We would note that two of us are signatories to a public letter that 3 For example, the “Discussion Paper” specifies that the category of OCSP is meant to “exclude travel review websites”, yet such websites would seem to fit within the proposed definition of providing an OCS, a service that “enable[s] users of the service to communicate with other users of the service, over the internet”, and the. [...] The Charter and Canada’s international human rights obligations require the government to engage in a proportionality analysis when restricting expression—weighing it against the nature and gravity of the harm that results, including the impact on other Charter rights such as the right to equality, as well as the government’s legitimate interest in mitigating that harm. [...] The 11 For a more thorough discussion regarding the complexities of regulating “terrorist” content online and the constitutional vulnerabilities of the legislation currently in place, see Kent Roach, "Terrorist Speech under Bills C-51 and C-59 and the Othman Hamdan Case: The Continued Incoherence of Canada’s Approach" (2019) 57:1 Alberta Law Review 203. [...] At the heart of these concerns is the fact that the very groups who are systematically targeted for online abuse, and who are frequently the subjects of both actual and perceived hate speech, are the exact same groups who have been historically victimized or re-victimized and discriminated against by Canadian law enforcement and intelligence agencies. [...] It is not too late to change course, and to incorporate recommendations that reflect what civil society groups and technology and human rights experts have been communicating directly to the responsible ministries and departments over the course of the past several years—alongside representatives of the purported beneficiaries of the proposed legislation, such as historically marginalized groups t.
- Pages
- 16
- Published in
- Canada
