A coalition of civil society groups held a press conference in Ottawa to denounce the federal government’s Bill C-9, but the event quickly shifted when a reporter confronted the panel with a pointed question about whether Canada’s hate speech laws are failing to address extremist rhetoric coming from religious leaders.The exchange became the defining moment of the press conference and exposed a growing tension in the debate over the bill.A reporter asked whether the Criminal Code’s religious text exemption had shielded a man in Montreal who, during a sermon, allegedly preached that Zionists, meaning Jews, should be exterminated.The reporter pressed the panel on whether such an exemption should exist if it allows a religious figure to avoid charges after making statements that openly target an identifiable group for destruction..Tim McSorley of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group responded that calls for violence are not protected under Canadian law and that the exemption does not shield such speech.He noted that the government never stated the exemption was the reason no charges were laid, leaving the decision unexplained. McSorley added that several religious communities fear the removal of the exemption could chill legitimate faith based teaching, a point the reporter challenged immediately.The reporter asked what chilling effect could possibly justify leaving room for sermons that call for extermination. She questioned whether invoking scripture should ever excuse hate speech.The Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council replied that it was not familiar with the specific incident but argued that the exemption exists to allow full contextual interpretation of religious texts and to prevent political misuse of the Criminal Code.The reporter pushed back, asking whether the law should protect hate if that hate is delivered through scripture. CMPAC insisted the exemption is being misunderstood and warned that removing it could allow authorities to interfere with normal religious education..The tense exchange set the tone for the remainder of the event. Sen.Yuen Pau Woo opened the press conference by saying Bill C 9 has sparked widespread concern and has grown significantly during committee study through proposals that were not part of the original bill.Opponents argued that the legislation introduces new criminal offences, expands police discretionary powers and could import terrorism related language into protest related offences.Speakers from the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Independent Jewish Voices, the United Church of Canada, the Public Service Alliance of Canada and legal support groups warned that the bill risks criminalizing peaceful protest and silencing dissent.They argued that racialized and marginalized communities, already subject to heightened state surveillance, would be most vulnerable to the expanded authorities..Representatives supporting pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Toronto described what they called systematic overcharging, surveillance and aggressive policing, noting that most charges have been withdrawn.Labour representatives compared the bill to past government attempts to suppress picketing and restrict workers’ rights. Independent Jewish Voices criticized governments for invoking Jewish identity to justify expanded policing powers and said the bill could protect institutions that host far right groups while penalizing protest movements that oppose war or state violence.The United Church of Canada said the law could be used to outlaw peaceful protest outside religious institutions, undermining public accountability.Despite the wide range of concerns raised, the most pressing question remained the one at the center of the religious exemption debate. If the exemption did not protect the Montreal man’s alleged call for extermination, as panelists insisted, the reporter asked why no charges were laid. None of the speakers could answer.The coalition called for Bill C-9 to be withdrawn entirely. Opponents argue that without major changes the legislation risks shrinking civic space, criminalizing dissent and granting police and government sweeping new powers.The unresolved question surrounding the religious exemption highlighted what critics see as a central contradiction of the bill: a government claiming to combat hate while producing legislation that, in their view, sidesteps genuine acts of hatred and instead tightens the boundaries of acceptable protest and speech.
