Canada CRIMINALIZES The Bible – Outrage Erupts!

Several Bible editions stacked on a bookshelf.

Canada is not banning the Bible, but it is quietly erasing one of the few legal shields that kept quoting it from becoming a potential crime scene.

Story Snapshot

Bill C-9 removes a long‑standing “good faith religious belief” defense from Canada’s hate speech law.
Christian and other faith groups warn this shifts power from pulpits and pews to prosecutors and judges.
Despite viral claims, no one is outlawing Bible ownership or ordinary preaching.
The real battle is who decides when sincere belief becomes criminal “hate.”

How A Technical Amendment Sparked Talk Of A Bible Ban

Claims that Canada will “ban portions of the Bible” grew from a narrow but serious change to Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code, tucked inside Bill C‑9, the “Combatting Hate Act.” That section has long criminalized the willful promotion of hatred, but it also carried a safeguard: if someone expressed an opinion or belief based on a religious text, and did so in good faith, courts could treat that as a defense. Removing that protection does not outlaw any page of Scripture, but it redraws the legal map around how those pages may be quoted in public life.

The amendment did not appear in the government’s original version of Bill C‑9. It arrived late, through a deal between the Bloc Québécois and Liberal MPs on the House of Commons justice committee, then passed in committee on December 9, 2025. The Prime Minister’s Office reportedly did not drive this change, which underlines how quietly far‑reaching language can slide into complex legislation The end result, however, is straightforward: one less explicit legal shield for religious expression accused of hate promotion.

What Section 319(3) Used To Protect And Why It Matters

For decades, Section 319(3) tried to balance two Canadian commitments: combatting hate propaganda and upholding freedoms of religion and expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The “good faith religious belief” clause did not give Christians, Jews, Muslims, or anyone else a license to spew hatred. Courts repeatedly refused to accept it when people used religious language as a fig leaf for obvious bigotry. Instead, the defense acknowledged a simple reality conservatives instinctively recognize: sincere believers sometimes voice hard teachings about sin, judgment, or sexuality without any intent to dehumanize their neighbors.

Canadian courts already had tools to reject bad‑faith appeals to Scripture while respecting honest conviction. That nuance matters for pluralism. A society that claims to value diversity must tolerate sharp disagreement, including on moral questions, up to the point of clear incitement to hatred or violence. Critics of the amendment argue that erasing the defense does not target violent extremists so much as it chills the average pastor, imam, or rabbi, who now must guess how a prosecutor might hear a centuries‑old text in a twenty‑first‑century courtroom.

Why Religious Groups See A Threat Where Supporters See A Loophole

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Canadian Council of Christian Charities each warned that removing the defense weakens protections for religious expression without meaningfully strengthening tools against genuine hate. Their legal briefs and public statements stress that minority faith communities, not just large denominations, rely on clear statutory language when the cultural winds blow against them. From a conservative, common‑sense view, laws that deter bad actors should be precise; when definitions blur, ordinary citizens pay the price.

CANADA TO BAN PORTIONS OF BIBLE OVER HATE SPEECH?https://t.co/7xTz7lpxtA

— Jake Brown (@ReconWolf6491) December 12, 2025

Bloc Québécois and Liberal supporters of the change argue the opposite: they view the religious defense as a loophole that lets bigots hide behind holy books. Rising antisemitic incidents, and testimony from Jewish groups about real harassment, fueled political momentum for a tougher stance on hate speech. The clash here is not over whether antisemitism or other forms of hatred are wrong; both sides agree on that. The divide is over whether the state should assume more power to sift “acceptable” faith claims from “hateful” ones, or whether that power is inherently dangerous in the hands of any government.

Could Quoting Scripture Become A Crime In Practice?

Legal experts cited in both Christian and secular outlets agree on one core point: Bill C‑9 does not ban printing, owning, or reading any part of the Bible or other sacred texts. The specter of police raiding nightstands for contraband Leviticus pages belongs in social‑media outrage clips, not in serious analysis. The real risk lies elsewhere. Once prosecutors no longer face an explicit “good faith religious belief” defense, they may feel freer to test hard cases involving sermons, public talks, or online posts that quote texts on sexuality, gender, or eternal judgment.

Canadian courts still must weigh Charter rights, and judges can still reject overreach. Yet anyone who values limited government and free exercise understands how precedent accretes. Each investigation or prosecution sends a signal. Churches and ministries may respond by scrubbing their speech, not because they have abandoned biblical convictions, but because they cannot afford legal battles with a state that now holds a stronger hand. That quiet self‑censorship is more plausible and in some ways more corrosive than any dramatic “Bible ban.”