Bill C-36 is allegedly an anti-hate speech law. But given the history of Dustbin Trudeau and his regime (trying to criminalize criticism of Israel, criminalize BDS or labelling it an apartheid state), one should expect it to be misused and applied to those the government disapproves of.
Canada didn’t need a new hate speech law. It needed the existing one to be enforced.
From the CBC:
Ottawa outlines new legislation to define and crack down on online hate speech
The Trudeau government is proposing legal changes intended to curb online hate speech and make it easier for the victims of hate speech to launch complaints.
The proposed Bill C-36 includes an addition to the Canadian Human Rights Act that the government says will clarify the definition of online hate speech and list it as a form of discrimination.
“These changes are designed to target the most egregious and clear forms of hate speech that can lead to discrimination and violence,” said Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada David Lametti at a Wednesday evening news conference.
“They do not target simple expressions of dislike or disdain that pepper everyday discourse, especially online.”
The amended act would define hate speech as “content that expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group,” including over the internet.
The new definition is said not to include offensive language more broadly. It also excludes content that hurts, humiliates or expresses dislike or disdain. Private communications are also exempt.
How likely will this be used against environmentalists criticizing corporations? Against First Nations people criticizing the catholic cult and its mass murder of children?
I studied the application of the existing hate speech laws when I was in law school. What I can tell you about the old law is that it was very rarely used, has purposive elements, and was limited in its application by court precedent.
I am not particularly worried about this new law as I have a lot more confidence in the SCC than I have in SCOTUS. Yes, it’s hypothetically possible for it to be misused, but I don’t think that your concerns are particularly well founded as of yet.
Keep an eye on it, sure, but “worry” is a bit strong. We’ve needed something like this to address things like Rehtaeh Parsons’ online harassment, and that’s the main aim of the bill, from what I can tell. Legislative language is always broader than we might like, but there are reasons for that: we can’t really predict the facts of every future case where the government **should** be able to get involved. So we write with broad latitude and trust the courts. In some countries experience has shown that not to be very wise, but in Canada it’s worked out well so far. Therefore I’m in favor of the bill and expect that future courts will keep its uses reasonable as past courts have done with similar laws.