Liberals will criminalize flags, memes, protests: Free Speech Union of Canada

Ajouté : 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]My name is Lisa Bildy and I'm the executive director of the Free Speech Union of Canada. We are a non-partisan membership-based organization dedicated to defending freedom of expression.

[00:00:11]The FSUC's submissions are focused on the deleterious impact of Bill C9 that Bill C9 would have on expressive rights.

[00:00:18]I will touch on a few of those concerns.

[00:00:20]First with respect to hate symbols.

[00:00:22]Symbols are a form of expression.

[00:00:25]Criminalizing them is an extraordinary step and this bill does so in a way that is opaque, vague, and prone to politicization.

[00:00:34]There is no statutory list of prohibited symbols. Instead, the definition depends on association with whatever groups the Minister of Public Safety has placed on a terrorist list. That makes the scope of criminalized expression inherently political.

[00:00:48]Most listed groups do not have recognizable symbols. There is no requirement that a symbol be notorious, widely understood, or uniquely associated with a terrorist entity.

[00:00:59]A person could face prosecution for displaying a symbol at a protest without knowing it has been co-opted by a listed group. As drafted, it appears that the act of displaying the symbol is all that is necessary to establish the willful promotion of hatred. That is incredibly overbroad.

[00:01:18]While there is an exception for legitimate purposes, it doesn't permit symbolic co-option for legitimate political expression.

[00:01:25]For example, a meme sometimes seen online places four of the progress pride flags in such a manner that the triangles resemble a Nazi Hakenkreuz.

[00:01:35]This is political expression against what some Canadians see as an increasingly oppressive ideology. But in the current political climate, it could be characterized as hate and under Bill C9 would invite criminal charges.

[00:01:47]And symbols evolve. In the United Kingdom, there have been news stories about the St. George flag, a centuries-old emblem of English heritage, being removed from public places by authorities because some groups used it in anti-immigration protests.

[00:02:01]Here in Canada, historic flags such as the Red Ensign are treated as suspect by some like the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, even though most Canadians display them out of pride, not hate.

[00:02:12]Under Bill C-9, it is easy to imagine such flags becoming criminalized by association with nationalist groups that could be politically targeted by the government of the day.

[00:02:22]The new intimidation offense criminalizes any conduct intended to provoke a state of fear in order to impede access to certain locations. Any conduct.

[00:02:33]That means that the actus reus of the offense is always met. The offense then turns on the probable subjective mental state of another person. Is it intent to provoke a state of fear of violence?

[00:02:44]Or a fear that someone might say something offensive? How much fear is required?

[00:02:49]This this low threshold cap risk capturing ordinary protest activity, which can can by its nature be somewhat intimidating, especially on contentious issues.

[00:02:59]Criminal offenses must be clear, objective, and narrowly tailored. This one is not.

[00:03:05]The obstruction offense effectively creates protected sites used by certain identifiable groups. This abandons the content-neutral principles that protect expressive freedom.

[00:03:15]Some topics of protest will be disproportionately restricted, and Canadians may find themselves unable to criticize protected ideologies in locations where their protest would have the most impact and relevance.

[00:03:28]The breadth and subjectivity of these provisions serve another purpose. They give authorities flexible tools to deploy against unpopular protests or political opponents.

[00:03:37]We have already seen selective enforcement in recent years. Some hatred is tolerated, other hatred is punished.

[00:03:44]That is not the rule of law.

[00:03:47]As philosopher Bertrand Russell rather cynically observed, people seem good while they are oppressed, but they only wish to become oppressors in their turn.

[00:03:55]That dynamic was evident in earlier panels calling for the bill to go even further. The impulse is not merely to stop hate as if one could stop a basic human emotion, but to stop criticism, offense, dissent, and even factual disagreement.

[00:04:12]Criminalizing denialism of contested perspectives, whether on residential schools, gender ideology, or critical race theory, is a road Canada must not go down.

[00:04:23]We must hold fast to foundational principles, especially in polarized times.

[00:04:28]Those are what ground us.

[00:04:30]Freedom of expression is one of them, and it matters because it is the most effective check on abuses of power. It enables the search for truth, even when truth is uncomfortable.

[00:04:41]It provides a peaceful outlet for grievances, reducing the risk of violence.

[00:04:45]It exposes bad ideas to scrutiny, allowing society to challenge and defeat them.

[00:04:51]Neutral principles protect everyone, as Minister Fraser acknowledged last week here. These tools could easily be used against environmentalists or other activists when political winds shift.

[00:05:02]It fosters dialogue and social cohesion.

[00:05:06]Criminal law cannot manufacture harmony.

[00:05:09]Only open debate and dialogue can.

[00:05:11]Bill C-9 risks eroding Canadians' most fundamental freedom. Criminal law should target conduct, not expression, violence, not dissent, and incitement, not unpopular opinion. Our specific amendments and more detailed commentary are contained in our written brief.

[00:05:27]Thank you, and I welcome your questions.