Online Harms Bill C63: Life in Jail for 'Hate' Speech? -Bruce Pardy, Lawyer

Online harms Bill C-63 “is a terrible bill. It needs to be defeated…detrimental to our free speech and to the welfare of the country,” says Bruce Pardy, Lawyer and Executive Director of Rights Probe.

“Everyone who commits an offense under this act…is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for life.”

In a revealing conversation with Bruce Pardy, the concerning aspects of the Trudeau government’s Bill C-63, also referred to as the online harms bill, were exposed. The legislation, unveiled on February 26th, has sparked significant debate, mainly due to its potential to significantly restrict long-valued Canadian freedoms. As a staunch opponent of governmental overreach, Pardy offered his perspective on the profound ways this bill might reshape the realm of free speech and civil rights in Canada if it were to become law.

Bill C-63 is designed to combat online harms, with a specific focus on protecting children. It proposes measures that, at first glance, appear to safeguard those most vulnerable. Yet, Pardy points out, the true complexity lies beneath the surface. A particularly troubling element of the bill is its proposal to amend the criminal code, introducing the possibility of life sentences for "hate"-motivated crimes. Alarmingly, the concept of "hate" remains ambiguously defined, creating a scenario where subjective interpretation could result in severe penalties for what might otherwise be considered normal dialogue.

DOWNLOAD BILL C-63: Introduced Feb 26, 2024, the Liberal govt’s online harms Bill C-63 is predicted to have a chilling effect on free speech in Canada.

Moreover, the bill proposes changes to the Canadian Human Rights Code, setting dangerous precedents by introducing hefty fines – $50,000 to the government and $20,000 to victims – for violations deemed as hate speech. Another contentious point raised by Pardy involves the provision allowing anonymous complaints, effectively setting up a “snitch line on steroids” that could embolden malicious accusations without accountability.

"Hate" is loosely defined as an "emotion" and, if offensive to a complainant, could see a maximum sentencing of life in prison.

Pardy's critique reaches far beyond the bill's immediate ramifications, pointing to a more pervasive and sinister shift towards authoritarian control that jeopardizes democracy's foundations. The ambiguity in the bill's definition of "hate speech" introduces a significant deterrent to free speech, prompting people to censor themselves for fear of inadvertently violating indistinct rules. This climate of fear and oversight erodes the foundational principles of free and open debate that are crucial for a vibrant democracy.

By drawing comparisons with the WHO pandemic treaty, Pardy alludes to a worldwide trend of governmental overreach and dominance, often masked by concerns for public health and safety, which could increasingly infringe upon individual liberties and national sovereignty. This global context frames the conversation around Bill C-63, indicating that the fight to preserve democratic principles and freedom of speech extends beyond Canadian borders, reflecting a broader, worldwide issue.

Pardy’s dissection of Bill C-63 acts as a wake-up call for anyone who cherishes democratic liberties. It highlights the importance of awareness and participation in the political arena to protect the freedoms that are fundamental to open societies. At this pivotal moment for Canada, the potential consequences of Bill C-63 serve as a potent reminder of the delicate balance between offering protection and exerting control, motivating citizens to scrutinize, contest, and oppose any actions that could dilute the core of democracy and the right to free expression.