Alliance Defending Freedom Editor Bryan Chai argues that Canada’s proposed Bill C-9, while intending to combat antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia, contains vague language that could broadly restrict religious speech.
The bill would criminalize hate-motivated crimes, restriction of access to places of worship, and promotion of hatred through terrorism or hate symbols. Chai argues the provisions create “uncertainty” and threaten religious freedom.
A major concern, Chai notes, is a proposed amendment that removes a longstanding safeguard protecting religious expression made in “good faith.” Without this provision, religious individuals could face legal consequences simply for expressing traditional beliefs that contradict mainstream narratives.
The bill would also eliminate the requirement for Canada’s attorney general to screen hate-propaganda charges, potentially empowering individual prosecutors or officials to pursue cases more aggressively. Chai urges the U.S. to learn from Canada, warning that even free speech in America could be eroded after attacks on the First Amendment.
Canada has introduced legislation to combat hate speech, but the proposal is ambiguous and removes safeguards that protect religious freedoms, according to legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).
Bryan Chai, ADF’s news and commentary editor, wrote that Bill C-9 was introduced after the Canadian government determined there was a rise in “antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia.” The bill would “make hate motivated crime a specific offence” and criminalize restricting access to places of worship or other areas used by an identifiable group, such as a school. It would also criminalize the promotion of hatred against a specific group through public terrorism or display of hate symbols.
Chai acknowledged that the bill’s provisions appear reasonable at first, but warned that “the language of protection and tolerance conceals — and ultimately invites — sweeping speech restrictions.” He noted that a proposed amendment to the bill would remove a statute that currently protects expressions of religious beliefs or arguments of a religious nature, provided they are made “in good faith.” One Canadian lawmaker has expressed concern that the statute allows individuals to commit hate crimes under the guise of religion.
According to Chai, eliminating the statute would also pose a threat to freedom of conscience in Canada.
“For decades, this provision served as a narrow but critical recognition that religious beliefs and expression — even when unpopular or countercultural — are protected,” he wrote. “It acknowledged that quoting Scripture, teaching doctrine, or expressing moral disagreement could be done sincerely and without malice. The amendment discards that distinction entirely. What replaces that safeguard is not clarity, but uncertainty.”
Chai argued that the bill’s ambiguous language is intentional and called it “a feature of laws that chill speech without formally banning it.”
He said that the bill also proposes removing the current requirement that Canada’s attorney general screen hate-propaganda charges before they can move forward, purportedly for “streamlining” the legal process. However, Chai pointed out that individual prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and others would be given more power to enforce or weaponize the hate speech law, resulting in a “system where belief can trigger investigation, accusation becomes punishment, and speech is regulated by whoever shouts ‘harm’ the loudest.”
Chai cautioned U.S. citizens against becoming complacent in the security of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, noting that Canada’s bill serves as a warning of a shifting mindset that is already spreading across Europe as well.
“The U.S. is not likely to lose freedom of speech or religion overnight,” Chai wrote. “Thankfully, the First Amendment remains a formidable bulwark upholding those principles. But the pressure to weaken the First Amendment is constant. The government doesn’t need to abolish free speech outright to hollow it out; it only needs to reframe ‘hate speech’ as ‘harmful’ or ‘violence’ and narrow protections incrementally.”