Lengthy prison sentences could be handed out to people who express contentious opinions. That’s what many in Canada fear, as the Online Harms Bill looks set to become law, reports Michael Coren
Canada’s international reputation is certainly not what it was.
While still respected as a fair and functioning social democracy, the country’s appallingly permissive assisted dying programme has become a warning to the world, its treatment of protestors during the pandemic shutdown has been questioned by civil libertarians, and now proposed legislation to monitor aspects of social media has angered even some on the Canadian left.
The so-called Online Harms Bill, or Bill C-63, was introduced in late-February and looks very likely to become law. It proposes to police seven elements of what it considers harmful internet material and some of those elements – such as bullying or sexualizing of children, incitement to violence or terrorism – are non-controversial and even self-evident. But “hate speech” is included, and this is where perception and interpretation come into play.
A proposed amendment to the legislation would define hate speech according to various Supreme Court of Canada decisions, and that’s hardly comforting to those who not unreasonably fear a rising culture of censorship. Understandably, Christians have speculated as to whether the new laws will somehow blanket them if they speak out on subjects involving the LGBT community, trans issues, or abortion. Hardly surprising, in that there are numerous precedents in Australia and Britain as well as Canada.
Internationally acclaimed Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood wrote that, “If this account of the bill is true, it’s Lettres de Cachet all over again.” She was referring to letters sent by the kings of France during the ancient regime that allowed the authorities to imprison people without trial. She continued, “The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting!”
The Canadian Justice Minister has defended the legislation, arguing that it’s not properly understood, and that what is “awful but lawful” will not be restricted. The act would, he said, cover “expressions of detestation and vilification. It does not include insults, offensive comments, or jokes that are not very polite.”
as it stands the legislation will definitely limit freedom of speech
But even former Canadian Supreme Court chief justice Beverley McLachlin has expressed reservations. While she supports a response to hateful online content she’s concerned with the bill’s proposed changes to the criminal code. That includes a harsher punishment for hate propaganda, with the possibility of life imprisonment for advocating genocide.
As repugnant as calling for genocide may be, a call is not an act. This also comes at a time when cries of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” are heard daily, with some claiming that their intent is genocidal. Others vehemently disagree but that, surely, is the point. Who is to decide, especially when long prison sentences could be involved?
“We have not seen this in speech law, expression law, to my knowledge — life sentences for sending out some words”, said McLachlin. “That’s heavy. And it will, I suspect, be challenged.” The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has already called for amendments, fearing that as it stands the legislation will definitely limit freedom of speech.
There’s also a wider and worrying context. Recently an admittedly provocative journalist was arrested for apparently asking questions to protestors at a pro-Palestine demonstration. There could be an argument that the police moved him away so as to maintain the peace but an arrest seems incredibly heavy-handed. Nor is it the first time that the police have appeared to be partial in how they treat members of the media.
Canadians are also blocked from posting and accessing many news stories on Facebook and Instagram due to a bill that mandates tech companies pay news outlets for their content. It’s not unreasonable legislation but the result looks to many like more government control of free expression.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has to call an election by October 2025 and it’s extremely unlikely that he can win another mandate, so there are those who think he’s trying to leave as much of a legacy as possible. Once the Online Harms bill becomes law it will be very difficult to reverse, and in an age when definitions of hatred and harm are becoming increasingly subjective, that’s making a lot of people rather anxious. Many Christians are deeply concerned and I can’t say that I really blame them.
