Canada: Parliament Makes It a Crime to Speak Publicly About What the Bible Says Regarding Homosexuality

(ZENIT News / Otawwa, 06.20.2026).- Canada is on the verge of enacting one of the most controversial hate-speech measures in its recent history, a development that has ignited an unusually broad coalition of critics ranging from religious leaders and pro-life advocates to civil-liberties defenders and politicians from different points on the ideological spectrum.

The legislation, known as Bill C-9, has now cleared its final parliamentary hurdles after members of the House of Commons rejected a last-minute attempt to stop it. With Parliament’s approval secured, the bill is expected to receive Royal Assent and become law in the near future.

Supporters of the measure argue that it strengthens protections against hate propaganda and hate crimes. Opponents, however, fear that the legislation could fundamentally alter the balance between protecting vulnerable groups and safeguarding freedom of expression, particularly religious expression rooted in Scripture.

The controversy centers on a significant change to Canada’s Criminal Code. Critics point to the removal of a long-standing legal protection that shielded the good-faith expression of religious beliefs based on sacred texts, including the Bible. For many faith communities, that provision served as a safeguard ensuring that traditional religious teachings could be expressed without automatically being interpreted as criminal hate speech.

Among the most vocal critics has been cardinal Frank Leo, who urged lawmakers to reconsider aspects of the legislation. While affirming the Catholic Church’s commitment to opposing hatred and protecting individuals from violence, he argued that the bill required important revisions to prevent unintended consequences for religious liberty.

Conservative lawmakers also mounted strong opposition. Member of Parliament Andrew Lawton attempted to halt the legislation entirely, describing it as divisive and harmful to both free speech and freedom of religion. After his effort failed, he noted that resistance to the bill had emerged not only from conservatives but also from some voices on the political left, including members of smaller parties and civil-liberties organizations.

Another Conservative MP, Brad Redekopp, characterized the bill’s passage as a troubling moment for religious freedom in Canada, arguing that it weakens protections that Canadians have long relied upon when expressing sincerely held beliefs.

The debate intensified during the bill’s final stages in the Senate. Senators approved the legislation but introduced a late amendment concerning the treatment of the noose as a recognized symbol of hate, forcing the measure to return briefly to the House of Commons. At the same time, senators rejected a separate proposal that would have criminalized denial of the existence of Indigenous residential schools, illustrating the broader tensions surrounding the legislation’s scope and enforcement.

Beyond Parliament, constitutional scholars and legal commentators have raised questions about how the new law might be interpreted. Some critics argue that its language could give authorities excessive discretion in determining what constitutes hateful expression, creating uncertainty for religious believers, educators, and community leaders who discuss moral teachings on contentious social issues.

For many Christian organizations, the concern is not merely theoretical. They fear that passages of Scripture dealing with sexuality, marriage, or moral conduct could increasingly become the subject of legal scrutiny if interpreted through an expansive understanding of hate speech. Whether those fears ultimately prove justified will depend largely on how courts apply the law in practice.

The debate highlights a challenge confronting many Western democracies: how to combat genuine hatred and discrimination without eroding fundamental freedoms of conscience, religion, and expression. Canada’s lawmakers have concluded that stronger legal tools are necessary to address contemporary forms of hate. Yet for many religious communities, the passage of Bill C-9 raises a deeper question about whether a society can preserve both robust protections against hatred and a broad space for citizens to express traditional religious convictions.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.