Canada’s Online Harms Act: Protection or Obstruction?
There are a variety of dystopian novels that act as warnings for what could become of our future, one of the most well-known of which is 1984 by George Orwell. 1984 is set in Oceania, a place that exists in perpetual war and lives by the slogan “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” One of the most serious offenses in this dystopian society is “thoughtcrime,” which entails the act of thinking anything that goes against the ideas or practices of the reigning government. A thoughtcrime can evoke the harshest punishment in all of the state, despite its lack of any actual action. Many of those reading this story see thoughtcrime as one of the most dystopian aspects of the text due to its blatant disregard for a person's freedom. In Canada, however, thoughtcrime could become a reality. As the Canadian government attempts to push the C-63 bill, they subsequently push the concept of conviction for thought and go against the principle of free speech. If passed, the C-63 bill would be an extreme infringement on the rights of Canadian citizens and would set a negative precedent for the institution of free speech in the country.
On November 22, 2021, Minister of Justice Arif Virani introduced a bill to amend the criminal code entitled the Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63. This bill is comprised of four provisions, the first and last of which are both effective tools for the protection of Canadian citizens. The first provision is to protect against harmful content such as the non-consensual distribution of intimate images and other necessary protections. The fourth provision serves to create mandatory reporting measures for internet child pornography. While these two provisions have been deemed necessary and beneficial by most, hidden between them lie two provisions that would serve to completely undermine the freedoms of Canadian citizens. While provision three establishes a broad system for punishing the culprits of “hate” messages online, provision two allows for the conviction of people based on a “fear that they might commit a hate crime.”
One of the most important things to take into account when passing a bill of any nature is the possibilities for its use. In the case of this bill, Arif Virani has stated that the bill “won't actually be used” for the extremes it allows. This argument is completely void, however, because it does not serve to protect the citizens from federal overreach. As we have learned from many novels like 1984, protections need to be put in place so that the government does not have the ability to violate citizens' freedom of expression. Provision two states, as one of its amendments, that “It would allow a judge to impose an order requiring a person to keep the peace and be of good behavior if the judge is satisfied by the evidence that there are reasonable grounds to fear that the person will commit a hate propaganda offense.” While crimes motivated by hate should undeniably be punished, the punishment of someone on the grounds that they might commit a crime goes against the entire system of just persecution.
In addition, provision three states that “The bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) to provide that it is a discriminatory practice to communicate, or cause to be communicated, hate speech by means of the internet or other telecommunications in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or a group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” The issue of hateful internet comments is not one of individuals, but of the system in which those individuals are implicit. If any entity is to be punished for hateful internet communications, it should be the platforms on which they are written. In addition, the whole institution of free speech relies on people’s ability to state their beliefs. Though the government may enact provision three to persecute one type of hate speech, such an amendment could in the future be used to persecute people solely based on their beliefs.
Canada has never been ranked particularly high in the free speech department and currently lies at number 10 in the 2023 freedom of expression index. While not a bad ranking by any means, their current proposal would likely cause an extreme drop in their ranking. In Denmark, the top-ranked country in terms of free speech, Act 266b outlines their method for protecting against hate speech. 266B includes extensive information on the circumstances in which it can be applied, information that ensures citizens' free speech is not obstructed. In addition, the act states that the maximum prison sentence, if convicted, is two years, in contrast to the maximum of life imprisonment that would be ensured by Canada’s bill.
Denmark’s law against hate speech protects their citizens from harmful language while also protecting their freedoms, something proven by their high freedom of expression ranking. Freedom of expression is measured by “the extent to which people can voice their views and the media can present different political perspectives.” Hate speech is something that can cause immeasurable harm and must be reprimanded. However, to protect the institution of free expression, it cannot be persecuted without proof of the harm caused or proof of criminal action. In order to minimize hate speech, there must be systematic change, but criminalization would not allow for positive change. Regardless of what people's views are, free expression allows any views to be voiced as long as they do not cause irreparable harm. To silence some, while theoretically a positive solution, would in turn open the gates for even greater injustices.
Those in the Canadian government who push this bill and attest that it is necessary are not acting in the best interest of their citizens. All people are raised surrounded by different ideologies and regardless of what those ideas are, imprisonment based on this would not solve systematic discrimination. In addition, this bill attempts to politicize free expression, one of the most important cornerstones of democracy. In doing this, Bill C-63 has the potential to be catastrophic in the future. This was supposedly proposed “In order to combat hate speech and hate crimes both online and offline.” In reality, however, such a bill will serve to marginalize Canadian citizens and will in turn foster more hatred among the populace.