On November 14, 2025, ICLMG submitted a brief on the problematic Bill C-9, the “Combatting Hate” Act, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Read excerpts below and please take action to stop C-9:
We believe strongly that Canada must do more as a society to address polarization, marginalization and hate, and that there is a role for both government and the public to play in doing so.
Despite this, the ICLMG is alarmed by the approach of Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, to addressing concerns about rising incidents of hate. The government’s approach of adopting new Criminal Code offenses, expanding existing offenses and removing legal safeguards will undermine protections guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly.
These concerns are reflected in a joint letter the ICLMG signed alongside 36 other civil society organizations from across various sectors, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Black Legal Action Centre, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers’ Association, the Jewish Faculty Network, the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Ligue des droits et libertés, raising substantial concerns with Bill C-9 and calling for it to be withdrawn.
In our brief, we touch on three specific concerns with Bill C-9:
1. New Criminal Code offense of “wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying [a symbol] in any public place.”
First, the offence is duplicative of existing hate propaganda laws, and is therefore redundant and unnecessary. […] *See our Addendum at the bottom of the page.
Second, the wording of this new offense creates the serious risk of police making discretionary decisions related to what constitutes a symbol “associated with” or “used by” a listed entity.
Over the past several months, we have seen heated arguments and accusations that certain symbols associated with protests in support of Palestinian human rights and against the genocide in Gaza are either hateful, are associated with a terrorist entity, or both. Peaceful and lawful protests have been accused of fomenting hate based on the signs and slogans that they carry. Some have gone so far as to accuse individuals wearing the keffiyeh of promoting hatred and that it is associated with terrorist activities. Others have said that the slogan, “From the River to the Sea” is a call for violence and hatred, and associated it with Hamas, despite its widespread use, and the legitimate understanding that it is a call for liberation of Palestinians living under apartheid, and not a de facto call for violence or the incitement of hatred. […]
This is made even more complicated if police are empowered to make the decision that a symbol so nearly resembles the symbol associated with a terrorist entity. For example, would a protester with a of a green flag or scarf – a color that has distinct significance in Islam – be determined to resemble the Hamas flag, which is also green? Or since some terrorist organizations have featured Arabic writing, including the “shahada,” the Islamic declaration of faith, on their flags, could a police officer believe that any such display is on a sign, a shirt or a banner closely resemble a terrorist entity to merit arrest? […]
Given the severe potential for overreach, along with the stigma of being accused of committing a hate crime, we believe that this law will create a significant chill on free expression and dissent.
Finally, basing this new offence on the Terrorist Entities List, is in and of itself problematic.
The ICLMG, along with many others, have raised serious concerns with the terrorist entity listing process, including: the list is based on unaccountable executive listing decisions; decisions to list are based on secret evidence that cannot be shared publicly or with the listed entity itself; and the absence of adequate avenues for challenging listings and obtaining redress.
Decisions to list or not list can also be political in nature. As eminent national security scholars Kent Roach and Craig Forcese noted in their 2018 article, “Yesterday’s Law: Terrorist Group Listing in Canada”:
“Listing decisions may implicate domestic politics, as Canadian politicians calculate the implications of listing among diaspora communities in Canada. Sometimes also at issue are foreign policy considerations, and especially Canada’s stature as a proverbial ‘honest broker’ in international peace negotiations. These considerations seem particularly acute where the entity has a political wing and exercises a governance role in a foreign jurisdiction.” […]
Given all this, we are opposed to any new Criminal Code provisions that would rely on the Terrorist Entities Listing process, and reiterate our coalition’s longstanding call for the regime to instead be abolished.
2. New Criminal Code offences of intimidation and obstruction outside certain buildings and structures
New offenses in Bill C-9 regarding obstruction and intimidation in proximity to certain places, including places of religious worship, schools, community and sports centres, raise similar concerns. The Criminal Code already allows for police to act on the basis of mischief, intimidation, harassment, or threats. As we have seen across the country, especially in regards to protests in support of Palestinian rights, police have more than enough powers to disrupt protests on a wide range of grounds, and in fact have often engaged in over enforcement, demonstrated by the myriad of charges that have been dropped, as well as the violent dismantling of peaceful encampments.
Moreover, the new offence of intimidation is overly broad and would rely too heavily on police discretion. Under the new offence, law enforcement would need to determine whether the intent of an individual is to provoke fear in another person. This is an incredibly difficult determination to make based on the actions of individuals, especially those who may be participating in a demonstration. Instead, it would be likely that police would rely on either their own subjective interpretation of the intent of individuals or, even more likely, if others tell police officers that they feel a sense of fear. This is a much too subjective standard, and should instead focus on the more objective standard recognized by the courts of whether or not individuals are threatening or engaging in physical violence that could impact the physical integrity of an individual.
Both the obstruction and intimidation offences would also apply to an incredibly broad and difficult to ascertain set of buildings, and would also apply regardless of the activities being carried out. […]
The proposed legislation also ignores the fact that a place used primarily by an identifiable group could be used for purposes other than those related to the protected person, including, for example, a religious institution hosting a political or commercial event unrelated to its religious practices. This was the case when a synagogue hosted a real estate event selling land in the illegally occupied West Bank.8 Other religious institutions and community spaces regularly rent out rooms or halls for events unrelated to their religious activities. Under Bill C-9, any protest of these events would result in triggering these provisions.
3. Removal of the requirement for Attorney General consent for hate propaganda charges
Bill C-9 would also remove existing requirements under s. 319(6) of the Criminal Code for attorney general approval of laying hate propaganda charges. If adopted, this would eliminate a long-standing safeguard meant to protect against disproportionate or legally unsound criminal charges that impact free expression rights.
The removal of this check-and-balance would not only amplify the concerns raised above regarding new provisions that would be created by Bill C-9, but also on all existing hate propaganda offences.
As noted in the open letter signed by 37 civil society organizations, “This increases the risk of arbitrary, inconsistent or selective enforcement, and a chilling effect on lawful dissent. It also opens the door to vexatious private prosecution. Once again, the changes proposed in Bill C-9 are likely to disproportionately harm equity-deserving groups, who have historically been subject to excessive surveillance and policing of their expression.”
Conclusion
The proposed new offences would carry significant penalties, including the threat of jail time, and will result in people who would ordinarily take action to speak out on important social issues refraining from doing so under the fear of being trapped in the dragnet of additional, unclear and broad discretionary powers. If that is not the government’s intent, we urge it to withdraw this bill in favour of approaches that both protect vulnerable communities and ensure the protection of Charter rights and civil liberties in Canada.
Read the full brief here.
* Addendum to the ICLMG brief
Upon further analysis, we are uncertain that the government’s description of the legislation factually reflects the proposed wording of the new offence. Instead, the wording of the new offence leaves open the very real likelihood that the simple public display of one of the symbols included in s. 319(2.2) would in and of itself be considered a wilful incitement to hatred. While the government may state this is not their intention, it does not change the fact that the wording of the text could easily – and is likely to be – understood this way.
There is no further clarification in the offence that the simple display of a symbol would not constitute an offence. And the wording of the offence seems clear: that it is the wilful incitement of hatred by displaying a symbol in public – it is the display itself which would be inciting hatred, without any other qualification:
(2.2) Everyone commits an offence who wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group by displaying, in any public place:
(a) a symbol that is principally used by, or principally associated with, a listed entity, as defined in subsection 83.01(1);
(b) the Nazi Hakenkreuz, also known as the Nazi swastika, or the Nazi double Sig-Rune, also known as the SS bolts; or
(c) a symbol that so nearly resembles a symbol described in paragraph (a) or (b) that it is likely to be confused with that symbol.
This concern is just as clear in the French version of the text, which reads:
« (2.2) Commet une infraction quiconque fomente volontairement la haine contre un groupe identifiable par l’exposition dans un endroit public de l’un des symboles suivants »
The plain reading of this would also be that the public display itself of an image that could be considered the “wilful incitement of hatred.”
This expands the possible application of the law much more broadly that what has been proposed by the Minister of Justice and government officials. It is not simply the recognition that the use of a “tool” in the commission of an offence can make an offence even more serious, as the Minister stated at committee. Rather, it could mean that any public display of such a symbol could be considered an act of wilful incitement of hatred. This would walk a very fine line of pushing the burden of proving that displaying a proscribed symbol does not incite hatred onto the individual, rather than necessitating that the state prove that the display of such a symbol was a wilful incitement to hatred.
As outlined in our original brief, the discretion granted to police to interpret what images are “associated with” or “used by” a listed terrorist entity, as well as whether any symbol resembles a “terrorist entity symbol,” is already so broad that it will likely lead to either abuse, misuse or mistakes that will have serious impacts on Charter protected rights.
These concerns are also compounded by the reliance of s.319(2.2) on the rights-violating, political terrorist entities listing process. The terrorist entities list was established – ostensibly – to be able to list entities engaged in terrorist activities. While some of those entities may be viewed as being driven by hate, the list and listing process have nothing to do with addressing hatred or incitement to hatred. This bill is equating apples and oranges. At the same time, we are seeing the word “terrorism” being used to malign perfectly legitimate positions and actions.
All of this combined with the fact that the simple display of a symbol could be considered incitement to hatred will almost certainly result in individuals being at a minimum arrested, and likely charged, with a hate offense for exercising their right to free expression.
There is a reason why, up to this point, the law has included clearly framed offences, protections such as Attorney General approval for charges, and ensuring that the burden to prove intent to incite hatred falls with the state: to protect free speech – including speech that is critical of government policies, its actions, or actions by its allies – from state overreach and censorship.
As argued in our full brief, we believe that these concerns are not simply issues of wording that can be addressed via amendment, but speak to the deeper implication of attempts to legislate around what symbols, signs, flags, images, etc., mean for free expression. The proper approach is to focus on actual acts of incitement to hatred and violence, rather than on outlawing symbols or images themselves.
For this reason, and others included in our full brief, we do not believe that this bill can be fixed via amendment, but instead should be withdrawn.
Here is the link to the full addendum submitted to the Justice Committee on Nov 19, 2025
Since you’re here…… we have a small favour to ask. Here at ICLMG, we are working very hard to protect and promote human rights and civil liberties in the context of the so-called “war on terror” in Canada. We do not receive any financial support from any federal, provincial or municipal governments or political parties. You can become our patron on Patreon and get rewards in exchange for your support. You can give as little as $1/month (that’s only $12/year!) and you can unsubscribe at any time. Any donations will go a long way to support our work. |
