Canada’s latest hate law, Bill C-9, which came into effect July 18, 2026 creates new offences and powers loosely based on the word hate and an open interpretation of it. The light and fluffy CBC version is that it protects people and enhances hate legislation which was defined as “communicating statements in any public place (that) incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” The incites part is what is interpretive and undefined and almost any group of people can be considered identifiable given parameters that describe them. No proof is required demonstrating the speech in question actually incited anyone into acts of hatred or violence so the whole thing is completely subjective. At the same time, the law removed the “in good faith… expressed or attempt to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text,” defence exposing anyone who would quote unpopular passages from religious texts to prosecution.
This legislation actually handcuffs free speech which is required in any free and democratic society. When ideas or the exchange of those ideas is legislated into silence there is no ability to hold dialogue on unpopular topics because they are suddenly protected by hate legislation or can be deemed as inciting hate. A suggestion someone is wrong because they have no proof to backup a claim is suddenly and dangerously close to becoming a hate crime, or at least certain segments of society are demanding it based on this Bill.
The notion you can have a free society in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. The very idea of civil society assumes the very real possibility that individuals may at any time be offended by another member of the community. It is something that is required for full and proper dialogue or the full exchange of thoughts and ideas. When that is removed, so is freedom itself. The society removing or quelling speech is actually removing freedom under the guise of protecting people who feel they were offended in some way. Many persons who claim to be offended are speaking merely of the vaguest notion of emotional distaste at what another has said. Often any perceived suffering is self-inflicted simply by virtue of having chosen to take offence.
Risk of being offended is simply part of what it means to live in a diverse culture that honours and celebrates free speech. A right to free speech means a right to offend. When that is gone it isn’t long before many other freedoms we take for granted are gone too. That slippery slope has been historically demonstrated to be devastating to freedom yet the loss is celebrated by many Canadians who are oblivious to its ultimate end and the loss they too will eventually face.