Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) President Phil Horgan has a warning to impart as Canada enters a new, uncertain landscape on July 18, the date when Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, comes into force.

“It is difficult to propose strategies for avoidance of a criminal complaint or possible charge under the new regime,” wrote Horgan in a statement to The Catholic Register. “Some traditional religious concerns will be suppressed by many to avoid the risk of prosecution.”

On May 28, Horgan was among the many Christian, civil and legal voices who implored the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights to resist dismantling good-faith religious expression as a protected defence under Canada’s hate speech laws.

Advertisement

Their impassioned entreaty was ultimately disregarded.

The Senate version of C-9’s passage in the House of Commons on June 17, followed by the bill receiving royal assent one day later, sounded the death knell for Section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code after 56 years of constitutional life. This narrow guardrail, in Horgan’s words, “was critical in balancing the prohibition against hateful speech and the protection of religious minorities and their freedom.”

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and Frank Cardinal Leo of the Toronto archdiocese also warned lawmakers of the “chilling effect” that could arise if this defence was not preserved or if an alternative form of explicit protection for religious speech was not put in its place.

Advertisement

A for-greater-certainty clause placed in section 11 of the bill by Liberal MP Patricia Lattanzio, the parliamentary secretary for Minister of Justice and Attorney General Sean Fraser, failed to mollify the concerns articulated by an unprecedented coalition of leading Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu and other faith voices.

Horgan posed to The Register the same scenario that he presented during his testimony to the committee. He suggested a complainant could potentially “report a religious speech or sermon as ‘hateful’ if a religious leader were to demean sexual acts or trans ideology, alleging that a person exposed to such words considered themselves to be targeted and exposing them to ‘hatred’, i.e. extreme vilification.”

This grievance could compel the police or Crown to pursue an investigation. The speaker or writer accused of “inciting hatred” might then have to provide an account of the intent behind his or her words. The accused party might then have to solicit legal advice or even a full-scale defence. The potential expenses that could accrue during a legal fight alone could lead to many Canadians of faith believing that silence would be a more prudent course of action than confident religious expression.

“In the Christian community, it should be remembered that we communicate in love and do not promote hatred,” said Horgan. “But there are teachings in traditional Christian morality which do not agree with the views of many others in areas of sexual morality or gender diversity.

“The recommendation would be to ensure that messaging is communicated in truth and in love,” proclaimed Horgan. “References to scriptural or catechetical authority would assist in surviving scrutiny even with the absence of the good faith defence from the former (Section) 319(3)(b), owing to the general public interest in promoting the word of God.”

Advertisement

Horgan does anticipate the Canadian judicial system getting an opportunity to reckon with the religious speech protection being no more. He wrote that the “way a court challenge could be raised would be in response to a possible charge under Section 319” of the Criminal Code. He wrote that the defence “was a key provision to allow the original hate crime charges to survive constitutional scrutiny.”

Ascribing to the galvanizing Christian credo “faith over fear,” Horgan is among the religious Canadians hoping that justice minister Fraser remains true to his declaration that “Canadians will always be able to pray, preach, teach, interpret Scripture and express religious belief in good faith, without fear of criminal sanction.”