A hypothetical scenario...

A firebrand imam in a mosque somewhere in the country begins radicalizing his community. He portrays Muslims as a group under attack in Canada.  His message is that Canadians don't understand Muslims, they hate them and the evidence is right there in front of their eyes. So it's time to "push back," he says over and over again, without actually recommending violence.

(So far so good, right? All the people here who insist on free speech support the free speech of that imam.)

Some time later, a radicalized youth from that mosque enters a church and murders six Christians. The country is aghast. A member of Parliament puts forward a motion asking the government to condemn the preaching of hatred and fear by any religion or group. 

At that point, should Canadians reject the Parliamentary motion because it could have a "chilling effect" on the freedom to preach hatred and fear? Yes, according to the usual suspects here. So what if people are killed by it?