Poilievre drags well-intended legislation down into the partisan muck

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/02/2024 (586 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

You might think eliminating, or at least minimizing, hateful speech — particularly if it targets children — would be a point of political consensus with support across all parties in the House of Commons.

You might think that, but you’d be wrong.

Ottawa recently tabled the Online Harms Act, a bill that proposes stiff penalties for both social media companies and the creators of hateful content, across seven categories that include child pornography, that which incites violent extremism or hate, and the posting of intimate images without consent, including so-called deep fakes.

New and harsher Criminal Code penalties are part of the proposed bill’s tools. And companies that do not act to remove this kind of content could be fined up to $25 million. As well, the act — if passed by Parliament — would create a new definition of hate speech in the Criminal Code and in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It’s hard to predict whether the new bill will be successful. But most interested parties outside the House of Commons believe it does represent a legitimate step in the right direction.

Online safety advocates politely applauded the new bill. It even got a vote of approval from Frances Haugen, the Facebook employee who in 2021 leaked documents that showed her former employer was fully aware people were being harmed by some content but took no steps to moderate it.

Politically, however, there is a threat the bill will be dragged down into the partisan muck.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has already indicated his party will support the bill, guaranteeing it will pass the minority Parliament should it come to a vote. However, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has already turned thumbs-down on the bill, declaring it to be part of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “woke authoritarian agenda.”

Rather than combating hateful or harmful online content, Poilievre argued the bill would be used for political censorship. “What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the words ‘hate speech’? He means the speech he hates. You can assume he will ban all of that.”

Poilievre’s allegation that this is political censorship masquerading as online safety is utterly unfounded — so much so that it has become clear Poilievre is threatening to undermine a worthy piece of legislation to score cheap political points.

Federal Justice Minister Arif Virani has already explained the bill in its current form does not give government the authority to determine appropriate content, and that the focus is clearly on requiring social media companies to demonstrate they are moderating the content across their platforms.

Virani told the CBC that even with the new act, there will still be a proliferation of content that is “awful but lawful.” The point here is to define and identify the most dangerous content and deal swiftly and severely with the authors and those who, through their own indifference, allow it to circulate online.

Those assurances — and the legislation’s clear and unambiguous focus on the most harmful content, such as child pornography, sexual exploitation, bullying and inciting violence — have done little to curb Poilievre’s histrionics, even though the Conservative Party’s position on the issue is not altogether different from the proposed Liberal legislation.

Poilievre has said he prefers to deal with harmful content as a criminal matter, not a regulatory one. The Tories favour enforcing and expanding laws to punish anyone guilty of sexually victimizing children, bullying children online or inducing children to harm themselves. The Liberals have already proposed a broadening and strengthening of Criminal Code provisions.

Poilievre’s determination to use this issue as a political truncheon is both disturbing and disheartening. And his so-called alternative is both naive and hilariously impractical.

With millions of Canadians using social media, and countless instances of harmful content circulating freely online, it would be simply impossible for the justice system alone to monitor and act on offensive content. Poilievre’s suggestion would shift the onus from social media companies to victims, which in and of itself is problematic.

While criminal investigations and prosecutions are processes that are measured in years, the removal of truly hateful or abusive content needs to be accomplished in a matter of hours for it to mean anything to victims.

Recognizing this reality, the Liberal bill rightly attempts to hold social media platforms accountable for the surveillance, identification and removal of dangerous content. Government, on the other hand, takes on the role of ensuring social media platforms act quickly to remove content and punishing them with severe financial penalties if they fall short.

But that’s not enough for the Tory leader. With the unmistakable scent of change in the air — most public opinion polls currently give the Conservatives a double-digit lead in support — Poilievre is committed to disparaging the online safety bill without offering an even remotely practical alternative.

Canadians have a right to expect their political leaders can occasionally find opportunities for consensus amidst otherwise contentious political debate. It would also seem perfectly reasonable to conclude that protecting people from harmful online content would qualify as one of those opportunities for consensus.

Instead, Poilievre is ignoring the potential of the proposed act, content to drag the issue down into the partisan muck. And that may very well ensure that in the battle against online hate, the haters continue to come out on top.

dan.lett@winnipegfreepress.com