Narrow hatred definition in C-9
Petitioners ask Bill C‑9 narrow 'hatred' and preserve s.319(3)(b)'s 'good faith' religious defence. The government responds that C‑9 follows Keegstra on hatred, would repeal the 'good faith' defence, and affirms lawful bona fide religious expression.
Why we would sign this petition
- It would narrow 'hatred' language, reducing the risk that lawful religious teaching is prosecuted as hate speech.
- Aligning C‑9 with Keegstra gives courts a familiar standard, increasing legal certainty and reducing litigation over the definition.
- Keeping s.319(3)(b)'s 'good faith' defence would protect religious communities' ability to preach and teach without fear of criminal sanction.
Why we wouldn’t sign this petition
- Narrowing the definition risks excluding serious, harmful speech that courts should be able to punish, potentially weakening protections for targeted groups.
- Preserving a broad 'good faith' religious defence could let harmful or demeaning statements evade accountability by being framed as religious belief.
- The government says C‑9 already uses Keegstra standards; demanding further tightening and preservation of the defence may be unnecessary and could hinder enforcement.
The summary and both sets of reasons are AI-generated from the petition and given equal weight. Claims are the petitioners’ own; consult the official record for the full text.
Official petition
Petition to the Government of Canada, WHEREAS • The 'good faith' religious belief defence is an important protection for religious communities; • The Supreme Court has described the defences, including the religious belief defence, as contributing to the constitutionality of section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, in the 1990 Keegstra decision; • Efforts to address anti-religious hatred should not undermine existing protections for religious groups; • The definition of hatred in the Criminal Code should be as careful and limited in scope as the common law definition used by the courts; • Bill C-9's definition of hatred should align more closely with the language in the Supreme Court's Keegstra decision, such as, hatred means an emotion "of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation... predicated on destruction... that belies reason." Therefore we, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to tighten the definition of hatred in Bill C-9 and to maintain the 'good faith' religious belief defence in section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.
Government response
Response by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Signed by THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY PATRICIA LATTANZIO The Government of Canada’s commitment to freedom of religion is unwavering. Freedom of religion is explicitly protected under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has been consistently upheld by Canadian courts. All Canadians are free to pray, preach, teach, interpret scripture, and express religious belief in good faith without fear of violence, intimidation, or criminal sanction. Canada is facing a troubling rise in hate speech and hate crimes. To better protect all people in Canada, including their ability to worship, gather, and practise their faith in daily life, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, in the House of Commons on September 19, 2025. As adopted at Third Reading in the House of Commons, Bill C-9 would define “hatred” as an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation. The proposed definition is based on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence (R v Keegstra), which is already being followed by courts in Canada. It would further specify what is not hatred, such as conduct that solely humiliates, discredits, hurts or offends. The Bill would also repeal what is commonly referred to as the “good faith religious opinion” provision in the Criminal Code. This amendment reflects longstanding legal principles already recognized by Canadian courts. It is important to note that the “good faith religious opinion” defence has never been successfully argued. Crucially, Canada’s hate propaganda laws already set a high threshold. Only the most dangerous forms of hate – such as speech that vilifies, dehumanizes, or incites harm against an identifiable group - are captured by the Criminal Code. Religious sermons, teachings, and the reading or sharing of sacred texts in good faith do not meet this standard and are not criminalized. To reinforce this understanding, the Bill includes new clarification clauses to confirm that offences only capture expression communicated with the intention to promote hatred or antisemitism. These clauses would codify in clear statutory language what has always been the case in Canadian law: that good faith religious, educational, political, or academic discussion on matters of public interest is not prohibited. The Government of Canada remains firmly committed to protecting religious freedom. A strong Canada safeguards every person’s right to worship freely and to share their faith, while ensuring that no one is subjected to the most extreme forms of hatred that threaten public safety, dignity, and social cohesion.