Go to Jail for Intensely Disliking Someone

C-63 would broaden the definition of Criminal hate speech to include “Detestation and Vilification” . Detestation is defined as “intense dislike.” Willfully promoting intense dislike against any identifiable group could result in 5 years of Prison time.

C-63 redefining the term hatred in the criminal code:

The definition of 'detestation':

Canada’s Criminal Code part 319(2):

C-63 amends the above two years imprisonment to 5 years:

Example:

You voice intense dislike toward Chrystia Freeland for freezing the bank accounts of protesters. Freeland is a woman, an identifiable group. Therefore this detestation meets the threshold of Willful promotion of hatred under the new broadened definition of hatred via Bill C-63 and you could serve up to 5 years in prison.

Be put on House Arrest if someone Fears you might post something hateful in the Future

Yes this is precrime or thought crime as depicted in Minority Report.

The lowest threshold here is part 319(2) of the Criminal Code Wilful promotion of Hatred.

Translated to layman terms: If any Canadian Citizen fears you might Intensely Dislike an identifiable group in the future and they get the Attorney General’s consent, they can put you before a provincial judge to put you on house arrest (Peace Bond).

House arrest, Curfew, Ankle Monitor, Drug tests, Surrendering Firearms

The Provincial Court Judge can order up to a 2 year Peace bond all because someone made the argument that you might say something hateful.

Example:

Post an edgy meme, leave a controversial comment. All it takes is one person to make one argument to the Governor General to have you seen before a provincial court. Best case scenario you spend time and money defending yourself in the provincial court system, worse case scenario you’re put on house arrest with an ankle monitor for 2 years.

Get Censored Online if an Unelected Bureaucrat deems your content 'harmful'

C-63 would create a digital safety commission which would be a group of unelected bureaucrats who have the ability to force Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Twitter/X or any of these big platforms to take down your content within 24 hours. Under the guise of protecting kids online these bureaucrats can use an array of reasons to justify censoring your voice online and potentially collecting your data as a means to further persecute you.

C-63 the list of harmful content the digital safety commission will censor:

Example:

If you make a post voicing your disapproval of the CBC Documentary Drag Kids - a government Bureaucrat could make a variety of arguments that this is Harmful Content and get your post taken down.

In this example alone they could argue that your post is:

• being used to bully a “trans kid”
• inducing a minor to harm themselves
• fomenting Hatred against Trans people
• inciting violence against Trans people

The unelected member of the Digital Safety Commission only needs to satisfy one of these arguments to justify censoring your post.

Powerful Independent and Unregulated Internet Police

This digital safety commission would have incredible powers and very little regulations to follow other than to loosely follow their mandate of “stopping online harms” and “considering freedom of speech”.  The loopholes and wiggle room for abuse here is appalling. They also have the ability to make their own regulations for themselves as they see fit. When the authors of the bill are questioned about this they assure us that the chosen members of the safety commission will be upstanding and non-partisan and any unclear procedures within the commission will be figured out as they go along.  

For legislation that impacts virtually all content online and will give a chosen few in Canada ultimate power, this laissez-faire answer of figuring it out as you go along is outrageous and unacceptable.

Reminder: This “Online Harms: section of the Bill also uses detestation as a working definition of Hatred, therefore voicing your 'Intense Dislike' for something online is grounds for censorship.

get reported for hate speech anonymously

C-63 would bring back section 13 of the Human Rights Code. This legislation was already repealed in 2014 by the Harper government because it had clearly proven to be poor legislation that can be easily abused by citizens to nefarious and unlawful ends.

Despite the atrocious track record of this legislation, C-63 seeks to bring it back with a broader definition of 'Hate Speech' and the option for complainants to be anonymous.

Human Rights Code Amendments

Hate Speech in the Human Rights code would have same broad definition

Human Rights court will keep complaint anonymous

Example:

You have a disagreement with someone at work and get into a heated argument in the breakroom.  Out of spite your colleague reports you to the Human Rights court based on posts she's collected from your social media. You're forced to spend time and money defending yourself in front of a Human Rights tribunal.

Won’t it Protect Kids Online?

no.

The previous iteration of this bill was Bill C-36 that was all about hate speech and hate propaganda. This raised many red flags about Freedom of Speech violations.

What’s in Bill C-63 includes the same issues which caused problems for Bill C-36 which is why the claim it “protects kids online” is clearly a trojan horse. 

is it really this bad?

yes.

The trend of tyrannical behaviour from the current Canadian government is getting worse. Political prisoners, censorship and deplatforming are unfortunately becoming a normal occurrence in Canada. As a citizen who values freedom in Canada you must understand the worst case scenario when interpreting any legislation coming from this government.

When it comes to Bill C-63 Lawyers, politicians, and media personalities are giving this legislation the benefit of the doubt. We Will Not.

Losing our Freedom of speech is far to precious to keep giving this government the benefit of the doubt.