The recent adoption of the Combatting Hate Act by the Canadian Senate marks a significant step in the ongoing debate over the balance between combatting hate speech and protecting freedoms related to speech and religion. With a vote of 45-13, this legislative move comes amidst a marked increase in hate crimes within Canada, reportedly rising by 169 percent between 2018 and 2024. The Act targets the “wilful promotion of hatred,” prohibiting symbols that promote hate, such as the Nazi Hakenkreuz, and includes a last-minute amendment to outlaw the display of a noose.
The Act introduces new offenses that target intimidation and obstruction, particularly around religious and cultural institutions. More specifically, it defines intimidation as any action with the intent to provoke fear. This reflects concerns raised by Senators Kristopher Wells and Wanda Thomas Bernard, who underscored the importance of the amendment for marginalized communities, highlighting the noose as a symbol used to intimidate the Black community in Canada.
Despite its ambitions, the Act has sparked debate over its potential implications for religious freedoms. Conservative Senator Yonah Martin opposed the bill, citing risks of criminalizing religious practices conducted in good faith. The debate mirrors concerns about religious freedom infringements, drawing in opinions that even the citation of Biblical passages, such as Leviticus 20:13, could risk criminal charges in certain contexts. Ministers Pierre Moreau and Sean Fraser have sought to allay these fears, emphasizing that genuine religious practices cannot be classified as hate crimes.
Civil liberties groups have expressed reservations too, particularly around the bill’s new obstruction and intimidation offenses, which they warn might disproportionately affect marginalized communities through increased surveillance and profiling. A joint letter in October 2025 suggested these measures could inadvertently prevent protests by members of identifiable groups outside their institutions. To mitigate these risks, an amendment requires provincial Attorney General approval before prosecution.
While the legislation has progressed, it notably does not include provisions to criminalize the denial of residential school abuses, a point of contention for Indigenous organizations. First Nations groups, although supportive, have pointed to the lack of consultation. Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak of the Assembly of First Nations articulated the need for laws criminalizing both hate speech and Indian Residential Schools denial, emphasizing its urgency as more survivors pass away. The bill, which stops short of addressing these issues, must now go to the House of Commons for further deliberation on the Senate’s amendment.
More can be explored through JURIST and additional insights were provided by The Globe and Mail.