has the votes to push this through.
Public pressure is building, though. Petitions are circulating. Church leaders across denominations are speaking out. Some legal scholars are preparing Charter challenges for the day this becomes law.
The Bigger Picture
I’ve followed free speech debates for years, and this feels different. Most restrictions creep in around the edges: campus speech codes, corporate HR policies, subtle social pressure. This is the state directly targeting the right to teach ancient religious texts in their fullness.
When government claims the power to decide which parts of sacred scripture are acceptable to read aloud, we’ve crossed into territory that should worry everyone, regardless of faith or politics.
Because if they can come for the Bible today, what’s stopping them from coming for other unpopular texts tomorrow? Classic literature with outdated views? Philosophical works that offend modern sensibilities? Political manifestos?
The principle is the same: some ideas are too dangerous for citizens to express, and the state will decide which ones.
That’s not criminal justice reform. That’s the death of liberal democracy by a thousand cuts.
The fight over Bill C-9 isn’t over yet. But win or lose, this moment has revealed something important: when push comes to shove, a disturbing number of Canadian politicians are willing to sacrifice religious freedom on the altar of ideological conformity.
And that should terrify anyone who values living in a free society.
