Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, is another piece of legislation with an Orwellian name that the Canadian political class periodically rolls out. Under current Canadian law, anyone convicted of “the willful promotion of hate” can face imprisonment, but exemptions exist for statements made in “good faith” or based on belief in a religious text. Bill C-9 seeks to eliminate these exemptions and is likely to pass through Parliament. Beyond creating tension between the state and civil liberties groups, the bill exposes deeper fissures that threaten Canada’s already fragile national unity.

This bill did not emerge ex nihilo out of Ottawa’s opaque bureaucracies; it emerged within a clear context, driven by a constituency that actively lobbied for it. In the two years since October 7th, antisemitic violence and intimidation aimed at synagogues and community centers naturally created strong demand among Jewish civil society for new safeguards. So, the Liberal government introduced C-9, and it just as quickly generated blowback. Opposition came from all angles of society: Conservatives, Christian and Muslim groups, and both Right-leaning libertarians and Left-leaning labour organisations, all of whom fear it could stifle protest.

Yet the problem is arguably less about “rights” of individuals or groups in the liberal sense. It’s more about the inability of Canada in its present “post-national” incarnation to articulate a common narrative to transcend sectarian voices that are now lobbying for or against the legislation. It’s then no surprise that zero-sum battles over freedoms and protections, and who is most entitled to them, emerge. Canada has always dealt with such divisions, between English, French, and indigenous, but does it really need to compound historic cleavages with newly imported ones from abroad?

The post-October 7 explosion of ethnic tensions put multicultural Canada under severe strain. It wasn’t just because the enmity between Israel and Palestine supporters reached a fever pitch, but because there was no alternative conception of Canada as a distinct object of civic loyalty that could compete with either side’s emotional pole. Canada itself was treated practically as just an empty space for the ancient rivalries of other parts of the world to play out in. This, in turn, strengthens the arguments of forces, like the separatists in Quebec and elsewhere, who disagree with the very idea of Canada as a legitimate entity.

There is also a particularly Canadian character to the conflict over Bill C-9 that both mirrors and contrasts with the experience of other Western societies. The culture war in the United States often manifests itself loudly through an institutionalized culture of combative discourse. European nations see their own moral battles play out in electoral contests between liberal and populist parties. But, in contrast, the typically passive-aggressive Canadian way now is to lobby the state for ever more legal and symbolic protections.

One rising Tory MP, Jamil Jivani, believes that Canada’s Christians should assert themselves politically through their religion, and the controversy over C-9 will enliven his cause. However, this is likely to create more problems down the line by further fragmenting Canada into a collection of squabbling victimhood groups. The country must be more than the sum of its persecution complexes. Whoever can tell a better and more dignified national story stands a good chance of prevailing in the next era of Canadian politics.

---

Michael Cuenco is a writer on policy and politics. He is Senior Editor at American Affairs.

1TrueCuencoism

---