Lawyers in Canada warn that Online Posts could lead to UK-Style Convictions

Similarly in Canada, some online comments have been punished under existing Criminal Code provisions. In those cases, however, the convicted individuals operated websites or generally committed crimes that went beyond posting on social media.

Lawyers Marty Moore and Josh Dehaas say Canada could see convictions similar to those in the UK, though there are some key differences between the two countries’ laws.

The Case of Julie Sweeney

Julie Sweeney, 53, of Cheshire county in northwestern England, was sentenced on Aug. 14 to 15 months jail time for a post in a local Facebook community group.

Related Stories

The post featured a photo of people helping repair a mosque in Southport, in Merseyside county just north of Cheshire, that had been damaged by rioters. “It’s absolutely ridiculous. Don’t protect the mosque. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it,” Sweeney wrote.

Online activity has been a focal point for law enforcement following riots that took place across the UK in late July and early August. The riots were incited by false online claims that the suspect in the stabbing death of three children was a Muslim asylum seeker. Rioters attacked mosques as well as hotels housing asylum seekers.

UK authorities have been seeking those responsible for the misinformation as well as those considered to be stirring up hatred and violence through online posts.

Judge Steven Everett, who sentenced Sweeney, said “even people like you need to go to prison” and “have to learn to take responsibility for their language, particularly in the context of the disorder that was going on around the country.” Sweeney is the primary caregiver for her husband and had no previous criminal record.

Under existing Canadian law, Sweeney’s comment could be considered “advocating genocide,” said Dehaas, counsel with the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

“I think that, based on the test for advocating genocide, it’s possible that she would be guilty of that in Canada,” he told The Epoch Times. “That’s already illegal in Canada, and she could go to jail for years, just like she could in the UK.”

Bill C-63 would increase the maximum penalty for advocating genocide to a life sentence, up from five years in prison.

Moore, litigation director with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, also said that someone like Sweeney could be prosecuted in Canada.

“I think that kind of language in Canada would probably be subject to investigation and prosecution under our current Criminal Code prohibitions,” he told The Epoch Times.

Section 320.1001 of the bill says this would apply to “an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament.” Moore said that this current wording could have a life sentence applied to many offences, including speech offences.

The bill also allows prosecution of cases in which someone fears another person may commit a hate offence. That fear must be considered reasonable.

“In the UK, you’re seeing people prosecuted for things they actually said. But in Canada, we would allow the attorney general, or really anyone with the attorney general’s consent, to lay an information, which is the way you charge someone criminally if they fear someone’s going to say something hateful,” Moore said.

While Canada could potentially take things further than the UK in some regards, Canada does generally have better protections for free expression, Moore said.

His post on Facebook said people should “be smashing” a hotel that houses asylum-seekers in Leeds. There was no evidence Parlour physically went to the hotel, which did sustain some damage, according to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Parlour was convicted of “using threatening words or behaviour to stir up racial hatred” under the Public Order Act, the release said.

A post he made on the platform X on Aug. 7 said all hotels full of asylum-seekers should be burned. “That’s 100% the plan, plus gloves. No car either so no number plates to travel and a change of clothes nearby,” he added.

Moore said sections 318 and 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code are comparable to the Public Order Act that Kay and Parlour were convicted under. Section 318 relates to advocating genocide, as discussed above. Section 319 relates to public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred.

Moore and Dehaas provided some examples of cases in which these criminal charges have been applied to online comments, though they noted their lists may not be exhaustive.

Others convicted under Section 319 for online comments similarly faced other charges as well, had criminal records, administrated websites, or made comments offline in addition to their online comments.

Under Canada’s Bill C-63, comments that don’t meet the threshold for criminal charges may be brought before a new human rights tribunal that will be established. Dehaas said some comments that would be subject to criminal charges in the UK could be heard in Canada by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.