Montreal, Feb 16, 2026
The Canadian Muslim Forum (FMC-CMF) is pleased to submit its brief on Bill C-9, reaffirming our strong commitment to confronting hate in all its forms while safeguarding the fundamental freedoms that define Canada’s democratic and pluralistic society. As communities across the country continue to face the real and painful impacts of hate, we recognize the importance of thoughtful, effective legislation that protects safety, dignity, and social cohesion. Our submission supports the intent behind this proposed law while offering constructive recommendations to ensure that measures to combat hate remain precise, fair, and balanced, and that they do not unintentionally undermine freedom of religion, expression, or equitable enforcement.
Summary of the CMF Brief on Bill C-9
Justice Against Hate: Submission on Bill C-9 (Criminal Code amendments on hate propaganda, hate crime, and access to religious/cultural places)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The brief supports the goal of combating hate but raises concerns that parts of Bill C-9, as currently drafted, may unintentionally undermine fundamental freedoms and lead to overreach, wrongful investigations, and disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities.
It proposes targeted amendments to ensure the legislation remains strong against hate while protecting freedom of religion, expression, and fair enforcement. The central message is balance: effective protection from hate must coexist with constitutional safeguards and procedural fairness.
Key risks identified include:
• Removal of religious protections that safeguard good-faith expression
• Broad and vague wording in hate-symbol provisions
• Subjective interpretation of motive in hate-crime charges
• Potential profiling or selective enforcement
• Overbreadth in offences related to access to places of worship
IMPORTANCE OF COMBATTING HATE
The brief strongly affirms the importance of anti-hate legislation, noting that hate harms individuals, weakens trust, and threatens social cohesion. It can lead to fear, exclusion, and withdrawal from public life for targeted communities.
However, it stresses that laws must be:
• Precise
• Fair
• Applied without bias
• Protective of legitimate expression
A well-balanced law protects dignity and safety while preserving democratic values of freedom, inclusion, and justice.
MAIN ISSUES IDENTIFIED
1) Religious Freedom Concerns
The brief strongly opposes removing the existing “good faith” religious defence in Section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code. It argues repeal could chill religious teaching and discourse, lead to self-censorship, increase investigations into legitimate sermons, and disproportionately affect minority faith communities.
2) Overly Broad Hate Symbol Provisions
Vague phrases like “associated with” and “so nearly resemble” could lead to subjective interpretations and wrongful enforcement. Risks include mislabeling cultural or religious symbols, criminalizing ambiguous imagery, and seizure of property not directly tied to offences.
3) New Hate-Motivated Offence ; Risk of Bias
While supporting recognition of hate as an aggravating motive, the brief warns that subjective interpretation of motive could lead to inconsistent decisions and disproportionate impacts on already over-policed communities. It calls for higher proof standards and judicial oversight.
4) Intimidation / Blocking Access to Worship Spaces
The new offence is supported in principle but considered too broad. Concerns include criminalizing lawful protests, lack of clarity between intimidation and peaceful assembly, and excessive sentencing ranges.
CORE RECOMMENDATIONS
Protect Religious Freedom
• Keep the religious good-faith defence (do not repeal s.319(3)(b)).
Clarify Hate Symbol Provisions
• Remove the phrase “associated with.”
• Remove or narrow the “lookalike symbol” clause.
• Expand good-faith defenses.
• Require proof of intent to promote hatred.
• Limit forfeiture powers and protect community assets.
Strengthen Fairness in Hate-Motivated Offence
• Require judicial screening before indictments.
• Require proof that hatred was a substantial motive.
• Provide bias-awareness training for police and prosecutors.
• Develop model jury instructions for consistency.
Protect Civil Liberties in Access-Obstruction Offence
• Merge overlapping sections into one clear offence.
• Create an explicit exception for lawful peaceful protest.
• Reduce the maximum penalty from 10 years to 5 years.
OVERALL CONCLUSION
The brief supports Bill C-9’s intent to combat hate and improve safety but emphasizes that effective anti-hate laws must be carefully drafted to avoid unintended harm. Strong laws must remain precise, proportionate, and fair, protecting both vulnerable communities and fundamental freedoms in a pluralistic democratic society.