A Globe and Mail story reports that the Bloc Québécois and special interest groups want to amend Bill 63 (Online Harms Act) “to stop religion from being used as a defence for hate speech.” In a similar vein, Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet has introduced private member’s Bill C-367, to repeal one of the defences available to an accused person when criminally charged with promoting hatred or anti-Semitism.
Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code prohibits communicating statements in any public place that incite hatred against any identifiable group, “where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.” Section 319(2) prohibits communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against any identifiable group. The term identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
In the R. v. Keegstra ruling in 1990, Chief Justice Dickson, along with Justices Wilson, L’Heureux‑Dubé, and Gonthier, upheld Section 319 as a valid and reasonable restriction on charter-protected freedom of expression. In a narrow 4:3 ruling, dissenting Justices La Forest, Sopinka, and McLachlin would have struck down Section 319 as a violation of free expression that was not “demonstrably justified” in a free and democratic society.