Hate crimes were added for the first time to the Canadian Criminal Code in 1970 through Bill C-3; subsequent provisions were added to the Criminal Code in 1995 through Bill C-41. This study examines the effectiveness of Canadian hate-crime law from two theoretical perspectives: a liberal consensus perspective and a conflict perspective. A liberal consensus perspective assumes that hate crime law develops out of a broad-based normative consensus within society regarding the values that are reflected in the criminal law. Under a conflict perspective, hate-crime law develops out of competition at the level of norms as well as at the level of individual interests, power, and resources. This study argues that the liberal and conflict perspectives provide different views of the nature and extent of hate victimization in Canadian society, as well as the role and the extent of the pervasiveness of hate crime laws in Canadian society. As a result, both perspectives provide different answers to the question of the effectiveness of Canadian hate crime laws. The study notes that the criminalization of hate designates only a small number of people in society who engage in extreme actions as defined in hate-crime legislation. The important elements in Canadian hate conduct are endemic, subtle, and pervasively injurious to those affected by hate conduct. In singling out only the most extreme forms of hate behavior, the criminalization of hate may in fact normalize and minimize many forms of hate; therefore, the criminalization of hate must be implemented neither as a stand-alone strategy nor as a first resort. It must be implemented as part of a comprehensive response in combatting the various manifestations of hate in Canadian society. Appended lists of court cases and statutes and bills, as well as 132 references