The world is going crazy

Dystopian Proposal in Canada Targets Speech

A new Canadian speech crime bill is facing criticism for being dystopian censorship that may jail someone for what they might say down the road.

The Online Harms Act is a Canadian law designed to lessen harmful content on social media sites. Some critics have compared it to the dystopian science fiction film Minority Report from 2002. The government of President Justin Trudeau supported the proposed law, which would give Canadian judges the authority to impose house arrest on anyone they suspect of using hate speech.

The government of Justin Trudeau has proposed a harsh new law that could weaponise the definition of “hate speech.” It also allows judges to place people under house arrest who are suspected of harbouring hateful thoughts and creates a free compensation complaints system that will encourage woke scolds to bankrupt any Canadians who disagree with progressive orthodoxy.

The Online Harms Bill, or Bill C-63, targets what it refers to as “hate speech,” going well beyond efforts to combat cyberbullying and child exploitation, despite the Liberal government’s claims that the legislation will make the internet safer for kids.

Read Bill C-63 from Parliament of Canada website

The law defines “harmful content” as anything that “Expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals” based on their race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, or disability. This definition is based on the behaviourist understanding of social interaction.

The law further states that “Content does not express detestation or vilification solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends” in order to provide “greater certainty and for the purposes of defining ‘content that foments hatred.”

In light of this, the Bill seeks to alter the Criminal Code of Canada by establishing a new, distinct hate crime offence and giving judges the authority to place suspects under house arrest if they are thought to be at risk of engaging in “hateful conduct.” A new twist on the dystopian science fiction idea of a “pre-crime” would see the guilty-until-proved-innocent party brought before a provincial court to answer whether they were a probable offender likely to produce “hate propaganda” at some unspecified future time if a judge felt there were reasonable grounds to “fear” a future hate crime may be committed.

An offending thought criminal would then have to “wear an electronic monitoring device”, “return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times”, and “abstain from the consumption of drugs… of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance”, presumably just in case such substances loosened their hateful mouths. Failure to comply with these restrictions would result in a prison sentence of up to a year.

The nation’s Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Arif Virani, referred to this policy as a “peace bond” and said it might be “very, very important” to kerb the actions of someone with a history of hostile activity.

He stated, “What’s really critical is that it gives the judge a wonderful range of sentences,” and that “if there’s a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them from doing certain things.”

The filing of complaints is free of charge. If the panel determines, following an inquisition, that you engaged in a “discriminatory practice,” you may be required to reimburse up to $20,000 “to any victim identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, if that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech to which the complaint relates.”

The fine may be raised to $50,000 if the panel determines that it is appropriate given the facts, circumstances, severity, and nature of the discriminatory behaviour.

There’s no upper limit to the amount of money someone can be forced to pay because there’s no restriction on the amount of complaints that can be filed against you. For example, the tribunal may punish you with a $600,000 fine  for a dozen internet posts deemed to be “hateful.”

It is therefore not surprising that Jordan Peterson, a bestselling author and Canadian psychologist, claims that Bill C-63 will undoubtedly result in his criminalisation and, most likely, bankruptcy. Peterson was recently sanctioned by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, his professional regulator, for what it called “degrading” online posts about trans ideology, climate change hysteria, and Justin Trudeau.

Meghan Murphy is a gender critical feminist and journalist from Canada. She has voiced concerns about how the new Tribunal system will impact her, given the government-funded Canadian Anti-Hate Network already labels her criticisms of gender identity theory as transphobic hate speech.

Because of worries that “the purpose of this event is to promote, or would have the effect of promoting discrimination or hatred for any group or person on the basis of sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,” the venue cancelled an event she was scheduled to speak at last year.

She states, “I had basically been accused of pre-crime, even though there had been no indication or evidence that there would be any discrimination or hatred expressed at the event, entitled, ‘Inclusivity, Gender Identity, and Women’s Rights.'”