It is sometimes said that politics is like a game. And, like any game, there are a certain number of people playing hard to win - using every possible twist they can find in the rules to create an advantage for themselves.
And just like any game, when you adjust the rules, you need to pay attention to how your new rules will be exploited. Canada's Current Bill C9 - the "hate propaganda" law - fails to do that. And the way the rules can be exploited by one side - given their existing strategies - are spectacular. Our Executive Director's column (below) was featured in The Epoch Times on December 5th. You can also find it as a printable document on this website.
HILTON O'BRIEN: Hate Crimes Bill Hands Activists a Weapon for Local Elections December 5, 2025
Imagine a school board candidate in the 2026 Ontario elections. Her campaign literature says that parents are the first educators of their children—and that teachers should not keep gender transitions of children secret from parents. She quotes the Bible.
An activist group files a complaint alleging her statements constitute hate speech. A friendly prosecutor lays charges. Her flyers are seized. She is prohibited from speaking.
Five years later she is cleared—but the election is long over.
Before a promised amendment to Bill C-9, this scenario would have been legally impossible. Expressing views "based on a belief in a religious text" provided a defense against hate speech charges—even if the expression was controversial. But the Liberal-Bloc effort to remove this religious-belief defence changes everything. By scrapping protections for "good-faith expression based on a belief in a religious text," Parliament is about to hand activists a powerful new election tool: the ability to shut down an opponent's campaign before it starts.
The goal is not conviction. It is incapacitation.
A New Tactic for an Existing Campaign
Until now, groups opposing parental-rights candidates have relied on public pressure and messaging. They've organized counter-campaigns, coordinated opposition research, and labeled candidates as extremists. But they couldn't use criminal law to stop a candidate from speaking.
Bill C-9 changes that—and the infrastructure to exploit it is already in place.
In 2022 elections in British Columbia and Ontario, well-funded union-aligned groups built sophisticated election machinery around school board campaigns. They coordinated slates, messaging frameworks, opposition research, and smear content targeting parent-focused candidates as part of "hate groups." In Ontario today, election manuals discuss slate recruitment, message discipline, and strategic coordination.
Alongside them operates a network of publicly funded "anti-hate" organizations—some receiving substantial federal grants—whose publications have described conservative party members and conservative Catholics as likely to be associated with hate groups.
What Bill C-9 does is complete a toolset that activists have already built. The organizational capacity exists. The targeting framework exists. The "hate group" narrative exists. All that was missing was a legal mechanism to turn accusations into election-stopping criminal process.
Now they have it.
Why the Timeline Matters
The drawn-out nature of hate speech cases is not a bug in this strategy—it's the entire point.
Trinity Western University spent six years in litigation over its proposed law school, and the Whatcott case dragged on for years before reaching the Supreme Court. Whatever one thinks of the merits, the drawn-out process achieved the complainants' objectives long before the final ruling.
In an election context, this timeline is perfectly calibrated for disruption. Speech restrictions, material seizures, and gag orders happen early in the process—not at the end. A school board election lasts weeks. A hate speech case takes years.
Bill C-9 makes this pattern easier, faster, and far more damaging—especially in politics.
The 2026 Target
More than half of Canada's school boards are up for election in 2026—including Ontario and British Columbia. Groups that support parental involvement in education, especially Christian organizations, stand directly in the line of fire. That includes the Association for Reformed Political Action – now labelled a "hate group" by the BC NDP – Campaign Life Coalition, ParentsVoice BC, and Parents as First Educators in Ontario.
These groups are not extremists. They are made up of ordinary citizens—Christians, Jews, Muslims, new Canadians, and secular parents—who want transparency, accountability, and respect for parental authority. They win when parents mobilize. That makes them a threat to entrenched interests.
This is why activist messaging has worked so hard to equate "parental rights" with extremism. It is why federal anti-hate dollars flow to groups that produce literature treating mainstream religious belief as suspicious. And the timing of the bill is not incidental. It arrives just at the start of the next school board election cycle in most of Canada, when these tools can do the most damage.
School board races are uniquely vulnerable. They feature amateur campaigns facing professional opposition. Unlike in federal or provincial campaigns, conservative trustee candidates rarely have campaign managers. They are new to politics, often running alone. They make honest mistakes—awkward phrasing, unpolished video clips, a poorly worded answer on social media. These are precisely the candidates most vulnerable to frivolous complaints.
Union-backed activists don’t need mass prosecutions. They only need a few well-timed accusations to freeze a campaign in place. Bill C-9 turns the early procedural steps of a hate-speech investigation – seizures, gag orders, and speech restrictions – into campaign weapons.
What Comes Next
Parliament needs to recognize what this legislation actually does. It hands a small number of activists the power to silence political opponents at the time they are most vulnerable: election season.
If Parliament will not stop this bill, then parent-focused organizations must prepare now - before the first complaint is filed. They need legal strategy in place before a candidate is silenced, not after.
Because once a candidate is gagged, the court victory five years later is meaningless.
John Hilton-O'Brien is the Executive Director of Parents for Choice in Education. www.parentchoice.ca