Proposing a Bakers' Dozen of NEXT STEPS for the ONLINE HARMS BILL
When you can't be all things to all people, you have got to Re-Think
Recently, Canada’s Minister of Justice presented Bill. C-63 with these words:
“I am the parent of two young boys. I will do whatever I can to ensure their digital world is as safe as the neighbourhood we live in. Children are vulnerable online. They need to be protected from online sexual exploitation, hate and cyberbullying. Now more than ever, especially given the evolving capabilities of AI, online platforms must take responsibility for addressing harmful content and creating a digital world where everyone can participate safely and freely. This legislation does just that.”
https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-63
This Bill is set to come back to the House of Commons for its SECOND READING. Should it pass that, it would move to the Committee stage and reappear in the House for the third reading, prior to being transferred to the Senate for its three readings there.
It is clear that in its current form, the ONLINE HARMS BILL does NO ONE any good.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has launched this petition. And the Canadian Constitution Foundation has issued this press release and launched this video and this letter writing action. One of their concerns was described as follows:
The Bill would create a new process for individuals and groups to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that online speech directed at them is discriminatory. The tribunal could order fines of up to $50,000, and awards of up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would be anonymous. Findings would be based on a mere “balance of probabilities” standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The subjectivity of defining “hate speech” will lead to punishments for protected speech. The mere threat of human rights complaints will chill large amounts of protected speech.
Looking at recent coverage of this bill (in the section below the quote on how what we are told shapes our experiences of the world) it is clear that too many disparate things have been dumped into this bill making it useless when it comes to practically addressing real problems. There is not even consensus as to what the bill would actually accomplish amid a lot of concern as to its eventual effects if passed as is. Are we trying to police thought? Or have someone tell us what is ok to say that might not be misconstrued as “hate”? Or are we trying to get a handle on cyber-bullying? Or are we trying to ensure that pedophiles get properly charged and to keep young eyes away from pornography(from images that are increasingly showing up in physical libraries while we figure out how to curtail access to them online)?
The CBC (especially on its Kids’ News page) lauds the bill as a child protection bill while Global focussed on the hate crime/human rights angle. In an article deemed “political analysis”, the CBC found a way to politicize the issue, choosing to focus its coverage of the bill on critiquing the opposition leaders’ comments on the bill and insinuating that concerns he raised were “elaborate fears” suggesting that someone has yet to point out how such “fears” were to be realized. Meanwhile, CTV and Global both gave space to organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, citing them as they outline the types of concerns Pierre Polievre was referring to. The National Post came at the topic critically, as do various independent media outlets. And Christian commentators look at the cumulative effect of the combination of Bill C-63 and Bill C-367, which seeks to repeal the section of the Criminal Code that permits discussion of the issues around critique of certain identifiable groups for specific reasons such as in historical and religious texts.
Seeking Clarity from a Birds’ Eye View
Stepping back, let’s ask the following questions:
What problems is the Bill trying to solve?
a perceived need to protect children from online sexual exploitation, hate and cyberbullying particularly with the advent of AI
insufficient oversight in pornographic content shown to minors and in predators luring children for sexual exploitation;
a perceived “duty to make content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and intimate content communicated without consent inaccessible to persons in Canada in certain circumstances”
the need for transparency when it comes to the operations of digital service providers in Canada; providing some kind of ombudsperson as an advocate for the public interest in these matters; setting up a recordkeeping system to monitor how the above issues are being addressed; setting up processes for certain people to have access to those records; figuring out a system of charges to the digital service providers for being negligent in their duty to ensure compliance, charges that are to help cover the additional costs of monitoring; clarifying which sorts of internet services should be included, and various details about data preservation etc.
the perceived need to amend the existing Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service
concerns about rising Islamophobia & antisemitism stem from an effort to navigate coverage of and responses to the historic and modern day conflict between the Israeli state and its Muslim citizens & neighbours
a perceived need to define “hatred” for the purposes of establishing “hate crime” and “hate propaganda” offences as they relate to the above matter; to “create a recognizance to keep the peace” and to increase maximum sentences for such offences.
a perceived need to amend the Human Rights Act to “provide that it is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination” (because there is NO reference in the Act to the words “internet” or “telecommunication” despite their existence for a good 30 years!!)
a perceived need to authorize the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to deal with these offences once they become law
It is important to note that while the Human Rights Act search tool does not lead to any instances of the word “internet” within the document, according to Wikipedia, savvy politicians have already included online harms in other child pornography laws in Canada. Yet in some instances, these are deemed “unenforceable”. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Canada
What problems related to “Online Harms” are missing from the Bill?
The Bill, in its current form is addressing two types of harm:
harms related to sexual exploitation (re: minors, and revictimization of sexual abuse survivors, regardless of age)
harms related to hate speech
The Minister of Justice also promised to include harms related to cyberbullying but they are not addressed in the current draft. Also not addressed are the role the Internet plays in harms related to nurturing addictions to any repeated use of online platforms, i.e. for gaming, for gambling, for pornography, for shopping, for overuse of social networking sites (SNS) etc. . We learn from the Canadian Mental Health Association that…
..., 86 per cent of students in Ontario visit social media sites daily and about 16 per cent spend five hours a day or more on social media.5 For some people, high rates of SNS use can lead to compulsive behaviours with symptoms similar to addictions when SNS use is restricted or stopped.6 … some researchers have identified and acknowledged that patterns of continued use are “capable of altering the mood, motivation, concentration and producing a dissociating and disinhibiting experience for users.”7 For some people, frequent use of SNS can lead to patterns that can be compulsive and have negative impacts.
Research also suggests that there are similar neurological responses between compulsive SNS use and addiction to substances. … The changes in the participants’ brains that resulted from positive feedback on an SNS site were similar to individuals who experience addiction to substances like drugs or alcohol.
Also not addressed are the harms related to prolonged exposure to radio frequency radiation from wireless technology which can impair the immune system, ie. a reaction to Electromagnetic Frequency (EMF) radiation emitted by devices used to access online services. Environmental toxicologists like Dr. Marga Havas are sounding the alarm:
“5G technology creates a substantial increase in radio frequency radiation and greater risk of electromagnetic interference. Governments and regulators are ignoring the poor health outcomes people are suffering because of increased RFR exposure (non-ionizing radiation).
The medical profession does not yet recognize electromagnetic hypersensitivity as a health hazard, yet researchers in the field believe that 3% of the population have severe sensitivity and another 35% experience moderate sensitivity.” (Source)
Also missing are harms perpetuated upon society via increased technological surveillance of citizens. Breaking trust and constantly being suspicious of others have the potential for long-range societal harm, including a further fragmentation of our society.
Likewise, we learn from the final report of the National Citizens Inquiry (NCI) of the harms perpetuated on Canadians by the misuse of the role of Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC and other broadcasters in violation of the following sections of Canada’s Broadcasting Act:
3 (1) (i) (iv) provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern and to directly participate in public dialogue on those matters including through the community element
3 (1) (s) (ii) cater to tastes and interests not adequately provided for by the programming provided for mass audiences and include programs devoted to culture, politics, history, health and public safety, local news and current events, local economy and the arts,
Many Canadians have not yet heard the sworn expert and lay testimonies of the over 300 Canadians gathered over 24 days in 8 cities across Canada. The immense final report contains this chilling section on how our own government used the media, not to enlighten, inform and warn Canadians about the ongoing scientific findings in the fields of COVID-19 prevention and treatment, of the harms perpetuated on Canadians by the ill-advised public health measures, but of the use of the media to initiate a full-on corporate (BigPharma backed) propaganda campaign on our citizens. (Starting on page 248 here.)
On page 253, the independent commissioners of the National Citizens’ Inquiry provided these recommendations (among many others)
Likewise, starting on page 395 of its Final Report, the NCI commissioners summarize the testimony that was specific to the operations of Canada’s media platforms. When looking a Bill such as C-63 that wishes to delineate where Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Expression cross the line into potentially harmful territory, the following recommendations need to be taken into consideration:
Recommended Next Steps
STOP the ONLINE HARMS Bill in its current form.
STOP believing it is bad to rely on parents to supervise their childrens’ access to the potentially harmful sites (as mentioned in one of the media reports linked to below.)
PROVIDE education on all the harms of prolonged exposure to the internet, including the potential for addiction, radio frequency radiation, decreased social and relationship skills, postural problems, etc.
PROVIDE education on the Ethics Guidelines of the Canadian Association of Journalists for every Member of Parliament and their staff, every manager of media outlets, etc. Start with the top, modelling a change of attitude towards a difference of opinion among an informed citizenry. Embrace diversity of viewpoints and lived experiences, not just when it comes to expressions of culture, ethnicity and sexuality, BUT ALSO when it comes to those with a deeper understanding and wider experience of controversial geopolitical, scientific, and other issues. Ensure coverage of events happening locally even if they would NOT attract newsroom staff. Understand that society is diverse and that media outlets getting taxpayer funding are accountable to all segments of society. Their reporting should reflect this.
MANDATE the adherence to the CAJ Ethics Guidelines as part of broadcasting licenses. This would include ensuring that on a regular basis, media platforms purposefully include a piece in which the OTHER SIDE of an issue is expressed. Articles attended as “hit-pieces” on an expert in a matter can NOT be run on their own without a corresponding response by the person behind attacked. The policy would have provided a counterbalance, for example to this article in the CBC Leslyn Lewis claims WHO pandemic pact a step toward 'global government' with misrepresentations of her comments like: "The bottom line is that her claims are so far from the truth that it's actually hard to know where to begin," said Prof. Kelley Lee, Canada Research Chair in Global Health Governance at Simon Fraser University. AND "This is nothing more than fearmongering. There is nothing to support these really strong assertions," said Prof. Timothy Caulfield, Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy at the University of Alberta. "There is no treaty the WHO could negotiate that would suspend our Constitution. They just don't have the power to do that." The CAJ Ethics Guidelines would have mandated the CBC to provide Dr. Lewis a chance to set the record straight about information upon which she clearly has more expertise than those whose misrepresentations were shared. Such a statement would need to be published or at least linked to retroactively in the same issue as the one-sided critique. By opening up the public airways and media platforms to a focus on diversity of viewpoints, there will be no need to define and charge for “hate speech.” One-sided defamatory speech should be challenged with the reminder that there are other ways of knowing and experiencing the same phenomenon. Keep the criminalization for the rare situation.
Ensure a much wider representation in the committee structure for the drafting of an improved bill IF a bill on “online harms” should be written at all. IF it is, be sure it includes references to ALL the various types of harm listed above. This one seems to focus on two areas of interest only.
To deal with sexual exploitation, revisit any laws currently utilized and ensure that they contain adequate monitoring and oversight. ALSO be aware of the need to remove corruption from the judicial system. Learn from the documentation recently provided by Dr. William Makis on child sex trafficking cases in Alberta and BC. Simply tracking and charging predators is not enough if decision makers in the justice system decide to overturn cases, protecting perpetrators. Search “child sex abusers” here:
Drop the idea that the government needs to “police language and thought”. Become aware of the technological expansion now underway in the area of digital surveillance. Subscribe to https://reclaimthenet.org to sharpen your awareness of the possibilities and problems of evermore “innovation” in this field. Keep the dangers of government overreach in mind when redesigning the “tech” parts of the bill around monitoring, reporting, etc. DO NOT cherry pick tech companies upon whom to confer the privilege of “data harvesting” from your citizens as part of surveillance and monitoring activities. Ensure that contractors representing privacy and censorship free online platforms are given consideration alongside of the top tech bigwigs.
Use this project as a way to start integrating the recommendations around media and propadanga presented by the NCI as shown above.
DROP any idea that “HATE” can be ascertained and measured. Just like we do not try to measure and quantify LOVE - setting laws and policies around that concept, we cannot do this for the very subjective emotion of HATE.
Understand how our compassion has been weaponized by those who stand to gain financially from rattling us all up to call each other names, to coerce or gaslight each other. Teach respect.
Expand the “protected grounds” under the Human Rights Act to preclude discrimination against others for their medical choices. And consider ways to protect those whose intellect and research interests lead them to conclusions that are “way ahead of the curve” as compared to the rest of us. For more on this matter, see LINK TO PREVIOUS POST, in particular, the section around Scientists ahead of their time.
Cancel Bill C-367, which seeks to repeal Paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code. This section allows discussions such as these on criticisms against those with protected grounds for discrimination, but also religious expression, historic and religious texts, etc. Previously, lawmakers chose to maintain this series of exemptions. No compelling reason to remove this exemption and present an has as yet been provided.
C-63 as told by mainstream (government & corporate funded) media
CBC Kids’ TV News:
Children’s safety is one of the stated motivations for the legislation.
“The safety, the mental health and even the lives of our kids and our most vulnerable are at stake,” Justice Minister Arif Virani told a news conference on Monday.
The bill proposes to police seven types of harmful content online. That includes content that sexually victimizes a child, content used to bully a child and content that encourages a child to harm themselves.
“For too long, we have tolerated a system where online platforms have offloaded their responsibilities onto parents, expecting them to protect their kids from harms that platforms create or amplify,” said the news release.
Critics say the bill took too long to write and does not cover every aspect of online harm.
One gap is that private messages aren’t addressed
CBC Political Analysis: Online harms debate pits real threats against elaborate fears
Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada Arif Virani said his bill would create three "overarching obligations" for major online platforms: "a duty to protect children, a duty to act responsibly and the duty to remove the most egregious content."
Specifically, Virani said, C-63 "targets the worst of what we see online, content that sexually victimizes children or revictimizes survivors, intimate content shared without consent, content that incites violence, extremism or terrorism, or foments hatred and content that is used to bully a child or induce a child to self-harm."
"It does not undermine freedom of speech," the minister said.
After running their intentions through multiple rounds of consultations, the government ended up with a rather narrow piece of legislation.
Platforms will be required to produce "digital safety plans" to mitigate the risk that users will be exposed to harmful content, and they will be subjected to new oversight and transparency requirements. But they will only be required to remove two types of content — material that sexually victimizes a child and intimate content posted without consent.
In a written statement released on Tuesday, Poilievre suggested police and the courts should be sufficient to deal with harmful content.
If anything is going to provoke a debate, it might be the government's desire to restore the Canadian Human Rights Commission's authority to hear complaints about hate speech. That could revive a fight from more than a decade ago that ended with Conservative MPs voting to repeal an earlier provision in the Canada Human Rights Act that was accused of putting a chill on free speech.
Virani argues that the legislation's definition of "hatred" — involving "detestation and vilification," not simply something that is insulting — is specific and narrow and informed by Supreme Court jurisprudence. But small armies of lawyers and civil liberties experts will now pore over the finer points.
In his written statement, Poilievre again raised the spectre of the government "banning opinions that contradict the Prime Minister's radical ideology." But if such a thing is plausibly foreseeable under the proposed legislation, it should be possible for someone to point to a specific part of the bill and explain how it might happen.
CTV News: Virani says new measures meant to help prevent hate crimes will come with safeguards
A series of steps would need to happen before a judge can restrict a person's movement because of fears they could commit a hate crime, federal Justice Minister Arif Virani said Thursday as he defended a suite of tougher penalties to combat hate.
Virani said he listened to calls for Ottawa to better respond to a rise in hate-motivated crimes when drafting the Online Harms Act, which includes a new peace bond provision.
The bill, tabled this week, looks to address a wide range of dangers, from content used to bully a child online to material that incites hate or promotes terrorism.
To address freedom of expression concerns, Virani has said that under the new rules, platforms would only be compelled to remove material within a tight 24-hour time frame if it contains child sexual abuse or the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
Critics including legal experts and civil society groups like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have raised concerns over proposed changes to the Criminal Code that usher in stiffer sentences for hate propaganda crimes, including up to life imprisonment for advocating genocide.
Global News: Online Harms Act not about ‘insults launched from a smartphone’: minister
Justice Minister Arif Virani is defending against criticism that the Liberals’ sweeping new online harms bill could have a chilling effect on free speech.
Virani says the legislation is not about censoring “insults launched from a smartphone” but instead giving victims and law enforcement more tools to respond to a rising tide of hate in Canada.
“We’re not talking about insulting, offensive remarks or bad jokes. We’re talking about things like calling for the extermination of a people,” the justice minister [said]
Bill C-63, tabled Monday, focuses mainly on protecting children against sexual abuse and exploitation on the internet.
The legislation also includes new measures targeting hate crimes.But some legal experts call the proposed changes overly broad and warn they will stifle debate.
“It’s very difficult to know where the line is between controversial speech and speech that is actually said hateful,” Josh Dehaas, a lawyer with the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said in an interview with Global News this week.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, meanwhile, says the bill represents a “serious clampdown on freedom of expression.” “There are a lot of ways we’re concerned about limiting people’s expression, limiting people’s privacy, limiting people’s liberty,” CCLA executive director Noa Mendelsohn Aviv said on Wednesday.
If passed, the legislation would change the Human Rights Act to make posting hate speech online a form of discrimination. Anyone found guilty by the Canadian Human Rights Commission would be ordered to pay $20,000.
National Post has MANY articles - more critical than positive, including this one:
Jesse Kline: Online harms act makes hate speech akin to murder
Promoting genocide would carry a maximum penalty of life in prison, but no one can agree on what genocide actually means.
When I was a kid, we used to say that, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt.” Nowadays, offensive speech is considered violence. Silence is violence. And those whose words are deemed by the state to be most egregious will be treated like serial killers.
“All of us expect to be safe in our homes, in our neighbourhoods and in our communities,” said Justice Minister Arif Virani, after tabling Bill C-63, the online harms act, in the House of Commons on Monday. “We should be able to expect the same kind of safety in our online communities.”
Bill C-63 establishes a new digital safety commission, digital safety ombudsperson and digital safety office (to assist the commission and ombudsman), which will be responsible for ensuring revenge porn and child pornography are taken offline within 24 hours. (Though child porn is already taken seriously by social media platforms and, if history is any indication, it won’t be long before the new bureaucracy’s mission expands).
C-63 as told by independent (listener supported) media
TRUE NORTH (sharing headlines only here)
Civil liberties group demands gov amends Bill C-63 to uphold rights
Liberals’ “online hate” bill contains $70K fines for speech and life imprisonment for hate...
No mention of free speech in federal human rights commission’s 2024-2025 plan
Poilievre says strong criminal laws will protect children, not censoring opinions
EPOCH TIMES: Peter Menzies: Online Harms Act Is Using Child Safety as a Front to Assault Canadians’ Freedoms
Commentary - Peter Menzies is a journalists researcher and former vice-chair of the Canadian Radio and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
The Online Harms Act, in all its ominous incarnations, was always going to be all about saving the children.
Except it was never just about that. It was really always about what has been revealed to be its core purpose: suppressing Canadians’ freedom of speech on the internet. The saving the children from exploitation by online predators part is just political exploitation. Either you agree with the bill entirely, its proponents will say, or you don’t want children protected.
Too cynical? If only that were the case. When I wrote about this immediately following the tabling of this legislation on Feb. 26, one commenter pointed out—rightly—that I hadn’t covered all the truly extreme steps Justice Minister Arif Virani had taken with this legislation, which is enormous in both length and complexity….
Online Harms, a.k.a. Bill C-63, will actually make it possible in Canada for you to be placed under house arrest for something the police think you might be thinking about saying online.
That’s right. The bill makes prior restraint possible when it comes to speech, giving anyone who “reasonably fears” you are about to post hateful content the ability to obtain a peace bond restraining you from doing so and confining you to your home. Yes, you’d have to get a judge to make the order, and yes, the attorney general would have to sign off, but what was once unimaginable in a modern liberal democracy not at war is about to become stark reality in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s post-national Canada….
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) is aghast.
“The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism,” the CCLA said in a statement.
“The bill imposes draconian penalties for certain types of expression, including life imprisonment for a very broad and vaguely defined offence of ‘incitement to genocide’, and 5 years of jail time for other broadly defined speech acts. This not only chills free speech but also undermines the principles of proportionality and fairness in our legal system. Bill C-63 also creates a new offence (‘offence motivated by hatred’) that risks misuse or overuse by police, and unfairness to accused persons in court.”
…Canadians are not wrong to be concerned about the online safety of their children.
So, as previously noted, the provisions in the Online Harms Act to impose duties of care on social media companies and establish oversight of them concerning the safety of children are entirely appropriate. They are in fact in alignment with what I called for two years ago in a paper for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
But this government couldn’t stop there. Quite despicably, it has built a Trojan horse from children’s safety and stuffed it with an overwrought assault on its citizens’ most basic freedoms.
Which is why Bill C-63 must be dismantled or defeated.
Bill to repeal a Criminal Code section removing exceptions for conviction
In their discussion on Bill C-63, various Christian commentators ALSO point to a companion Private Members’ Bill, Bill C-367, which seeks to repeal Paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.
http://www.criminal-code.ca/criminal-code-of-canada-section-319-3-defences/index.html
This Bill, if passed, would put an end to discussing statements that may be TRUE; that may be parts of religious texts; that may need discussion to clarify matters of public interest and even to have the discussion about how to address hatred toward identifiable groups.
most of my life I've managed to avoid MSM. In fact, about 2005 I dubbed it Info-tainment. it's hard to believe a majority of older Canadians still rely on the telly for "news". To rub salt into the wound, Canadian taxpayers foot the bill as the Fed govt uses CBC to spew lies and propaganda. To combat this, a substack writer has suggested we counter the term "mis-information" with MISSING information. I'm not sure if Canada can stop this fascist train. we can only hope the Warriors and truth tellers will stay healthy and strong until we can re-instate POGG.