Loading ...NEW RULES : RE CANADIAN BILL C-9
UNFORTUNATELY THE HATE SPEECH ACT CAN AFFECT “FORMERLY ” FREE SPEACH BY CANADIANS . SO WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THE LINES THAT HAVE BEEN DRAWN BY THE CANADIAN LIBERAL LEGISLATORS . IT’S A SAD TIME FOR FREEDOM OF SPEACH .
I HAVE ASKED COPILOT TO SUMMARTIZE AND ASSIST US IN KEEPING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE LINE
WE STATE HERE UNEQUIVACALLY AS WE DO IN OUR DISCLAIMER WE DO NOT CONDONE VIOLENCE OF ANY KIND IN SPITE OF OCCASIONAL ANGER AND FRUSTRATION WITH INDIVIDUALS , IDEAS , CIRCUMSTANCES AND GROUPS .
SEE THE COMMENT SECTION AND THIS WILL BE PINNED TO THE TOP RIGHT SIDEBAR.
IT’S A LOT TO READ SO THE SHORT VERSION …WE WILL MONITOR OUR TONE SO AS TO ENSURE NO THREATENING OR INCITING LANGUAGE HOWEVER UNINTENDED IT MAY BE.
RECOMENDATIONS FROM COPILOT
Clear rules (your first line of defense)
Create and prominently display rules like:
No hate speech targeting identifiable groups (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.)
No calls for violence or threats
No false statements about individuals (defamation)
No reposting full copyrighted articles (link instead)
You may freely discuss and criticize public figures. However, do not post unverified allegations of crimes or serious misconduct as facts. Content violating this rule may be removed.”
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS UNFORTUNATE MATTER
SUMARIZE BILL C-9 CANADA THAT PASSED RECENTLY THERE IS A LOT OF CONSTERNATION ABOUT IT
Copilot said:
Copilot
There are multiple different “Bill C?9”s in Canada (the number gets reused each Parliament), which is causing a lot of confusion.
? The one that just passed in 2026 and is causing controversy is Bill C?9: the Combatting Hate Act — not the older judges-discipline law from 2023.
? Quick Summary of the 2026 Bill C?9 (Combatting Hate Act)
Core idea:
It updates the Criminal Code to crack down harder on hate speech and hate?motivated incidents.
Key things it does
Creates new criminal offences
Intimidating or blocking people from accessing places like churches, mosques, schools, or community spaces
ipolitics
Makes hate?motivated crime a clearer, standalone offence
fbcfcn
Criminalizes public display of certain hate or terrorist symbols (if intended to promote hatred)
openparliament
Expands hate?speech laws
Updates how “hatred” is defined in law
ipolitics
Removes some legal barriers to prosecution
e.g., eliminates the need for Attorney General approval to lay hate?propaganda charges
fbcfcn
Removes a “good faith religious expression” defence in some hate?speech cases
theccf
? Overall goal: give police and courts stronger tools to intervene earlier against hate?motivated behaviour.
fbcfcn
? Why there’s so much controversy (“consternation”)
The debate is basically: How do you fight hate without restricting free speech?
1. Free speech concerns
Critics say the law could limit expression protected by the Charter
staysafevancouver
Worries that vague definitions of “hatred” or “symbols” could be applied too broadly
staysafevancouver
Some fear it could chill debate, satire, or protest
honestreporting
2. Religious expression concerns
Removing the “good faith religious belief” defence means:
Religious teachings could potentially be prosecuted if seen as promoting hatred
mnnonline
3. Broader enforcement/overreach worries
No longer requiring Attorney General approval may:
Increase prosecutions, including borderline cases
staysafevancouver
Critics say the rules around “intimidation” or “fear” are too unclear
ipolitics
? Why supporters back it
Canada has seen rising hate incidents, especially targeting religious and minority groups
fbcfcn
Supporters say:
Current laws are outdated
The bill protects vulnerable communities and access to places of worship
gc
?? Bottom line
Supporters: It strengthens protections against hate and violence.
Critics: It risks going too far and chilling free speech and religious expression.
? In short: Bill C?9 expands hate?crime laws and penalties — and the controversy is about whether it crosses the line into restricting lawful speech.
If you want, I can break down exactly what kind of speech or actions could now get someone charged under the law (that’s where most of the confusion is).
CopilotHere’s a clear, practical breakdown of what could actually get someone in trouble under the new Bill C?9 — and what likely would not.
?? What could now lead to charges
1) Blocking or intimidating access to places
You could be charged if you intentionally stop or scare people from entering certain places, such as:
Churches, mosques, synagogues
Schools or community centres
Cultural or religious facilities
Examples:
Physically blocking entrances
Threatening people trying to enter
Acting in a way meant to make them afraid to go in [ipolitics.ca]
? This carries serious penalties (up to ~10 years depending on how it’s prosecuted) [ipolitics.ca]
2) New “hate?motivated crime” layer
If you commit any crime (assault, vandalism, etc.) AND it’s motivated by hate, it can:
Be treated as a distinct, more serious offence
Lead to stronger punishment [fbcfcn.ca]
3) Displaying hate / terrorist symbols (in certain contexts)
You could face charges for:
Displaying symbols with intent to promote hatred against a group [openparliament.ca]
?? Key point:
It’s not just the symbol — intent matters.
4) Hate speech (expanded enforcement)
Existing laws already banned:
Publicly inciting hatred
Wilfully promoting hatred
Bill C?9 changes how these are enforced by:
Removing the need for Attorney General approval to prosecute [fbcfcn.ca]
? That means cases may be brought more easily and more often
5) Religious speech is no longer automatically protected
Previously, you had a defence if:
You were expressing an opinion based on religious belief “in good faith”
Bill C?9 removes that defence [theccf.ca]
? So now:
Religious arguments are not automatically shielded
They can still be legal — but only if they don’t cross into illegal hate speech
? What is still generally allowed (based on current law limits)
These are important boundaries:
Criticism, disagreement, or debate ? still legal
Political speech or protest ? still protected in principle
Religious beliefs ? still allowed if not promoting hatred
Attending protests near locations ? allowed if you’re not intimidating or blocking access [ipolitics.ca]
Also, the law says it must respect the Charter (freedom of expression) [ipolitics.ca]
?? The “grey areas” causing concern
This is where most confusion (and fear) comes from:
1) “Hatred” is hard to define
Courts usually require extreme vilification, not just offense
But critics say wording is still open to interpretation [staysafeva…couver.com]
2) Intent is key — but hard to prove
You must intend to promote hatred or intimidate
But how courts interpret intent can vary
3) Symbol use vs context
A symbol used:
? For education, journalism ? likely OK
? To promote hatred ? illegal
Critics worry the line isn’t always clear [staysafeva…couver.com]
4) More prosecutions possible
Since approval barriers were lowered:
More cases may go forward
Including borderline ones [staysafeva…couver.com]
? Bottom line (plain English)
You’re most at risk under Bill C?9 if you:
Try to block or frighten people from entering certain places
Spread or display things with clear intent to incite hatred
Commit crimes clearly motivated by hatred
You’re generally still safe if you:
Express opinions, even controversial ones
Debate, criticize, or hold religious views
? As long as it doesn’t cross into promoting hatred or intimidation
If you want, I can give realistic example scenarios (like “Would this tweet or protest sign be illegal?”), which helps clarify the edge cases fast.
Great—here are realistic, concrete scenarios to show how Bill C?9 might apply in everyday situations.
? Likely LEGAL (still allowed)
1) Expressing an opinion (even controversial)
“I disagree with X lifestyle/religion/ideology because of my beliefs.”
? Generally allowed
As long as it doesn’t rise to extreme hatred or incitement
2) Peaceful protest near a religious site
Holding signs outside a church or mosque criticizing their views
? Allowed if you are not:
Blocking access
Threatening people
Law explicitly protects being there to “communicate information” [ipolitics.ca]
3) Academic or journalistic use of symbols
A news article showing a hate symbol to explain a story
? Likely allowed
Because the intent is informational, not to promote hatred
4) Religious teaching
Quoting scripture or stating beliefs about morality
? Still allowed in principle
? But no longer automatically protected — must not become promotion of hatred [theccf.ca]
?? Likely ILLEGAL or risky
1) Blocking access to a place
Forming a human chain to stop people entering a synagogue or mosque
? Likely illegal
That directly fits“obstruction” of protected places [ipolitics.ca]
2) Intimidating people at entrances
Yelling threats so a group feels unsafe entering a building
? Likely illegal
Law targets actions intended to cause fear and prevent access [ipolitics.ca]
3) Explicitly promoting hatred online
“This group is evil and should be hated/targeted”
? Likely illegal
Falls under wilful promotion of hatred
4) Displaying a hate symbol with intent to incite
Flying a known hate symbol at a rally to encourage hostility
? Could be illegal
If prosecutors show intent to promote hatred [openparliament.ca]
5) Crime motivated by hate
Vandalizing a religious building because of who uses it
? More serious now
Treated explicitly as a hate?motivated offence [fbcfcn.ca]
? “Grey zone” (depends on interpretation)
These are the situations causing most debate:
Example A: Strong religious or political speech
“Group X is morally wrong and harmful to society”
?? Could go either way
Depends on whether it crosses into extreme vilification
Example B: Protest signs with harsh language
“Group X is destroying Canada”
?? Likely still legal
But could be risky if paired with calls to hatred or harm
Example C: Symbol use in protest
Carrying a controversial symbol without clear explanation
?? Depends on intent and context
Critics worry this is where enforcement could vary [staysafeva…couver.com]
? Bottom line (simple rule)
? You’re generally fine if you:
Express opinions or beliefs
Protest peacefully
Debate or criticize
? You’re at risk if you:
Try to make people afraid or block them
Promote extreme hatred or hostility toward a group
Use symbols or speech clearly to incite hatred
If you want, I can walk through a specific example (like a tweet or protest message) and tell you how it would likely be treated under the law.
HOW ABOUT A POST SAYING THIS GROUP IS EVIL AND I HATE THEM
Copilot said:
Copilot
Short answer: that exact post (“this group is evil and I hate them”) is usually not automatically illegal — but it’s getting closer to the line.
Here’s how it would likely be viewed under Canadian hate?speech law after Bill C?9:
? How courts look at it
Canadian law doesn’t criminalize mere hatred or offensive opinions.
It targets speech that reaches a much higher threshold:
? “wilful promotion of hatred”
? meaning extreme, harmful expression (often described as detestation or vilification)
? Your example alone
“This group is evil and I hate them”
?? Offensive? Yes
? Automatically criminal? Usually no
Why:
It expresses hatred, but doesn’t clearly incite others or call for harm
Courts historically require more extreme language or consequences
? When it could become illegal
That same idea becomes risky if you add elements like:
1) Incitement or encouragement
“This group is evil — people should go after them”
? Much more likely illegal
Moves from opinion ? encouraging harm
2) Extreme dehumanization
“This group is evil and should be eliminated / isn’t human”
? High risk
Could qualify as wilful promotion of hatred
3) Context showing intent to provoke hostility
Posting in a coordinated campaign
Targeting a vulnerable group repeatedly
Pairing with threatening imagery or symbols
? Then prosecutors could argue it’s meant to promote hatred, not just express anger
4) Combined with actions
Harassing people
Showing up and intimidating them
Blocking their access to spaces
? Then you’re clearly into criminal territory under Bill C?9
?? Where Bill C?9 matters
The big change is not that this sentence is suddenly illegal—but:
More cases could be pursued (lower procedural barriers)
Context may be scrutinized more closely
Some borderline speech may be tested in court more often
? Bottom line (plain English)
Saying “I hate this group” ? generally legal but offensive
Saying it in a way that:
encourages harm
dehumanizes
or creates real risk of hatred spreading
? could be criminal
If you want, I can tweak your exact sentence into versions that are clearly safe vs clearly illegal so you can see the line more precisely.
HOW ABOUT AFTER SOMEONE POSTS ABOUT SOMEONE THEY CONSIDER EVIL AND A AN EVIL PERSON AND A COMMENT IS MADE …HANG THE BASTARD
Copilot said:
Copilot
That kind of comment is much more serious legally than the earlier example.
? The example
“Hang the bastard”
?? How it’s likely treated
This is no longer just expressing an opinion. It can be interpreted as:
1) A call for violence
It’s explicitly suggesting killing someone
That moves it into potential:
Uttering threats
Incitement to violence
? Even outside Bill C?9, that can already be criminal in Canada.
? Under hate?law context (Bill C?9 relevance)
It becomes even more risky if:
The “person” is tied to an identifiable group (religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.)
The comment is part of broader hostility toward that group
Then it could potentially be treated as:
Wilful promotion of hatred
Or supporting a hate?motivated offence
?? Context matters—but not much here
There are a few variables courts might consider:
Was it clearly rhetorical (e.g., hyperbolic venting)?
Was it targeting a single named individual or a broader group?
Was there a real risk others might act on it?
? But even with context, phrases like “hang them” are dangerous legally because:
They are direct, violent language
They can be seen as encouraging harm, not just expressing dislike
? Safer vs risky comparison
Type of comment Likely status
“I think this person is terrible” ? Legal
“I hate this person” ? Legal (but offensive)
“They should be punished severely” ?? Depends on wording
“Hang them” ? High legal risk
? Bottom line (plain English)
Saying you hate someone ? usually legal
Saying they should be killed (“hang them”) ? can be treated as inciting violence or a threat, and may be criminal
? This kind of statement is exactly the type of speech Canadian law is most likely to punish, especially online.
If you want, I can break down how courts distinguish “venting anger” vs “illegal incitement”—that’s the key line in cases like this.
HOW ABOUT HANG THE BASTARD AFTER TRIAL AND CONVICTION
Copilot said:
Copilot
Adding “after trial and conviction” changes the context—but it’s still legally risky.
?? The example
“Hang the bastard after trial and conviction”
? How it’s likely viewed
? What helps (vs your earlier example):
You’re referencing a legal process (“after trial and conviction”)
It sounds more like a statement about punishment rather than immediate mob action
? But the key problem remains:
It still explicitly calls for killing someone
In Canadian law terms, that can still be interpreted as:
Incitement of violence
Encouraging serious harm
? Courts don’t require the threat to be immediate — just that it advocates violence
? Why this is still high?risk
1) It’s not just an opinion
Compare:
? “They deserve a harsh sentence” ? opinion
? “Hang them” ? endorsing execution/violence
Even with “after conviction,” you’re still:
Promoting a violent outcome
Not simply discussing policy neutrally
2) Tone matters
Saying it angrily or about a real person online increases risk
Looks less like policy debate, more like hostile advocacy
3) Canada doesn’t have capital punishment
Calling for hanging isn’t a real legal outcome in Canada
So it’s less likely to be seen as a policy position, more as violent rhetoric
?? Where it could land legally
Depending on context, it could potentially be treated as:
Incitement to violence (if seen as encouraging harm)
Threatening/violent speech
Possibly hate?related if tied to a protected group
? Safer way to express a similar idea
If someone wants to argue for harsh punishment:
? “They should face the strongest penalty allowed by law”
? “They deserve life in prison”
? “We need tougher sentencing laws”
? Those stay firmly in legal opinion territory
? Bottom line
Adding “after trial and conviction” reduces the mob?violence vibe
But “hang them” still carries a strong risk because it:
endorses killing
can be seen as promoting violence
? So it’s still not a safe statement legally, especially in public or online contexts.
If you want, I can explain the difference between illegal incitement vs legally protected “extreme opinions”—that’s the fine line courts look at.
IS THIS RETROACTIIVE CAN ONE BE CHARGED WITH PAST COMMENTS ON WEBSITES
Copilot said:
Copilot
Short answer:
? No — criminal laws like Bill C?9 are generally not retroactive in Canada.
? You normally cannot be charged for something that was legal when you did it.
?? The core rule in Canada
Canada’s Constitution (the Charter) has a very strong protection:
You can’t be found guilty of something that wasn’t a crime at the time you did it
gc
This is a basic principle of criminal law:
“No crime without law” (nullum crimen sine lege)
gc
+1
? So new criminal offences don’t apply backward in time
? What that means for old posts
? If the post was legal when you made it
? You cannot be charged later just because the law changed
?? BUT important exceptions / nuances
1) If it was already illegal at the time
Some things (like threats or inciting violence) were already crimes before Bill C?9.
“FREEDOM OF SPEACH”
does not equate to FREEOM OF SPELLING. Its
“FREEDOM OF SPEECH”
like
CHEECH in “CHEECH AND CHONG”
THAMKS pedro