Ottawa loves symbolism. It loves “messages.” And it loves carefully staged moments that are supposed to tell you what kind of people are in charge.So here is a moment worth revisiting, Marc Miller was sworn in as a parliamentary secretary in January 2017. He publicly said he chose both a Bible and a Quran during his oath, framing it as “solidarity” after the Quebec mosque attack. .Canadians are free to worship as they choose. No one is disputing that. But the oath of office is not a photo-op. It is meant to bind the officeholder to duty, truthfulness, and the public trust.When a politician treats that oath like a political statement by swapping in sacred texts to make a point, Canadians are entitled to ask hard questions. If the oath is supposed to be solemn, why turn it into theatre? And if Miller now says religious texts should not shield speech from prosecution, what exactly did those books mean to him on the day he raised his hand?.OLDCORN: ‘Singh Hortons’ has become a national disgrace, no longer ‘Canada’s coffee shop’.Those questions are not abstract anymore because Miller is now defending a major legal change that targets speech rooted in faith.This month, Miller said he supports removing the Criminal Code provision that protects good faith religious discussion from hate propaganda convictions. He claims this is about stopping hate crimes “in the name of religion.”.But the law already addresses wilful promotion of hatred, and it already contains safeguards. The key one under attack is the explicit defence that a person cannot be convicted for good faith argument on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. That is not a rumour. It is written into section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code. Now the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois are pushing to remove that protection as part of amendments tied to Bill C-9, the government’s so-called Combatting Hate Act. That is not a “small legal change.” It is a door being kicked open..SLOBODIAN: No coffee for you — Ottawa’s DEI Ramadan rules crossed the line.Supporters insist nothing will happen to pastors, rabbis, priests, or imams who teach their faith. Yet even critics from within Muslim advocacy groups are warning the opposite that removing the good faith religious text defence invites state overreach into theology and chills religious education. CMPAC’s brief says the repeal is unnecessary and risky. Catholic leaders are also warning Ottawa not to strip the safeguard. CCCB’s statement points directly to the clause being targeted. When Muslim and Christian organizations are both sounding the alarm, that is not “culture war.” That is a broad, cross faith warning that the state is about to blur a line it should not cross..And Bill C-9 is not just about speech. It is a sweeping package that creates new offences and expands criminal enforcement around contentious public issues. The bill text itself adds new intimidation offences tied to buildings used for religious worship and related sites, and it creates new hate related provisions and definitions.Civil liberties concerns are not coming only from partisan MPs. In Justice Committee testimony, witnesses warned the new intimidation and access related provisions could be stretched to capture loud, disruptive, but non-violent protest protected by the Charter and that symbol display restrictions risk “abuses” that stigmatize peaceful protesters. That is what overreach looks like. A law drafted for the worst cases, then applied to ordinary people because the definitions are elastic and the political pressure is real..BURTON: Ottawa, Alberta’s MOU hands BC a veto, Canada another missed opportunity.Supporters of the repeal keep pointing to extreme examples, like the ugly, hateful rhetoric that no decent person supports. Fine. Prosecute genuine hate propaganda. But here is the problem. Once you delete the clear religious text defence from section 319, you are no longer just targeting extremists. You are placing everyday religious speech at the mercy of Crown discretion and shifting social norms.Today’s “harmful” interpretation becomes tomorrow’s charge. The sermon excerpt becomes Exhibit A. The Bible passage, the Quran verse, or the Torah reading is screened through the politics of the moment, and the accused is told to trust the system.Canadians should not accept that bargain..Even if a person is eventually acquitted, the process is punishment, including police visits, seized devices, legal bills, cancelled bookings, donors disappearing, and congregations intimidated into silence. And that chilling effect is the point, whether Ottawa admits it or not.Marc Miller wants Canadians to trust him as he strips explicit protections for faith based speech. Yet he is the same politician who made his oath a symbolic statement, including swearing on a Quran, and who now signals that religious texts should not carry weight when the state decides what can be said in public..OLDCORN: Accountability, not politics — $34 million ‘questionable’ spending at Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations.If Canadians do not act now, what begins as “hate speech reform” will become a weapon. Not against hate but against faith based voices, traditional values, and open debate.Freedom of religion. Freedom of conscience. Free speech.In Ottawa, they are always “under review.”
