EDITORIAL: Bill on online harm is flawed due to excessive interference

Article Contents

When NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh tore up the Supply and Confidence Agreement with the Liberal government, he may have seen the controversial Online Harms Act as welcome collateral damage.

Article Contents

Civil liberties groups and advocates of free speech on the internet have lobbied Justice Minister Arif Virani to separate two parts of Bill C-63. They want amendments to the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Code to be removed from the bill and studied separately.

If that happens, it will slow down the legislative process and make it unlikely that the bill will pass before the next election.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says on its website that while it supports the stated purpose of Bill C-63 to maintain public safety, protect children and support marginalized communities, it “believes that this bill, in its current form, allows for flagrant violations of freedom of expression, privacy, rights of protest and liberty.”

Article Contents

Article Contents

It says the bill “undermines fundamental principles of democratic accountability and procedural fairness by granting sweeping powers to the new Digital Safety Commission.”

The organization OpenMedia, which is committed to online privacy, access and freedom of expression, is also critical.

“Bill C-63 presents Canadians with a false choice: either we accept extraordinarily draconian penalties for our speech, or we fail to provide common-sense protections online,” executive director Matt Hatfield wrote in a letter to Virani in May.

The two organizations are asking Virani to amend the bill so that controversial proposals, such as life imprisonment for promoting genocide and sentences of up to five years for hate speech, can be separated from measures that prevent the sexual exploitation or bullying of children online.

Article Contents

The bill also targets those deemed by authorities to be planning hate crimes. “Peace bonds” would make potential offenders punishable by house arrest.

While there is broad support in parliament for measures to protect children, there are fears that this is a pretext for an authoritarian government to impose sweeping powers that will restrict freedom of expression in this country.

This bill was ill-conceived and overreached. It should go back to the drawing board and only return to the House if it reflects the rights we cherish: Freedom of speech and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Article Contents