The upper house of the Canadian parliament on Thursday adopted the Combatting Hate Act, by a vote of 45-13. The Senate adopted a last-minute amendment to outlaw the display of a noose.
The act outlaws the “wilful promotion of hatred” such as display of the Nazi hakenkreuz and symbols of listed terrorist entities, among other hate symbols that “so nearly resemble” them. The act also creates two new intimidation and obstruction offenses, banning all activities that impede or obstruct access to religious and cultural institutions. It defines intimidation as any conduct “with the intent to provoke a state of fear.”
When adopting the bill, Senators Kristopher Wells and Wanda Thomas Bernard emphasized the importance of the bill as the country has witnesseed an increase by 169 percent in hate crimes between 2018 and 2024. Bernard added that the last=minute amendment is important to Black people in Canada, as the noose is a commonly used symbol of white supremacy with the intent to intimidate the Black community.
Conservative Senator Yonah Martin, who voted against the bill, argued that removing the statutory defense risks criminalizing good-faith religious practice. She maintained that the clarification provision fails to distinguish wilful promotion of hatred and good-faith expressions. Josh Dehaas, Canadian Constitutional Foundation’s Interim Litigation Director, suggested that citing the Bible passage Leviticus 20:13–one that views homosexual relations as an abomination–may lead to criminal charges in certain contexts. However, he opined that the citation alone is unlikely to constitute an offense. Government representative Pierre Moreau and the federal Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, have both reaffirmed that ordinary religious practices can never constitute a hate crime and thus require no such statutory defense.
In 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada approved the “wilful promotion of hatred” offense. The majority found that the prosecution must satisfy a stringent mental threshold to prove wilfulness and that hatred covers only “the most severe and deeply felt form of opprobrium.”
When the government first tabled the bill, civil liberties groups warned that the new obstruction and intimidation offenses are overly broad. They can undesirably impact marginalized communities through disproportionate surveillance and racial profiling practices. A joint letter in October 2025 suggested that the bill may unintentionally ban members of an identifiable group from protesting outside of their own institutions. Parliament has adopted Conservative lawmaker Roman Baber’s amendment to require provincial approval before prosecution to mitigate the risk.
The finalized version does not criminalize residential school denialism. The Anishinabek Nation said on Thursday that the First Nations have provided their support even though the government has not undertaken consultations with them concerning the bill. The British Columbia Assembly of First Nations and the Chiefs of Ontario similarly condemned the rejection of a denialism provision. Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, added:
It’s time for legislation that criminalizes hate speech and denial of the Indian Residential Schools. This work is more important and urgent than ever, as we sadly lose more survivors and others who bore witness to the horrific reality of the Indian Residential Schools. Truth is essential for reconciliation.
The House of Commons will now deliberate on the Senate’s amendment before the bill comes into effect.
Kenya dispatch: High Court suspends US-backed Ebola quarantine facility
Perú dispatch: second round of presidential election voting set for June 7
Beyond Sovereignty: The Legal and Moral Case for Treating Hormuz as a Global Trust
‘This is Canada’s moment’ — Former Canadian justice minister, UN prosecutor call on Ottawa to lead on Ukraine war crimes accountability
The Legal Architecture of Reparations: A Conversation with Kwesi Pratt Jnr.
Beaten, Starved, Unbroken: An Interview with Ben Marmarelli, Lawyer to Marwan Barghouti, Palestine’s Nelson Mandela
Gandhi commits his first act of civil disobedience
On June 7, 1893, Mohandas Gandhi committed his first act of civil disobedience in South Africa. Because he was an Indian, Gandhi was ordered to move to the third class section of a train, despite holding a first-class ticket. When he refused, Gandhi was thrown off of the train. Gandhi would go on to organize efforts by Indians living in South Africa to oppose racial discrimination thereby founding the Natal Indian Congress. He would then return to his native India to lead its drive for independence from Great Britain. Learn more about the Natal Indian Congress from the South African History Archive.
US Supreme Court ruled contraceptive use protected by privacy right
On June 7, 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the US Supreme Court held that the use of contraceptives was protected by the constitutional right of privacy.
Learn more about the impact of this case from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Leave a Reply