When Tolerance Becomes Tyranny

A free and democratic society has both the right and the responsibility to protect its citizens from violence, intimidation, and genuine threats. Canada’s recently enacted Combatting Hate Act (Bill C-9) seeks to address legitimate concerns about rising hate crimes and antisemitic violence. Yet in pursuing that worthy objective, Canada risks undermining one of the very liberties that distinguishes free nations from authoritarian regimes (i.e., the fundamental right to speak, believe, and live according to one’s conscience).

The concern is not whether to condemn hateful conduct. It should. The concern is whether government officials possess the wisdom, neutrality, and restraint necessary to determine which beliefs may be publicly expressed and which beliefs may be deemed unlawful. History repeatedly teaches that regimes entrusted with regulating ideas inevitably expand that authority beyond its original purpose.

According to reporting, Bill C-9 broadens Canada’s hate-crime framework, removing longstanding protections related to religious expression. This kind of government initiative often chills religious discourse and exposes individuals to investigation or prosecution for expressing sincerely held biblical convictions on matters of human sexuality and morality. From a Christian worldview, every human being bears inherent dignity because each person is created in the image of God. That truth demands respect for all people, including those with whom we profoundly disagree. Christians should oppose hatred, violence, harassment, and discrimination directed toward any individual. But the Christian understanding of human dignity also requires protection of conscience and religious conviction. The freedom to proclaim biblical truth cannot depend upon whether political leaders or cultural elites approve of that truth.

The deeper issue is not just theological; it is rooted in natural law and the very concept of unalienable rights. Fundamental liberties do not originate with government. They preexist government. They are not granted by the state and therefore cannot rightly be revoked by the state. Governments are instituted to secure those rights, not redefine them. When a nation moves from prohibiting harmful conduct to policing disfavored viewpoints, it crosses a dangerous line. Freedom of expression is most important when the expression is unpopular. Speech requiring no protection is speech that everyone already accepts.

Internationally, democratic nations increasingly struggle to balance public order with free expression. Across Europe and parts of the Western world, governments often expand regulatory authority over speech in the name of combating extremism and protecting what the government contends are vulnerable populations. While these goals may be well intentioned, they often produce a chilling effect that discourages citizens from participating in robust public debate. Once individuals fear legal consequences for expressing moral, religious, or political convictions, self-censorship replaces free discourse.

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes freedom of expression and freedom of religion as foundational liberties. Although Canadian law too often permits certain limits on expression, even those limitations must remain narrowly tailored and carefully restrained. I call on the Canadian government, therefore, to reconsider provisions that weaken safeguards protecting religious expression. Legislators should ensure that laws aimed at combating actual threats, intimidation, and criminal conduct, not peaceful advocacy, theological teaching, or moral disagreement. A society committed to liberty can simultaneously reject real violence and preserve freedom. Indeed, it must. The answer to objectionable ideas is not government censorship but open debate, reasoned persuasion, and the free exchange of competing viewpoints.

The world has long respected Canada as a nation committed to democracy, pluralism, and human rights. It should not abandon those principles now. Genuine tolerance does not require the suppression of deeply held religious convictions. Rather, it requires protecting the liberty of citizens to express those convictions peacefully, even when others disagree. The preservation of unalienable liberty remains the first duty of every free government. Canada should remember that truth before temporary political passions erode freedoms that, once lost, are rarely regained.