A Line Canadians Cannot Afford to Cross
The irony of the Roman senators assassinating Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC, was that their attempt to save the Republic from tyranny triggered the very outcome they feared: an empire ruled by one dictator after another. History is rich with such ironies, and Canadians should not miss the irony now surrounding the federal government’s imposition of Bill C‑9.
The government insists that “hate has no place in Canada,” yet Bill C‑9 lowers legal thresholds in a way that will almost certainly create more hostility, not less. It claims to “modernize” the law for emerging threats—language eerily familiar from the same government’s expansive interpretation of the Emergencies Act. It claims to “codify Supreme Court standards,” while in practice weakening those standards by sweeping more expression into the category of hate. And it claims to “expedite justice” by removing the Attorney General’s oversight, a move that invites overreach and limits both justice and free expression at the same time.
Canadians are being asked to trust that a vague and sweeping expansion of state power over speech will be used wisely and sparingly. History—both recent and distant—shows this is a dangerous gamble. When governments gain the power to police expression, the first casualty is not hate, but dissent. Under Bill C‑9, dissent from the government’s accepted narrative on a host of issues will increasingly be labeled “hate.”
The bill is marketed as necessary, urgent, and overdue. In reality, it is reckless. It introduces subjective language into criminal law, weakens procedural safeguards, and invites the state to judge speech not by intent, but by interpretation. That is not the hallmark of a free and democratic society. Canada already has robust safeguards against genuine hate through Supreme Court jurisprudence, criminal law, and human rights legislation. We do not need this expanded and imprecise regime. It will suppress lawful speech.
Supporters repeat the familiar refrain that “law‑abiding Canadians have nothing to fear.” That claim has never aged well. Legislators’ intentions are not frozen in law. Statutes are interpreted years later by regulators, tribunals, prosecutors, and courts operating under very different political conditions—and often in ways the drafters never imagined.
Consider the expansion of euthanasia. The Liberal government assured Canadians that MAiD would be rare, limited to cases of reasonably foreseeable death, and would not normalize death as a solution. Then a single Quebec judge struck down the “reasonably foreseeable” requirement, and the government chose expansion rather than restraint. By 2024, MAiD had become the fifth leading cause of death in Canada, accounting for 5.1 percent of all deaths—nearly matching the Netherlands. When governments say “there is nothing to fear; we have it under control,” that is precisely when citizens should be most concerned.
The problem at the heart of Bill C‑9 is not opposition to confronting hate. Canadians overwhelmingly reject violence, harassment, and intimidation. The problem is that the bill fails to clearly distinguish between criminal conduct and lawful expression. It relies on elastic concepts such as “willful promotion of hate” and vague appeals to the “public good,” inviting inconsistent enforcement and political misuse.
In practical terms, this creates uncertainty—and uncertainty breeds fear. It is not unreasonable to expect police arrests, similar to what is occurring in the United Kingdom, for public discussion of controversial topics on social media. Canadians have already seen how this plays out. Barry Neufeld faced a $750,000 compensatory order from the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal simply for expressing the “wrong” opinion in a public debate over gender identity.
When citizens cannot discern where the legal line lies, they retreat. Teachers avoid sensitive topics. Parents censor conversations at home. Faith leaders soften or abandon moral teachings. Professionals stop speaking publicly. This “chilling effect” is not hypothetical—it is already happening, and it is one of the most corrosive forces in any democracy.
Defenders of Bill C‑9 argue that Charter protections will ultimately prevail. This ignores reality. Constitutional rights are only meaningful if citizens can afford to defend them. Few Canadians have the time, money, or stamina to endure years of litigation just to prove they should never have been investigated. A right that survives only after financial and reputational ruin is not a meaningful right. How many Canadians can risk a $750,000 wager to participate in public debate?
Equally troubling is how this legislation is being advanced. Debate is curtailed. Amendments are rushed. Parliamentary scrutiny is compressed. When a government restricts debate to pass a law restricting speech, the contradiction speaks for itself. Why the rush?
This is not a left‑versus‑right issue. Canadians across political, religious, and cultural lines are raising alarms. Free speech belongs to everyone—or it belongs to no one. Those tempted to sit this out should remember that speech laws rarely begin by targeting the majority. They expand gradually, justified each time by a new urgency or threat.
That is why Canadians must act now. Phone calls matter. Letters matter. MPs must know that Bill C‑9, as written, is unacceptable.
Democracy is not meant to be efficient at the expense of liberty. It is meant to be careful—especially when fundamental freedoms are at stake. Canadians should reject the false choice between safety and freedom. We can oppose hatred without surrendering liberty. But that requires restraint and humility in lawmaking—qualities Bill C‑9 does not demonstrate.
Canadians must act now—not later, not after passage, not once enforcement begins. Members of Parliament need to hear clearly and unmistakably that Bill C‑9, as written, is unacceptable. Phone calls matter. Letters matter. Constituents reminding MPs that their vote on this bill will influence future votes matters.
This is not about fearmongering. It is about responsibility.
Expect it to be passed very close to the Ides of March. If passed Canadians will live with the consequences.
I am not superstitious.
Then again Julius Caesar was not superstitious about that date either.
Stop C9 information:
Go to https://www.stopc9.ca/
