The dangerous fantasy of “Approved Speech”

Every time a government tells you, “Relax, we’re only banning hate speech,” you should check your pockets and your freedoms, because both are about to go missing. Bill C-9 is the newest attempt in Canada’s long love affair with soft authoritarianism, and has its sights set squarely on the religious exemption that has (until now) kept pastors, rabbis, imams, and everyday believers from being dragged into court for quoting their own scriptures. Parliamentarians are adamant that it’s necessary, I say it’s extremely dangerous. Anyone who has even a passing interest in freedom, whether it’s religious, or otherwise, should be deeply alarmed.

Here’s the truth: one man’s hate speech is another man’s muzzle. The moment the government gets to define the emotional impact of your words, your freedom is no longer a right, but a permission slip. Permission slips are the dream of technocrats. This smacks of Orwellian style thoughtcrimes and wrong think enforced by the thought police (see 1984).

We’ve been here before, and history books are overflowing with regimes that marched into the public square waving the banner of “protecting citizens from harmful ideas” while quietly sharpening the blade. Stalin’s USSR criminalized “anti-Soviet agitation,” which mostly meant disagreeing with the government out loud. East Germany had “hostile propaganda” laws that swallowed poets, pastors, musicians, and teenagers who shared the wrong joke and eventually employed 1 in 6 citizens as snitches for the state. Mao’s China imprisoned people for “counterrevolutionary speech,” a definition so elastic it snapped around anyone who raised an eyebrow at the Party.

“I’m not religious, so this won’t affect me.”

What makes this version especially sinister is how openly biased it is. Let’s not pretend the current political climate is neutral. Anti-Christian sentiment in Canada’s political class is about as subtle as a marching band. The Bloc Québécois, under Yves-François Blanchet, has practically made hostility toward public expressions of Christianity a party plank. You can express almost anything in this country except a traditional Christian view; that makes you a target. Meanwhile, other religious and ideological groups are handled with museum-glove delicacy. Its selective outrage mixed with selective enforcement, the hallmark of every regime that wants to reshape society without admitting it.

For the Canadians who say, “I’m not religious, so this won’t affect me,” I have bad news: the UK already tried that comforting delusion, and it aged like milk in the sun.

Britain has been arresting people for “malicious communications” and “hate incidents” over social media posts; tens of thousands of charges have been filed. Police have raided homes, confiscated electronics, and interrogated people over memes. The case of Enoch Burke, the Irish teacher who refused to violate his religious beliefs and was jailed for it, is a flashing warning sign. When the state decides your conscience is an inconvenience, it doesn’t matter whether that conscience comes from scripture, culture, or common sense. The outcome is the same: your door can be kicked in for something you typed.

What Bill C-9 does is expand the government’s ability to decide which ideas are socially acceptable. The moment religious exemption disappears, every sermon, every pastoral conversation, every posted Bible verse is fair game for reinterpretation by a bureaucrat who doesn’t know the difference between Leviticus and a Sparks Street lunch menu. Once religious speech is criminalized, other convictions such as political, philosophical, scientific, won’t be far behind. Free speech is a single ecosystem; you poison one corner and the whole thing dies.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The point here is about protecting the oxygen of a free society: the right to speak what you believe, without asking anyone’s permission. The classic line often attributed to Voltaire (written by his biographer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall) captures it perfectly: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This is not just a slogan; it is the very foundation of a free society.

Once we accept the idea that certain viewpoints can be banned for being “offensive,” you’ve accepted the idea that your own viewpoint can be banned when the political winds shift. Today it’s Christians. Tomorrow it’s parents who speak up at school board meetings. Next week it’s anyone questioning government policy. That’s how this game is always played.

Bill C-9 is not about safety, it’s about control. If we don’t push back now, we might be telling our grandchildren about the days when you could still speak freely in this country, before Parliament decided it knew better and by then, we won’t be arguing about hate speech.

We’ll be whispering about why we ever let our freedoms go, singing hymns quietly in darkened living rooms, and reading the Bible in hushed tones for fear of the neighbouring snitches. You might have agreed with me, but now you think I am exaggerating, right? That’s exactly how my wife grew up in the former USSR in the late 80s. They escaped communism in 1989 so they could worship freely and share their thoughts. When my relatives faced the roving bands of Nestor Makhno and escaped his clutches, they didn’t arrive in Canada to be told how to pray.

God keep our land glorious and free.