Canadian Justice Minister, Arif Virani, is defending the legislation, but critics are calling for criminal code changes to be scrapped.
With the Online Harms bill tabled, analysis of the legislation has been pouring in. We obviously have our own analysis, but others have also weighed in. This includes Michael Geist, Open Media, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA). It’s a pretty safe bet that the reaction has been that the bill has been vastly improved over the 2021 version. Of course, this is not to say the bill is perfect by any means.
Criticisms of the legislation include the possibility of secret police investigations, the overwhelming new power wielded by a brand new governmental body, and numerous changes to the criminal code among others.
Of course, there is also criticism that seems to be misplaced such as the criticism that you are going to get thrown in jail for simply being a jerk, but those are quickly debunked by the exceptions that are in the bill itself.
Either way, the Justice Minister is defending the legislation. He said that this is not about insults launched from a cell phone. From Global News:
Virani says the legislation is not about censoring “insults launched from a smartphone” but instead giving victims and law enforcement more tools to respond to a rising tide of hate in Canada.
“We’re not talking about insulting, offensive remarks or bad jokes. We’re talking about things like calling for the extermination of a people,” the justice minister told host Mercedes Stephenson in an interview on The West Block.
Clearly, this is in reference to the exceptions that were thrown into the legislation which differentiated between actual hate crimes and just saying stupid things without being serious. As we’ve noted, as far as those provisions are concerned, it’s about intent. Were you just posting something stupid before shutting off the phone for the night or are you actively engaging in pushing a serious hate campaign? That’s where the fault line seems to be with respect to some of these provisions.
Now, with that said, there are perfectly valid criticisms of the bill. Even the article noted those criticisms:
But some legal experts call the proposed changes overly broad and warn they will stifle debate.
“It’s very difficult to know where the line is between controversial speech and speech that is actually said hateful,” Josh Dehaas, a lawyer with the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said in an interview with Global News this week.
The bill would also usher in tougher sentences for hate propaganda crimes like advocating genocide, which could carry life in prison.
But Mendelsohn says the government has gone “overboard” with penalties she calls “too large and too stiff.”
These are valid points as far as I can tell. Where exactly is the line between posting something stupid online and actually pushing hate propaganda? The problem is that there’s going to be different people looking at these issues and different people coming up with different interpretations. Is the bill setting out a clear line in that regard? Not necessarily. The line is, in fact, a bit blurry. Maybe the definitions can be tightened up further.
The latter criticism referenced in the excerpt is definitely in reference to the changes in other laws. There are a number of changes being made to numerous laws that I, admittedly, have less experience in examining (i.e. the Criminal Code). I mean, I analyze technology and policy issues, not necessarily the full gambit of the criminal justice system. It would be outside my area of expertise to discuss such things.
So, there’s going to be plenty of debate moving forward, touching on areas that go beyond just technological issues. I’m certainly open to learning new things in the process going forward. I’ll also happily continue to monitor things on my side as well to see if there are any changes as well.
Drew Wilson on Twitter: @icecube85 and Facebook.
