Lawyers Identify Warning Signs in Online Harms Bill Targeting Hate Crimes
These are some of the key concerns that lawyers have highlighted in Bill C-63 since its presentation before the House of Commons on Feb. 26.
Under the bill, if a judge determines that an “informant has reasonable grounds” to fear that a defendant might commit a future hate crime, the defendant must adhere to specific restrictions for a year.
These restrictions include, among other things, wearing an electronic bracelet and observing curfew. Non-compliance carries a one-year prison term.
Other concerns, according to Mr. Moore and other lawyers, include extensive powers granted to a government-appointed Digital Safety Commission, the revised definitions and monitoring of “hate speech,” and obligations on social media companies that may lead to broad censorship of online comments.
Related Stories
The government’s widely promoted bill aims to prevent “online harms” by addressing content that exploits or bullies children, incites terrorism or violence, and stirs up hatred.
It proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to introduce a new standalone hate crime offense applicable to all existing offenses, add the factor of “fear” regarding future hate crime commission, and enhance penalties for hate crimes. For instance, the maximum penalty for “advocating for genocide” could rise from five years to life imprisonment. The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) expresses concerns about this.
The bill intends to modify the Human Rights Act to specify that posting “hate speech” online is discrimination, permitting people to lodge complaints against the poster with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In certain cases, complaints can be filed anonymously.
Online platforms will have a duty to act responsibly, safeguard children, and render some content inaccessible. Failure to comply with the requirements could lead to fines of 6% of their gross global revenue or $10 million, whichever is higher.
The bill also aims to establish new regulatory bodies. The Digital Safety Commission, consisting of three to five members, would oversee content policing; the commissioners would be appointed by the cabinet, with the commission chair’s approval requiring a parliamentary vote. A Digital Safety Ombudsperson would serve as a guide for users, and a Digital Safety Office would assist the commissioners and the ombudsperson in their duties.
Human Rights Tribunals
While certain harms covered by the bill are relatively straightforward — such as sexual exploitation of children or inducing children to harm themselves — some are more ambiguous. “Inciting violence” and “fomenting hatred” are open to interpretation.
Mr. Dehaas noted that, under current legislation, the attorney general, a legal expert, must be consulted before applying any hate speech charges, precisely because it is challenging to ascertain that the threshold has been met.
Under Bill C-63, the courts would still handle criminal cases of hate speech, but a new category of hate speech cases would be heard and penalized by the CHRT.
The tribunal can impose fines up to $50,000, and each complainant could receive up to $20,000.
Mr. Moore predicts that this could be a convenient way for individuals to silence political adversaries, particularly since some complaints can be lodged anonymously.
“It’s pretty inexpensive to file a complaint. It doesn’t cost you anything. And if it doesn’t even reveal your identity, you can go ahead and do it to all of your political opponents,” he remarked.
He highlighted that the tribunal is government-appointed and pointed out that even in cases where the tribunal rules in favor of the accused, “the process often is the punishment here.”
