The reality about Online Harms Act
From the people who brought you such classic hits as “adding gender identity to the Human Rights Act would criminalize free speech” and “signing on to the UN Global Compact on Migration would mean Canada’s immigration policy being set by foreign entities” comes the newest sensation on the scene — portraying the Online Harms Act as a total affront to freedom of expression online.
Critics are once again engaging in bad faith tactics and are trying to frame the issue of online harms as a false dichotomy between freedom of expression and clamping down on online harms, including online hate speech. Don’t let them.
The Online Harms Act relies on a definition of hatred that is based on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. It is not speech that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau personally hates — an accusation levied at the PM by Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
Hate speech must involve “detestation” or “vilification” based on a prohibited ground of discrimination like race, religion or sexual orientation. This means the vilification or detestation of an entire group of people and not just calling someone names online.
While our government is certainly up for debate on how to improve the bill — including hearing from stakeholders, experts and everyone in between on which provisions they feel should be fired into the sun — we need to have a conversation that is rooted in reality. Unfortunately, a lot of the commentary on the bill has been light on facts and heavy on hyperbole.
For example, let’s look at the way the newly proposed peace bond for hate has been framed. If you were to believe, for example, the right-wing online ecosystem, peace bonds are a novel concept created by the Liberal government to appease the woke overlords while punishing regular Canadians with pre-crime offences, like thinking the wrong thing.
A quick perusal of any number of certain political outlets that have weighed in on the matter reveals invocations of the movie “Minority Report” and a looming dystopia.
Peace bonds have long been established by both statute and common law in our criminal justice system; there are already six other types of peace bonds that exist in the Criminal Code and are used when an individual appears likely to commit a criminal offence, before the offence has been committed.
A judge may only impose conditions via peace bond if they are reasonable and necessary to address the specific threat, limited to the time necessary to address it.
Additionally, just like some other categories of peace bonds, (such as ones used for terrorism), the use of a peace bond in this new hate context would require the consent of the attorney general at the provincial level before it even went to a judge.
But that doesn’t matter when there is rage farming to be done.
Justice Minister Arif Virani introduced this bill because large online platforms are currently unregulated companies that prioritize harmful content over other types of content to maximize our engagement, so that the platforms can maximize their profits. This has led to tangible harms to children as well as to communities that we know are vulnerable to hate.
Some critics are trying to convince you that the Online Harms Act is an extremist piece of legislation that poses a threat to your freedom of speech online. It’s not.
The truly extreme option is continuing to do nothing while kids suffer and vulnerable communities face increasing hate — particularly when other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, the European Union and Australia have enacted their own frameworks to better protect their citizens online. It is time Canada do the same.