Summary#

The Combatting Hate Act is a proposed bill that would amend the Criminal Code and add related clarification provisions. Its stated goal is to address hate propaganda, hate crimes and interference with access to religious or cultural places. The changes would take effect on the 30th day after royal assent; they are not in force based on the supplied text.

• It would create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying specified symbols in a public place, with a maximum two-year prison term if prosecuted by indictment.
• It would remove the defence based on expressing opinions on religious subjects or texts for the specified hate-promotion offences. It also sets out other defences for the new symbol offence.
• It would create a new offence for committing a federal offence motivated by hatred based on listed grounds, with higher maximum penalties for some indictable cases.
• It would create offences for intimidating people to impede access to listed places, or intentionally obstructing or interfering with lawful access to them.
• It would define “hatred” for these provisions and state that speech is not prohibited solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. It also protects certain public-interest statements when they do not wilfully promote hatred or antisemitism.

What it means for you#

• People who display symbols: The new offence would apply to wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group by displaying, in a public place, a symbol principally used by or associated with a listed entity, the Nazi Hakenkreuz, Nazi double Sig-Rune, a noose, or a symbol likely to be mistaken for one of these. A person would have a defence if the display had a legitimate purpose—such as journalism, education or art—that was not contrary to the public interest, or was in good faith to identify hateful material for removal.
• People charged with hate propaganda: The bill would remove the religious-opinion defence for the specified offences. The supplied bill text also says proceedings for the relevant offences cannot begin without the Attorney General’s consent. The Criminal Code provisions being amended were not supplied, so I could not verify how these rules compare with current law.
• People accused of a hate-motivated offence: A new offence would apply if an offence under a federal Act was motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression. For indictable cases, the new maximum prison term would depend on the maximum for the underlying offence; it could be as high as life.
• People going to listed places: Intimidating someone with intent to provoke fear and impede access, or intentionally obstructing or interfering with lawful access without lawful authority, would be offences. Covered places include religious-worship buildings, cemeteries, and buildings used by an identifiable group for specified activities, education (including daycare), or seniors’ residences. A person attending or approaching solely to obtain or communicate information is not guilty of the obstruction offence for that reason alone.
• The public: The bill does not create a new public service, benefit, tax or fee.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill creates offences and related court procedures, but gives no estimate for added police, prosecution, court or correctional costs.
• It does not specify new staffing or funding.

What is unclear#

• The Criminal Code being amended was not supplied, so the bill’s full effect against current law—including any changes to existing consent rules—could not be verified.
• The bill does not define “wilfully promotes hatred,” “legitimate purpose,” or “contrary to the public interest.” It refers to an existing definition of “identifiable group,” but that definition was not supplied.
• The new hate-crime penalty list does not state a maximum for an indictable case where the underlying offence has a maximum below two years. The supplied text does not explain this gap.
• The bill does not set out how authorities would decide whether conduct meets these tests, or provide timelines or appeal procedures specific to the new offences.
• No start date applies unless the bill receives royal assent; the supplied material does not say whether or when that will happen.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to address hate expressed through specified symbols, hate-motivated offending, and intimidation or obstruction at places used for worship or community life.
• A possible argument for the new hate-crime offence is that it would make hatred a separate basis for prosecution, with higher maximum penalties for some serious underlying offences.
• The symbol offence includes defences for legitimate uses and for good-faith efforts to identify hateful material for removal.
• The bill says that speech is not prohibited solely because it is hurtful or offensive, and preserves public-interest statements that do not wilfully promote hatred or antisemitism.

Case against#

• The new offences use terms whose application is not fully explained in the bill, including “wilfully promotes hatred” and “legitimate purpose.” That may leave important questions to be resolved in individual cases.
• Removing the religious-opinion defence could make it harder to rely on that defence in the specified hate-promotion cases, even though the bill includes other speech clarifications and defences.
• The hate-crime offence could raise the maximum prison term substantially for some underlying offences; the bill does not provide a maximum for one category of indictable cases.
• The bill gives no cost estimate, and its wider legal and enforcement costs are unknown.