Recent Canadian legislation increasingly aligns Canada with approaches taken by the European Union (EU). Canadian Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, passed third reading in the House of Commons on March 25. Both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) have expressed significant concerns regarding the provisions of this bill.Assigning an emotion as the motive for a criminal offence in the absence of clear evidence — such as a manifesto, other documented statement, or public declaration — is highly speculative. No individual can definitively know the inner intent of another. Beyond verifiable physical acts, such provisions effectively enable the government to establish a list of prohibited words and expressions.During debates on similar legislation in the United Kingdom (UK) House of Lords in 2007, expressions such as “bloody foreigner” and “go back to your own country” were deemed to constitute racial abuse.The CCLA has noted that over 40 civil society organizations have raised serious objections, warning that the Canadian bill is so broadly drafted that it could be used to “criminalize peaceful protest and silence unpopular expression.” Most significantly, the bill eliminates the existing exception in the Criminal Code for good-faith religious statements, thereby raising the possibility that the reading of certain Bible verses could be prosecuted as a hate crime.In its statement “Protecting Fundamental Rights,” the CLS has similarly expressed deep concern over the bill’s potential encroachment on fundamental rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of association. The organization warns that the bill “threatens labour rights, [and] the right to protest,” among other rights. The CLC emphasizes that existing Canadian laws are already adequate to address the offences targeted by Bill C-9..The UK maintains a comprehensive framework of hate crime legislation. In certain cases, authorities rely on the Communications Act 2003 (Sec. 127) and the Malicious Communication Act 1988 to address conduct comparable to that targeted by Canadian Bill C–9. Additionally, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides for racially and religiously aggravated offences, which are included under “anti-social behaviour.”According to the UK House of Lords debate on July 17, 2025, “On average, 30 people are arrested daily” for offences under the aforementioned Acts. The measures were deemed insufficient in certain respects; consequently, the category of “non-crime hate incidents” was introduced in 2014. This allows police to record and retain personal data relating to social media posts and other expressions perceived as demonstrating hostility, even in the absence of a criminal offence. Records were made of individuals who posted words that the police were monitoring. As noted in the same debate, this practice resulted in approximately 13,000 such records being created annually, including cases involving minors. While these incidents do not constitute crimes, they generate formal police records that may be referenced against an individual at any time in the future. These Acts were enacted at a time when the UK remained a member state of the EU. The EU has proposed hate crime legislation that has not yet been adopted. However, its individual member states already maintain their own hate crime laws in many cases.In Germany, publicly burning the EU flag or that of a foreign state constitutes a hate crime punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. Euro News has reported that Germany has enacted laws against hate-motivated insult, including those committed online. These provisions extend not only to direct insults but also to the dissemination of malicious gossip and fabricated quotations. Ultimately, it is a judge who determines whether a given statement qualifies as “hate.”France’s Criminal Code of the French Republic has several provisions specifically addressing hate crimes and hate speech, which include defamation and public insults. These rules apply to both offline and online conduct. In addition, the 2021 Upholding Republican Values rendered the promotion of separatism illegal. Italy, Sweden, and several other member states have adopted comparable legislation..Freedom of speech and expression does not exist merely to protect government-approved pleasantries. Rather, its fundamental purpose is to safeguard all forms of expression — including those that are uncivil, repugnant, false, or insulting — providing they do not constitute incitement to violence. This protection extends to the criticism of politicians, those in positions of power, or groups that evade accountability. Freedom of expression is intended to shield all individuals, not only those who have refined the art of polite insult. Regrettably, many laws restricting free expression are drafted in a vague and ambiguous language, granting government authorities considerable discretion in laying charges. While individuals should conduct themselves in a civil manner, and for governments to promote such standards, history demonstrates that governments frequently enact laws and exert control over citizens rather than foster voluntary civility.Just as society accepts the risk of alleged criminals remaining at large in order to avoid imprisoning the innocent, so too must it tolerate uncivil or offensive speech to preserve the broader principle of freedom. This principle forms part of our Western liberal tradition, tracing its roots to the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century with thinkers such as Voltaire, and extending through the nineteenth century with John Stuart Mill.Canada’s Bill C-22, Lawful Access Act, has been introduced and is currently under consideration in the House of Commons. In essence, this bill would grant police enhanced powers to access online user data and to track individuals, while compelling service providers and telecommunications companies to assist law enforcement and retain metadata for up to one year.Providers of electronic services, civil society groups, and privacy advocates contend that this legislation would effectively create a backdoor into encryption systems, thereby granting the government broad access to private data. At the same time, it would introduce significant cybersecurity vulnerabilities that could be exploited by hackers, criminals, or foreign actors. If enacted, the bill would require providers to maintain detailed metadata — including location data, communication patterns, and device activity — for up to one year. The retention would apply without the traditional requirement of individualized suspicion, effectively enabling a nationwide data collection regime that critics describe as a broad fishing expedition.Serious questions have been raised regarding this bill’s constitutionality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms..The EU is also actively exploring mechanisms to gain access to encrypted data. The ProtectEU Strategy (2025) establishes a framework for enabling law enforcement access to encrypted communications and associated metadata. Similarly, the proposed Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) Regulation would require service providers to scan content for illegal material. Both the initiatives risk creating cybersecurity vulnerabilities for providers and users alike.Such attempts to mandate a backdoor must contend with existing EU legislation designed to protect privacy and fundamental rights. Nevertheless, Brussels continues to search for ways to circumvent these protections.In both Canada and Europe, governments appear intent on finding a way to monitor citizens by circumventing existing mechanisms to safeguard privacy. However, this is not the only attempted circumvention.The process of becoming a full member state of the EU is lengthy, often requiring a decade or more, during which applicant countries must align their laws and regulations with the EU standard. It appears that Canada is moving in this direction, although the government of Prime Minister Carney has made no public statement indicating a goal of EU membership.Reuters reported on May 20 that Germany is promoting a new category of “associate” EU membership for Ukraine. This status would grant active participation without voting rights. Should the EU adopt this new classification, it could potentially serve as a model to accelerate Canada’s integration into the union.In short, those who have approved of Ottawa’s governance over the past decade will undoubtedly find Brussels’ administration of Canadian affairs even more to their liking.Dr. A.W. Barber is the former Director of Asian Studies at the University of Calgary. He is internationally active and has wide-ranging interests.
