BILL-63, the Online Harms Act*, in its earliest iteration was
brought before the Canadian Parliament in 2021. Its purported purpose was to target
the following kinds of harmful online content: 👉Child
sexual exploitation
👉Child
bullying
👉Content
that induces a child to self-harm
👉Revenge
porn
👉Content
that foments hatred, incites violent extremism or terrorism, and incites
violence.
THERE was considerable debate and
push-back from opposition parties at the time because it was felt the proposed
legislation would negatively impact Canadians’ Charter rights for freedom of
expression. In particular, the Liberals proposed reinstating “Section Thirteen”
of the Canadian Human Rights Act that had been expunged by the Harper
government in 2014. That section dealt with “hate speech” whereby
citizens would bring complaints against a person or organization accusing them
of online hate speech, and a Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) tribunal
would adjudicate the merits of the case. The problem is there is a fine line
between what is legal speech and what would be considered hate
speech. The Mark Steyn/Macleans Magazine CHRC tribunal review is a case in point. Between 2007-8, Sten published in
Maclean’s Magazine excerpts from his book The Future Belongs to Islam
which was critical of the number of Muslim immigrants entering Canada. He
suggested they posed a “threat to North American institutions and values”. It’s
certainly a debatable proposition, but does it rise to the level of hate speech?
Muslim-Canadian community
organizations complained to the CHRC and the question of Steyn and Maclean’s
Magazine transgressing federal hate speech laws was examined by the CHRC
tribunal and ultimately dismissed, saying the author’s writing was:
“…polemical, colourful and
emphatic, and was obviously calculated to excite discussion and even offend
certain readers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike…Overall, however the views
expressed…when considered as a whole and in context, are not of an extreme nature
as defined by the Supreme Court.”
IN A SENSE, the legal process
was the punishment. Steyn and Fr. Alphonse de Valk were compelled to defend themselves
against hate crime charges, and even though both complaints were dismissed by
the CHRC, they still had hefty lawyer bills to pay in the end. The
Steven Harper government rightly removed “hate speech” statutes from CHRC’s
books, leaving only federal Criminal Law statutes in place. [It should be noted, as part of the proposed legislation, the Liberals want a new charge of 'hate motivated crime' ensconced in the Criminal Code which could be added to any other crime on the books. Could you be charged with hate-motivated doodling? Who knows?😊 Just sayin'. Ed.] With the definition
of ‘hateful’ speech a slippery one, and open to mischief and misinterpretation,
it was thought the more narrowly focused Criminal Code law on hate speech,
along with the more thorough examination such complaints would receive via
police services and the courts, was adequate to the task.
Another important issue raised
at the time (and again in 2024) is the chilling effect such legislation
might have on citizens’ willingness to express their opinions in public,
on-line and elsewhere, if they might be subject to hefty legal fees, fines
and even incarceration. Frankly, most people would rather put up and shut up.
“While the CCLA endorses the
declared purposes of upholding public safety, protecting children, and
supporting marginalized communities, our initial assessment reveals that the
bill includes overbroad violations of expressive freedom, privacy, protest rights,
and liberty.
One troubling aspect of Bill C-63
is the vast authority bestowed upon a newly established body, [The “Digital
Safety Commission” that will audit, issue compliance orders, and penalize
social media services. Ed.] comprising government appointees, to interpret
the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury, and
executioner. Granting such sweeping powers to one body undermines the
fundamental principle of democratic accountability.
[T]he bill’s provisions include
sweeping new search powers of electronic data with no warrant requirement [and]
pose significant threats to privacy rights.
…Bill C-63 risks censoring a
range of expression from journalistic reporting to healthy conversations among
youth under 18 about their own sexuality and relationships. The broad criminal
prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and
criminalizing political activism. The bill imposes draconian penalties [Including fines, mentioned above] for
certain types of expression, including life imprisonment [My Italics.]
for a very broad and vaguely defined offense of “incitement to genocide”,
and 5 years of jail time for other broadly defined speech acts. This not only
chills free speech but also undermines the principles of proportionality and
fairness in our legal system. Bill C-63 also creates a new offense (“offense
motivated by hatred”) that risks misuse or overuse by police, and unfairness to
accused persons in court. (CCLA)
Cheers, Jake.___________________________________________
* Just so you know, the bill’s
full name is: “An Act
to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human
Rights Act and an Act respecting the mandatory reporting of internet child
pornography by persons who provide an internet service and to make
consequential and related amendments to other Acts.” It just rolls off the
tongue, doesn't it?
+ For those confused, like me, about
the difference between a criminal offense and a civil one, just think of
Criminal Law being concerned with the most serious crimes—rape, murder,
violence—which can come with jail sentences, while Civil Law deals with disputes, complaints, money crimes etc.,
that often come with $ fines and penalties, peace bonds, and so on.
Hate speech or hate propaganda is
defined in Bill C-63 as:
“…content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.”
No comments:
Post a Comment