Attorney General Sean Fraser says he deliberately limited Ottawa’s proposed hate symbol legislation out of concern future governments could weaponize the law against political opponents, environmental activists or ideological groups they dislike.Speaking before the Senate human rights committee Thursday, Fraser defended Bill C-9, proposed legislation that would criminalize intimidation through the public display of symbols associated with listed terrorist organizations, including Hamas flags and Nazi swastikas.Blacklock's Reporter said Fraser warned senators that giving governments broader authority to ban symbols or organizations based on political preference could create dangerous precedents.“You can imagine there will be a pro-development individual who wants to do harm to an environmental organization,” Fraser testified.“There may be a person of a particular political philosophy who wishes to target opponents who support a different political philosophy.”The bill would impose penalties of up to two years in prison for publicly displaying symbols “principally used by or principally associated” with listed terrorist groups in ways deemed intimidating.The legislation also includes exemptions for journalism, religion, education and artistic expression deemed to be in the public interest.During committee hearings, Sen. Tony Ince questioned why the legislation focused narrowly on symbols linked to terrorist organizations rather than including a broader range of hate groups.Ince noted concerns from advocacy organizations that other extremist symbols continue threatening vulnerable communities but would remain untouched under the bill.Fraser acknowledged the issue remains complicated and could evolve over time..“One of the things I felt strongly about was I wanted to protect against the potential harm that some future minister may be able to pick a group they don’t like and add them to a list,” Fraser said.The minister argued restricting the law to symbols already connected to officially listed terrorist organizations provides a more objective standard and limits political abuse.“The list of terror organizations seemed like a decent starting point,” he told senators.Fraser admitted there are extremist organizations not currently covered by the legislation that he personally views as dangerous.He specifically referenced the Ku Klux Klan as an example of a hate group that falls outside the existing terror list but still promotes racism and extremism.“There are groups I have been thinking about that fall outside of that list — think about the Ku Klux Klan, for example,” Fraser said.“But I also want to make sure there is some objective mechanism through which new organizations or new symbols can be added, not just based on the individual preference of the minister of the day.”
