On December 3rd, 2025, at a news conference in Ottawa, a coalition of civil society organizations call on the Liberal government to withdraw Bill C-9, its proposed legislation aimed at combatting hate crime.
Speaking with reporters are Khaled Al-Qazzaz (Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council), Nir Hagigi (Independent Jewish Voices), Alex Silas (Public Service Alliance of Canada), Tim McSorley (International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group), Rachelle Friesen (Legal Support Committee), and Senator Yuen Pau Woo.
Watch the full press conference here, our National Coordinator’s remarks at 3:52, and/or read the transcript of his remarks below.
You can also read this joint statement we have signed on, published on December 1st:
Bill C-9 Should Not Be Passed: A Cross-Country Multi Faith Canadian Call to Defend Civil Liberties
UPDATED ACTION
We have updated our action so please click the button to take action (again, if you have already) to stop Bill C-9 and protect free expression, freedom of assembly and dissent in Canada:
TRANSCRIPT OF ICLMG’S REMARKS
I am here on behalf of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, a coalition of Canadian organizations from a broad range of sectors that works to defend civil liberties in Canada against negative impacts of Canada’s national security and anti-terrorism laws.
Our coalition has observed with distress the increase in hate-based violence across Canada over the past several years, including Islamophobia, antisemitism, anti-Black racism and hate targeted at the anti-2SLGBTQIA+ community.
Like our colleagues here today, and the Canadian public at large, we believe greater measures must be taken to address these instances of hate. But such measures must be targeted and specific, and ensure that they do not unduly impact civil liberties or Charter rights, including of those who the measures are ostensibly meant to protect.
Unfortunately, several measures in Bill C-9 fail that test. Along with other organizations here, through legislative briefs, open letters and appearances at committee, we have shared these substantial concerns with MPs and the government. Ultimately, the breadth of these problems in Bill C-9 have led us to conclude that the bill must be withdrawn and re-thought.
What is in the legislation?
To begin, it would repeal the requirement that the Attorney General consent to the institution of proceedings for hate propaganda offences, which has been a crucial oversight mechanism given the sensitivity and impact of a hate crime charge;
Next, it would create four new Criminal Code offences:
First, a new offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place, punishable by up to two years in prison;
Second, it would create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors, with sentences commensurate with the underlying offence;
Third, it would create an offence of intimidating a person with the intent to cause fear in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes; and
Fourth, it would create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.
Finally, the bill would also integrate, for the first time, a definition of hate into the Criminal Code, based largely on Supreme Court jurisprudence.
While the components of Bill C-9 may appear to be measured and proportionate in order to address hate crimes in Canada, a closer examination of the details of the bill raise significant concerns around threats to free expression, freedom of assembly and the ability for the public to engage in protest and dissent. In short, it would threaten a swathe of Charter protected rights of Canadians and people in Canada.
For example, we are deeply concerned with provisions of the bill that will link the criminalization of the wilful promotion of hatred by the public display of certain symbols to Canada’s terrorist entities list.
The public is rightly concerned when individuals call for hate based violence against any community or person, whether through the use of certain symbols or not.
However, these new provisions would go much further, by granting police broad, discretionary powers to arrest individuals based on the police officers’ interpretation of the symbols or signs individuals display at protests.
Over the past several months, we have seen heated arguments and accusations that certain symbols associated with protests in support of Palestinian human rights are either hateful, are associated with a terrorist entity, or both. Peaceful and lawful protests have been unjustly accused of fomenting hate based on the signs and slogans that they carry or chant.
Under this new legislation, police could make a determination, in the middle of a march or protest, not just of what constitutes a symbol associated with one of Canada’s 86 listed terrorist entities. The concept of a symbol that is “used by” or associated with is very open ended, given that terrorist entities may use, adopt or co-opt or even simply use images or slogans that the members of the public may also use. This could include not just the outright display of a flag of a terrorist group, for example, but also an individual wearing a keffiyeh or displaying a disputed symbol or slogan on a sign.
This is made more complicated by the fact that police would be empowered to make the decision that a symbol so nearly resembles the symbol associated with a terrorist entity. For example, would Arabic writing on a sign that a police officer believes is similar enough to writing found on imagery used by a listed terrorist entity be enough to arrest an individual? Or would a banner or even clothing of a certain color, if also used by a terrorist organization, be viewed as violating the law? And this confusion would of course apply to all 86 listed entities, and could impact protests from a broad range of communities across the political spectrum.
These issues raise important questions of “guilt by association” or the tarring of entire movements with suspicion. We have seen this throughout the last twenty years of anti-terrorism measures, and acutely over the last two years during protests or rallies, in academic settings, or even in parliamentary committee meetings.
Finally, we are also troubled by the fact that the symbols in question are based on the Terrorist Entities List, which itself is a problematic tool.
Serious issues with Canada’s terrorist listing procedure include: the imposition of serious financial and possibly criminal consequences on the basis of unaccountable, secret executive listing decisions; the use of secret evidence; and the absence of adequate avenues for challenging listings and obtaining redress. Decisions to list or not list can also be political in nature.
Underlying it all is the ambiguity of the language around in what instances these images would be banned. While the government says it would only be in circumstances where the symbols are used to wilfully promote hatred – and not just the simple display of images themselves. But a careful reading of the legislation, particularly in French, makes it clear that the display of the images themselves could be seen as the incitement to hatred. Combined with the discretionary nature of what is a banned symbol, it escalates the very real possibility of individuals being arrested for simply expressing a political opinion, challenging the Canadian or foreign governments, or speaking out against the status quo.
We are also greatly concerned that instead of addressing this overreach and the chill on free speech it will entail, both Conservative and Liberal MPs are proposing, in committee at clause by clause right now, to add new provisions that will further entrench and escalate these risks.
MPs are proposing a new offence that harkens back to much maligned and protested Bill C-51 under the Harper Conservative government, that the Liberal government eventually overturned. At the time, it was recognized by legal experts, civil liberties and human rights advocates, and MPs themselves, that an offence of “advocating terrorism offences in general” would not survive a charter challenge because of its undue limits on free expression. Now, though, MPs are looking to establish an even broader offence of “promotion of a terrorist group, terrorist activity or activity of a terrorist group.” Given the discretionary and political nature of what and who defines what is a terrorist group or activity, and the vagueness and overly-broad nature of “promotion”, such an offence would once again certainly violate free expression of people in Canada and send a chill throughout the population. The Canadian criminal code already outlaws the counselling, instructing or assisting in a terrorist activity, or supporting a terrorist organization. These amendments are going in the wrong direction, and we are urging MPs to reverse course immediately.
Thank you.
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. |
