Fear, Facts, and Responsible Leadership: Reflections on the Debate Around Bill C-9 | 恐懼、事實與負責任的公共對話：對 Bill C-9 爭議的一些反思

Over the past weeks, I have been following discussions surrounding Canada’s proposed Bill C-9, particularly the claims made by some Conservative MPs and commentators that Christians could be “charged for reading the Bible.” As someone who cares deeply about faith, public life, community dialogue, and responsible leadership, I believe it is important that we pause and reflect carefully on how these conversations are being framed.

Canada is facing very real and important conversations about hate speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the protection of vulnerable communities. These are not simple issues, and thoughtful people can disagree on where the balance should be. However, when political leaders use exaggerated or misleading language, it can create fear, confusion, and polarization rather than meaningful dialogue.

It is true that some Conservative MPs and religious organizations have raised concerns about Bill C-9. Their concerns focus particularly on the proposed removal of the “good faith religious expression” defence from parts of Canada’s hate propaganda laws. Some fear that this could create a chilling effect for pastors, religious teachers, or individuals publicly quoting, teaching, preaching, or posting certain passages from religious texts in some contexts.

Those concerns can and should be discussed openly in a democratic society.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that the proposed legislation applies broadly to all religions and belief systems — not only Christianity. The discussion is not about banning the Bible specifically, nor is it directed only toward Christians. If legal concerns exist, they would potentially affect public religious expression across multiple faith traditions, including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and others.

This is precisely why public discussion about the bill must be careful, accurate, and responsible.

There is a significant difference between saying:

“This bill may create legal uncertainty or chilling effects around publicly quoting or teaching certain religious passages,”

and saying:

“People will be charged simply for reading the Bible.”

The second statement goes far beyond what the bill itself actually says.

At no point does Bill C-9 explicitly criminalize privately reading the Bible, attending church, preaching Christianity, or holding traditional theological beliefs. The government has repeatedly stated that the bill targets genuine hate propaganda and incitement to violence, not ordinary religious worship or personal beliefs.

At the same time, history also reminds us that religious texts have sometimes been used — across many religions and cultures — to justify discrimination, violence, exclusion, oppression, or political agendas. Very often, people selectively quote one or two passages out of context in order to claim that what they are doing is not only morally right, but even divinely approved.

Throughout history, religious language and scripture have been used to defend slavery, racism, colonialism, antisemitism, violence against minorities, discrimination against women, persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals, and many other harmful actions. Even today, religious passages can still be used irresponsibly to fuel hatred, fear, or dehumanization.

This does not mean religious texts themselves are the problem. Rather, it reminds us that scripture requires wisdom, humility, context, interpretation, and responsibility. Sacred texts are powerful. They can inspire compassion, justice, mercy, healing, and peace — but they can also be distorted when removed from their broader spiritual and ethical context.

As Christians, we are called not simply to quote Scripture, but to interpret it through the wider witness of love, grace, truth, justice, humility, and the life of Christ himself.

This is also why we need deeper public discussion about what “good faith religious expression” actually means.

Not every statement made in the name of religion is automatically good faith. Not every use of scripture reflects the heart of a faith tradition. There is a difference between sincerely expressing one’s beliefs and intentionally using religion to demean, intimidate, threaten, or dehumanize others.

Good faith religious expression should involve honesty, humility, sincerity, responsibility, and respect for the humanity of others — even amid disagreement. It should allow room for theological conviction while rejecting hatred and cruelty.

At the same time, a democratic society must be careful not to define legitimate religious expression too narrowly. Genuine freedom of religion includes the freedom to hold and express beliefs that others may disagree with. The challenge is discerning where the line exists between protected religious expression and harmful hate propaganda.

That is not always easy.

It requires wisdom, constitutional clarity, careful legal interpretation, and mature public dialogue — not slogans, fearmongering, or reactionary politics from any side.

When politicians frame complex legislation in ways that create fear among religious communities, they risk damaging public trust and deepening division within society. Fear is a powerful political tool. It mobilizes emotions quickly. But responsible leadership requires more than amplifying fear. It requires honesty, nuance, and care for the social fabric of our communities.

As a Christian and Anglican priest, I deeply value freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. These freedoms are essential in a democratic society. At the same time, I also believe Christians are called to speak truthfully and responsibly. We should be cautious about spreading claims that overstate reality or create unnecessary panic.

The irony is that when Christians become known primarily for fear-driven political rhetoric, we may unintentionally weaken our public witness. The gospel invites us into truth, humility, love of neighbour, and honest engagement with society — not reactionary outrage built upon worst-case assumptions.

I also believe we need to recognize the broader context behind Bill C-9. Canada, like many countries, is wrestling with rising polarization, online extremism, harassment, and hatred directed toward various communities. Legislators are attempting — imperfectly — to respond to those realities. Citizens absolutely have the right to critique legislation and raise concerns about civil liberties. That is part of democracy. But critique should remain grounded in facts.

If there are genuine legal concerns about religious freedom within Bill C-9, then those concerns should be addressed carefully through constitutional analysis, public consultation, legal scholarship, and democratic debate. That is very different from telling Christians that they may soon be arrested for reading Scripture.

As people of faith, we must resist the temptation to interpret every social or political disagreement through narratives of persecution. Not every disagreement with Christianity is persecution. Not every legal debate is an attack on faith. And not every cultural change means Christians are losing the freedom to worship.

At the same time, our society must also protect genuine religious freedom and create space for respectful disagreement. A healthy democracy requires both the protection of vulnerable communities and the protection of conscience and belief.

In moments like this, Canada needs less fearmongering and more mature public conversation.

We need leaders who help people think carefully, not panic quickly.
We need conversations grounded in facts, not slogans.
And we need communities capable of disagreeing without demonizing one another.

As Christians, perhaps our calling in this moment is not merely to react, but to model a different way — one rooted in truthfulness, compassion, wisdom, humility, and peace.

過去這段時間，我一直留意加拿大《Bill C-9》法案所引發的討論，尤其是一些保守派國會議員及評論人士聲稱，基督徒將來可能會因為「閱讀聖經」而被起訴。作為一個關心信仰、公共生活、社區對話與負責任領導的人，我認為我們需要停下來，認真思考這些說法究竟是如何被表達與傳播的。

加拿大現時正面對一些非常真實而重要的議題，包括仇恨言論、宗教自由、言論自由，以及如何保護弱勢社群。這些問題本身並不簡單，而理性的人也可以對界線有不同看法。然而，當政治人物以誇張甚至誤導性的語言來描述複雜法案時，往往會帶來恐懼、混亂與社會撕裂，而不是促進成熟的公共討論。

的確，一些保守派國會議員及宗教團體對 Bill C-9 表達了憂慮。他們特別關注法案中可能移除刑事法中「善意宗教表達（good faith religious expression）」的抗辯基礎。有些人擔心，這可能會對牧者、宗教教師，或公開引用、教導、講述、張貼某些宗教經文的人造成寒蟬效應。

這些憂慮本身，在民主社會中是可以被公開討論的。

但同時，我們也必須清楚理解，這項法案若有影響，並不只是針對基督教，也不是專門針對《聖經》。法案涉及的是所有宗教與信仰群體，包括基督教、伊斯蘭教、猶太教、錫克教、印度教等。因此，若真的存在法律上的憂慮，那也將涉及不同宗教在公共空間中的表達自由。

正因如此，我們更需要小心、準確與負責任地討論這項法案。

因為以下兩句說法，其實有非常大的分別：

「這項法案可能對某些公開引用或教導宗教經文的行為造成法律上的不確定性或寒蟬效應」

與

「人們會因為閱讀《聖經》而被起訴」

後者其實遠遠超出了法案本身真正寫的內容。

Bill C-9 並沒有明文規定閱讀《聖經》是違法的，也沒有禁止人們返教會、傳講基督教信仰，或持守傳統宗教信念。政府方面亦多次表示，法案的目的在於打擊真正的仇恨宣傳與煽動暴力，而不是一般宗教敬拜或私人信仰。

然而，歷史同時也提醒我們：宗教經文確實曾經在不同年代、不同文化與不同宗教傳統中，被人用來合理化歧視、暴力、排斥、壓迫，甚至政治行動。很多時候，人們只抽取一兩段經文、脫離上下文，便宣稱自己的行為不單是正確的，更是「上帝所認可的」。

歷史上，宗教語言曾被用來合理化奴隸制度、種族歧視、殖民主義、反猶太主義、對少數族群的暴力、對女性的壓迫，以及對 LGBTQ+ 群體的排斥。即使在今天，我們仍然看到有人利用宗教經文去製造仇恨、恐懼與非人化的言論。

這並不代表宗教經文本身有問題，而是提醒我們：經文需要被謙卑、負責任、有處境地去理解與詮釋。宗教經文本身具有巨大的力量，它既可以帶來慈悲、公義、憐憫、醫治與和平，也可能在脫離整體信仰精神與倫理脈絡時，被扭曲與濫用。

作為基督徒，我們蒙召不只是「引用經文」，而是透過愛、恩典、公義、真理、謙卑，以及基督的生命去理解與活出經文。

而這也正正讓我們看見，我們今天其實非常需要重新思考與討論：究竟什麼才算是「善意宗教表達（good faith religious expression）」？

並不是所有以宗教名義說出的話，都自然等於善意；也不是所有引用宗教經文的人，都真正反映該宗教核心的精神。真誠地表達自己的信念，與刻意利用宗教去羞辱、威嚇、煽動仇恨、或將他人非人化，其實是有分別的。

真正的「善意宗教表達」，應該包括誠實、謙卑、真誠、負責任，以及對他人基本人性的尊重。它容許人們保留自己的信仰立場與神學觀點，同時拒絕仇恨與惡意。

但另一方面，民主社會也必須小心，不可以把合法的宗教表達定義得過於狹窄。真正的宗教自由，本來就包括人們有權持守與表達一些別人未必認同的信念。

而真正困難的地方，其實正在於：我們如何分辨什麼是受保障的宗教表達，什麼又真正構成仇恨宣傳？

這從來都不是一條容易劃清的界線。

它需要智慧、清晰的法律原則、成熟的公共討論，以及對人性的理解，而不是口號式的政治操作、恐懼動員，或任何一方的情緒化反應。

當政治人物以誇張方式去描述複雜法案，並製造宗教群體的恐懼時，他們其實正在削弱社會的信任與公共理性。恐懼確實是一種強大的政治工具，但真正負責任的領導，並不只是放大恐懼，而是願意以誠實、細緻與關懷去守護整個社會的公共空間。

作為基督徒與聖公會牧者，我非常珍惜宗教自由與良心自由，因為這些自由對民主社會十分重要。但同時，我也相信基督徒被呼召去誠實與負責任地說話。我們需要小心，不要散播過度簡化、誇大甚至引發恐慌的資訊。

因為當基督徒被社會認識為一群只會以恐懼與受迫害敘事去回應世界的人，我們其實可能正在削弱福音本身的見證。

福音呼召我們活出真理、謙卑、愛鄰舍，以及誠實地與社會同行，而不是建立在最壞假設上的情緒化反應。

加拿大今天確實需要更成熟、更深入、更有智慧的公共討論。

我們需要幫助人們思考的領袖，而不是只懂得煽動恐懼的政治人物。
我們需要建基於事實的對話，而不是口號。
我們需要即使彼此不同意，仍然能彼此尊重的社會。

而作為基督徒，也許我們在這個時代真正的呼召，不只是「反應」，而是去活出另一種方式——一種建基於真誠、憐憫、智慧、謙卑與和平的方式。