Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Here’s what Canadians need to know about Trudeau’s proposed Online Harms Act

Published

1 year ago

10 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

On this week’s episode of The Van Maren Show, Jonathon speaks with Andrew Lawton about Canada’s proposed Online Harms Act, why Christians and conservatives would be the primary targets, whether or not it can be defeated, and more.

Andrew Lawton joins Jonathon on this week’s episode of The Van Maren Show to discuss the Online Harms Act, Canada’s proposed internet “hate speech” law.

Lawton begins the show addressing the confusion surrounding Bill C-63, pointing out that it does contain things “sensible” people would support, such as provisions concerning child sexual exploitation and terrorist content. However, the bill treats “online hate” in the same way as child exploitation and terror, Lawton observes.

He states that the “hate” portion of the legislation is a reintroduction of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act – something the previous Conservative government of Canada managed to get rid of in 2013. The reintroduced section, however, “supercharges” the original proposal’s language, giving the Human Rights Tribunal the ability to prosecute people for “hate speech” online and forcing social media companies to take down offending content.

“As anyone who’s paid any attention to these sorts of issues can tell you, this is just a recipe for disaster when you give government that authority to define and then to execute,” says Lawton.

He also addresses the “Orwellian” aspect of the bill, observing that it allows people to be prosecuted while they have yet to commit an offense. In other words, if someone suspects someone else of future “hate propaganda” or a future “hate crime,” then any Canadian, whether it be an average Canadian or the attorney general, can appear before a judge and argue that a would-be perpetrator be arrested.

Lawton also notes that sentencing for “hate motivated offenses” – any crime such as vandalism or murder that is motivated by “hate” – can carry a lifetime prison sentence rather than the normal criminal sentence. While people have responded to this worry by saying that judges won’t use that power, Lawton says he doesn’t “like legislation where the only guardrail against abuse is just, ‘Trust us.’”

The language used by the bill itself is broad, Lawton says, maintaining that its drafters have no concern for free speech issues. “Justice Minister [Arif Virani] … was asked about this, and his only justification for how is this going to protect free speech was, ‘Oh well, the law requires that we respect the Charter,’” Lawton notes. “Well, yeah, but that doesn’t mean you’re going to do it. It just means you’re supposed to do it.”

Lawton further addresses an apparent enforcement problem, saying he does not expect the law to be enforced the same way for someone who commits arson against a synagogue or mosque as for someone who commits the same crime targeting a church. Lawton observes that the “political class” treats these offenses differently, and he suspects that since the “judicial class” is appointed by the “political class,” then it will follow the former.

“When you bring that into the speech realm … I don’t think that you’re right to make gender critical comments as a feminist, say, is going to be upheld as much as your right to make trans-friendly comments if you’re a trans activist. And I think right here we have the case of these administrative bodies, these tribunals that have to pick and choose the winners of whose free speech matters more than the other.”

When Jonathon asks Lawton if he suspects Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is pushing the legislation because of a potential Liberal defeat in the next election, Lawton responds by noting that Trudeau first tabled the legislation in 2021 the day before he dissolved Parliament and called for an election, suggesting that Trudeau believes in the legislation. He also believes that Trudeau sees it as a “political win.” He admits that this prospect unsettles him, observing that most are no longer likely to defend freedom of speech as they once did. Later in the episode, he also opines that criticism of the legislation will not stop Trudeau from pushing it.

Lawton further notes that “a lot of” Canadians have not given critical thought to the “edge cases of things that they care about,” observing that if one were to ask Canadians if they support free speech, most would answer positively, and that people would “generally agree” if they were asked if the government should regulate “hate speech.” The problem, he notes, is how to define “hate speech” and what it actually entails.

Lawton, looking at how the issue will pan out, believes that the bill will indeed pass one day, but he makes note of two issues. First, he says there is a question of what happens in parliamentary committee, stating that committees have a “significant role,” especially in minority governments. He says this has been made clear by parliamentary discussion on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD). What he would like to see happen is that the parties agree to split the bill in committee, one bill dealing with child sexual exploitation and the other dealing with “hate,” but suspects that there will not be opposition to it either way.

“The best that the Conservatives could hope for is some level of dilution in the committee stage, but it won’t be what it needs to be, which is just killing the bill outright,” Lawton suspects.

Should the bill pass, however, Lawton observes that regulations surrounding the legislation would still need to be written by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), and that social media companies would have to respond to it. It would be in the Conservatives’ interest, he asserts, that it would not be fully implemented by the time of the next election, since it would be easier to undo it.

Further, Lawton says it would send a “chill” and that people will become “leery” of what they say, while others like himself will look at the CHRC and say “come at me,” and still others will not wish to deal with it. He once again points to the reaction of social media companies, however, and says that their response will be “fascinating,” given how Facebook blocked news in Canada rather than abide by government regulations.

Lawton closes the interview observing that the legislation targets speech that is “likely to foment detestation or vilification” of people based on a “prohibited ground of discrimination,” while offensive, disdaining, humiliating, hurtful, or speech expressing dislike, is allowed.

“What I would tell Canadians is that if you think that your speech at some point will not be targeted by this, you listen to that definition and tell me where the line is between disdain and detestation, or the line between dislike or vilification, and ask whether you trust the government to draw that line fairly,” he says.

Lawton adds that the fight against the bill is “winnable” and notes there is more discussion on the issue now than there was when it was last introduced, given events in Great Britain and Ireland over “hate speech” policy, and hopes that people in Canada don’t have to experience prosecution in order to know why the bill was a bad idea.

The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms, including Spotify, SoundCloud, YouTube, iTunes, and Google Play.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Crime / 3 hours ago

Older man arrested at Kirk shooting admits to protecting real gunman

International / 4 hours ago

Trump to Confront Starmer Over UK Free Speech Laws During State Visit

Artificial Intelligence / 6 hours ago

UK Police Chief Hails Facial Recognition, Outlines Drone and AI Policing Plans

Censorship Industrial Complex

Decision expected soon in case that challenges Alberta’s “safe spaces” law

Published on September 13, 2025

By

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Alberta Court of Appeal will soon release its decision in a case challenging whether speaking events can be censored on the basis of potential “psychological harm” to an audience, infringing Charter-protected freedoms of expression (section 2(b) and peaceful assembly (section 2(c).

This case stems from the University of Lethbridge’s January 30, 2023, decision to cancel a speaking event featuring Dr. Frances Widdowson, who has frequently challenged established narratives on Indigenous matters.

In written argument filed in 2024 the University claimed it cancelled the event, in part, because it had obligations under Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act to ensure a workplace free of “harassment” and free of hazards to “psychological and social wellbeing.”

Lawyers argue that these provisions (which might be described as a “safe spaces” law) compel employers to censor lawful expression under threat of fines or imprisonment.

Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett said, “Safe spaces provisions are a serious threat to Charter freedoms. Employers who don’t censor ‘unsafe’ speech are liable to be fined or even jailed. This isn’t just the government censoring speech, it is the government requiring citizens to censor one another.”

Given the University’s defence, lawyers asked the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta to allow an amendment to the lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the “safe spaces” laws. However, the Court denied the request. According to the Court’s apparent reasoning because the safe spaces law is worded vaguely and generally, it is immune from constitutional challenge.

Mr. Blackett says, “I think the Court got things backwards. If legislation infringes Charter rights in a vague or general way, infringements become impossible to justify – they don’t become Constitution-proof.”

Widdowson and co-litigant Jonah Pickle appealed the ruling to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which heard argument on Monday. A decision from the Court of Appeal is expected soon.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK’s top cop wants to ‘stop policing tweets’: report

Published on September 11, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

‘I don’t believe we should be policing toxic culture wars debates,’ said Sir Mark Rowley, chief of the London Metropolitan Police.

In a remarkable shift, Britain’s most senior police officer is to recommend changes to the law which could allow police to “stop policing tweets” within weeks.

Sir Mark Rowley, chief of London’s Metropolitan Police, said he will approach the Home Secretary with proposals which could see police return to policing real-life crime.

Sources close to Rowley told the UK’s Daily Telegraph:

He wants Shabana Mahmood, the new Home Secretary, to change the rules so police officers are not required to record or investigate complaints when there is no evidence the suspect intended real-world harm.

The change would be a remarkable departure from the crackdown on “non-crime hate incidents,” which have seen British people given sentences of several years for remarks made online.

Rowley’s move to change the law comes alongside the UK Labour government’s proposal to introduce digital ID – which could tie access to bank accounts and work to online speech.

Return to common sense policing?

The Telegraph’s source said Rowley “is proposing a shake-up of legislation that would give officers greater discretion to use ‘common sense’ when deciding whether to record and investigate complaints about comments on social media.”

The proposed change follows the arrest of comedy writer Graham Linehan, prompting the Metropolitan Police Chief to respond.

Responding to Linehan’s arrest, Rowley said on September 3 that a return to common sense was needed as a series of high-profile arrests over “non-crime hate incidents” was undermining public trust in the police.

He said the policies of successive governments had left the police in an “impossible position” over hate speech laws.

“[O]fficers are currently in an impossible position. I have offered to provide suggestions to the Home Office on where the law and policy should be clarified.”

Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson, who was doorstepped by police last November for a tweet described as a “non-crime hate incident,” responded on September 9 by saying Rowley’s step towards defending free speech was “disingenuous” at best.

“At the risk of being arrested,” Pearson said, “I suggest Met chief Mark Rowley is a total muppet.”

Commenting on the recent arrest of comedian Graham Linehan for online speech, she added, “It is disingenuous in the extreme for the commissioner to say officers’ hands are tied in cases like that of Graham Linehan.”

Pearson explains that Linehan, famous for writing sitcoms, was arrested by five armed police after a “notorious trans activist” reported his tweets to police.

Rowley’s claim is that guidelines to police compel them to treat such appeals as crime reports, leaving no room for discretion.

Pearson then refers to the many real-life crimes to which British police do not routinely respond – even over decades:

It’s perfectly clear that the police have discretion to ignore complaints, even crimes, if they want to. Let’s see now:

Phone theft – ignored.

Shoplifting – essentially legal.

Carjacking – we’ll send you a crime number.

Burglaries – help yourself, lads!

Sexual harassment, child gang rape – er, sorry, cultural sensitivities.

Pearson concludes that the police chief is himself being dishonest – at best – in saying that speech crime laws tie the hands of officers.

For Sir Mark to claim that his officers were unable to use their common sense and ignore a complaint from a notorious trans activist about [Linehan] is to insult the public’s intelligence.

Baronness Winterbourne of the House of Lords responded, recommending that “[i]nstead of blaming Parliament for your officers’ inability to think for themselves intelligently, perhaps you might firmly tell them, please, to stop being stupid.”

As the latest Telegraph report shows, government advice to police already exists – which has not prevented the policing of so-called “non-crime hate incidents.”

More than 13,200 non-crime hate incidents were recorded by police in the 12 months to June 2024, a similar number to the previous year, despite new guidelines requiring police to investigate only ‘when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate and not simply because someone is offended.’

Rowley was also recorded on a UK radio show defending the officers who carried out Linehan’s arrest.

Graham Linehan’s case is but one of many in which British people have been prosecuted for online speech. As the Free Speech Union reported in April 2025, new data showed that over 12,000 people in Britain are arrested for speech crimes every year.

Hitchens: Disband the police?

Peter Hitchens, a veteran conservative commentator and staunch Christian, spoke out on GB News – calling for the British police to be completely abolished and replaced.

Hitchens, a devout Christian, said the British police should be “disbanded” as they have become a “sinister menace to the freedom of speech.”

“They’re not responsible for crime anymore,” Hitchens explained. “They’re a politically correct body who think they’re policing thought.”

He told GB News’ Michelle Dewberry that “the police don’t believe they should be doing what we think they should be doing. They do believe they should be arresting people for incorrect tweets. The only solution is to disband them and start again.”

Elsewhere Hitchens argued this was no novel development, saying this “new style of policing” went back 20 years.

Two-tier Keir Starmer

The embattled Prime Minister Keir Starmer has long been accused of “two-tier” policing in cracking down on “far-right thugs” who commit online speech crimes.

As the murder of Charlie Kirk focuses attention on the toxic speech of the left, Britain’s justice system sees no evil when left-wingers call for the collective murder of people on the right.

Whilst former Conservative councilor Lucy Connolly received a 31-month sentence for an angry tweet about illegal migrants, a councilor for Starmer’s own Labour Party was found not guilty of incitement to violence after demanding that everyone he saw as “far right” be murdered.

Ricky Jones was declared innocent after publicly calling for his comrades to “cut the throats” of the so-called “disgusting Nazi fascists” who were protesting over the murder of children by a man of migrant heritage. Three girls were killed in Southport by a Rwandan youth last July. After stabbing the nine children in a frenzied assault, Axel Rudakubana told police, “It’s a good thing those children are dead.”

When angry protests broke out at the murders, Jones responded on video, saying of the so-called “far-right” protesters: “We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.”

Jones was freed, Connolly was jailed.

Despite the obvious dangers in preferring the policing of speech to genuine threats and crimes, there seems to be no cause for concern from the point of view of Britain’s prime minister.

During Wednesday afternoon’s questions, Sir Keir Starmer was asked whether he would commit to revising speech laws to “ensure legitimate free expression is protected.”

Starmer replied with a stock response: “I’ve been clear throughout, we must ensure the police focus on the most serious issues and the issues that matter most to our constituencies and all communities.”

He ended by saying he was proud of Britain’s long history of free speech, which he said he would always protect.

“And that includes tackling issues like antisocial behavior, knife crime and violence. And we have a long history of free speech in this country. I’m very proud of that, and I will always defend it.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X