What a pickle we are in!!! I've puzzled over the 'what is hate speech?' question for so many years now it seems we will never come to a consensus on what this actually is (how to define it) and what to do about it in terms of legal regulation (which is even more difficult than simply defining it.) And now that it is easier than ever to polarize people -- and the effects that kind of polarization can have to create fear (which inspires hate) -- this conundrum just gets wider in scope.
One suggestion for your articles on this subject, Linda: could you include the text in the proposed laws to highlight the criticisms of them? Or maybe some "recommended reading" links to help those of us who aren't familiar (or may be just vaguely familiar) with the topics/ subjects you are writing about.
As always, another excellent article to help readers stay informed about crucial issues many of us don't even realize exist.
It certainly is a pickle! We've been convinced that censorship (and now arrest??) is the only way to deal with a number of things, including hate speech. But as many of my pieces over the last three years have tried to point out, governments are not going to stop at "hate speech" as the term is very broadly defined and they will also be including misinformation or disinformation under that category, and arguing that the public needs to be protected from these, because they are dangerous. But as I've point out, the biggest and most dangerous lies are often perpetrated by governments themselves. So, under this cloak of protecting the public, they are justifying the stripping away of our rights and freedoms. Groups like the CCLA can barely keep up with the erosion that's accelerated during and since the pandemic. I've also written about how the definition of terms like "terrorist" are sufficiently broad to include anyone who is anti-government or not complying with the official narrative -- case in point: Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety recently listed Samidoun, also known as the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code! This is insane. All the while, Israel commits genocide in Gaza. I will try to put something together some "recommended reading," on this at some point. Also, re: text in the Bill -- I would turn to groups like the CCLA or the monitoring group and see what they've posted on their sites. They are, after all, lawyers who are adept at understanding the legal language. Hope this is helpful and thank you for your comment and suggestions, Rob.
Thank-you for your thought provoking post. I think the stance of our government vis a vis Zionism/Palestine points to the potential for even greater abuse of our human rights. We don't want to encourage the active dissemination of hatred and racism in Canada Our legal system can help us in discouraging hate. At the same time loosely defined terminology and poorly drafted legislation can give demagogues, racists and authoritarians the legal screen they need to spread their misinformation. Bill C-63 has the potential to be used against journalists and others who legitimately question government policy.
Accepting the notion that the public needs protecting from "misinformation" cedes half battle to the totalitarian forces behind such legislation. The greatest source of "misinformation", "disinformation", "malinformation" - or whatever the latest stupid neologism deployed in the war on free speech is - is the government itself. Unless we want a Ministry of Truth a la George Orwell deciding acceptable thought and speech, we have to accept the fact that there will be a lot of despicable, hurtful speech. The antidote is more speech, not legislation prohibiting the expression of ideas those in power deem unacceptable. Whatever their stated motivation, the real goal is always suppressing dissent and we are way too far down that road already.
Thanks to Linda for keeping on top of this critical issue.
Thank you for this, Linda. I totally agree that government cannot be the body that decides what is hate speech or a hate crime. That needs to come from a group or body that is completely separate and independent of government.
I agree that hate speech and threats aren't the same thing, but I think there are some pretty hazy areas in where a direct threat is not being made, but people are being mentally assaulted by those who hate them. But, yes, some behaviour that wouldn't trigger persecution by one authority, might well by another. That's kind of always the way even in person to person situations though. We see that in how police respond to incidents that can result in a warning, an arrest, being maimed, or beaten to death. The behaviour, or "crime" if we want to call it that, can be the same, but it's the response that differs -- and maybe that's where the problem is -- deciding on the limitations of response. Anyhow, I looked at the act again tonight and parts are probably very relevant and needed, but I'd have a hard time deciding just what it should cover and how far it should go. Glad it's not up to me as my formerly laissez-faire attitude toward most things is pretty much hitting the wall these days.
Harassment, which is what I think you're describing, is also a criminal offence in Canada. I'm sure it's not easy to prosecute, though. I agree, there can be a toxicity to social media and I do think people who are experiencing this have to limit their use of it. We have to look after our own mental health and that might mean not engaging for awhile. But in terms of the nitty gritty of the Bill, the CCLA has flagged the specific areas that need serious scrutiny.... you might want to look at what they've said about it on their web site... I've tried to highlight the main issues in the piece. It's a very slippery slope... one I don't think we should be going down.
I don't know what to think about where things are going with "online harms" - what is a harm and what isn't? How do you decide who is perpetrating hate online, or instigating terrorism. I know it exists and I've seen it happening, but where do we draw the line? I'm not addressing journalism, but just hate in general. JMHO but as someone using the internet since around 1995, it has changed so much and people are making use of it in some pretty terrible ways. I was just reading the story on the Washington Post about Samuel Hervey, a 25 year old man who belonged to a private group on Discord, who was egged on to eventually kill himself online -- and WaPo and Der Spiegel examined thousands of messages to identify the individuals involved in these events and to understand their interactions. Apparently, the "group" encouraged several people to commit suicide online, or do other cruel things - torture animals, etc.. How do you stop things like that? Should journalists who find out about stuff like this be compelled to reveal what they discover (I don't know if this case would be a good example or not of a time when journalists might be drawn into a crime. I'm just not sure. And then there is the whole area of threats to public figures. Last week, The National did a feature - about 20 minutes long - discussing the online threats being made to politicians -- and Charlie Angus also posted a short video on YT with examples of spoken messages made to his staff - definitely threatening. Anyhow, I just know that as an older person who has been online for 30 years, this sure isn't the internet it used to be. It's become a bloody dangerous place and I can definitely see where it is going to become increasingly so, given what is going on in the U.S. right now. All filters are coming off -- and it's going to be dangerous for all in both ways -- those who are a danger, and those who seek to try to control everyone. I'm actually at the point where I'm kind of disgusted by the internet. I don't know what should happen "next" but at a personal level, I've begun cutting out a lot of the ways I was using it in the past. It almost feels like it's had its time - it was a good run, and now it's time to just tear it down.
Thanks Bev. Uttering threats, or encouraging suicides are criminal offences. The people doing this should be charged and brought to trial. Threats made towards politicians or anyone for that matter, online, are still "uttering threats"... so again, the person can be charged, etc. We have laws that deal with the vast majority of things that can happen online and offline. There is a difference though with "hate speech," because it is very broadly defined and is not currently in the criminal code, unlike "uttering threats." So there is a difference there. Also, flagging speech that we don't like because it goes against an ideology or narrative, and calling it "hate speech" will backfire. Remember, the pendulum swings -- so what one government considers hate speech will not be the same necessarily as what another government considers hate speech. This is why the we have to maintain our commitment to the principles of free speech/ expression/ assembly, etc. But I agree with you that social media can be very fraught, addictive, and demoralizing and engaging with it less can only be a good thing.
Canadians need to tell their MPs they are very concerned. Tell your students about it, tell your colleagues. It's not just about journalists, it's about average citizens.
What a pickle we are in!!! I've puzzled over the 'what is hate speech?' question for so many years now it seems we will never come to a consensus on what this actually is (how to define it) and what to do about it in terms of legal regulation (which is even more difficult than simply defining it.) And now that it is easier than ever to polarize people -- and the effects that kind of polarization can have to create fear (which inspires hate) -- this conundrum just gets wider in scope.
One suggestion for your articles on this subject, Linda: could you include the text in the proposed laws to highlight the criticisms of them? Or maybe some "recommended reading" links to help those of us who aren't familiar (or may be just vaguely familiar) with the topics/ subjects you are writing about.
As always, another excellent article to help readers stay informed about crucial issues many of us don't even realize exist.
It certainly is a pickle! We've been convinced that censorship (and now arrest??) is the only way to deal with a number of things, including hate speech. But as many of my pieces over the last three years have tried to point out, governments are not going to stop at "hate speech" as the term is very broadly defined and they will also be including misinformation or disinformation under that category, and arguing that the public needs to be protected from these, because they are dangerous. But as I've point out, the biggest and most dangerous lies are often perpetrated by governments themselves. So, under this cloak of protecting the public, they are justifying the stripping away of our rights and freedoms. Groups like the CCLA can barely keep up with the erosion that's accelerated during and since the pandemic. I've also written about how the definition of terms like "terrorist" are sufficiently broad to include anyone who is anti-government or not complying with the official narrative -- case in point: Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety recently listed Samidoun, also known as the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, as a terrorist entity under the Criminal Code! This is insane. All the while, Israel commits genocide in Gaza. I will try to put something together some "recommended reading," on this at some point. Also, re: text in the Bill -- I would turn to groups like the CCLA or the monitoring group and see what they've posted on their sites. They are, after all, lawyers who are adept at understanding the legal language. Hope this is helpful and thank you for your comment and suggestions, Rob.
Thank-you for your thought provoking post. I think the stance of our government vis a vis Zionism/Palestine points to the potential for even greater abuse of our human rights. We don't want to encourage the active dissemination of hatred and racism in Canada Our legal system can help us in discouraging hate. At the same time loosely defined terminology and poorly drafted legislation can give demagogues, racists and authoritarians the legal screen they need to spread their misinformation. Bill C-63 has the potential to be used against journalists and others who legitimately question government policy.
Accepting the notion that the public needs protecting from "misinformation" cedes half battle to the totalitarian forces behind such legislation. The greatest source of "misinformation", "disinformation", "malinformation" - or whatever the latest stupid neologism deployed in the war on free speech is - is the government itself. Unless we want a Ministry of Truth a la George Orwell deciding acceptable thought and speech, we have to accept the fact that there will be a lot of despicable, hurtful speech. The antidote is more speech, not legislation prohibiting the expression of ideas those in power deem unacceptable. Whatever their stated motivation, the real goal is always suppressing dissent and we are way too far down that road already.
Thanks to Linda for keeping on top of this critical issue.
Thank you for this, Linda. I totally agree that government cannot be the body that decides what is hate speech or a hate crime. That needs to come from a group or body that is completely separate and independent of government.
I will check out the CCLA website.
I agree that hate speech and threats aren't the same thing, but I think there are some pretty hazy areas in where a direct threat is not being made, but people are being mentally assaulted by those who hate them. But, yes, some behaviour that wouldn't trigger persecution by one authority, might well by another. That's kind of always the way even in person to person situations though. We see that in how police respond to incidents that can result in a warning, an arrest, being maimed, or beaten to death. The behaviour, or "crime" if we want to call it that, can be the same, but it's the response that differs -- and maybe that's where the problem is -- deciding on the limitations of response. Anyhow, I looked at the act again tonight and parts are probably very relevant and needed, but I'd have a hard time deciding just what it should cover and how far it should go. Glad it's not up to me as my formerly laissez-faire attitude toward most things is pretty much hitting the wall these days.
Harassment, which is what I think you're describing, is also a criminal offence in Canada. I'm sure it's not easy to prosecute, though. I agree, there can be a toxicity to social media and I do think people who are experiencing this have to limit their use of it. We have to look after our own mental health and that might mean not engaging for awhile. But in terms of the nitty gritty of the Bill, the CCLA has flagged the specific areas that need serious scrutiny.... you might want to look at what they've said about it on their web site... I've tried to highlight the main issues in the piece. It's a very slippery slope... one I don't think we should be going down.
I don't know what to think about where things are going with "online harms" - what is a harm and what isn't? How do you decide who is perpetrating hate online, or instigating terrorism. I know it exists and I've seen it happening, but where do we draw the line? I'm not addressing journalism, but just hate in general. JMHO but as someone using the internet since around 1995, it has changed so much and people are making use of it in some pretty terrible ways. I was just reading the story on the Washington Post about Samuel Hervey, a 25 year old man who belonged to a private group on Discord, who was egged on to eventually kill himself online -- and WaPo and Der Spiegel examined thousands of messages to identify the individuals involved in these events and to understand their interactions. Apparently, the "group" encouraged several people to commit suicide online, or do other cruel things - torture animals, etc.. How do you stop things like that? Should journalists who find out about stuff like this be compelled to reveal what they discover (I don't know if this case would be a good example or not of a time when journalists might be drawn into a crime. I'm just not sure. And then there is the whole area of threats to public figures. Last week, The National did a feature - about 20 minutes long - discussing the online threats being made to politicians -- and Charlie Angus also posted a short video on YT with examples of spoken messages made to his staff - definitely threatening. Anyhow, I just know that as an older person who has been online for 30 years, this sure isn't the internet it used to be. It's become a bloody dangerous place and I can definitely see where it is going to become increasingly so, given what is going on in the U.S. right now. All filters are coming off -- and it's going to be dangerous for all in both ways -- those who are a danger, and those who seek to try to control everyone. I'm actually at the point where I'm kind of disgusted by the internet. I don't know what should happen "next" but at a personal level, I've begun cutting out a lot of the ways I was using it in the past. It almost feels like it's had its time - it was a good run, and now it's time to just tear it down.
Thanks Bev. Uttering threats, or encouraging suicides are criminal offences. The people doing this should be charged and brought to trial. Threats made towards politicians or anyone for that matter, online, are still "uttering threats"... so again, the person can be charged, etc. We have laws that deal with the vast majority of things that can happen online and offline. There is a difference though with "hate speech," because it is very broadly defined and is not currently in the criminal code, unlike "uttering threats." So there is a difference there. Also, flagging speech that we don't like because it goes against an ideology or narrative, and calling it "hate speech" will backfire. Remember, the pendulum swings -- so what one government considers hate speech will not be the same necessarily as what another government considers hate speech. This is why the we have to maintain our commitment to the principles of free speech/ expression/ assembly, etc. But I agree with you that social media can be very fraught, addictive, and demoralizing and engaging with it less can only be a good thing.
Bev, if you haven't seen this documentary already, I'd highly recommend it: https://www.mightyira.com/
What do you recommend we do to protect journalists from this, Linda?
Canadians need to tell their MPs they are very concerned. Tell your students about it, tell your colleagues. It's not just about journalists, it's about average citizens.
Yes, I understand. Will do!