Is Canada About to Make Christianity Illegal?
“Bill C-9 removes long-standing religious protections, expanding hate crime laws in ways that could criminalize biblical teaching and public Christian expression.”
Canada’s Bill C-9 marks a worrying development in the country’s legal approach to speech and “hate-motivated” crimes. Introduced in September 2025 by the Minister of Justice, the bill passed third reading in the House of Commons last month by a vote of 186-137, with support from the Liberals and Bloc Québécois, and opposition from the Conservatives, NDP, and Greens.
The legislation is framed as a response to “rising incidents of hatred,” including antisemitism, which accounts for almost 70% of all police-reported religious hate crimes in Canada. It proposes amendments to the Criminal Code that expand offences related to hate-motivated conduct, including intimidation or obstruction of access to places of worship and other cultural or religious sites.
It also introduces standalone hate crime offences where an underlying criminal act is motivated by hatred toward identifiable groups, and it criminalises the public display of certain symbols associated with terrorist organisations or the Nazi swastika. In addition, the bill codifies a definition of “hatred” as involving “detestation or vilification” that goes beyond mere dislike, drawing from existing Supreme Court jurisprudence but applying it more broadly across the law.
The bill also makes structural changes that have raised genuine concern among Christian communities. Most notably, it removes the longstanding “good faith” religious defence found in section 319(3) of the Criminal Code. That provision had historically protected individuals who expressed opinions based on sincerely held religious beliefs or sacred texts, provided those expressions were made in “good faith.”
Yet for many, its removal reflects a worrying shift in how Christian speech may now be treated under Canadian law. Without this explicit safeguard, expressions of biblical teaching, particularly concerning Christian morality and sexual ethics, may be more vulnerable to prosecution.
The bill also eliminates the requirement that the Attorney General approve certain hate propaganda charges before they proceed. This change lowers a procedural safeguard that previously acted as a check against inappropriate or overly broad prosecutions. Even if the legal threshold for conviction remains high, the pathway to investigation and charge becomes easier, and that alone has implications for how individuals assess legal risk.
A fundamental concern among Christian leaders and organisations is how these changes may affect the public expression of Christianity and its core doctrines. Biblical teaching on matters such as human sexuality, sin, repentance, conversion, and moral order—drawn, in particular, from passages such as Romans 1 or 1 Corinthians 6—has long been part of Christian preaching and discipleship.
Under the framework proposed in the bill, such teachings could be evaluated in light of whether they are perceived to involve “detestation” or “vilification,” particularly if they are understood as applying to protected identity groups. As such, the legislation will introduce a dangerously subjective element to the law, which could see people prosecuted because somebody else chose to take offence.
Even where no incitement to violence exists, the determination of whether speech crosses a legal line would rest with prosecutors and courts, taking into account context, intent, and audience receptions—much of which is largely subjectively evaluated.
This introduces a level of legal ambiguity and uncertainty that will, undoubtedly, have a chilling effect on Christian expression. Individuals may refrain from lawful expression, not because it is prohibited, but because the cost of testing that boundary is too high. In effect, the bill will indirectly undermine the notion of democracy, which hinges on the free expression of the people. The terrifying possibility of complaints, police involvement, costly legal proceedings, and public scrutiny can be enough to discourage even lawful speech.
For clergy, educators, and lay Christians, this could translate into a reluctance to preach certain texts of Scripture, teach particular doctrines of the faith, or engage in public moral discourse. The result may not be widespread prosecution of Christians, but rather, a gradual relegation and ultimate silencing of public Christianity.
The bill’s provisions regarding intimidation and obstruction also raise questions about the limits of public religious witness. While intended to protect access to places of worship and community spaces, the language concerning actions that “provoke a state of fear” or “hinder” access is again open to interpretation. Could peaceful activities, such as prayer vigils or public demonstrations, particularly on issues such as abortion and euthanasia, be construed as falling within the scope of these offences? For Christians whose faith includes a call to public witness, this creates even more uncertainty about where lawful expression ends and criminal liability begins.
At a more fundamental level, the debate surrounding the bill highlights a broader question about the nature of law itself. It’s something we’ve spoken about at Caldron Pool for some time now. Laws are not amoral legal procedures. All law embodies moral judgements about what does and does not harm, the definition of human dignity, and what amounts to the “common good.” In short, law is legislated morality, and as such, it is fundamentally religious.
In this case, the legislation reflects underlying assumptions about God—whether He exists at all—about morality—what is truly good and what constitutes harm—and about who ultimately has the authority to define those moral boundaries. Consequently, the bill is not attempting to enforce neutral principles, but rather a specific moral ideology that can conflict with the teachings of Scripture.
The result is a nation confronted with two competing moral frameworks—one seeking to persuade through dialogue, reason, and open debate; the other advancing through the coercive power of the state.
On one hand is a state-defined understanding of harm and dignity, enforced through legal threat. On the other hand, there is a theological framework grounded in the authority of Jesus Christ, which defines truth and morality according to the Bible. Where these systems conflict, the state will ultimately enforce its vision through coercive power—the threat of violence and financial ruin.
By removing the “good faith” religious defence, Bill C-9 places Christian teaching within a legal framework where its acceptability may be judged according to religious and moral standards external and contrary to the faith. In that sense, the state effectively operates as an arbiter of the boundaries or permissible theological expression—think, heresy trials.
The bill remains under consideration, and its final form may yet change. Nevertheless, the concerns it raises reflect a broader trend across many Western nations, where longstanding Christian foundations have been set aside in favour of an increasingly fluid and malleable understanding of “pluralism.”
Too often, the fundamental freedoms that helped shape Western civilisation are being eroded in an effort to accommodate alternative moral frameworks that diverge from historic Christianity. In their place, new categories of wrongdoing are emerging in law and culture, where causing offence or contradicting the claims of particular identity groups is increasingly treated as a punishable harm.
Even if such legislation does not lead to widespread arrests of Christians, it is likely to produce a chilling effect on their participation in public life. The issue is not only what is prosecuted, but what is pre-emptively avoided. Christians may not be silenced by the prison cell, but the mere possibility is enough to push Christianity out of the public square and into the shadows.
The marginalisation of Christianity right across the Western world isn’t incidental. It’s intentional. What our opponents didn’t factor in, however, was that Christianity has never depended on cultural dominance or political power to survive or thrive. Again and again, across centuries and societies, Christianity has endured pressure, opposition, and even militant suppression.
Whatever the aims of the present moment, the Christian faith has a long and well-documented history of enduring in the face of adversity. In fact, history shows that the Church—much like the Israelites under Egyptian oppression—does not diminish under oppression, but multiplies (Exodus 1:12).
So, whatever happens, we don’t need to fear an assault on Christianity—not even its “death”! In the words of G.K. Chesterton: “Christendom has had a series of revolutions, and in each one of them Christianity has died. Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave.”