Article content
When NDP leader Jagmeet Singh ripped up the Supply and Confidence agreement with the Liberal government, he may have made the controversial online harms bill a welcome piece of collateral damage.
Advertisement 2
Article content
Civil liberties groups and those advocating for free expression on the Internet have lobbied Justice Minister Arif Virani to separate two parts of Bill C-63. They want changes to the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Code to be removed from the bill and studied separately.
If that happens, it will slow down the legislative process, making the bill unlikely to become law before the next election.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says on its website while it endorses the declared purpose of Bill C-63 to uphold public safety, protect children and support marginalized communities, “we are of the view that this bill, in its current form, enables blatant violations of expressive freedom, privacy, protest rights, and liberty.”
Your Midday Sun
Article content
Advertisement 3
Article content
It says the bill “undermines the fundamental principles of democratic accountability and procedural fairness by granting sweeping powers to the new Digital Safety Commission.”
The organization OpenMedia, which campaigns for online privacy, access and free expression, has also been critical.
“Bill C-63 presents Canadians with a false choice: either we accept extraordinarily draconian punishments for our speech, or we can’t have common sense on-line protections,” said Executive Director Matt Hatfield in a letter to Virani in May.
The two organizations are asking Virani to change the bill so that controversial proposals such as life imprisonment for promoting genocide and sentences of up to five years for hate propaganda offences can be separated from measures that prevent the sexual exploitation or bullying of children online.
Advertisement 4
Article content
The bill also targets those deemed by authorities to be planning hate crimes. “Peace bonds,” would make would-be offenders liable for house arrest.
While there’s wide support in Parliament for measures protecting children, there are fears that’s a pretext being used by an overbearing government to bring in wide-ranging powers that curtail freedom of expression in this country.
This bill was poorly conceived and over-reach. It should go back to the drawing board and only return to the House when it reflects the rights we cherish: Freedom of expression and the presumption that you are innocent until proven guilty.
Article content