In February, the Liberal government tabled its long-awaited online harms bill that aims to make online platforms responsible for addressing harmful content and for creating a safer space online, especially for children. The proposed law also addresses hate speech, and enforces human rights through a complaint process with the ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Human Rights Commission. But some claim the law will allow police to arrest anyone for posting hate speech online, even retroactively. This is false. The police would not be involved in investigating online hate speech as defined by the bill, and there is no criminal charge and no conviction for violation under the proposed new section, the Justice Department says.
The claim first appeared in an online article by the People's Voice, a website that is often the subject of debunked articles. The website has also been by – a project by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Centre – as one that publishes "bogus" material.
The article's headline reads: Canada To Imprison Anyone Who Has EVER posted 'Hate Speech' Online.
A social media user the article on X, formerly known as Twitter, where it received more than 68 million views, with the owner of X, Elon Musk, even it.
The user repeats claims in the original article, saying the law will give police the power to "retroactively search the Internet for 'hate speech' violations and arrest offenders, even if the offence occurred before the law existed."
Rating: False
Part 3 of the proposed law aims to remove hate speech from the internet, said Ian McLeod, a spokesman with the Justice Department for the Government of Canada.
This would be done by , which would allow victims of hate speech to file complaints with the ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Human Rights Commission against people who post hate speech online.
"Section 13 is a regulatory and remedial law; it is not criminal law," he said to ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø regarding the proposed section.
"The police are not involved in investigation or enforcement of hate speech online. There is no criminal charge and no conviction for violating section 13."
To remove hate speech, section 13 would allow people to file complaints against others whose content remains public and under their control, no matter when it was posted, McLeod said.
What is the online harms act?
The bill was tabled in the House of Commons in February, and is , as the article's headline suggests. It still needs to be studied by Parliament, and passed by both the House and Senate before receiving royal assent and enacted.
Also known as , the act aims to make online platforms responsible for addressing harmful content and for creating a safer online space that protects all people in Canada, especially children.
Communication of hate speech
The bill defines hate speech as "content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."
This definition is Supreme Court of Canada decisions. And in ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø law, "detestation" and "vilification" have been defined as extreme states, McLeod said.
Attorney General Arif Virani has also stated only extreme online speech would be probed by the ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Human Rights Commission.
Additionally, section 13 would not apply to private communication, because the Justice Department says it does not pose the same risk of public harm.
Virani has also said the act . As , hate speech is not content that expresses mere disdain or dislike or that merely discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.
How hate speech would be removed
If passed, the legislation would allow potential victims of extreme online hate to file a complaint with the ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Human Rights Commission.
If the hateful content was removed, then the commission may decide that no further inquiry is warranted, McLeod said.
If the person wants to contest the complaint, the commission may send the complaint to the ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Human Rights Tribunal for a hearing and a decision.
The hearing is not a trial, McLeod said, but it's an administrative proceeding "designed to be fair and accessible for all participants."
If at the end of the hearing the complaint was found to be substantiated, the tribunal could order the hate speech to be removed.
If the hate speech identified a particular victim, the tribunal may order compensation to that victim of up to $20,000, McLeod said.
In exceptional circumstances, for example if the perpetrator has refused to comply with the law, the tribunal may order a monetary penalty of up to $50,000, he said.
Criminal offences for hate propaganda
ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø law already includes criminal offences for hate propaganda, which are enforced through the criminal justice system.
These laws are separate from the ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Human Rights Act.
There are :
— Advocating or promoting genocide against an identifiable group.
— Inciting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating, in a public place, statements that are likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
— Communicating statements, other than in private conversation, to wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.
— Wilfully promoting antisemitism by denying, downplaying or condoning the Holocaust.
Bill C-63 also proposes to increase the maximum penalties – which already include prison terms – for these hate propaganda offences and would also enact new tools in an effort to prevent and address hate-motivated crimes.
Sources
Original claim can be found ()
X posts amplifying the original claim can be found () and ()
()
Current as it moves through the legislative process ()
()
()
Government says only extreme online hate speech would be probed by human rights body – ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø ()
()
()
()
in the Criminal Code ()
()
About ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Press fact checks
You can find out more about ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø here and about ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Press Fact Checks here. To reach our fact-checking team with any tips, corrections or comments, please email us at cpfactcheck@thecanadianpress.com.
