Government officials say online hate speech would have to portray a group as “inherently violent” or “unhuman” to meet the threshold for investigation by a human-rights tribunal under a newly proposed law.
The changes have come under harsh criticism from civil liberties groups and legal experts who are voicing concerns about the potential chill on free speech.
Bill C-63, also known as the Online Harms Act, would allow sentences of up to five years behind bars for hate propaganda, up from the current two years.
Proposed changes to the Criminal Code include a new definition for hatred and a new stand-alone hate crime offense for crimes motivated by hatred on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Such moves are “draconian,” the Canadian Civil Liberties Associated has warned, adding that they could stifle public discourse, including through “criminalizing political activism.”
In both its human-rights legislation and the Criminal Code, the government is seeking to define hate speech as “content that expresses detestation or vilification.”
Remedies could include the perpetrator being ordered to take down their posts or pay a victim up to $20,000 in damages, a penalty that would increase to $50,000 if they refuse to comply, department officials said.
The Canadian Constitution Foundation is deeply concerned that the Online Harms Act introduced in the House of Commons on February 26 will significantly hamper constitutionally-protected expression. Among other effects:
– The Bill would create a new process for Canadians to report instances of online speech directed at them is discriminatory, with a quasi-judicial tribunal ordering fines up to $50,000, and up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would remain anonymous. Findings would be based on a mere “balance of probabilities” standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt;
– The Bill would increase the maximum sentence for “advocating genocide” from five years in prison to life in prison. That means words alone could lead to life imprisonment;
– The Bill would allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they believe on reasonable grounds may commit speech crimes in the future;
– The Bill would require social media companies to “minimize the risk that users of the service will be exposed to harmful content” with the threat of massive fines if they don’t properly mitigate the risk; &
– The mere threat of human rights complaints and fines for Canadians and social media companies will chill large amounts of otherwise protected speech.
Sources: CTV, Not the Bee, Techpolicy
Ask me anything
Explore related questions
