If you haven’t finished your Christmas shopping yet (or have and want to buy something for yourself), my #1 bestseller The Freedom Convoy: The Inside Story of Three Weeks that Shook the World is available from Amazon, Indigo, and Sutherland House. It offers a journalistic look behind the scenes of the protest that galvanized Canadians and led to the government’s unprecedented use of the Emergencies Act against its political opponents.
It’s been encouraging to see the sustained opposition to Bill C-11, the Liberal government’s internet regulation bill.
The bill will vastly expand the government’s radio and television regulatory authority to encompass the internet. The Liberals claim this is just to bolster Canadian content, but this can’t happen without manipulating what Canadians see on YouTube, Netflix, and elsewhere. Further complicating matters was former heritage minister Steven Guilbeault’s inability to coherently describe how far the regulations will go, especially when it comes to user-generated content. His successor, Pablo Rodriguez, hasn’t done much better.
C-11 is a terrible bill that deserves every bit of the backlash it’s getting. However, there’s been such a focus on C-11 that Canadians aren’t paying attention to the far more dangerous internet regulations the Liberals are planning.
One is the redefinition of “hate speech” in the context of online content. Another is the plan to compel social media companies to remove “harmful” content, including the aforementioned “hate speech.”
I raised this on Twitter yesterday, prompting an astute reply from Elon Musk that it “sounds like an attempt to muzzle the voice of the people of Canada.”
This comment suggests Twitter might not play ball when Trudeau demands the tech company starts censoring people on the government’s behalf.
Previously, the Liberals planned to pass a takedown law that would fine social media companies up to $25 million if they didn’t remove “harmful” content within 24 hours.
They’ve since agreed to a softer approach, but it’s not yet clear what this will look like.
The five initially proposed categories of harm were terrorist content, incitement to violence, non-consensual sexual images, child sexual exploitation, and hate speech. Few would object to banning content in the first four categories, which are already prohibited by criminal law. Lumping “hate speech” in with the rest is disingenuous.
Hate speech is prohibited under Canada’s criminal code, but there is a high threshold for it.
When Trudeau and others predisposed to online censorship use the term “hate speech,” they’re talking about speech they personally hate.
The subjectivity of “hate speech” is why banning it is so fraught. Different people have different tolerance levels. Some members of the panel advising the government on its social media content regulation wanted the harm categories expanded to include “misleading political communications,” “propaganda,” and content promoting an “unrealistic body image.” Surely we can agree that photos of thin models should not be treated the same way as ISIS beheading videos, right? Apparently not.
It’s impossible to defend free speech without standing up for the right of people to say unpleasant, and even vile, things.
Censors deliberately conflate social acceptability with legality to delegitimize those who stand up for free speech.
As a free speech advocate, I am regularly accused of agreeing with statements simply because I don’t believe they should be criminalized. This is the inevitable outcome of a society that seeks to cancel disagreeable people rather than… erm, disagreeing with them.
We know the Trudeau government’s proposed redefinition of hate speech will be used as a censorship tool because Canada has been down this road before.
Before it was repealed in 2013, section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibited online content that was “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
When it was on the books, the section was weaponized by Canadian Human Rights Commission complaints against conservative bloggers and authors, including Mark Steyn and the late Kathy Shaidle.
Last year, the Liberals tabled Bill C-36, which among other things reintroduced a supercharged version of section 13. The bill died when the election was called but Trudeau has vowed to bring it back.
This bill sought to ban, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, online communications that are “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
The bill attempted to neutralize free speech issues by claiming it doesn’t apply to speech which “expresses mere dislike or disdain” or which “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
This caveat doesn’t save the bill given human rights commissions’ dismal track record on free speech.
Bill C-16, the legislation that propelled Prof. Jordan Peterson to fame, amended the Canadian Human Rights Act – the same law in which section 13 will once again be found, if the Liberals get their way – to include “gender identity” as a protected ground of discrimination.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission says “misgendering” is a form of discrimination. If the Canadian Human Rights Commission were to view it the same way, calling a transgender person by the wrong pronoun on Twitter might be illegal under the Liberals proposed laws.
Muslim advocacy groups have labelled as “Islamophobia” some legitimate criticisms of radical Islam.
A Finnish member of parliament was charged with hate speech for quoting the Bible to justify her opposition to homosexuality. (She was later acquitted).
We should be able to discuss free speech without having to hold out individual examples and say “You’re okay with this?!” Most sensible people deplore (as they should) hateful rhetoric, which is why it’s politically palatable for Trudeau and others to ban it.
Speech can be icky, hurtful, or even enraging and still within the bounds of free speech. In fact, speech with which no one takes issue doesn’t need protection. Free speech exists for the expression that makes people uncomfortable.
The Liberals want to redefine your relationship with the internet, including what you can say. C-11 is just the tip of the iceberg.
Thanks for reading this! You can subscribe to this newsletter using the button above. We thank our paid subscribers for ensuring it remains viable to continue publishing this sort of content, which we will do right up until it becomes illegal (and in perpetuity afterwards).
C-11 is just the tip of the censorship iceberg
As of my typing, the tweet by Andrew now has ~5K retweets and ~40K likes!