Ends Religious Defence for Hate Promotion

Summary#

This bill removes one legal defence for people charged with wilful promotion of hatred or antisemitism. It repeals the defence that the person, in good faith, expressed an opinion on a religious subject or based on a religious text (Bill, repealing Criminal Code s.319(3)(b) and s.319(3.1)(b)). It does not create new crimes or change penalties.

• Removes the “good-faith religious opinion” defence for hate-promotion offences (Bill).
• Keeps other defences, including truth, public-interest discussion, and intent to remove hateful material (Criminal Code s.319(3)(a), (c), (d); s.319(3.1)(a), (c), (d)).
• Applies to two offences: wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group (Criminal Code s.319(2)) and wilful promotion of antisemitism by condoning, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust (Criminal Code s.319(2.1)).
• Prosecutions still require consent of the Attorney General (Criminal Code s.319(6)).
• Penalties for s.319(2) remain up to 2 years on indictment, or by summary conviction (Criminal Code s.319(2)).
• If enacted, the change would take effect on Royal Assent; the bill sets no later date (Bill).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • Speech that wilfully promotes hatred against an identifiable group, even if framed as a religious view, would no longer have a specific religious-opinion defence (Bill; Criminal Code s.319(2), s.319(3)(b) repealed).
  • The Crown must still prove “wilful” promotion and other elements set by courts. Other defences remain, such as truth and public-interest discussion with reasonable belief (Criminal Code s.319(3)(a), (c)).

• People of faith and faith leaders

  • Sermons, publications, or posts that wilfully promote hatred or Holocaust denial cannot rely on the religious-opinion defence (Bill; Criminal Code s.319(2.1), s.319(3.1)(b) repealed).
  • You could still argue other defences, like truth, public interest, or intent to remove hateful material (Criminal Code s.319(3)(a), (c), (d); s.319(3.1)(a), (c), (d)).

• Educators, advocates, and media

  • Academic or public-interest discussions remain protected if you reasonably believe the statements are true and the topic is of public interest (Criminal Code s.319(3)(c)).
  • Content that crosses into wilful promotion of hatred cannot use the religious-opinion defence (Bill).

• Targeted communities

  • The change aims to make it easier to prosecute hate promotion that uses religious justification, including Holocaust denial (Bill; Criminal Code s.319(2.1)).

• Law enforcement and prosecutors

  • Case screening stays the same: Attorney General consent is required (Criminal Code s.319(6)).
  • The available defences narrow by one item, which may affect charge approval and trial strategy (Bill).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No appropriations, fines, fees, or revenue changes are stated in the bill text (Bill).
• No official fiscal note identified. Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Closes a loophole: People who promote hate sometimes frame it as a religious belief. Removing the religious-opinion defence prevents shielding wilful hate behind scripture or doctrine (Bill; Criminal Code s.319(3)(b), s.319(3.1)(b) repealed).
• Targets Holocaust denial more effectively: The specific offence for wilful promotion of antisemitism through condoning, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust is harder to evade without the religious defence (Criminal Code s.319(2.1)).
• Protects free expression through other safeguards: Truth, public-interest discussion, and intent-to-remove defences remain, plus the Attorney General consent gate (Criminal Code s.319(3)(a), (c), (d); s.319(6)).
• Narrow change, no new crimes: Elements of the offences and penalties do not change. Only one defence is removed, so the law stays focused on wilful hate, not ordinary debate (Bill; Criminal Code s.319(2), (2.1)).

Opponents' View#

• Risk to religious expression: Removing the religious-opinion defence may chill sermons or faith-based discourse, even if charges are unlikely to succeed (Bill).
• Charter litigation risk: Critics may argue the change weakens protections for freedom of expression and religion (Charter s.2(a), s.2(b)), increasing the chance of constitutional challenges. Data unavailable on outcomes.
• Uncertain boundaries: The “wilful promotion of hatred” standard is defined by case law, not the bill. Without the religious defence, some speakers may self-censor to avoid legal risk (Criminal Code s.319(2); Bill).
• Enforcement concerns: Uneven application is possible because prosecutions depend on Attorney General consent and case-by-case judgment, which could create inconsistency. Data unavailable.