If you want a preview of the sort of chaos Canada’s Online Harms Act could lead to, you need look no further than the land of my ancestors—Scotland.
There, we continue to see insane policies from this once-sensible country. The previous leader of the ruling Scottish National Party, Nicola Sturgeon, made the right of transgender inmates to serve their time in women’s prisons her hill to die on and that was the end of her leadership, although she remains a member of the Scottish Parliament. Now, Scots are in thrall to a leader following the same woke agenda, First Minister Humza Yousaf.
It is now illegal in Scotland to behave toward or communicate material to anyone in a fashion that a “reasonable person” (let me know when you find one) would agree is “threatening or abusive.” If a court finds that the statements are capable of stirring up hatred against a protected group (race, religion, orientation, age, etc.). The person convicted of saying these bad things could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison.
Renowned author and feminist defender J.K. Rowling was among the first to dare authorities to use the law—which has also captured the ire of celebrities such as Elon Musk and Joe Rogan—against her.
While the slurs exchanged in Glasgow go far beyond anything most Canadians have ever experienced at a sporting event, GB News’s tongue in cheek fears are unlikely to be realized, if only for logistical reasons. (There were 50,000-plus Rangers fans at Ibrox Stadium but no seats were set aside for visiting Celtic fans).
The Online Harms Act, for all its sins, is probably not going to engage Canadian police at that level. But my guess is that people who feel offended will behave in precisely the same way as the Scots in terms of filing complaints. Given that the body that will handle those in this country, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, could award “victims” as much as $20,000, indignation could turn into a lucrative side hustle for those so inclined.
That is among a number of reasons why David Thomas, former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, has spoken out against the Online Harms Act.
“How many victims might be identified if the hate speech is posted online? Is everyone who sees a hate speech message a victim?”
As Mr. Thomas said, when it comes to defending yourself against a complaint, the often years-long process “is the punishment.” He said the organization struggles to keep up with its current caseload and would be overwhelmed by the thousands of complaints anticipated if the Online Harms Act comes into force.
Furthermore (my words, not his) the tribunal is not bound by the regular rules of evidence and is frequently referred to as a Kangaroo Court.
The government says the act is designed to protect children from Online Harms. But it also smuggles in a series of draconian actions that would, for instance, make it possible to be sentenced to life in prison for advocating genocide. A heinous thing to do, without question, but the same sentence as that imposed on serial killers such as Robert Pickton who didn’t just talk about killing people, he actually slaughtered them by the dozen? Even Mr. Yousaf’s laws haven’t gone that far.
It is both ironic and sad that Scotland, which through legendary heroes such as William Wallace has inspired the global struggle for liberty, is now a leader in its suppression.
More troubling is that Canada is following in its footsteps.
