Canada is preparing to take a new step in its liberticidal drift, always in the name of goodism, of course. A Bill, promoted by the Government of Justin Trudeau, which has already passed the first reading in Parliament, proposes severe penalties, including life imprisonment, for hate speech. It also allows for imprisonment for individuals who are suspected, with "reasonable doubts," of planning to commit a hate crime. Officially, and as stated in the text itself, the objective is to "promote the online safety of persons in Canada, reduce harms caused to persons in Canada as a result of harmful content online and ensure that the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies are transparent and accountable with respect to their duties under that Act."
A new hate speech law is required to protect children online, says Canada's @justinTrudeau. But it's not. Harming kids is already illegal. And now, Trudeau's government has confirmed to Public that the law would allow judges to send people to prison for speech crimes — for life. pic.twitter.com/qSdIOeVgTy
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) March 11, 2024
Life sentence for "apology for genocide"
Bill C-63, dubbed the Online Harms Act, modifies several existing regulations, toughening both what is considered a crime and the associated penalties. If approved, what they call "apology for genocide" will be punishable by life imprisonment. The text modifies section 318 (1) of the Canadian Criminal Code to state: "Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life." The problem is what will be considered "apology for genocide." For example, those responsible could indicate that defending Israel's ground operation in Gaza would fall into this category for encouraging the "genocide" of the Palestinians.
The sections relating to "public incitement to hatred," included in section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, will also be tightened. Thus, "every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace," will face penalties of up to five years in prison against the maximum of two collected to date. The same occurs with what is included in article 319(2), on the "deliberate promotion of hatred," which would be committed by those who "by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group."
Convict a person before committing a crime
The Online Harms Act places the severity of these “speech crimes” at the level of terrorism or murder. This follows from the inclusion of an article in subsection 810, which regulates the investigation of a citizen's suspicions about the possibility that another is preparing to commit a crime. If the new rule is approved, "A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit" an offense defined in the articles cited above.
If the judge "is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear" that the accused will commit the crime, he may "enter the defendant into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period" between 12 and 24 months. In the event that they refuse to commit, they could even be sent to prison for a year. Furthermore, if the judge deemed it necessary, the person allegedly guilty of attempting to commit a crime could be required to wear an electronic surveillance device, arrive home at certain times and remain at their residence for defined periods, among other measures.
Creation of new organizations to monitor the media and networks
In addition, it provides for the creation of a new Digital Security Commission, in the form of the Canadian Digital Security Ombudsman, to whom Canadians will send their complaints and reports, and a Digital Security Office to support the two previous ones. These institutions will monitor operators, media and social networks to "ensure" that they "are transparent and accountable with respect to their obligations under this Law." Its members will be appointed by the Government through the office of the Canadian Governor General.
The new commission, which will be made up of between 3 and 5 members, will have among its functions, "to contribute to the development of standards for online safety through research and education activities" (which we could translate as indoctrination). In addition, its members are responsible for "investigating complaints regarding content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent." To carry out their work, they can summon whoever they consider, appoint inspectors to investigate the complaint, against both individuals or operators, and even establish sanctions.
"Create a safer and more inclusive online space"
The main promoter of the measure, Minister of Justice, Arif Virani, said that the rule must be approved because, as a father of two young children: "I will do whatever I can to ensure their digital world is as safe as the neighborhood we live in. Children are vulnerable online. They need to be protected from online sexual exploitation, hate, and cyberbullying." A spokesperson for the Executive added, according to Public, that "ill C-63 is meant to bolster the rights of Canadians to express their thoughts and opinions by creating a safer and more inclusive online space."
Margaret E. Atwood: "Orwellian Trudeau bill"
Something that critics do not share. The well-known Canadian writer Margaret E. Atwood was horrified for this measure on her Twitter account, comparing Trudeau's initiative with the "Lettres de Cachet," a letter used in the French Ancien Regime to convey a specific and secret order from the king, which allowed, for example, the imprisonment without trial, exile or internment of people considered undesirable. Atwood also denounces that, if Trudeau's "Orwellian bill" is approved, "the possibilities for revenge, false accusations and thoughtcrimes are sooo inviting!"
If this account of the bill is true, it’s Lettres de Cachet all over again. The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting! Trudeau’s Orwellian online harms bill https://t.co/GziivgfNGt
— Margaret E Atwood (@MargaretAtwood) March 9, 2024
The opposition accuses Trudeau of trying to "ban opinions that contradict his radical ideology"
The leader of the opposition, Pierre Poilievre, issued a statement on the bill on February 27, after the first reading of the bill in Parliament. In it, the head of the Conservative Party of Canada stressed the need to regulate these crimes, but demanded that they be left to the police and judges, and not in the hands of new agencies of bureaucrats that censor the opinions of those who oppose Trudeau's "radical agenda."
We believe that these serious acts should be criminalized, investigated by police, tried in court and punished with jail, not pushed off to a new bureaucracy that does nothing to prevent crimes and provide no justice to victims. We do not believe government should be banning opinions that contradict the Prime Minister's radical ideology. Common sense Conservativeswill protect our children and punish criminals instead of creating more bureaucracy and censoring opinions."
Pierre Poilievre’s statement on bill C-63 pic.twitter.com/zVGsTKlfDm
— Glenda M 🇨🇦 🍎 (@McfarlaneGlenda) February 27, 2024
