Combatting Hate Act

Summary#

This bill changes Canada’s Criminal Code to respond to hate propaganda and hate‑motivated crimes. It removes a consent step that slowed down prosecutions, bans public display of certain hate symbols, creates a new “hate crime” offence when any crime is driven by hate, and protects access to religious and community spaces.

• Lets police and prosecutors bring hate propaganda charges without needing approval from the Attorney General.
• Makes it a crime to publicly display Nazi symbols or symbols tied to listed terrorist groups, with narrow exceptions for journalism, education, religion, or art.
• Creates a new hate‑crime offence when any underlying crime is motivated by hatred based on race, religion, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, language, or national/ethnic origin, with higher maximum penalties (up to life for the most serious crimes).
• Creates crimes for intimidating people to stop them from entering places used mainly for worship or by identifiable groups (including schools, daycares, seniors’ residences, cultural/sports venues) and cemeteries, and for intentionally blocking access.
• Clarifies that “hatred” means strong detestation or vilification, and that speech is not hate just because it offends or humiliates.
• Allows forfeiture of items used to commit hate propaganda crimes and updates related rules on bail, wiretaps, and DNA orders. Repeals older mischief provisions tied to religious property.

What it means for you#

• General public

  • Publicly showing Nazi or certain terrorist group symbols could lead to criminal charges. Museums, news outlets, teachers, artists, and religious uses can be protected if done for a legitimate purpose and not against the public interest.
  • Hate‑motivated crimes (like assault, threats, vandalism, or fraud) can be charged as a distinct hate‑crime offence with tougher maximum penalties.

• People attending religious, cultural, educational, or seniors’ places

  • There are new protections against intimidation meant to scare you away from entering these places.
  • It is also a crime for someone to intentionally block or interfere with your lawful access to these sites.

• Protesters and advocates

  • Peaceful presence to obtain or share information near a worship site, cultural centre, school, daycare, seniors’ home, or cemetery is not, by itself, a crime.
  • Intimidating people to stop them from entering, or intentionally blocking doors or pathways, could lead to serious charges.

• Journalists, educators, artists, museums, and faith leaders

  • Showing banned symbols for clear journalistic, educational, artistic, or religious reasons can be a defence. The purpose must be legitimate and not contrary to the public interest.

• Victims and communities targeted by hate

  • Police can lay charges more directly. Courts have clearer tools and higher maximum penalties when hate is proven.

• Law enforcement and courts

  • No Attorney General consent is needed to start hate propaganda cases.
  • The new intimidation offence can qualify for wiretap orders and DNA orders in some cases.
  • If the hate motive is not proven, courts can still convict on the underlying crime.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• Speeds up and strengthens enforcement against hate by removing the extra consent step and adding clear new offences.
• Sends a clear message by banning Nazi and terrorist symbols in public while protecting legitimate journalism, education, religion, and art.
• Improves safety around places where people worship, learn, gather, and mourn by targeting intimidation and blocked access.
• Provides a uniform hate‑crime offence with penalties that match the seriousness of the underlying crime, up to life for the worst cases.
• Clarifies what “hatred” means and protects expression that is merely offensive, helping align with free‑expression rights.

Opponents' View#

• Risk to free expression if the line between offensive speech and criminal hate is not applied consistently, despite the clarifications.
• Concerns about what counts as a symbol “principally associated” with a listed entity and the chance of mistakes or overreach.
• Fear that protests near religious or cultural sites could be chilled, and that police discretion could lead to uneven enforcement.
• Question whether a new hate‑crime offence is needed, since judges can already impose tougher sentences when hate is a motive.
• Worry about more charges, longer sentences, and higher justice system costs without clear evidence it will reduce hate incidents.