Tories Say New Hate Crime Bill Risks UK-Style Speech Policing; Liberals Disagree

​​News Analysis

Will Canadian internet users be more likely to receive a visit from the police for something edgy they posted online if Ottawa’s new hate crime bill becomes law, similar to what is happening in the UK?

Conservative MPs raised that question in recent days after Justice Minister Sean Fraser introduced Bill C-9, also known as the Combatting Hate Act, in September.

Some of the MPs have voiced concern that Canada could become like the United Kingdom when it comes to freedom of expression, where tens of thousands of people have been arrested in recent years for content they posted online. The British government in August 2024 said that in recent cases of violence against immigrants, those “whipping up this action online” are engaging in “violent thuggery” just as those doing the actions directly, and will be dealt with by “the full force of the law.”

While Bill C-9 is not directly focused on online content, there are aspects of the bill that could presumably lead to more Canadians being charged for the content they post on the internet. Those include removing the requirement for the attorney general to consent before laying hate-related charges, and creating an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying “certain symbols” in a public place. The bill also creates a new definition of “hatred,” which the government says will allow for more consistent application of the law, while critics say it creates the potential to lower the threshold established by jurisprudence.

Fraser testified before the House of Commons justice committee on Oct. 9, where he confirmed the bill would apply to the online space. He was asked directly by Tory MP Roman Baber whether Bill C-9 could lead to a similar situation as in the UK, with police knocking on doors over social media posts.

“Absolutely not, and I think the suggestion is patently far-fetched on the face of it,” replied Fraser. The minister added shortly after that people already “could be convicted for willfully promoting hate online today.”

But Tory MPs remain skeptical.

“We do not need to look far to see what happens when the threshold for hate is lowered. In the United Kingdom, police are not even rarely knocking on doors and arresting people over mean tweets,” Tory MP Andrew Lawton said during debates on Bill C-9 earlier on Oct. 1. Lawton said he sees the same impulses in C-9 to criminalize hate “based on the grounds that words are violence.”

In the face of opposition concerns and ministerial assurances, here’s a look at how the UK has cracked down on online content through various pieces of legislation, and what Ottawa’s Bill C-9 contains.

UK Legislation

The UK has seen much of its arrests for online speech in recent years happen under three pieces of legislation. The Public Order Act 1986 created a number of new public offences that included “stirring up of racial hatred.” The Malicious Communications Act 1988 made it illegal to send an electronic message containing “indecent or grossly offensive” content with the intent to “cause distress or anxiety.” The Communications Act 2003 made it a criminal offence to send offensive or menacing communications using electronic media.

While these pieces of legislation were all passed over two decades ago, their enforcement has risen in recent years. According to an analysis published by the House of Lords Library in the UK Parliament in July, police officers made over 12,000 arrests for offences under the Communications Act and Malicious Communications Act in 2023, which was a 58 percent increase from the 7,734 arrests made in 2019.

Riot police seen during anti-immigration demonstrations in Ballymena, Northern Ireland, on June 11, 2025. The UK increased crackdown on online posts in recent years during the anti-immigration protests and counter-protests and other demonstrations featuring vandalism violence. Paul Faith/AFP via Getty Images

However, the number of convictions and sentences for the offences had fallen over the time period from 2010 to 2023, suggesting that many of the arrests did not result in prosecution.

The UK laws regulating online content received international attention in 2024 when 42-year-old Northampton woman Lucy Connolly was charged under the Public Order Act. She pleaded guilty to posting on X material that was deemed “threatening, abusive or insulting with the intent thereby to stir up racial hatred,” according to the charge.

Connolly had called for people to “set fire” to hotels housing asylum seekers after three young girls were stabbed to death in Southport in July 2024 by a teenager whose parents immigrated to the UK from Rwanda. Connolly deleted the post a few hours later, but by then it had gone viral. Connolly was later sentenced to 31 months in prison, but only served around 40 percent of the time before being released in August this year, at the automatic release point of her sentence.

In other prominent cases, retired Premier League soccer player Joey Barton was also charged in 2024 under the Malicious  Communications  Act for his online comments about TV personalities Jeremy Vine, Eni Aluko, and Lucy Ward.

He is accused of allegedly sending a series of “offensive” posts on social media after repeatedly referring to Vine as a “nonce” and compared Ward and Aluko to serial killers and dictators, in suggesting their commentary was so poor it was lethal to audiences. If convicted, Barton could face a maximum penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment.

In another case from 2022, Army veteran Darren Brady allegedly retweeted a post that showed Progress Pride flags arranged in the shape of a swastika, and was arrested for an alleged offence under the Communications Act. “Someone has been caused obviously anxiety based upon your social media post. This’s why you’ve been arrested,” police told him, in a video of the arrest posted online.

Brady was later released by police and no further action was taken. This led to a police and crime commissioner (PCC) criticizing her own force for sending officers to investigate Brady, saying she was concerned over the “proportionality and necessity” of the police response.

“When incidents on social media receive not one but two visits from police officers, but burglaries and non-domestic break-ins don’t always get a police response, something is wrong,” said PCC Donna Jones at the time.

C-9 and Online Speech

Minister Fraser has said his bill is “not identical in kind” to the laws that have been adopted in the UK, and he noted the government has studied the British experience. He said there have been “real challenges with how it’s played out.”

The minister said his government has chosen a different path, noting how other unspecified jurisdictions even target the “liking” of a Facebook post.

A person uses a cellphone in Ottawa in this file photo. The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick

The Liberal government’s Bill C-9 deals with the public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred against identifiable groups. The bill would make it a crime to intimidate or intentionally obstruct people from physically attending places of worship, schools, and community centres.

The other parts of the legislation, however, could apply to online content posted by Canadians. The bill would also make it a crime to wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by publicly displaying certain terrorism or hate symbols, such as Nazi, Hamas, or Hezbollah flags.

While the Criminal Code currently requires the consent of the attorney general before someone can be charged with a hate crime, Bill C-9 would remove this requirement.

The bill would also add a definition of “hatred” to Section 319(7) of the Criminal Code, describing it as an “emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.”

This is similar to what the Supreme Court has used to define hatred, but Tories have noted it omits the word “extreme” from the current definition.

The Supreme Court has described hatred as an “emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation.”

Tory MP Lawton said that the removal of the word “extreme” from the definition means that the government is lowering the threshold of what constitutes hate and simultaneously “lowering the threshold of what can be regarded as free expression in this country.”

Lawton also noted in his speech in the House of Commons on Oct. 1 that displaying a hate symbol, as well as intimidation and obstruction at places of worship, are already covered under existing laws in the Criminal Code.

Fraser defended not including the word “extreme” in the definition of hatred when he testified at committee. “This was not an attempt to dilute the definition,” he said. “It was an attempt to make good on the spirit of that definition [contained in jurisprudence] and provide clarity to law enforcement.”

The Canadian Constitutional Foundation (CCF) has also raised concerns that Bill C-9 could infringe on freedom of expression in Canada. It said legitimate free speech could be chilled in cases where a symbol resembles another symbol that is outlawed under the provision.

Conservative MP Roman Baber rises during question period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on June 4, 2025. The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld

The CCF said the requirement of the attorney general to give consent to police to charge a person with hate speech is an “important safeguard for freedom of expression.” The group also raised concerns with the bill lowering the threshold for “hatred.”

When introducing the legislation, Fraser said C-9 would strengthen protections so that Canadians of all races, ethnicities, faiths, and sexualities could “feel safe in their communities.” The federal government also noted that police-reported hate crimes increased in 2024 compared to the previous year, with most of these targeting race or ethnicity and religion.

The government said the legislation would respect Canadians’ Charter freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, and it would not “unreasonably” impact the freedom of Canadians to protest or peacefully voice their concerns.

For the online space more specifically, the Liberals have twice attempted to regulate speech on the internet in previous parliaments by introducing online harms legislation, first with Bill C-36 in 2021, and with Bill C-63 in 2024. Both attempts failed after Parliament was dissolved or prorogued.

Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault said in late September that his government will make a third attempt at passing an online harms bill. Bill C-36 and C-63 had been criticized by Tories and civil liberties groups as being attacks on freedom of expression.

Testimonies

Several civil liberties groups and law professors raised concerns about Bill C-9 before the Justice Committee on Oct. 23. Ryan Alford, a law professor at Lakehead University, said the bill would lower the threshold for limiting freedom of expression below what is currently allowed by the Charter.

Alford said the Charter statement tabled in Parliament for Bill C-9 does not contain “any legal analysis of the pertinent issue in it” and could be unconstitutional. He said the new definition of “hatred” would not be in line with previous Supreme Court rulings.

Metropolitan Police officers in London on April 4, 2024.  William Barton/Shutterstock

Alford also noted that in the UK, there are over 30 arrests each day for “offensive” online communications, with many of them being because of online speech that affronts the dignity of individuals but is not detestation or vilification.

“So unless we’re trying to create the kind of regime that exists in the United Kingdom that permits those kinds of arrests, I suggest that we really need to revisit that language of [Section 319(7) of the Criminal Code],” Alford said.

Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said removal of the requirement to seek the attorney general’s consent before prosecuting on hate speech charges would remove a key safeguard that ensures charges are informed and proportionate.

McNicoll also concurred with Alford that the bill lowers the threshold for “hatred” set by the Supreme Court, and that the proposed definition will have to be amended to adopt “word for word” the one set out by the Supreme Court.

Nusaiba Al-Azem, director of legal affairs at the National Council of Canadian Muslims, said she was concerned that Muslim Canadians were not consulted about the contents of the bill. She said the bill “risks blurring the line between fighting hate and legitimate free speech.” She also said criminalization of the promotion of hate symbols could result in someone being arrested and charged for waving a Palestine flag if a police officer believes it to be a terrorist symbol.

Mark Sandler, chair of the Alliance of Canadians Combatting Antisemitism, told the committee that he supports several components of Bill C-9 that enhance the existing criminal law, and said the current arguments that provisions in the bill would violate the Charter “lack merit.” He suggested the bill be amended to better protect the symbology of Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists and also to include creating of an offence of willfully promoting terror activities.

Cary Kogan, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Ottawa and co-founder of the Network of Engaged Canadian Academics, said his group believes academic freedom must be strengthened while at the same time “academic freedom cannot supersede the law.

“Too many Canadian professors and students promote violence and hatred, express support for the ideologies of designated terrorist organizations and demand the exclusion of Zionists,” he said.

Kogan said his group supports the government’s efforts to develop Bill C-9.

Bruce Pardy, a law professor at Queen’s University, said Bill C-9’s omission of the word “extreme” from the definition of hatred would amount to an “infringement of freedom of speech.” Pardy also said the legislation could potentially lead to Canadians being charged with hate crimes for “misgendering” someone, putting freedom of expression at risk.