Tag: religious freedom

The Democracy Fund to testify before Senate: Bill C-9 threatens free speech & religious liberty

TDF will appear before the Senate of Canada to warn that Bill C-9 threatens freedom of expression, removes protections for religious speech, and creates sweeping new hate-related offences despite existing laws already addressing such conduct.

OTTAWA: Tomorrow, on Thursday, May 28, 2026, Mark Joseph, Executive Director of The Democracy Fund, will testify before the Senate of Canada on Bill C-9, the “Combatting Hate Act.”

TDF argues that Bill C-9 is unnecessary and dangerously overbroad. The legislation would:

  • Criminalize the display of additional symbols under s. 319, even though existing Criminal Code provisions already address such conduct
  • Eliminate the religious defence under s. 319(3)(b) and (3.1), potentially exposing religious teachings on marriage, sexuality, morality, and scripture to criminal prosecution
  • Create a sweeping new stand-alone “hate-motivated offence” that turns any violation of the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament into a serious crime if “motivated by hatred.”
  • Add redundant intimidation and obstruction offences already covered by existing mischief, disturbance, and intimidation laws.

“Bill C-9 represents a major expansion of state power over speech and conduct,” said Mark Joseph, Executive Director of The Democracy Fund. “By removing the religious defence, it will criminalize the public expression of sincerely held religious views believed by millions of Canadians. The new hate-motivated offence will criminalize minor conduct and invite prosecutorial overreach despite existing laws already punishing such crimes. This Bill will not reduce social conflict; it will chill debate, strain judicial resources, and undermine Charter Rights.”

You can read TDF’s brief by clicking here.

Keep reading

Fired Ontario teachers return to labour board over union’s refusal to defend religious freedoms

Two Ontario teachers fired after refusing to “celebrate and affirm” LGBTQ-related school programming are back before the Ontario Labour Relations Board this week, arguing their union failed to defend their constitutional rights.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms says lawyers funded by the organization appeared Thursday on behalf of Matt and Nicole Alexander in their ongoing case against the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario.

According to the Justice Centre, the Alexanders were terminated by the Renfrew County District School Board in October 2023 after declining to participate in school activities they say conflicted with their sincerely held Christian beliefs regarding sexuality and gender identity.

The couple alleges their union failed in its legal “duty of fair representation” by refusing to properly defend their Charter-protected freedoms of religion and expression.

In a statement released ahead of the hearing, the Justice Centre said the case raises broader questions about whether public sector employees can face professional consequences for declining to endorse ideological positions that conflict with their faith.

Lawyers representing the Alexanders argue the issue is not whether schools can support LGBTQ students, but whether teachers can be compelled to actively affirm beliefs that violate their religious convictions.

The hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board is expected to focus on whether the teachers’ union adequately represented the couple during the disciplinary and termination process.

The JCCF says the Alexanders are seeking accountability from the union and recognition that religious Canadians do not surrender their Charter rights when working in public education.

Keep reading

South Carolina County Unanimously Rejects Mosque Permit After Residents Protest: ‘Islam Is Not a Religion — It’s a Takeover’

South Carolina’s Lancaster County Council voted unanimously last week to deny a conditional-use permit for a proposed Islamic Mosque and community center in the Indian Land area after angry residents passionately spoke out against it.

The rejection came after more than two hours of intense public testimony in which multiple residents warned that the mosque would import Sharia law and represent an ideological takeover incompatible with American values.

One resident went viral after she declared, “This is not about a place of worship; this is not about religion; Islam is not a religion, it’s a takeover.”

She went on to read a passage from the Quran, which states, “Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.”

“I just want to say this is not about a place of worship. This is not about religion. Islam is not a religion; it’s a takeover. And if you’ve done any studies, if you listen to any of the news media, you will find out that that is true,” she added.

Keep reading

Ireland Convicts 78-Year-Old Preacher For Preaching Near Abortion Clinic

Ireland is finally safe.

Clive Johnston has been convicted and can no longer menace the public.

Johnson, 78, is a retired pastor who committed the heinous offense of preaching near the Causeway Hospital in Coleraine.

That was considered within the “safe access zone” under Northern Ireland’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act.

The Act prohibits “influencing,” “preventing or impeding access,” or “causing harassment, alarm or distress” to a protected person within 100 meters (about 328 feet) of facilities where abortions are performed.

So Johnson was found guilty of “influencing” inside the protected zone and fined 450 pounds (about $614).

Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service told Fox News Digital, “The defendant was found guilty and convicted by the court of doing an act in a safe access zone with the intent of or being reckless as to whether it had the effect of influencing a protected person attending the premises; and failing to comply with a direction to leave a safe access zone.”

The language of the law is absurdly vague and abusively broad. What constitutes an “influence” is undefined and could include any religious, political, or social exchange. Would it include encouragements to have abortions?

It is equally perverse to treat praying or preaching the same as blocking or impeding access to a clinic. Finally, a hospital engages in a wide array of activities that raise religious or political issues that can be the subject of free speech.

We previously saw several cases in the United Kingdom where people were arrested for silently praying near abortion clinics.

For its part, Ireland has been a leader in censorship and the criminalization of speech. As the leader of the Irish Green Party proclaimed, “We are restricting freedom for the public good.”

By the way, his offense was reading John 3:16, including “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

What could perish in Ireland and the United Kingdom is free expression as speech regulators target bad influences under time, place, and manner laws.

Keep reading

Bahrain Intensifies Crackdown On Shia Communities, Arrests Dozens Over Alleged IRGC Links

Bahrain’s Interior Ministry announced on Saturday the arrest of 41 citizens, including multiple Shia religious leaders, over alleged ties to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The ministry said security services uncovered the alleged network through “investigations, security reports, and previous Public Prosecution cases related to espionage involving foreign entities.” The detainees are accused of “espionage involving foreign entities and sympathy with blatant Iranian aggression.”

Around 30 Shia Muslim clerics were among the 41 arrested, as the Gulf monarchy intensifies a campaign of raids and arrests predominantly targeting Shia religious figures and seminary teachers in Bahrain.

The arrests mark a new security escalation by Manama and form part of a continued policy of restrictions against clerics in the country. The Bahrain News Agency reported that legal proceedings are now underway against the 41 detainees.

Earlier this week, Bahrain stripped three lawmakers of their seats in parliament after they publicly criticized the monarchy’s crackdown on dissent over its support for the US–Israeli war on Iran:

In a vote in Manama on Thursday, the Bahraini House of Representatives revoked the memberships of Abdulnabi Salman, Mahdi al-Shuwaikh, and Mamdouh al-Saleh. The three lawmakers publicly opposed the monarchy’s move last week to revoke the citizenship of 69 Bahrainis and their families, accusing them of “sympathizing with Iran.”

Bahrain has a majority Shia population but is ruled by the Sunni Al-Khalifa royal family. The kingdom hosts the largest US naval base in the region, home to the US Fifth Fleet.

That decision came less than two weeks after Bahrain revoked the citizenship of 69 people over alleged support for Iranian retaliatory attacks on the country.

The Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy described the move as “dangerous” and a “blatant abuse of power,” saying the individuals had not been publicly named and that their legal status remained unclear.

Since the launch of the US-Israeli war on Iran on February 28, Bahrain has escalated a sweeping domestic crackdown tied to alleged support for Tehran and opposition to the country’s western alignments.

Keep reading

Pastor Found Guilty of Violating U.K. Speech Laws for Preaching John 3:16 Sermon Near Hospital

The United Kingdom, which has been cracking down on speech for years, dealt free speech another blow on Thursday when a district judge found Clive Johnston, a retired Northern Irish pastor, guilty of preaching John 3:16 in public.

The 78-year-old was convicted of two charges under the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zone) Act (Northern Ireland) for holding an open-air service near Causeway Hospital in Coleraine in 2024. This law makes it a crime to do anything that could be seen as “influencing” or “preventing or impeding” people seeking abortion services within 100 meters of a clinic. Eight of these “buffer zones” have been created in Northern Ireland.

However, Johnston did not mention abortion in his sermon. It was also a Sunday, which meant the sexual health clinic was not open for scheduled abortion appointments. Body camera footage shows Johnston speaking about his journey toward faith, playing the ukulele, and preaching John 3:16 (“for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son”) before being interrupted by a police officer. The officer tells Johnston that “this is a safe access zone,” and he must stop preaching or he “may be removed and liable to prosecution.”

Keep reading

Liberal Democrats Admit Human Rights Breach After Removing Candidate “Because He is Christian”

The Liberal Democrats have admitted that they unlawfully discriminated against former journalist and parliamentary candidate David Campanale because of his Christian beliefs, in what is now one of the clearest recent cases of a major UK party breaching the rights of a Christian over matters of faith and conscience. The party has agreed to pay damages after conceding the claim, while Campanale is also seeking legal costs he says exceed £250,000. The admission has been reported across outlets including The Independent, Church Times and other outlets, and it goes well beyond an ordinary internal party dispute: it is an acknowledged human-rights and religious-discrimination breach.

Campanale had originally been selected as the Liberal Democrats candidate for Sutton and Cheam ahead of the 2024 general election, but was later deselected and replaced by Luke Taylor, who went on to win the seat. The central legal issue was whether Campanale had been treated unlawfully because of his Christian beliefs on contested moral questions. On that point, the party has now surrendered. Church Times reported that the Liberal Democrats admitted to several counts of unlawful religious discrimination, while The Independent said the party accepted it had breached Campanale’s human rights over his Christian faith.

The significance of that admission lies in what it says about the treatment of Christians in contemporary public life. This was not a outside activist dispute or a row about obscure process rules. It concerned whether a mainstream political party was prepared to accommodate a candidate whose convictions remained recognisably Christian when applied to public questions.

Earlier reporting on the case such as this 2024 article said the dispute touched on Campanale’s views on issues including abortion, same-sex marriage and trans matters. During the litigation, the party’s defence drew particular attention for arguing that Campanale should prove in court the truth of the Christian statement that Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth and the life,” a move that many Christians saw as both extraordinary and revealing.

It was reported this week that the party had also argued it was a “statement of fact” that the era of prominent Liberal Democrats with Christian beliefs such as Shirley Williams and Charles Kennedy “was over,” and had initially claimed it had a right to deselect candidates who expressed religious beliefs. Those reported positions gave the case a significance far beyond one constituency. They suggested not merely a breakdown in local relations, but a deeper hostility to the idea that orthodox Christian belief should still have a place inside a party that presents itself as liberal, pluralist and rights-based.

That is why the case has been felt so keenly by many Christians. Clearly, Campanale is not being vindicated only as an individual claimant. The outcome also confirms the broader concern that expressions of Christian belief are only permitted when they are private or ceremonial, and welcome scrutiny when touching live moral questions. GB News framed the case as a legal victory for Campanale, called “an Anglican layman” in some reports, who was prevented from standing for his religious beliefs. The party has admitted unlawful discrimination, and the issue at its heart was Christianity.

David Campanale is a former BBC investigative journalist who held a seat as a Liberal Democrat councillor from 1986 to 1994, and, having first been approved as a prospective parliamentary candidate in 2017, he was announced as the party’s candidate for Sutton and Cheam in January 2022. According to his legal claim, he was the subject of complaints made by members of the local party “almost immediately” in attempts to deselect him. The deselection eventually took place in August 2023.

Keep reading

Quebec counsellor faces disciplinary complaint over faith-based practice

A Quebec sexologist is facing disciplinary proceedings after offering counselling services that combined professional guidance with Christian teachings, according to lawyers representing her.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms said it is supporting Maryse Gaudet-Lebrun, who was served with a formal complaint on Dec. 23, 2025.

Gaudet-Lebrun, based in Montreal, holds qualifications in sexology, social work and health sciences, and is a member of the Quebec Order of Sexologists, the body that regulates licensed practitioners in the province.

The complaint reportedly challenges videos on her website in which she discusses sexuality alongside Christian teachings, prayer and biblical principles. It also alleges she promoted heterosexual sexuality within marriage and used a spiritual approach in her counselling practice.

Gaudet-Lebrun primarily serves clients who share her Christian faith and has said she aimed to provide counselling that aligns with both professional standards and clients’ religious beliefs.

Constitutional lawyer Olivier Séguin said the case reflects wider concerns about the reach of professional regulators and the role of religion in client relationships.

Gaudet-Lebrun said the complaint was deeply distressing and that legal support had been significant for her.

The matter is expected to proceed with expert reports, clarification of allegations and preparation for a disciplinary hearing.

Keep reading

UK Police Arrest a Pastor for Preaching the Gospel: A Disturbing Sign for Christian Free Speech

On April 18, 2026, in the town of Watford just outside London, British police handcuffed a Christian pastor for preaching the Gospel in public. Pastor Steve Maile, a 66-year-old minister with decades of experience, was standing in the town centre doing what has long been a normal part of British life—open-air preaching—when officers moved in, restrained him, and led him away in front of his wife and children. As he was being handcuffed, Maile continued to address the crowd, insisting, “You cannot arrest me. I am a preacher of the Gospel… There is no offense being committed here.” It was a striking moment, not only for those present but for the thousands who later watched the footage online.

What makes the incident particularly troubling is what followed. No charges were ultimately brought against Maile. The allegations, whatever they were, did not stand. Yet he was still detained for hours and placed on bail. In other words, a man engaged in peaceful religious expression was treated as a criminal, only for the legal basis of that treatment to evaporate shortly afterward. For many observers, that raises a fundamental question: if no crime was committed, why was such force deemed necessary in the first place?

Pastor Maile is not an unknown figure or a fringe agitator. He has spent more than 35 years in ministry, preaching in over 50 countries and working to establish churches and support Christian communities. Alongside his wife Karina, he founded Oasis City Church in Watford in 1999, raising a family and building a reputation rooted in outreach and evangelism. This background matters because it underscores the nature of the incident—this was not disorderly conduct or confrontation, but a continuation of a long-standing and peaceful religious practice.

Nor is this an isolated case. In November 2025, Pastor Dia Moodley was arrested in Bristol after engaging members of the public in a discussion about theology. He was detained for eight hours and subsequently banned from the city centre during the Christmas season. As with Maile, the circumstances involved speech rather than violence, yet the response from authorities was significant. Taken together, these incidents point to a broader pattern rather than a one-off misjudgment.

Across the United Kingdom, Christian street preachers—once a familiar and largely accepted presence—are increasingly being treated as potential public order concerns. Complaints from passers-by, even when based on disagreement rather than genuine harm, can trigger police intervention. Meanwhile, other forms of public expression, including those that are equally or more provocative, often appear to receive a more permissive response. Whether intentional or not, the perception of unequal treatment is growing, and perceptions like that can be as consequential as policy itself.

At the heart of the issue is the legal framework governing speech in the UK. Unlike the United States, Britain does not have a single, entrenched constitutional protection equivalent to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, it relies on a range of statutes, including the Public Order Act 1986, which grant authorities discretion to act when speech is considered offensive or disruptive. While such laws are intended to maintain public order, their broad wording leaves significant room for interpretation—and, critics argue, for inconsistent enforcement.

Keep reading

Keith Self Pushes FAITH Act to Block ‘Sharia Tax’ on Non-Muslims

Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, introduced legislation Monday that would prohibit the imposition of religiously based financial penalties, a measure he says is aimed at preventing Sharia-inspired practices such as taxing non-Muslims.

The Freedom Against Imposed Theology Harms (FAITH) Act would establish a nationwide ban on fees, fines, penalties, or other financial burdens imposed on individuals because of their religious beliefs—or their refusal to participate in another religion’s practices.

“This legislation sends an unmistakable message,” Self said in a press release. “Religious freedom means freedom from religious coercion—financial or otherwise.”

“The FAITH Act draws a firm constitutional line: No American should ever pay a de facto religious tax or face financial penalties for their beliefs,” he added. “We must make America Sharia-free and protect the First Amendment for everyone.”

The bill would classify such conduct as a predicate offense under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, expanding prosecutors’ authority to pursue organized efforts to impose religiously based financial demands.

Self said the legislation is intended to address concerns about attempts to enforce Sharia-influenced financial practices in the United States. The bill would apply to both governmental and non-governmental actors, while preserving the right of religious and educational institutions to seek voluntary contributions from their own members for internal purposes.

Self cited the Islamic concept of jizya, a historical tax imposed on non-Muslims under Sharia-based governance, as an example of a practice he views as incompatible with U.S. constitutional principles. Although jizya is not imposed under American law, supporters of the FAITH Act argue that informal financial pressures modeled on Sharia principles pose a growing concern.

“While formal jizya is not imposed by U.S. law, we are seeing growing attempts to establish Sharia-adherent enclaves, parallel financial systems, and community coercion in parts of America—including right here in Texas,” Self said.

Keep reading