The two Canadian civil liberties organizations that convinced a federal court judge the Trudeau government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act violated fundamental rights — which the feds are appealing — are sounding similar alarms about its new online harms bill.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
So it would be a good idea for the government to listen.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) say while the proposed legislation contains legitimate measures to protect children from online sexual abuse, cyber-bulling and self-harm, and to combat the spread of so-called “revenge porn,” its provisions to prevent the expression of hate are draconian, vaguely worded and an attack on free speech.
Both the CCLA and the CCF say the proposed legislation, known as Bill C-63, will require major amendments before becoming law to pass constitutional muster.
“Justice Minister (Arif) Virani has tied these speech restrictions to defensible measures like removing images of child sexual exploitation material and revenge porn,” said CCF executive director Joanna Baron.
Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of The Winnipeg Sun's Daily Headline News will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
“But don’t be fooled. Most of the bill is aimed at restricting freedom of expression. This heavy-handed bill needs to be severely pared down to comply with the constitution.”
Both the CCLA and CCF warn the bill could lead to life imprisonment for someone convicted of “incitement to genocide” — a vague term only broadly defined in the bill — and up to five years in prison for other vaguely defined hate speech crimes.
The legislation, for example, defines illegal hate speech as expressing “detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals,” while legally protected speech, “expresses dislike or disdain, or … discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
The problem, critics warn, will be determining in advance which is which, with the inevitable result that people and organizations will self-censor themselves because of fear of being prosecuted criminally, or fined civilly, for what is actually legal speech.
Among other concerns expressed by the CCLA and CCF:
“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.” (CCLA)
The creation of a “digital safety commission” composed of government appointees given “vast authority” and “sweeping powers” 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.” (CCLA)
The legislation gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission the power to impose civil fines of up to $50,000 on offenders, as well as awards of up to $20,000 paid to complainants who claim online speech discriminated against them, in some cases without having to reveal their identities. (CCF)
Meanwhile, “the potential flood of complaints under this provision to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, coupled with its existing resource constraints, threatens to exacerbate the (existing) backlog, and limit access to justice for those facing discrimination in employment, services and other contexts.” (CCLA)
It allows judges to impose prior restraints on people they “reasonably” believe may commit hate speech in future, aka “pre-crime” (CCF), as well as granting authorities “sweeping new search powers of electronic data, with no warrant requirement.” (CCLA).
The CCF warns that the conditions the bill imposes on social media companies to patrol, monitor and flag online material that may be offensive but is not illegal, suggests the government’s real goal is “aimed at encouraging social media companies to censor speech that the government cannot outlaw.”
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.
GOLDSTEIN: Online harms bill an assault on free speech, civil liberties groups say
5
0
29.02.2024
The two Canadian civil liberties organizations that convinced a federal court judge the Trudeau government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act violated fundamental rights — which the feds are appealing — are sounding similar alarms about its new online harms bill.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
So it would be a good idea for the government to listen.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) say while the proposed legislation contains legitimate measures to protect children from online sexual abuse, cyber-bulling and self-harm, and to combat the spread of so-called “revenge porn,” its provisions to prevent the expression of hate are draconian, vaguely worded and an attack on free speech.
Both the CCLA and the CCF say the proposed legislation, known as Bill C-63, will require major amendments before becoming law to pass constitutional muster.
“Justice Minister (Arif) Virani has tied these speech restrictions to defensible measures like removing images of child sexual exploitation........
© Winnipeg Sun
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
