Canada Is One Vote Away From Criminalizing Biblical Speech

The Moment

On March 25, 2026, Canada's House of Commons passed Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, by a vote of 186-137.

The bill is now before the Canadian Senate, where it is expected to pass. If it becomes law, it will permanently remove from Canada's Criminal Code the protection that has shielded religious speech from hate speech prosecution for decades — the right to express, in good faith, an opinion based on a religious text.

The Senate begins its study of Bill C-9 on April 14. That is four days from now.

The Story

The protection Bill C-9 removes is Section 319(3)(b) of Canada's Criminal Code. It states that no person can be convicted of hate speech if they "expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text." That protection has been in Canadian law for decades. It is not a loophole. It is the legal recognition that sincere religious expression — including expression the culture finds uncomfortable — deserves protection.

The Liberal Party secured the votes to pass Bill C-9 by accepting a Bloc Québécois amendment that removed that defense. During House justice committee hearings, Liberal MP Marc Miller — Canada's Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture — made the government's reasoning explicit. He cited passages from Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Romans as examples of religious text that he believed should not receive the good faith defense.

"In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals," Miller said. "I don't understand how the concept of good faith could be invoked if someone were literally invoking a passage from, in this case, the Bible."

In other words: the defense was removed specifically because it protected the expression of what those passages say.

Bill C-9 also removes the requirement that Canada's Attorney General approve hate propaganda charges before they proceed, lowering the threshold for prosecution significantly. The Democracy Fund warned that the combined effect "dramatically increases the risk that churches, pastors, and religious individuals will face criminal charges for publicly expressing sincerely held religious views." The Canadian Civil Liberties Association — not a religious organization — also opposed the bill, warning it "could criminalize peaceful protest and silence unpopular expression."

What It Reveals

The pattern is now documented across three jurisdictions.

In Finland: a Supreme Court conviction under a "War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity" statute for a church pamphlet citing Romans 1. The pamphlet ordered destroyed and removed from the internet across the EU.

In the NBA: a contract terminated the same afternoon a player cited Romans 1 on Instagram. No law required. No court. An afternoon.

In Canada: a House of Commons vote that specifically names Romans 1 as the kind of text the good faith defense should not protect — and removes that defense from criminal law. Now heading to the Senate.

These are not isolated incidents. They are the same mechanism operating at different speeds in different institutions. The common thread is the specific recognition that certain passages of Scripture say something about sexuality that the prevailing cultural consensus has decided is not permissible to say.

The Finnish prosecutor said it plainly: citing the Bible is permitted, but the interpretation is criminal. Canada's Marc Miller said the same thing in the committee hearing: quoting Scripture is the problem, not a defense against the charge.

The Frame

Jesus told his disciples before his ascension: "You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:8)

Jerusalem first — the hardest room, the most costly, the place where it costs something to speak. Then further. Then further still. The witness does not begin somewhere safe and distant. It begins exactly where you are, in exactly the circumstances you are in.

What is happening in Finland, Canada, and the NBA is not the end of the witness. It is the cost of starting in Jerusalem. The mechanism that removes the legal protection for saying what Romans 1 says is the same mechanism the disciples faced in the first century when the institution required silence. They did not comply then. The question for a believer in 2026 is whether the pattern has changed the answer.

It has not. The text is still the text. The witness is still the witness. The cost has simply become more visible and more precisely documented than it was before.

What It Asks

The Canadian Senate begins studying Bill C-9 on April 14. The Senate can still amend the bill — including restoring the religious speech defense the House stripped out. Conservatives, the NDP, and even some civil liberties groups opposed the removal. There is a real possibility the Senate acts. But the trajectory is clear.

A formed believer does not respond to this with panic or outrage. They respond with clarity. A government minister named Romans 1 in a committee hearing as the kind of text the law should not protect. That is not a hypothetical threat. It is a documented legislative position, one border away, moving toward a final vote.

Know what is happening. Watch the Senate. And remember that the witness does not stop because the institution makes it costly. It never has.