- Bill risks 'criminalizing dissent while expanding state power,' says group's media and communications lead
HAMILTON, Canada
Canada’s proposed Bill C-9, introduced by the Liberal government as a measure to combat hate crimes, has drawn criticism from civil society groups, including the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM), which argues the legislation could undermine freedom of expression, peaceful protest, and long-standing protections for religious speech.
Speaking to Anadolu, Steven Zhou, media and communications lead at NCCM, said the organization supports the principle of anti-hate legislation but believes Bill C-9 is fundamentally flawed in its current form.
"Our perspective is that hate or anti-hate legislation is needed. Bill C-9 is the latest proposal to address that," Zhou said, adding that "unfortunately, Bill C-9, as it stands right now, does not really do that."
Aimed at making several significant changes to Canada's Criminal Code, the bill titled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)" proposes to repeal the requirement for the attorney general’s consent before prosecuting hate propaganda offenses.
It creates a new offense for "willfully promoting hatred" by publicly displaying certain symbols, introduces a stand-alone hate crime offense for crimes motivated by hatred, and criminalizes intimidating or obstructing people from accessing religious or cultural places.
While the government says the legislation is necessary to respond to rising hate incidents, critics argue that Canada already has comprehensive hate-crime and hate-propaganda laws, warning that the new measures are overly broad and could have unintended consequences.
'Structural problems'
Zhou said Bill C-9 contains multiple “structural problems,” beginning with its approach to hate symbols.
"Number one being the hate symbols provision, where it makes it very easy for protesters of good faith, human rights activists and so on, demonstrators to be criminalized for what they do," he said.
He warned that the bill’s vague wording could allow police action to be triggered by perception rather than intent.
"The bill has language in it where, as long as the person reporting and sort of complaining about what he or she sees to the police, as long as that person is pointing towards something that resembles in any way, the symbols or the so-called hate symbols by these groups, then it can be a problem," Zhou said.
According to him, this poses particular risks for peaceful protests, especially around sensitive political or human rights issues. He also expressed concern over an amendment he says affects religious expression.
"It essentially attacks and more or less destroys almost the protection within our Criminal Code… that protects religious free speech," he said, adding that "it's never been criminalized or it's always been protected from any kind of prosecution or anything like that."
"It's a matter of free speech and free religion. It's part of being a Canadian or part of the Canadian legal and democratic sort of society," he said.
Zhou further warned that the bill could criminalize religious discussions that have long been lawful. "It potentially criminalizes people who are preaching, discussing, or even reading and then talking about various opinions or interpretations of religious texts that were always protected."
The NCCM’s concerns align with those expressed in a joint statement by 37 civil society organizations, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, calling on the federal government to reconsider Bill C-9.
In an October statement, the groups warned that the legislation introduces new criminal offenses that risk “serious and unjustified infringements on Charter-protected freedoms,” including the potential criminalization of peaceful protest.
They also criticized the removal of the attorney general’s consent requirement, arguing it removes an important safeguard and heightens the risk of selective or inconsistent enforcement. The organizations urged the government to halt the process and conduct meaningful consultations before moving forward.
'Criminalizing dissent while expanding state power'
Similar warnings were raised in an opinion piece in The Toronto Star by Canadian human rights activist and lawyer Faisal Kutty, who said the bill risks “criminalizing dissent while expanding state power,” cautioning that vague definitions and broader prosecutorial discretion could chill lawful expression and peaceful assembly.
In early December, a coalition of multi-faith and civil society groups held a news conference in Ottawa calling on the Liberal government to withdraw the proposed legislation. Participants included Khaled Al-Qazzaz of the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, Nir Hagigi of Independent Jewish Voices, Alex Silas of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Tim McSorley of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Rachelle Friesen of the Legal Support Committee, and Senator Yuen Pau Woo.
Stressing that the bill raises “significant concerns around threats to free expression, freedom of assembly and the ability for the public to engage in protest and dissent,” the coalition warned that “it would threaten a swathe of Charter-protected rights of Canadians and people in Canada.”
Meanwhile, Zhou said that NCCM is "partnering with hundreds of Muslims and even non-Muslim organizations, charities, community centers, entities around Canada who are pro-freedom, pro-free speech, pro-democracy and pro-human rights."
"We are partnering together to tell the government that this bill needs to be studied before it passes. It needs to be stopped for now," he added.
Calling on lawmakers to slow down the process, Zhou urged them to “take a pause. Take a step back. Study things,” and to “listen to the community, stakeholder consultation, engaging the community and coming up with a better bill.”
He added that legal action could be considered if the legislation passes without changes.
"If somehow this bill is passed, then we will consider all options, including possibly going to court and issuing the charter challenge and for the Supreme Court or for the courts to strike this law down if needed," Zhou said.
