Content of the article

To compare much of social media to an old-fashioned swamp, sewer, sump, or outhouse is to miss the point.

Content of the article

There is undoubtedly an off-putting stench in all of these entities, enough to discourage people from hanging out any longer than necessary. But nature lacks something that online communications excel at: the malice, cruelty, bitterness, lack of truth, and pervasive anger that characterizes so much of what is channeled into e-talk in the form of discussion. , commentary, debate, opinion. or a simple freedom of expression.

Much of the online world has become so ubiquitous that it’s easy to see why so many people are eager to find a way to control, limit, regulate, or teach it a little respect. Internet enthusiasts may pretend you don’t have to search if you don’t want to, but ignoring a disease doesn’t make it go away, and canceling your Facebook or Twitter account doesn’t stop ugliness from growing, spread and potentially infect the innocent.

Content of the article

It is therefore not unreasonable that the federal Liberals are once again trying to find a way to stem the tide of hate speech. Bill C-36 was introduced in the dying hours of the last sitting day of a Parliament which no one will fondly remember. This is an attempt to replace a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act that was repealed seven years ago for fear that it would be abused by specific groups to silence the opinions with which they did not agree. To this end, the new bill attempts to tighten the definition of hate: “hatred,” he says, “means emotion which involves hatred or defamation and which is stronger than aversion or defamation. contempt. “

“It is understood,” he adds, “that the communication of a statement neither incites nor promotes hatred, for the purposes of this article, solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. The bill also amends the Criminal Code to allow a person to go to court – with the consent of the Attorney General – if he or she fears “on reasonable grounds” that another person may commit an offense “for cause. prejudice, prejudice or hatred based on race, nationality or ethnicity, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, identity or gender expression, or any other similar factor.

Content of the article

In other words, hate speech is not hate speech if it only upsets or offends people. He has to get past that to a higher level of wrongdoing before it becomes a crime.

If, after reading that last sentence, you wonder, “OK, but what exactly identifies this new level and who decides?” You have identified the fundamental weakness of C-36, and of any other law that seeks to throw a rope around hatred and drive it away. It is the same problem that prompted the amendment of the human rights law seven years ago. As Cara Zwibel, director of the fundamental freedoms program for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, told the National Post this week: “The concerns we had (then) continue to be concerns.

Despite the new wording, she said, the bill can be abused in much the same way, using it as a tool to silence people by threatening to drag them to a judge for criminal charges. opinions which may be unpopular or controversial, but nothing more. Additionally, University of Windsor professor Richard Moon observed, the vast growth of social media sites in recent years could see authorities overwhelmed in ways no one had previously anticipated.

Content of the article

“The volume of hate speech that individuals or groups might complain about is so large that I don’t see how the system can work or work,” he said.

To be considered a violation of human rights law, hate speech would have to be delivered in public, via social media, personal websites, mass emails, or online comment sections. . Private emails and direct messages would not be eligible. Yet wherever it appeared, whether a claim crossed the invisible line to become a hate crime would still depend on the subjective interpretation of unelected officials or appointed judges, who are already said to be guided by past judicial interpretations. anyway.

As Zwibel noted, the lingering uncertainty as to where the line is drawn means “you don’t know if you’ve crossed it until it’s too late.” And while the bill would apply to individuals, it contains no new penalties for giant companies like Facebook or Twitter through which much of the maliciousness spreads.

Content of the article

The bill’s many shortcomings, and the fact that it was introduced after Parliament adjourned and nothing more could be done to fix it, have prompted accusations that it is primarily intended as an election slogan. liberal, something the party can wave without fear. become law.

Given the effrontery with which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has cleared the bridges for what he hopes will be a victorious march to majority, it is impossible to dismiss the idea that this is just another example. from the party’s deep dependence on the signaling of virtue. Otherwise, why oust him when the House has already resigned for the summer? Why not just wait for it to resume, when it could be the subject of further scrutiny?

Justice Minister David Lametti insists he “would never play politics with our national security”. It would be nice if we could take his word for it, but the Liberals’ record has long passed the point where it is possible to give them this distinction.

National post

The big problems are far from over. Subscribe to the NP Comment newsletter, NP platform.