Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

[brihard]

Does this new bill mean someone could technically face house arrest for potentially planning to misgender someone on purpose, the same way they could face house arrest for potentially committing terrorisim in the future?

No. There would have to be a criminal offense. Either the existing offences of advocating genocide or wilful promotion of hatred, or another currently existing criminal offense committed with hateful intent. Misgendering someone (or planning to) wouldn’t come close to being a crime. This is more for cases where it’s believed that someone is going to commit hate-motivated violence, or promote incitement of hatred/genocide. I struggle to imagine this being something that could be used very often.

For comparison, the most restrictive terrorism peace bond I’ve been able to find has been for GPS monitoring. I can’t find any case where the house arrest provisions have ever been used even in terrorism files, and even where there has already been a conviction and a sentence is expiring with the person still believed to be a threat. That gives a sense of what courts and prosecutors actually look at with the peace bond powers.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

No. There would have to be a criminal offense. Either the existing offences of advocating genocide or wilful promotion of hatred, or another currently existing criminal offense committed with hateful intent. Misgendering someone (or planning to) wouldn’t come close to being a crime. This is more for cases where it’s believed that someone is going to commit hate-motivated violence, or promote incitement of hatred/genocide. I struggle to imagine this being something that could be used very often.

For comparison, the most restrictive terrorism peace bond I’ve been able to find has been for GPS monitoring. I can’t find any case where the house arrest provisions have ever been used even in terrorism files, and even where there has already been a conviction and a sentence is expiring with the person still believed to be a threat. That gives a sense of what courts and prosecutors actually look at with the peace bond powers.

So bill C-63 is just for show? A bit of political theatre designed to rile up Conservatives?

 

[CBH99]

Does this new bill mean someone could technically face house arrest for potentially planning to misgender someone on purpose, the same way they could face house arrest for potentially committing terrorisim in the future?

That's a very real fear with this bill, and that fear isn't unjustified...

My comment above about our government leaders not having any credibility with Canadians - it is still fresh in the minds of Canadians that this is the same Prime Minister that said "disagreeing with anything he said during the pandemic was hate speech..."

So Canadians have every right to be concerned if this same guy is introducing yet more online censorship legislation, this time with 'hate speech' as it's focus...

He doesn't exactly have a good track record of knowing what hate speech actually is, and doing things to punish Canadians who go against him... (Jody Wilson, Admiral Mark Norman, the Trucker Convoy, anybody who didn't want to be a human lab-rat when it came to an untested and rushed vaccine, Etc etc)

It also isn't lost on Canadians that this is the third piece of online censorship legislation this government has passed, and that it was also the first to introduce censorship legislation...ever.

(Remember when this same government made a huge fuss about the last online censorship legislation being all about promoting Canadian content? Yet when one reads the actual bill, there isn't a single mention of Canadian content even once...)

So yeah...not the right government to be introducing something like this. Hopefully their tone deaf arrogance with this comes back to haunt them in the upcoming election!




And as per the CHRC...

Ignoring (for now) the fact that it's a very liberal friendly organization filled with people appointed by the Trudeau government...

Some of their judgments in the past have been absolutely ludicrous

If I'm going to be ordered to pay $20,000 or $40,000 to someone who's feelings I hurt because of something I said online...I want the person ordering me to do that to be a real judge, with real experience, and real perspective. Not some politically appointed dickhead...




(As per your post Jarn, that is a very valid concern. It was only a few years ago the CHRC ordered several nail salons to each pay a pretty hefty amount of damages to this dumb f**k who absolutely discovered that complaining to the CHRC was extremely profitable...it'll be fun to watch how many people feel like they are victims of hate crimes once this nonsense passes)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3735833

 

[daftandbarmy]

That's a very real fear with this bill, and that fear isn't unjustified...

My comment above about our government leaders not having any credibility with Canadians - it is still fresh in the minds of Canadians that this is the same Prime Minister that said "disagreeing with anything he said during the pandemic was hate speech..."

So Canadians have every right to be concerned if this same guy is introducing yet more online censorship legislation, this time with 'hate speech' as it's focus...

He doesn't exactly have a good track record of knowing what hate speech actually is, and doing things to punish Canadians who go against him... (Jody Wilson, Admiral Mark Norman, the Trucker Convoy, anybody who didn't want to be a human lab-rat when it came to an untested and rushed vaccine, Etc etc)

It also isn't lost on Canadians that this is the third piece of online censorship legislation this government has passed, and that it was also the first to introduce censorship legislation...ever.

(Remember when this same government made a huge fuss about the last online censorship legislation being all about promoting Canadian content? Yet when one reads the actual bill, there isn't a single mention of Canadian content even once...)

So yeah...not the right government to be introducing something like this. Hopefully their tone deaf arrogance with this comes back to haunt them in the upcoming election!




And as per the CHRC...

Ignoring (for now) the fact that it's a very liberal friendly organization filled with people appointed by the Trudeau government...

Some of their judgments in the past have been absolutely ludicrous

If I'm going to be ordered to pay $20,000 or $40,000 to someone who's feelings I hurt because of something I said online...I want the person ordering me to do that to be a real judge, with real experience, and real perspective. Not some politically appointed dickhead...




(As per your post Yarn, that is a very valid concern. It was only a few years ago the CHRC ordered several nail salons to each pay a pretty hefty amount of damages to this dumb f**k who absolutely discovered that complaining to the CHRC was extremely profitable...it'll be fun to watch how many people feel like they are victims of hate crimes once this nonsense passes)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3735833

If it's any consolation to the Trudeau critics out there it might be encouraging to remember that his government is in a minority position, causing them to give up some of their great hopes for the future through an unholy alliance with the even less popular NDP.

Which is some proof that most voters are not raving fans... of either of them.

 

[OldSolduer]

Maybe the first one taken to task with these new laws is the PM.

 

[CBH99]

So, to put the answer out here because I’m packing it in for the night shortly, the peace bond powers are contained within a Criminal Code amendment, and are reserved for a provincial court judge (not even delegated down to a Justice of the Peace). CHRC has nothing to do with the Criminal Code peace bond powers. The CHRA amendments, though within the same bill, are a different part of the bill that don’t interact with the criminal powers aspect.

The CHRC will have nothing to do with peace bonds for hate offences, “house arrest”, GPS monitoring, or anything else in the Criminal Code. Anyone telling you they will is either ignorant or is lying to you to stoke outrage and play you for their ends.

Whenever there’s a particularly contentious bill proposed, I like to actually take a look to make sure I commit to an opinion grounded in the facts. The bill itself, like all legislation tabled in Parliament, can be read at LegisInfo: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - Online Harms Act - Parliament of Canada

I appreciate you Brihard - and just to be clear, none of my commentary is meant to be harsh or in disagreement with what you've posted.

I understand you are just explaining it to us, not defending it.

I appreciate the level headedness & reading the legislation for what's actually said in the black & white

 

[brihard]

So bill C-63 is just for show? A bit of political theatre designed to rile up Conservatives?

No, the criminal code stuff isn’t the biggest bulk in the bill. That’s the whole online harms thing that I have yet to be able to really look at. I’m just sticking to the criminal stuff at this time because that’s the lane where I’m knowledgeable, and the part I’ve had time to read in detail.

Even the crim code stuff isn’t for show. I don’t see it being used frequently, but neither is a lot of other criminal law that nonetheless has a time and place. The biggest takeaways I see are beefed up sentences for hate crimes, the fact that hate crimes are clearly and simply added as a concept to the crim code using that plain language, and the creation of hate crime peace bonds as a preventative or follow up option the same way they are with terrorism. There's some logic there in that terrorism tends to be very ideological and that that ideologically based behaviour is likely to persist in some cases after someone is convicted and sentenced. They've also added the new hate crime catchall offence as an eligible offence for wiretaps, although subject to the same very stringent 'investigative necessity' standard as with most offences, rather than the somewhat lower threshold to get a wiretap for terrorism or organized crime.

With organized and increasingly radicalized antisemitism on the rise right now, for instance, this will give a bit more investigative and enforcement oomph to work those files, especially where there might be a larger, more organized campaign of inciting hatred that could be deemed a criminal conspiracy.

Worth noting that under both the existing 'incitement/promotion of hatred' s.319 offense, and the new catch-all hate crime designation for other offences, there is a subsection reading:

For greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred, for the purposes of this section, solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.

or

For greater certainty, the commission of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament is not, for the purposes of this section, motivated by hatred based on any of the factors mentioned in subsection (1) solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends the victim.

So yeah, still letting the gears turn in my mind about how this will actually look in real life given limited police resources and the significant overlap with existing offences. But there will be a bit there. And again, my mind's not close to made up yet on any part of this, and I'm not promoting or defending the new bill. Just explaining what I see to try to bridge the varying levels of knowledge here.

 

[ArmyRick]

I have listened to several online youtube lawyers (like real ones) and the CCF (which is lawyers) make comments about this bill

My take aways
-Very, very vague and it will leave lots to interpret its intent and meaning to either the courts or some other judicial board/tribunal. Very slippery
-Leaves very unclear thresholds and definitions which could open the door to very terrible misinterpretations by said organizations mentioned above
-Its all over the map. Protect the kids, stop calling for genocide, don't say things that hurt my feelings, don't post post naked pics of your ex ALL in one bill. Its like telling someone we are going to play a game of football and start throwing a soccer ball while the defense is allowed to use baseball bats but the offence has to wear skates. SELECT AND MAINTAIN THE AIM (A principal of war that civys should be taught)
-Some of these lawyers suspect this bill is meant to create confusion and distrust of the conservatives at its most basic intent of the LPC ("What? Your against this bill? So you support child porn?")
-This is a terrible political football and any half way intelligent political party should walk the F away from it. It seems the desperation of the LPC is pretty bad.

 

[Good2Golf]

This is more for cases where it’s believed that someone is going to commit hate-motivated violence, or promote incitement of hatred/genocide. I struggle to imagine this being something that could be used very often.

Appreciate your assessment of the criminal aspects both of the terrorism Act and the potential of C-63, brother. In the purity of a balanced government and society, I would believe you are 100%…or at least 99.9999999% right.

*Here it comes though…BUT, I can’t help but feel that for almost the last ten years (~8.27yrs), there has been both a greater effort by Government to flex/play loose with legislations (intent vs execution), policies and regulations (OICs for weapons, EA, digital news, now C-63) and to include the participation of semi/para-judicial organizations (like CHRC that can put real, demonstrable hurt on people without a concomitant accountability and control as the justice system has in place) to influence more greatly, where previously Canadians could truly trust that *their rights and freedoms were not *only respected, but protected…*for ALL law-abiding Canadians. Don’t get me wrong, I wish the government would actually support this aspects of justice and law enforcement so that for the true haters who are conducting themselves in solid criminally unlawful territory (not just hurt feelings land) could be more effectively dealt with. I just feel as though the way the government is adding little ‘innocuous’ bits here and there into the proposed Legislation and their past track record for generous justification to use generous interpretations of existing legislations, regulations or policies…it’s greeeeasy…

 

[OldSolduer]

1984 is about 40 years late......

 

[ModlrMike]

1984, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451. Warnings or instruction manuals?

 

[Good2Golf]

1984, Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451. Warnings or instruction manuals?

…don’t forget THX1138…

 

[Brad Sallows]

So bill C-63 is just for show? A bit of political theatre designed to rile up Conservatives?

Nothing is "show" if it can be used to drag someone into a court and blow through their time and money. "The process is the punishment."

 

[Furniture]

Nothing is "show" if it can be used to drag someone into a court and blow through their time and money. "The process is the punishment."

Exactly, and for those who don't believe it check this real world example.

Matt Gurney: Ian Thomson acquitted after shooting at his attackers

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Free speech includes hate speech.

We need thicker skins and a realization that if you say something someone finds offensive, you might get punched in the face. There are already laws for incitement, etc. If you find yourself listening to some dickhead and their unsavoury comments, learn to walk away.

You do not have free speech if it entails limits on expression.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Free speech includes hate speech.

We need thicker skins and a realization that if you say something someone finds offensive, you might get punched in the face. There are already laws for incitement, etc. If you find yourself listening to some dickhead and their unsavoury comments, learn to walk away.

You do not have free speech if it entails limits on expression.

I would agree, if we had "free speech" in Canada but we don't. We have freedom of expression, its not absolute, and its also governed by Section 1 of the Charter (Reasonable Limits clause).

Your freedom of expression ends when it infringes on someone elses rights to life, liberty, and security of the person. Using your freedom of expression to incite persecution of protected persons under the Charter is no longer freedom of expression, its a criminal act.

Additionally, you can't solve systemic issues by "punching them in the face." We have rights, freedoms, and responsibilities in a free and just society. One of which is to not be a raging dick to people because "muh freeedoms." You have freedom of expression, not exemption from consequences (including criminal ones for hate speech).

To the topic at hand: C-63 is overreach by the AG and should it make it through Parliament, I can easily see it slapped down on appeal if it ever tries to be applied.

 

[brihard]

Your freedom of expression ends when it infringes on someone elses rights to life, liberty, and security of the person. Using your freedom of expression to incite persecution of protected persons under the Charter is no longer freedom of expression, its a criminal act.

Kinda/sorta. The criminal threshold for what we could call 'hate speech' is high. You have to advocate or promote genocide, (s.318), or you have to incite or promote hatred of an identifiable group. There's a specific sub-offence for wilfullly promoting antisemitism by condoning, denying, or downplaying the holocaust. That's a new provision in the past few years, to the best of my knowledge untested in court. All of these offences have to be in some public sphere; they don't capture private conversation.

Anything short of that will not be criminal. There's a much larger and murkier world of human rights legislation, both provincially and federally. Those cover discriminatory actions and can include financial penalties but not prison. I'm less well versed in those.

Great primer on the existing criminal provisions here: Public Incitement of Hatred (Offence) - Criminal Law Notebook

 

[Haggis]

Free speech includes hate speech.

We need thicker skins and a realization that if you say something someone finds offensive, you might get punched in the face. There are already laws for incitement, etc. If you find yourself listening to some dickhead and their unsavoury comments, learn to walk away.

You do not have free speech if it entails limits on expression.

While I agree with you that actions and words have consequences, punching people in the face, while sometimes satisfying, usually leads to a bad outcome. You get punched back - often repeatedly - or arrested.

I will admit that social media has made people "braver" in stating opinions of all types, probably because they know they can't get a shot to the mouth as a result. Maybe, just maybe, this law will be the online equivalent of getting a fat lip for being a really big douchebag.

 

[QV]

I would agree, if we had "free speech" in Canada but we don't. We have freedom of expression, its not absolute, and its also governed by Section 1 of the Charter (Reasonable Limits clause).

Your freedom of expression ends when it infringes on someone elses rights to life, liberty, and security of the person. Using your freedom of expression to incite persecution of protected persons under the Charter is no longer freedom of expression, its a criminal act.

Additionally, you can't solve systemic issues by "punching them in the face." We have rights, freedoms, and responsibilities in a free and just society. One of which is to not be a raging dick to people because "muh freeedoms." You have freedom of expression, not exemption from consequences (including criminal ones for hate speech).

To the topic at hand: C-63 is overreach by the AG and should it make it through Parliament, I can easily see it slapped down on appeal if it ever tries to be applied.

Freedom of expression is more broad than just speech. But it includes speech amongst other forms of expression. When someone says we have freedom of speech in Canada, they are correct.

The argument to be had is whether certain limits placed on our rights are reasonable or not.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Freedom of speech is a human right. Not something defined by man. As soon as you put parameters on it, it isn't free. When you deny someone their voice, through coercion or extortion, it isn't free.