Announcing the government’s new Online Harms Bill on Monday, Justice Minister Arif Virani led the way in explaining the realities the bill is meant to address.
After introducing two women who spoke about their experiences with child abuse and harassment, Virani said his bill would impose three “overarching obligations” on major online platforms. These are “the duty to protect children, the duty to act responsibly, and the duty to eliminate child abuse.” The most terrible content. ”
Specifically, C-63 calls out “the worst content that can be found online, including content that sexually victimizes children and re-victimizes survivors, intimate content shared without consent, violence, “We target content that incites extremism, terrorism, incites hatred, and content that is exploited,” Virani said. Bullying children or inducing self-harm. ”
Virani then emphasized underlining the bill’s arguments. I don’t do.
“This does not undermine freedom of speech,” the minister said.
The statement was almost certainly directed at Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poièvre, who voted down the bill last week before he had a chance to read it.
Mr. Poièvre’s preemptive criticism
Asked about the impending bill last Wednesday, five days before it was introduced in the House of Commons, Poièvre called it “Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s latest attack on freedom of expression” and said Trudeau’s ban was “not acceptable. It is part of a “woke authoritarian policy” that deems it impossible. scenery. ”
“If you go down the list of things that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is against, you can imagine all the things that would be criminalized,” Poilievre said.
The Conservative leader’s prediction had similarities with his party’s opposition to previous legislation. online streaming method. The government introduced and passed this bill to force major internet platforms to promote and support Canadian content. The Conservative Party called it “censorship.”
It may be tempting to conclude that the Conservative Party is simply opposed to any regulation of the internet, and is willing to pander to the worst fears of its supporters. But then Poièvre also said his government would force websites that publish pornographic content to publish it. Verify user age.
Conservative leader Pierre Poièvre has taken aim at the prime minister and the government’s plans to combat online hate. Poilievre launched a very personal attack on his political opponents, noting that he has used blackface in the past. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fired back, claiming Poilievre’s only plan was to sow division.
It cannot be said that the Conservative Party is completely opposed to restrictions on speech. Poilievre was a minister in the Conservative government, and he criminalized this. promote terrorism. His deputy, Melissa Lanzman, called it a “glorification of terrorism.” should not be allowed.
What C-63 does and doesn’t do
Poièvre may have been disappointed Monday afternoon when the bill was finally tabled. After carrying out their intentions, Multiple consultationsthe government ultimately tabled a fairly narrow bill.
Platforms will be required to develop “digital safety plans” to reduce the risk of users being exposed to harmful content, and will be subject to new oversight and transparency requirements. However, only two types of content are required to be removed: content that sexually assaults children and intimate content posted without consent.
Because the law does not address “misinformation” or “disinformation” and does not cover private communications, it avoids some of the most vexing issues about the digital world.
This bill creates three new agencies to enforce these new rules and assist users. Some intellectuals may complain about “bureaucracy.” On the other hand, rules are not magically enforced.
The Liberal government introduced its long-promised Online Harms Bill on Monday, proposing a new regulatory body and a raft of new legislation changes to tackle online abuse. Justice Minister Arif Virani discusses the new bill. Also joining us will be Emily Laidlaw, Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law.
In a written statement released on Tuesday, Poièvre suggested that police and courts should adequately address harmful content. Therefore, the government may have to reassert some of the legitimacy of the bill. The judicial system is not agile enough To address rapidly changing issues.
While the harms targeted by this bill are real, governments always have a responsibility to tread carefully when regulating expression, and C-63 has been thoroughly pursued by parliamentary committees. , it is natural that they will be pursued.parable Digital issues expert was Generally satisfied After seeing what they saw Monday, many agreed that the details matter.
If there’s anything that will cause debate, it may be the government’s desire to restore the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s powers to hear complaints about hate speech.it may be revived A fight from over ten years ago It ended with Tory MPs vote for repeal Early provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act were criticized for chilling free speech.
Virani argues that the bill’s definition of “hate” is specific, limited, and based on Supreme Court precedent, including “hatred and defamation” rather than mere insults. But a small team of lawyers and freedom rights experts will now scrutinize the finer points.
In a written statement, Poiivre again raised concerns that the government would “prohibit views that are contrary to the prime minister’s radical ideology.” However, if such a thing is plausibly foreseeable under the proposed bill, it is possible for someone to point out a specific part of the bill and explain how it would happen. There should be.
Given the real issues going on, discussions should be based on demonstrable reality. However, given that the subject is the Internet, it may be difficult to make the argument stick.
