Bill C-9, the Bible, and the Boundaries of Free Expression in Canada
A Deep Examination of Scripture That Could Be Misinterpreted as Hate Speech
Why This Conversation Matters (Even If You’re Not Religious)
Canada is in the middle of a significant legal shift around hate speech.
On paper, Bill C-9—the Combating Hate Act—sounds straightforward: it amends the Criminal Code to strengthen hate-propaganda and hate-crime provisions, create new offences for intimidation and obstruction around religious and cultural sites, and criminalize the public display of particular hate and terrorist symbols. Parliament of Canada+1
Most people would read that and say, “Okay, that sounds reasonable. We don’t want swastikas outside synagogues or people terrorizing mosques.”
But buried in the politics around Bill C-9 is something much more delicate:
The government has agreed to remove a long-standing protection for “good-faith opinions based on a religious text.” Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops+1
That protection lives in section 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code. Right now, if someone is charged with “wilfully promoting hatred,” they have specific defences available. One of them is this:
“…in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.” Wikipedia
This “religious-text defence” was added in the early 2000s, when Parliament expanded hate-propaganda laws to cover sexual orientation. At that time, legislators explicitly wanted to reassure Canadians that reading or teaching from the Bible, Qur’an, or other scriptures in good faith would not be criminal hate. Wikipedia
Bill C-9, coupled with a political deal between the federal government and the Bloc Québécois, is now moving to scrap that protection. Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops+2Catholic Register+2
That means:
Scripture itself is not being banned.
Christianity is not being outlawed.
But the legal shield that says, “If this is good-faith teaching from a religious text, that matters” is being removed.
For people of faith, that’s huge.
For anyone who cares about free expression and pluralism in Canada, it should be.
In this article, I want to do something specific:
Not declare that “the Bible is hate speech” (it isn’t).
Not tell Christians to be quiet (I won’t).
But show clearly which kinds of biblical passages could now be misinterpreted as “hate” under Canadian law once the religious-text defence is gone—and explain why, as a Christian, I still believe we should teach the whole counsel of God while being wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
All Scripture references below are from the New King James Version (NKJV). For space and copyright reasons, I’ll quote key phrases and summarize the surrounding context, but you can open your NKJV and read each whole passage easily.
The Legal Shift: From “Is This in Good Faith?” to “Does This Feel Like Hate?”
Let’s quickly frame the legal landscape before diving into Scripture.
How hate-propaganda laws work now
Under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, it’s a criminal offence to “wilfully promote hatred” against an identifiable group—groups defined by characteristics such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation and more. Wikipedia
The law has always acknowledged that not all offensive or unpopular speech is “hate propaganda.” So section 319(3) lists defences, including:
Truth
Good-faith opinions on religious subjects or texts
Good-faith discussion of matters of public interest
Good-faith attempts to point out hatred for the purpose of removing it Wikipedia
Courts have also interpreted “hatred” as a very high bar—meaning extreme vilification, not just criticism or moral disagreement.
What Bill C-9 changes
Bill C-9 does several things at once. Among them: Parliament of Canada+2Ministère de la Justice+2
Adds a formal “hate crime” offence when another offence is motivated by hatred.
Creates new offences for intimidation and obstruction around religious and cultural sites.
Criminalizes the public display of particular hate or terrorist symbols meant to promote hatred.
Removes the requirement of Attorney General consent for prosecuting hate-propaganda offences.
And—crucially in our context—political negotiations around the bill are now targeting the removal of the religious-text defence in section 319(3)(b). Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops+2Catholic Register+2
If that defence is deleted, the legal question shifts:
Before: “Is this a good-faith expression based on a religious text?”
After: “Does this expression produce detestation or vilification of a protected group?”
The content doesn’t change. The lens does.
That’s where Scripture comes in.
Category One: Sexual Ethics and Same-Sex Behaviour
This is the most obvious flashpoint. Many of the conversations around Bill C-250 back in the early 2000s were specifically about whether Christians could still read or preach passages on sexual morality without being prosecuted. Wikipedia
With the religious-text defence removed, these passages could once again be at the centre of legal controversy.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
In Leviticus 18:22, we read:
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman…”
And in Leviticus 20:13:
“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination…”
In context, these verses are part of a long list of sexual prohibitions (incest, adultery, bestiality, etc.) given to ancient Israel as part of their covenant law. Christians do not enforce ancient Israelite civil penalties, but many still see these texts as part of a broader biblical sexual ethic.
Why is it controversial under Bill C-9?
If a pastor or Christian speaker reads these verses and then directly says, “This is what God says about modern LGBTQ Canadians,” critics could argue that this is not just moral disagreement but group vilification. Without the religious-text defence, the fact that it’s coming from Leviticus may carry less legal weight than how it is heard by those who feel targeted.
Romans 1:26–27
In Romans 1, Paul describes humanity’s fall into idolatry and distorted desires. Verses 26–27 say:
“…women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature,
likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman…”
He then describes men “burning in their lust for one another” and receiving “in themselves the penalty of their error.”
The context is universal: Paul is not singling out one ethnic group but describing humanity’s brokenness apart from God. The passage is theological, not a policy paper.
Why controversial?
When this text is publicly quoted and then directly applied to LGBTQ people as a group, critics may claim it “vilifies” them. A court, evaluating the effect rather than the intent and with no automatic religious-text defence, might consider whether such speech crosses the line into “detestation” or “vilification.”
1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10
In 1 Corinthians 6:9 – 10, Paul lists various categories of sinners:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers…”
He continues with terms that some translations link to same-sex acts; then, crucially, he says:
“And such were some of you. But you were washed…”
In 1 Timothy 1:9 - 10, he lists behaviours that are “contrary to sound doctrine.”
Why controversial?
Again, if these are preached as “this is what Scripture says about all of us, and Christ can transform any life”, it remains clearly theological.
But if they’re wielded in a way that sounds like, “These people are inherently wicked, disgusting, dangerous, and do not belong in society”, the line between moral teaching and hate propaganda may look thinner in the eyes of a prosecutor.
Category Two: Divine Judgment on Nations and Peoples
The Bible contains some powerful language about God’s judgment on ancient nations. Most Christians understand these as historical and theological, not as modern policy instructions. But ripped from context, they can sound like endorsements of violence against certain groups.
4.1. Deuteronomy and the Canaanites
For example, Deuteronomy 7:1 – 5 speaks of driving out the Canaanite nations and not making covenants with them. 1 Samuel 15:3 commands Saul to “utterly destroy” Amalek.
In biblical theology, these were unique, unrepeatable commands tied to a specific moment in salvation history, not blueprints for modern holy war.
Why controversial?
If someone stands up in Canada today and says, in effect:
“This modern group—immigrants, Muslims, LGBT people, or any other identifiable group—is like the Canaanites. God told Israel to wipe them out; therefore we should do something similar…”
That’s not just theology; that’s incitement. Under Bill C-9, without a religious-text defence, prosecutors would likely argue this is advocating violence against a protected group, and rightly so.
Imprecatory Psalms and Harsh Language
Consider Psalm 137—a lament of exiles in Babylon. It ends with shocking lines about vengeance on Babylon’s children. Christians have wrestled for centuries with how to read such texts: as raw human anguish laid before God, not as a manual for revenge.
If a Christian teacher uses these Psalms to say:
“This is how oppressed people sometimes feel, and they bring those feelings honestly to God,”
That’s one thing. If they apply them directly as, “This is how we should feel about [insert modern group],” that’s something entirely different.
Revelation and Final Judgment
The book of Revelation includes powerful images of final judgment, the destruction of “Babylon,” and the casting of unbelievers into the “lake of fire.”
Used pastorally, this is about God’s ultimate justice—not a call to human vigilantism. Used politically, it can be twisted into hostile rhetoric aimed at specific, identifiable groups.
Category Three: Harsh Polemics Against Religious Opponents
Jesus and the apostles sometimes use extremely strong language against religious hypocrisy and false teaching.
Jesus and the Pharisees (Matthew 23)
In Matthew 23, Jesus calls certain scribes and Pharisees:
“hypocrites,”
“blind guides,”
“serpents,”
“brood of vipers.”
He is speaking to specific religious leaders within a particular moment—people who claimed to represent God yet resisted Him and burdened others.
Why is it controversial today?
If a preacher applies that language carefully—“This warns us all against religious hypocrisy”—that’s internal critique.
If someone takes those words and applies them wholesale to all modern Jews, or any other identifiable group, that starts to look like group vilification.
“Cretans are always liars…” (Titus 1:12–13)
Paul quotes a proverb about Cretans:
“Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
He cites a stereotype from their own culture, then says, “This testimony is true,” before urging Titus to rebuke people sharply.
In context, this is about a specific community and false teachers. Used carelessly, it could sound like a license to smear an entire nationality or ethnicity.
Category Four: Gender Roles and Authority
Another hot-button area is the set of passages on men, women, and their roles in home and church.
Genesis 3:16 and the Fall
After the Fall, God tells Eve that her husband “shall rule over you.” This is descriptive of the brokenness introduced by sin, not a command for men to dominate women.
1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2
1 Corinthians 14:34 – 35 speaks of women keeping silent in the churches in that context.
1 Timothy 2:12 says:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man…”
Christians differ over how these passages apply today (complementarian vs. egalitarian debates), but they’re part of the canon.
Ephesians 5 and Mutual Submission
Ephesians 5 famously instructs:
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…”
But it also says right before that:
“Submitting to one another in the fear of God.”
And then commands husbands to love their wives “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her”—a sacrificial, self-emptying love.
Why is it controversial under Bill C-9?
If these passages are taught as, “Men and women have different roles, and husbands carry a particular responsibility,” that’s one thing.
But if they are framed as:
“Women are inherently inferior, less valuable, or less human; therefore their rights should be restricted in law,”
A critic could argue that this crosses into discrimination or even hate against women as a group. Again, without the religious-text defence, a court may be more inclined to look at the impact on women and minorities rather than the internal coherence of Christian theology.
Category Five: Idolatry, Other Religions, and Spiritual Exclusivity
The Bible is not religiously pluralist in the modern, everything-is-equally-true sense. It is radically exclusive about God.
Old Testament Idolatry Language
The Ten Commandments forbid other gods and idols. Israel is repeatedly told to tear down altars and high places dedicated to false gods. The language is strong because Scripture sees idolatry as soul-destroying.
New Testament Exclusivity of Christ
Jesus says:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”
The apostles proclaim that there is “no other name under heaven” by which we must be saved.
Why controversial?
If a Christian says:
“I believe Jesus is the only way to God,”
That is an introductory doctrinal statement. Under Charter rights, Canadians currently have strong protection for that kind of belief and expression. Wikipedia
But if a Christian says:
“Because Jesus is the only way, people of X religion are filthy, subhuman, or should be expelled from society,”
That’s not just exclusivist theology; that’s potentially hate propaganda.
The concern many religious groups (Christian and otherwise) have raised about Bill C-9 is that, once the religious-text defence is removed, more and more ordinary doctrinal statements could be accused of being hateful—even if they fall far short of true “detestation” or calls to violence. Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops+1
Category Six: “Who Will Not Inherit the Kingdom” and Lists of Vices
The New Testament contains several “vice lists”—catalogues of behaviours inconsistent with life in Christ.
Galatians 5:19–21 and Works of the Flesh
Paul lists the “works of the flesh”:
“adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry…”
He says that those who practice such things “will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Revelation 21:8 and the Lake of Fire
In Revelation 21:8, we read about the “cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral…” and others whose part is “in the lake which burns with fire.”
These texts are about eternal judgment and the seriousness of sin—all sin, not just the trendy ones.
Why controversial?
If they’re preached as:
“Every one of us has sin on this list. The question is what we do with Christ’s offer of grace,”
That is classic Christian preaching.
If they’re weaponized to say:
“That group over there is nothing but abominable, disgusting sinners who deserve hell,”
It sounds less like good news and more like group condemnation.
So What Do We Do With All This? (As Christians and as Canadians)
At this point, some people will feel two opposite temptations:
Panic: “The government is banning the Bible!”
Denial: “Nothing to see here, it’s all fine, just trust the process.”
I don’t think either response is wise.
The Bible is not being banned. But something real is happening: a legal safeguard specifically designed to protect good-faith religious expression—Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, and more—is being targeted for removal. Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops+1
That should matter to anyone who believes in pluralism and freedom of conscience.
For Christians: Don’t Stop Teaching Scripture—But Be Wise
We are commanded to preach “the whole counsel of God,” not just the bits that play well on TikTok. That includes grace and judgment, mercy and repentance, creation and final accountability.
But we are also called to:
Speak truth in love
Let our speech be “seasoned with salt”
Be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves”
In practical terms, that looks like:
Context, context, context.
Don’t just lob verses like grenades. Explain where they sit in the story of redemption, how they point to Christ, and how they apply first to the church before they’re ever turned outward as accusations.Avoid dehumanizing language.
Never speak about people—any people—as less than made in the image of God. The Bible condemns behaviours and idolatry, but it also says “Christ died for the ungodly.”Be explicit against violence and hatred.
When preaching challenging passages, be clear:
“We do not seek violence or coercion against anyone. We preach Christ crucified and risen, and we appeal to consciences, not weapons.”
Apply Scripture to everyone, not just “those people.”
When you preach Romans 1 or 1 Corinthians 6, make sure your congregation hears, “I am on this list. You are on this list. We all come to the cross as sinners in need of grace.”Be careful with modern analogies.
Don’t casually label whole groups as “Canaanites,” “Amalekites,” or “Babylon.” That’s poetically satisfying but politically and legally dangerous—and usually theologically sloppy.
For Canadians in General: You Don’t Have to Agree With a Religion to Defend Its Freedom
You don’t have to be a Christian to see the problem with the state deciding which interpretations of Scripture are acceptable.
Muslim groups, Jewish organizations, Christian churches, and civil-liberty advocates have all raised concerns that removing the religious-text defence will chill legitimate religious teaching and invite selective or politicized enforcement. Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops+2Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council+2
Today, it might be a conservative Christian pastor under the microscope.
Tomorrow it could be a Muslim Imam, a Sikh community leader, a Jewish rabbi, or even a secular speaker quoting a controversial philosopher.
Free expression and freedom of religion are not just abstract ideals in a Charter document—they are the basic rules of peaceful disagreement in a pluralistic democracy. Wikipedia
A Way Forward: Courage, Clarity, and Charity
So, where does this leave us?
We should be honest about the risk.
Specific biblical passages—particularly those dealing with sexual ethics, idolatry, judgment, and gender—will be more vulnerable to misinterpretation under Bill C-9 if the religious-text defence is removed.We should refuse both self-censorship and reckless provocation.
Self-censorship says, “I’ll just never mention those parts of the Bible again.”
Reckless provocation says, “I’m going to yell at them in the most inflammatory way possible.”
Neither honours Christ.We should double down on sound theology and good communication.
The more clearly we understand the gospel, the better we can explain how all have sinned, all are called to repentance, and all are offered mercy.We should engage the political process.
Write to MPs—respectfully.
Support organizations (Christian or otherwise) that defend civil liberties.
Advocate not just for “our side,” but for a Canada where Jews, Muslims, atheists, Sikhs, Hindus, and Christians all have space to speak their deepest convictions without fear of criminalization.
We should remember who we ultimately answer to.
Bill C-9 may pass or fail. Legal climates may warm or freeze. But the church’s call has not changed in two thousand years:Preach Christ
Love your neighbour
Live faithfully
Expect misunderstanding
Refuse hatred
Conclusion: The Bible Is Not Hate Speech—But It Is Dangerous
The Bible is not hate speech.
It is a dangerous book in a different sense: it confronts every human being—rich and poor, straight and gay, conservative and progressive, religious and secular—with the claim that:
We are sinners
Christ is Lord
We do not get to define good and evil on our own terms
That message has always clashed with the spirit of the age, whatever age we’re in.
Bill C-9 will not change the gospel. But it may change how costly it is to speak that gospel out loud in Canada, where specific texts can be framed as “hate” if removed from their context, weaponized, or misunderstood in a courtroom with no explicit religious-text defence.
My hope in writing this is simple:
To give Christians clarity about which passages are likely to trigger controversy
To give non-religious Canadians a better understanding of why people of faith are concerned
And to encourage all of us to defend a public square where Scripture can still be read, debated, preached, and wrestled with—not in whispers, but in the clear light of day.
Because the alternative is not a kinder, safer Canada.
It is a Canada where the state slowly assumes the right to decide which parts of our deepest convictions are allowed to be spoken—and which must be kept silent.
That should concern all of us.