Canada’s authorities want to speed up the process of adoption of a sweeping censorship law, Online Harms Act/Bill C-63 – and to that effect, it has now been split into two separate bills.
The reason the C-63’s passage has slowed down in parliament is ongoing debates around some of the most contentious provisions, such as a new hate crime offense that could be punished with life in prison, when it is committed along with another crime.
Now the part of the bill seeking to legislate against this and other types of “hate speech crimes” – which has caused serious concerns among free speech advocates – is being separated from that dealing with protecting children from online harm, and setting up a digital safety commission.
And it is this second part of C-63 that Canada’s government now wants to push through the parliament first, and fast.
The most controversial elements of the bill are contained in what has now become its other part, the one that is likely to prove much harder to get adopted. It would introduce changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act and Criminal Code related to hate crimes, including hate speech.
If it becomes law, individuals could use it to prove they have been victims of online hate speech, and go through the Canadian Human Rights Commission to collect up to $20,000 in compensation.
The decision to split the bill was announced by Justice Minister Arif Virani this month, but the full text of either part was yet to be published at that time.
Virani, who in February introduced C-63, said the reason for this maneuver was to go for what can be agreed on immediately while working “to find consensus among parliamentarians.”
Opponents of C-63 see this as a step in the right direction but warn that the second part of the bill clearly has not been abandoned. A point is also made that measures from the first – like banning sex trafficking and revenge porn – are already outlawed in Canada.
Therefore, the suspicion is that these non-contentious provisions were attached to the rest of the original C-63 just to make it more palatable – while the real purpose of the bill is precisely the “unpalatable” part.
