Online Harms Act worries Christians

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 15/06/2024 (843 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was asked to describe his test for obscenity in 1964, he became famous for his response: “I know it when I see it.”

Could a similar test be true for hate speech? That’s the question some are asking over the federal government’s proposed Online Harms Act.

The act, which was introduced in Parliament in February, will hold online platforms like Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) accountable for the content that foments hatred, incites violence or promotes extremism or terrorism. It will also require them to actively reduce the risk of exposure to harmful content.

But just as people have long debated Stewart’s view about what constitutes obscenity, Canadian religious groups are asking what will constitute hate speech in the act, who gets to decide what it is, and whether the Act is the best way to address it.

Richard Marceau, vice president for external affairs for Centre for Jewish and Israel Affairs (CIJA), thinks the bill is overdue. “The status quo is not acceptable, there is so much online hate out there. Something must be done,” he said.

Citing a 135 per cent increase in online antisemitism in 2023 over 2022 — much of it related to the war in Gaza — Marceau said CIJA welcomed the act. “We have been advocating for legislation that addresses online hate for a long time,” he said.

For those who worry about the effect the act could have on speech, Marceau said he thinks it achieves a balance between protecting Canadians from online harassment and hate, while not restricting free speech.

“Finding that balance isn’t easy,” he acknowledged, but he also wants people, especially from minority groups, to feel safe. “I hope all political parties can work together to make sure we find that balance,” he said.

One group that is worried about the impact of the act is the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC), which represents evangelical denominations and churches in Canada.

According to Julia Beazley, who directs public policy for the EFC, the organization has “strong concerns” about how the Act might affect the expression of certain religious beliefs.

“We believe holding religious beliefs and acting on them is of ultimate importance,” she said, noting the act would lower the burden of proof for filing a hate speech complaint.

While agreeing that something needs to be done to address the rise in online hate, the EFC worries that the proposed act might go too far in limiting valid expression of opinion that is not popular with wider Canadian society. This would include churches that use their interpretation of the Bible to speak against same-sex marriage.

Although the government proposes to provide clarity on these and other issues, “there are still concerns with how this would be understood and applied, given the context of public discourse in which, for example, biblical teachings on sexuality, are commonly described as hateful,” she said.

If that’s the case, the EFC’s concerns may grow following remarks by Deborah Lyons, Canada’s special envoy for combating antisemitism. In May, Lyons told a parliamentary committee studying antisemitism on university campuses she is “very interested” in exploring the idea of removing religion as a possible defence against hate speech charges — even if it could put a chill on religious expression.

In a story by The Canadian Press, Lyon said she hasn’t arrived at a final conclusion on the matter, but that using religion as defence “does not stand the ground in these very difficult times.”

Andrew Bennett of Cardus, a Canadian Christian think tank, disagrees. For him, removing religion as defence for speech could create “genuine fear” among those with deeply held religious beliefs about what they are allowed to say in the public square.

It could also marginalize a sizable part of the population, including many new Canadians for whom “religion is not just some sort of cultural relic” but “informs all aspects of society,” he said.

The Catholic Register also is worried. In an editorial, it rang an alarm bell about the act. Canadian Catholics, it said, must reckon “the potential cost to ourselves as individuals and to Holy Mother Church as a whole.”

Catholics, the editorial went on to say, “live in a society where our most profound convictions are routinely deemed aggressions against the fashionable verities of the day. We live in a country where our churches can be burned with virtual impunity, and we are blamed for striking the match and adding the gasoline.”

The act might only “feed the fever dreams” of those who want to restrict the speech of Catholics even further, “purely because of the creed we profess,” the editorial added.

I don’t know whether the act is the best way to address online hate or not. But I do know that all the world’s major religions already have a version of it, something they’ve had for thousands of years. It’s what Christians call the Golden Rule: do to others what you would like them to do to you.

That’s a good rule for life, and also for speech, I think — in person or online.

faith@freepress.mb.ca

The Free Press is committed to covering faith in Manitoba through our Religion in the News project. This reporting continues because readers like you step forward to fund it.

Donate now to support our reporting on religion.
Your donation is eligible for a charitable tax receipt. BECOME A FAITH JOURNALISM SUPPORTER