Canadians are often seen as tolerant and friendly, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is challenging that perception. He’s pushing for a stringent new law, claiming it’s to enhance online safety. However, critics argue that it’s extreme, potentially resulting in life imprisonment for online hate speech or preemptive house arrest for anticipated future crimes. Even within the Liberal party, there’s dissent against the proposed legislation’s overreach.
Canada’s governing Liberal administration unveiled the Online Harms Act on February 26, aimed at enhancing internet safety, particularly on social media platforms. While the objective is commendable, the approach proposed by Trudeau’s government has shocked both Conservatives and a considerable faction within the Liberal party.
In addition to imposing significant fines on social media firms for content posted on their platforms, the legislation would also enforce severe penalties for individuals who violate hate speech regulations. Moreover, it could penalize individuals who haven’t engaged in any criminal activity solely based on a judge’s perception of potential future behavior.
Among the less contentious aspects of the Online Harms Act are provisions aimed at escalating penalties for hate speech. Currently, advocating genocide in Canada is punishable by up to five years in prison. Should the bill pass into law, this penalty would escalate to life imprisonment. Similarly, the penalty for the intentional promotion of hatred would increase from a maximum of two years in prison to five.
A concerning addition to the legislation is a provision enabling individuals to request a peace bond against someone based on their online statements. If a judge determines that an individual might potentially commit a hate crime in the future, they could impose various restrictions, such as limiting internet access, prohibiting proximity to religious sites, or even subjecting them to house arrest and electronic monitoring, all without undergoing a trial.
Arif Virani, the Liberal Justice Minister, has stood by the bill, asserting that it would aid in the deradicalization of individuals and drawing parallels to legislation concerning the safety of children’s toys. Despite his defense, many Canadians harbor reservations. Margaret Atwood, a Liberal-leaning author renowned for “The Handmaid’s Tale,” characterized the bill as “Orwellian” and cautioned against the perils of “revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff.”
Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party, accused the Liberals of aiming to censor viewpoints, while the Canadian Civil Liberties Association condemned the proposed law as draconian. Despite Canada’s reputation for amiability, it appears that being compelled to adhere to niceties is not well-received by its citizens.
