Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are not abstract legal concepts, but lived realities for millions of Canadians: people of faith, cultural communities, newcomers, parents, teachers and anyone who dares to express an opinion that may not align with the views of the government of the day.
Clause 4, as it is currently drafted, expands Criminal Code provisions around mischief and intimidation relating to places of worship, schools and community institutions. Conservatives agree that vandalism, threats, harassment and violence against these spaces are reprehensible acts that must be punished—there is no disagreement there—but the serious concern is that poorly defined language combined with an activist enforcement culture can lead to unintended consequences. When it comes to criminal law, unintended consequences are not academic; they affect real lives.
Religious leaders are already under pressure to navigate complex social issues. These amendments add the risk of criminal charges simply for quoting scriptures. Sermons and Friday prayers could be scrutinized by prosecutors. This is unprecedented in Canadian history. Parents and families are worried that if they teach their children scriptures at home, they could be accused of promoting hatred. Family traditions of reading sacred texts together could be chilled by fear of legal consequences.
There is also the digital age concern. The bill's public display provisions could extend to digital platforms. Posting scriptures on Facebook, YouTube or TikTok could be treated as a criminal act. Faith communities rely on livestreams and online teachings. This amendment risks criminalizing those practices.
The Charter of Rights guarantees the freedoms of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression. Removing the exemption undermines these rights and invites constitutional challenges. Canadians should not have to fight in court to defend their right to read scriptures. This amendment ensures that clause 4 cannot be interpreted in a way that chills speeches, punishes beliefs or interferes with religious practice that is peaceful and lawful.
Canadians are already uneasy. They see professors being disciplined for unpopular opinions. They see faith leaders being dragged into legal battles. They see protesters being treated differently, depending on whether their message aligns with the government's narrative.
This amendment says that plainly expressing beliefs, even strong and uncomfortable ones, is not a crime. Preaching a faith-based view is not criminal mischief. Peaceful protest is not intimidation. Public debate is not hatred. If the government truly believes that these things are necessary, I would say that we, as legislators, need to think about all of them.
The language in this bill as it is currently drafted risks blurring the line between criminal conduct and lawful expression. Canadians are increasingly worried that expressing sincerely held beliefs, whether they are religious, moral or cultural, could be interpreted by the state as harmful or criminal—