Canada To Orwell: "Hold My Beer"
The "Online Harms Bill" is aptly named: it will harm all Canadians.
I’ve worn a few hats in my life: farmer’s son, professional university student, veterinarian, physician, husband, father, writer, amateur podcaster.
But I’ve never been a criminal.
That will soon change, however, if the Liberal government’s Bill C-63 — the Online Harms Bill — is passed into law.
The proposed legislation, introduced with some fanfare in late February, was presented under the guise of protecting our children from online porn, bullying, and sextortion. I think we can all get on board with that.
But one barely needs to scratch the surface of the document to discover that the “protection of children” is just a thin veneer for a bill that proposes to do far more.
The penalty for “promoting genocide”, for instance, skyrockets from five years to life in prison. To which one might say, reasonably enough, what’s the big deal? Genocide is abhorrent.
But who decides what constitutes genocide, given that the term is thrown around these days with such abandon that it’s difficult to know what it means anymore?
In 1994, when the Hutus were busy slaughtering Tutsis in Rwanda, we could all agree they were engaged in genocide. Yet in its present war against Hamas, Israel similarly stands accused by much of the international community (including hordes of pro-Palestinian Canadians demonstrating in our cities) of perpetrating genocide — this with approximately 35,000 killed out of a Gazan population of over 2 million people.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators shouting in adoration of Hamas are supporting a terrorist organization hell-bent on wiping Israel — and all Jews — from the face of the earth. Which would be a genocide, by anyone’s definition — yet no one is accusing the protestors of “promoting genocide”. Under the metrics laid out in Bill C-63, such demonstrators would be deserving of life in prison. (Which begs an obvious question: Given that promoting genocide is already punishable by five years in prison, why have none of the protestors been charged? Why have none of them been jailed?)
And there’s this: Canadians are collectively guilty of not just supporting, but implementing, a genocide against our Indigenous peoples. Our very own Prime Minister said so. And it’s not just in the past, either: The findings of The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, wholeheartedly endorsed by Justin Trudeau, state unequivocally that ‘a genocide is being perpetuated against Indigenous peoples in Canada”.
So we should all be in prison. For life, once Bill C-63 becomes law. We might as well erect bars around the perimeter of the entire country and make it one giant jail cell.
But where Bill C-63 truly heads into full-blown dystopia is with its proposed trampling of rights to freedom of speech. Anyone with an axe to grind can take anything you’ve ever said or written and accuse you (anonymously!) of hatred “based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.” “Discrimination”, already banned under the Canadian Human Rights Act, is expanded to include speech “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group”.
“Detestation” and “vilification”, we are assured, is not the same as “disdain” or “dislike” — the latter don’t rise to the level of an “offence”.
But who will decide what constitutes detest versus disdain?
Not a court of law, with the usual requirements for rational arguments, the weighing of evidence, and the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”.
Instead, a government-appointed bureaucrat from the newly created Digital Safety Commission will decree, based on a “balance of probabilities”, whether you’re as guilty as sin. As Michael Geist, Canada’s Research Chair in Internet and e-Commerce Law, noted, the Commission won’t be bound “by any legal or technical rules of evidence.”
And if you’re guilty, boom: a $50,000 fine payable to the government; and another twenty grand to the faceless individual who accused you. And no limit on how often you can be accused.
The lineup of aggrieved parties is certain to be long. What this bill is certain to “foment” is a massive avalanche of work for lawyers, and absolute nightmares for those poor sods who have ever dared to offer contrarian opinions in the public square. Sods like me, for example, who are attracted to controversial issues like pyromaniacs to matches.
It’s laughable, to my mind, that anything I’ve ever written could be construed as “hate speech”. But what I think on the matter… won’t matter.
I wrote a piece recently for the MacDonald Laurier Institute on the “gender affirming care” controversy. It was well received, generally; and I decided to share it on Medium, the online magazine to which I’ve posted articles in the past. A day later it was removed, along with this warning:
Hateful content
We do not allow content that may undermine the dignity and rights of transgender and/or non-binary individuals. This may include misgendering, dead-naming, claims that transgender individuals are not their gender identity (“trans women are men”), or erroneous claims based on disinformation or pseudoscience.
Repeated violation of our rules may result in additional suspensions, decreased distribution of your posts, and potential suspension of your account.
Thanks,
Trust & Safety
There you have it. Even with my tiny audience, I’m bound to be in trouble. Imagine what luminaries like Jordan Peterson will be up against.
And believe it or not, it gets worse.
Not only can any anonymous person pursue you for what you’ve already said or written; they can file a complaint against you for what they think you might say.
And if the quasi-judicial Digital Safety Commission agrees that your tormentor has “reasonable grounds” to fear words which you have not uttered (or written), you’ll be forced “to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace” — which may mean house arrest, ankle-bracelet monitoring, and serial urine testing to ensure abstinence from drugs and alcohol (lest you say anything really offensive while you’re stoned or high).
And if you don’t comply? Off to prison you go.
Welcome, Canadians, to the brave new era of pre-thought crime.
Even George Orwell wasn’t this imaginative.
Well, Sir, all you have shown (and accurately, I note) is simply how wretched is this country.
I am nearing the end of my life - I am seventy-three. I may have some number of years left to me but, clearly, I am on the downslope. You, however, and (I presume) many of your readers are (by my standards at least) young and vigorous. Truly, if I was younger I would leave this wretched country. I am, however, "of an age" and I will be here for the balance of my years. My wife was shocked recently when our adult son advised that he was starting to think about leaving the country; by contrast, I was not at all surprised.
Oh, this wretched country! Orwell, indeed!
Without a doubt the tyrants will keep some of the commentary "on ice" & then when you least expect it, boom 💥. I imagine this is why Chris Skye is leaving, living in exile to continue the fight. This will be a cut & paste document across the Western world, imo. Thanks for the heads-up & keep yours down.👍🇦🇺