Criminalizes Public Holocaust Denial and Downplaying

Summary#

This bill would amend Canada’s Criminal Code to make it a crime to publicly condone, deny, or downplay the Holocaust, when done wilfully to promote antisemitism. It creates a new offence, sets penalties, applies existing defences, requires the Attorney General’s consent to prosecute, and adds a definition of “Holocaust.”

• Creates a new offence for wilfully promoting antisemitism by condoning, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust, in public statements (Criminal Code s.319(2.1), as proposed).
• Sets penalties: indictable offence with up to 2 years’ imprisonment, or an offence punishable on summary conviction (s.319(2.1)(a)-(b)).
• Applies existing statutory defences in s.319(3) to this new offence (s.319(3), as amended).
• Allows courts to order forfeiture of items used to commit the offence, to the province (s.319(4), as amended).
• Requires Attorney General consent before charges can proceed (s.319(6), as amended).
• Defines “Holocaust” in the Code (s.319(7), as amended).

What it means for you#

• Households and the general public

  • Publicly denying, condoning, or downplaying the Holocaust, when done wilfully to promote antisemitism, could lead to criminal charges. Private conversations are excluded (s.319(2.1)).
  • Penalties can include up to 2 years in prison if prosecuted by indictment, or prosecution by summary conviction (s.319(2.1)(a)-(b)).
  • Items used to commit the offence (such as publications or devices) can be ordered forfeited to the province on conviction (s.319(4)).

• Social media users and speakers

  • The offence applies to public communications, including statements made online, not to private conversations (s.319(2.1)).
  • Existing defences in s.319(3) apply. These include recognized protections in law such as truth and certain good‑faith discussions on matters of public interest, subject to court interpretation (s.319(3), as amended).

• Educators, researchers, journalists, and advocates

  • Public discourse that is truthful or made in good faith on matters of public interest may fall within the existing s.319(3) defences, but protection depends on facts and judicial interpretation (s.319(3), as amended).
  • The term “downplaying” is not defined in the bill, so clarity will come from courts.

• Businesses, event venues, publishers, and platforms

  • If convicted, courts may order forfeiture of property used to commit the offence (e.g., materials or equipment), for disposal as the provincial Attorney General directs (s.319(4)).
  • Certain communication facilities are exempt from seizure under referenced provisions (s.319(5), applying s.199(6)-(7) with modifications).

• Law enforcement and prosecutors

  • No proceeding under the new offence can start without the Attorney General’s consent (s.319(6)).

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No fiscal note or cost estimate identified. Data unavailable.
• No appropriations or new funding are created in the bill text.
• Possible impacts:
  • Prosecution and court workload could change. Data unavailable.
  • Forfeited property goes to the province; fiscal impact unknown (s.319(4)). Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Establishes a clear, targeted criminal offence against Holocaust denial, condoning, or downplaying, which may aid enforcement compared to relying only on the broader hate‑promotion provision (s.319(2.1); s.319(2)).
• Keeps established safeguards: existing defences (e.g., truth and certain good‑faith public‑interest discussions) continue to apply, helping protect legitimate debate (s.319(3), as amended). Assumes these defences will be sufficient in practice.
• Requires Attorney General consent before charges, adding oversight and reducing the risk of unfounded prosecutions (s.319(6)). Assumes this gatekeeping will be applied consistently.
• Provides meaningful penalties, including up to 2 years’ imprisonment on indictment, which supporters argue can deter harmful conduct (s.319(2.1)). Assumes deterrence.
• Enables courts to remove materials used to commit the offence through forfeiture, limiting the spread of such content (s.319(4)). Assumes forfeiture will be effectively applied.

Opponents' View#

• Duplicative concern: promoting hatred against Jews is already criminalized under the existing wilful‑promotion‑of‑hatred provision; adding a specific Holocaust‑focused offence may be unnecessary (s.319(2) exists; see cross‑reference in s.319(3)).
• Vagueness risk: “downplaying” is not defined, which could create uncertainty over what speech is criminalized and chill lawful expression until courts clarify (s.319(2.1)).
• Free‑expression concern: despite s.319(3) defences and the private‑conversation exception, public academic or historical debate may be chilled if people fear investigation or prosecution (s.319(3), s.319(2.1)).
• Enforcement challenges: proving that statements were made “wilfully” to promote antisemitism and that they “condone, deny, or downplay” the Holocaust may be complex, increasing litigation over intent and meaning (s.319(2.1)).
• Unequal coverage: the bill defines and targets the Holocaust but not other genocides, which could be seen as inconsistent treatment in criminal law (s.319(7) definition; s.319(2.1)). Assumes broader coverage is preferable.