Details
Nothing to say, yet
Comment
Nothing to say, yet
Listen to Commentary Thur PM May 2 - Bill C-63 by Gordon Wilson MP3 song. Commentary Thur PM May 2 - Bill C-63 song from Gordon Wilson is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 05:28. This high-quality MP3 track has 115.956 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 2 May 2024. Stream and download Commentary Thur PM May 2 - Bill C-63 by Gordon Wilson for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
Comment
Loading comments...
Proposed new legislation, Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, is seen as a threat to freedom of speech in Canada. Critics argue that it is a vague and draconian law that will impose severe consequences on violators. The bill brings back hate speech into the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was removed over a decade ago. Defining hate speech is a difficult task, and the bill proposes increased sentences of up to life imprisonment for hate crimes. The bill also allows anonymous complaints, placing the burden of defense on the accused. It establishes a Digital Safety Office of Canada to administer the legislation, raising concerns about censorship. The bill is seen as an attempt by the Liberal government to control the conversation in Canada. Critics argue that this kind of legislation is unprecedented in the free world and reminiscent of oppressive regimes like the Soviet Union and Communist China. Good afternoon. This is Thursday, May the 2nd. Here's my commentary for the week. News articles that seldom get read are news articles about proposed new legislation. That's unfortunate, but understandable. Proposed new legislation is hard to understand, especially if you don't have knowledge of the legislation as it is written before the changes. Now, most news articles will attempt to give you that backdrop, but often it's tedious reading. As a consequence, most people simply pass over the article and move to news that is more easily consumed. But today I want to try to make some sense of a new bill, C-63, the Online Harms Act. Most commentators that I have read regarding Bill C-63 regard it as the most dangerous bill threatening freedom of speech in Canada, and that's why you should pay attention to it. David L. Thomas is a lawyer and mediator in British Columbia, and from 2014 to 2021 he served as the chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Ottawa. He writes concerning this bill, The Liberal government's proposed Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, is terrible law that will unduly impose restrictions on Canadian sacred Charter of Rights of Freedoms of Expression. That is what the Liberals intend. By drafting a vague law creating a draconian regime to address online harms, they will win their war without firing a bullet. The consequences for violating the law are so severe that it should be expected that hardly anyone would risk violating it. Even news media organizations and big tech companies should be expected to avoid the risk. In this moment when we need it the most, robust political discourse in Canada could disappear without a whimper. You don't need to be cynical to make the observations that this bill contains deceitfully mixed purposes. The terrible part of this proposed legislation is bringing hate speech back into the Canadian Human Rights Act. Hate speech was removed from the Act more than a decade ago for a simple reason. It was a bad idea. It was unworkable and created far more problems than it solved. End of quote. In a free democracy hate speech is not legislated for one glaring reason. Who defines what is hate speech? There are two notable exceptions. Speech that advocates violence to others and false speech that puts others at risk. The common example is yelling fire in a crowded theater. Beverly McLaughlin who retired from the Supreme Court of Canada in 2017 noted that Bill C-63 creates a new hate law based on motivation accompanied by increased sentences of up to life imprisonment. McLaughlin said life sentences for sending out some words, that's heavy and it will, I suspect, be challenged, said McLaughlin. McLaughlin explained that anti-hate laws have been in the criminal code for many years but a high threshold for criminal conviction means there are very few prosecutions. McLaughlin said that defining hate speech is a difficult task in the criminal context and that defining genocide is hugely difficult. So what does Bill C-63 propose? One of the many problems with the bill is that there is much contained within the wording that can be supported by most Canadians but then it sneaks in some very draconian legislation that is unheard of anywhere else in the free world. The bill would add a new form of hate crime to the criminal code punishable by up to life in jail and give up to $20,000 to $70,000 compensation to victims of online hate speech. The really dangerous part is that the offended can register a complaint anonymously. It will then be up to the accused to defend themselves at their own expense while the complainant sits back and waits. As Cory Morgan points out, the bill calls for the establishment of a Digital Safety Office of Canada to administer the whole thing. It also raises the scary prospect that a few bureaucrats can decide what content is harmful. The bill delves into hate speech and further empowerment of the Human Rights Commission It is returning restrictions on expression and speech that went too far in the past which is why the Harper government rescinded Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Speech was being unduly infringed upon and the Commission was overstepping its bounds. The Liberals want to bring all of this back in an attempt to control the conversation of Canadians. As was mentioned earlier, this kind of draconian legislation is unheard of even anywhere else in the free world. This is the kind of legislation that we used to worry about in the Soviet Union when it existed as well as Communist China. Well, that's my opinion for this Thursday, May the 2nd. My name is Gordon Wilson.
There are no comments yet.
Be the first! Share your thoughts.
