Samer Majzoub*

Canada is facing a troubling rise in hate-motivated incidents. Mosques, synagogues, churches and community centres have been vandalized, threatened and attacked. No democratic society can accept intimidation intended to silence people or deny them the right to worship, gather or belong.
That reality explains why the federal government introduced Bill C-9, proposing amendments to the Criminal Code to combat hate-motivated conduct and protect access to religious and cultural spaces. The objective is necessary. The execution, however, requires far greater precision if the bill is to enhance public safety without weakening the constitutional and civic freedoms that define Canada.
Bill C-9 creates new offences for intimidation and obstruction near certain places, establishes a stand-alone hate crime offence when an underlying act is motivated by hatred against an identifiable group, and criminalizes the public display of what may be considered hate or terrorist symbols.
The most serious concern involves freedom of expression, a core Canadian value. Criminalizing the display of symbols, however abhorrent, raises unavoidable questions in a democratic society. Symbols are inherently contextual; they may appear in journalism, education, art, research or political critique. Without narrow drafting and a clear requirement to prove intent to intimidate or promote violence, such provisions risk suppressing lawful expression while doing little to stop genuine threats.
Enforcement presents an equally serious challenge. While the bill relies on established legal standards, its real-world impact will depend heavily on police discretion and prosecutorial judgment. Laws that promise protection but result in heightened surveillance risk eroding trust and undermining their own purpose.
The intimidation and obstruction provisions also demand restraint. Protecting access to places of worship is essential. But when these protections are extended broadly to cultural and public institutions, the line between intimidation and peaceful protest must remain unmistakable. Demonstrations, labour actions and political or international solidarity protests near institutions are not democratic failures; they are democratic expressions that must be carefully distinguished from genuine threats.
None of this argues for abandoning legislation to combat hate. It argues for strengthening it, so it can succeed and help foster unity for our country which is facing critical challenges at home and abroad.
As Parliament moves forward, several changes would seem essential to safeguard constitutional and civic rights. Among them:
The symbol offence must be narrowly defined, with explicit exemptions for journalism, education, art, research and political critique, along with a clear requirement to prove intent to intimidate or incite violence.
Stronger transparency and independent oversight are needed, including public reporting on hate-related charges and mechanisms to detect disproportionate impacts on specific communities.
A mandatory parliamentary review after a defined period would ensure the law is assessed on evidence, not intentions.
Protecting communities from hate and protecting fundamental freedoms are not competing objectives; they are mutually reinforcing. People are safest when they can worship freely, speak openly, protest peacefully and trust that the law is applied fairly.
Bill C-9 can help address genuine hate. But unless it is drafted with discipline and enforced with accountability, it risks expanding state power in ways that weaken democratic trust. Canada does not defend pluralism by trading liberty for security. It defends it by insisting on both.

* published in the Montreal Gazette
**Samer Majzoub is co-founder and president of the Canadian Muslim Forum, a Montreal-based national organization dedicated to promoting inclusion, dialogue, civic engagement and active citizenship.