Canada’s darkest hour  In the present day and considering the status of free speech in Canada, it would not be a stretch to say this country is facing its own “darkest hour”.  What else to think when its longstanding history and tradition of Magna Carta-inspired rights and freedoms stand to be lost with the enactment of Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act).  The legislation in questions has been remarked on by C3RF patron, David Solway, as being “nothing less than a censorship closely reminiscent of the justice apparatus in authoritarian states likes China and North Korea”.  He is not alone in this assessment as other notables both domestic and international, such as Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, Jordan Peterson, Russell Brand and Margaret Atwood, have likewise chimed in to describe the new law in terms of the “lettres de cachet” once issuable by the king of France to enforce “arbitrary actions and judgments that could not be appealed”.  It’s like Canada has retreated back into the 17th century and the days of the “Star Chamber”.

Margaret Atwood – Bill C-63 will give Canada its own “lettres de cachet”-style legal system It’s easy to see how the Online Harms Act could give rise to Star Chamber or kangaroo courts in Canada.  After all, the legislation calls for: the creation of a “Digital Safety Commission” that can, on the basis of anonymous charges, punish alleged wrongdoers of past and even potential future acts with fines, house arrest, electronic tagging or communication bans; Commission-appointed investigators to conduct warrantless searches and for the Commission to conduct its business without the need to be bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence; and the use of vague definitions of hate speech that will flood the Canadian human rights system with “eye-of-the-beholder” complaints of offensive, discriminatory speech. Such blatant disregard for the most basic tenets of Western judicial philosophy, including “innocent until proven guilty”, are more than a little remarkable.  It might be for this reason that the act throws a bit of a sweetener into the mix with popular measures that serve to protect against the “sexual abuse of children, intimate images shared without consent, and material that can be used to bully a child or encourage them to commit self-harm”.  These clearly harmful activities, however, are already illegal under Canada’s criminal code and seem to be included in Bill C-63 only to give cover to its freedom-crushing measures.

Justice Minister Virani, Bill C-63 will not be split into two parts! Sweetener aside, the legislation represents a baldfaced attack on the Charter rights of everyday Canadian citizens.  The ability of the Digital Safety Commission, for example, to turn anonymous charges, of potential future offenses no less, into serious fines and punishments is a direct assault on the Charter’s Section 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.  Then there is its ability to demand warrantless searches in direct contravention of Section 8 of the Charter and its protections to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure.  When all of these injustices are tied together with a bow in the form of the Commission’s authority to dispense with the evidence requirements of Section 1 of the Charter, we can see that anyone entrapped within the net cast by Bill C-63 will find themselves in a very dark place.  Indeed, the country as a whole may feel it has descended into its darkest hour as the rights and freedoms that used to underpin its reputation as a Western liberal democracy will have evaporated.

Looks like Bill C-63 will supersede the Charter as the supreme law of the land?

Descent into darkness David Solway has made note of the darkened depths to which Canada has descended.  Indeed, if Bill C-63 passes the House and is ratified by the Senate “Canada would no longer be a country any sensible and freedom-loving individual would consider worth living in.”  The rule of law would most certainly be pitched out the window as the citizen would become “utterly dependent on the favour of the government” as he or she was forced through a gauntlet of informers given the power to issue “damaging but unverified accusations”.  And so, citizens will be forced to tread on eggshells as they try not to say, do or even think of anything that, in accordance with Bill C-63, is “likely to foment hatred”.   A subjective standard if ever there was one and one that is inextricably influenced by the eye-of-the-beholder.

Canadian essayist and C3RF patron, David Solway, queries whether Canada “is worth living in” Given the pressure that can be brought to bear on everyday citizens by the subjective eye-of-the-beholder strictures associated with Bill C-63, it’s easy to see how other Charter rights like freedom of religion, assembly, association and mobility, along with a fair and responsible press, will need to be sacrificed to keep offence at bay.  The new Canada that prioritizes the sensibilities of the thin-skinned over the civil liberties of the all is quite a stretch from the nation that had been built up on the tradition of individual sovereignty and the concept of “free men” as conceptualized in the Magna Carta of 1215.  Concepts marvellously captured by John Stuart Mill in his “On Liberty” of 1859 which is well suited as an addition to the reading list of any authority involved with enacting Bill C-63.  After all, its analysis of the “nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” is one the Bill could have benefited from.

John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” needs to be on the reading lists of Canadian legislators? The framers of the Canadian Charter, like The Honourable Brian Peckford, might have intended for individual sovereignty to be accommodated in the “fundamental” rights section of the document but the intention seems to have faded away over time.  This vanishing act has been aided and abetted by a judiciary besotted  by the ever-flexible concept of the “living tree”.  This doctrine has proven popular with Canadian courts and paved the way for “progressive interpretation” to address the “realities of modern life”.  These new realities, eagerly taken up by the political class, have oftentimes distinguished themselves by their rejection of traditional mores and the development of diverse identity groups which are open to division on the basis of being oppressed or being an oppressor.  Conflict and acrimony reign supreme and the situation is ripe for exploitation by psychopaths with the help of useful idiots.  And so the descent into darkness began.

Charter framers Brian Peckford et all intended for the development of competing camps?

Darkest hour “call to action” The descent in darkness, amazingly begun on the heels of the patriation of the Charter in 1982, has accelerated over the 2015 investiture of Canada’s current Liberal government.  The quickening pace could be seen to pick up almost immediately with the passage of Motion M-103 (Islamophobia).  This motion, true to form and in line with the strategy of identifying and dividing people into camps, shamelessly stated that Canada and Canadians were “systemically racist” and prone to discriminating  against whole religions – particularly Islam.  Many, many accusations would follow as the good folk of once “strong and free” Canada would be labelled as genocidal, climate denying anti-vaxxers who were in urgent need of being reigned in through draconian measures that restricted their ability to express such hateful mutterings.

If diversity is our strength, then why are we so divided and so oppressed? As Canadians navigate through their darkest hour one thing has become abundantly clear, only they have the power to force their betters to reverse course.  As the events of the Wuhan virus pandemic have shown, there is no cavalry coming over the hill to restore our free and democratic society.  Indeed, if anything, it is quite apparent that those given this power over Canadians have abused it to place ever more restrictions on speech as demonstrated by Bill C-63.  As Billboard Chris so eloquently stated, “politicians don’t change the culture, we do!”  You can join in the battle to change our wayward, anti-free speech culture by confronting your federally elected representative by phone, email or, best yet, a personal visit at their constituency office.  Your own Member of Parliament’s contact information may be found here and here are some thoughts for your MP to ponder: using ill-defined “hate speech” to bring citizens to task for what they say is a subjective mug’s game that stands to be abused by “eye of the beholder” sensibilities; allowing anonymous charges to result in prohibitive fines, house arrest, electronic tagging and communication bans is an abuse of your right to security of the person; allowing charges to advance on the basis of what a person might say, or think, is truly Orwellian; and allowing for warrantless searches and seizures is simply a slap in the face to Canada’s supreme law in the form of the Charter that is embedded in our Constitution. Your decision to intervene is critical to turning Canada away from a truly dystopian future for your children and grandchildren.  It’s worthwhile remembering that although Churchill recognized a nation in its darkest hour, he also, in the same speech, recognized the opportunity to turn it into its “finest hour”.