[Post Title Redacted]

Marie-Antoinette Governor-General Mary Simon hosted a conference in support of the new censorship czar and Bill C-63:

Rideau Hall yesterday had no comment after Governor General Mary Simon personally hosted a conference in support of a bill before Parliament, C-63 An Act To Enact The Online Harms Act. The guest list was limited to Attorney General Arif Virani and supporters of internet regulation: “We discussed this and our Online Harms Act.”

 

This Bill C-63:

In late February, the Liberal government introduced draft legislation in Parliament, Bill C-63. It purports to increase online protection for children. Officially named the Online Harms Act, that part of the legislation is laudable.

But what is not praiseworthy are the tacked-on provisions that would further restrict the rights of Canadians to speak, debate, and dissent. For example, the bill would create a “hate crime offence,” which in the eyes of government is “content that foments hatred.” Such hatred is defined in the bill as that which “expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group” based on categories in the existing Canadian Human Rights Act.

For those outside Canada not familiar with the list, it’s all-encompassing: anyone “motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.” To helpfully define “hatred,” one aspect of the bill adds this clarification: “Hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.”

Note that in this case it’s not actions that would be outlawed but thought, the key word being the allegation that someone might be “motivated” by hate to speak against the cited list of groups. Note as well that a civil servant in the human-rights bureaucracy would have a hand in deciding whether or not the accused has engaged in emotions “stronger than disdain or dislike” and is therefore potentially subject to a Criminal Code charge.

Just as alarming, if a hate-speech case arrives in court, as the Canadian Constitution Foundation notes, claims would be judged “on a mere ‘balance of probabilities’ standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” The bill would even “allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they believe on reasonable grounds may commit speech crimes in the future.” So future thoughtcrimes would be added to past thoughtcrimes as punishable Criminal Code offenses in Canada.

This would lead to a cornucopia of complaints, given that anyone would be able to file an anonymous complaint to the federal Human Rights Commission alleging that a “hate crime” has occurred. The commission in turn would be authorized to investigate, rule, and order “remedies,” including prosecution if the government-appointed body concludes that the accused is “motivated” by hate.

 

A broad brush for an iron fist.