ANALYSIS: Youth Exposure to Online Hate Is Rampant, Says StatCan, But a Closer Look Shows ‘Hate’ Is in Eye of Beholder

 

About 70 percent of Canadian youth have been exposed to online hate, says a Statistics Canada report released the day after the Liberal government tabled its Online Harms Act aimed at the problem. The alarmingly high number suggests Bill C-63 has arrived just in time to address a widespread problem, but a closer look at the StatCan survey questions tells another story.

“Hate” is in the eye of the beholder. Survey participants were given no guidance on what “hate” means, and sociologist David Haskell says young people are increasingly taught to perceive hate in comments previously considered offensive, but not truly harmful or “hateful.”

“There is lots of evidence coming from current psychological research showing that educational environments are ’training' students to experience a phenomenon that does not exist in objective reality,” Mr. Haskell, an associate professor in the faculty of Liberal Arts at Wilfrid Laurier University, told The Epoch Times via email.

“Those who take part in classes or workshops related to ‘anti-racism’ education or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are significantly more likely to claim they can see ‘evidence’ of hate in what others see as innocuous words or deeds,” Mr. Haskell said.

This is a key point of contention regarding the Online Harms bill as well. The bill gives the average Canadian various avenues to lodge complaints against someone based on the perception of “hate.”

Perception of Harm

The bill would allow people to bring complaints of online “hate speech” to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. While not every complaint to the tribunal will necessarily result in a fine—up to $50,000—the process of being brought before a tribunal can in itself be onerous.

Under current law, a Canadian could only be formally accused of “hate speech” under very limited circumstances. One may be criminally charged with hate speech, but that charge must be reviewed by the attorney general and can’t be laid by police. As it stands now, “hate motivation” for other crimes like assault or murder is only considered an aggravating factor by judges in sentencing. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to now make hate crimes a standalone offence.

People may also report others to the courts on the basis of a “fear” they may commit hate crimes, including an online “hate propaganda” offence. If the judge finds the fear reasonable, the defendant must adhere to restrictions (such as a curfew and wearing an electronic bracelet) for a year on pain of imprisonment.

“Far more draconian than being arrested for something you say, is being imprisoned for something someone else is afraid you’ll say,” lawyer Marty Moore, litigation director with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), told The Epoch Times.

Social media companies will also be required to gauge what is “hateful.” They must flag content they believe “foments hatred” and deal with content they have “reasonable grounds to believe posed a risk of significant psychological or physical harm,” according to the bill.

The Online Harms Act would have broad impacts on how hate speech is defined and policed, though its scope goes beyond that. It also targets child exploitation, intimate pictures shared without consent, content related to terrorism, and more.

The bill is touted by the Liberal government as primarily aimed at protecting youth from online harm. The report on youth online harms released by Statistics Canada, a federal agency, may be seen as intertwined with the rationale and thinking behind the bill.

The StatCan Report

Statistics Canada peppers some definitions of hateful online content throughout the report. It says disinformation, malinformation, and misinformation can all “contain elements or undertones of aggression and can promote or propagate hate.” It says “misinformation,” however, is not intentionally harmful.

In 2022, 84 percent of Canadians aged 15 to 24 saw information online that they suspected to be false, the report says.

Seventy-one percent of this age group reported also seeing content that could “incite hate or violence,” compared to the national average of 49 percent. “This type of content can consist of, but is not limited to, terrorist content or violence toward ethnic groups,” the report says.

The survey question used to garner this data does not define or give examples of hate or violence or the type of content in question. It is thus up to the respondent to decide based on perception.

“During the past 12 months, how often did you see the following harmful content online?” starts the section related to online harms in the Canadian Internet Use Survey 2022 (CIUS 2022). Then it asks simply about “content that may incite hate or violence,” with no further information.

A Statistics Canada spokesperson told The Epoch Times via email that the question posed in the CIUS 2022 included “e.g., terrorist content, violence toward ethnic groups.” But the spokesperson did not reply as of publication to a follow-up question as to why that does not appear in the CIUS 2022 published on the Statistics Canada website.

Mr. Haskell said “activist” teachers and professors are influencing young people to see “a banal statement or action as hateful.” He cited Cato Institute research that queried Americans on microaggressions. It found the “microaggressions” related to race that college professors are telling students to avoid actually aren’t considered offensive by most black and Latino people.

Statistics Canada did note briefly in the report “the same content can have a different impact on different viewers.”

It said the majority of cyber-related hate crimes reported to police are allegedly committed by youth. Boys aged 12 to 17 were charged or accused in 30 percent of the crimes from 2018 to 2022. In an additional quarter of the crimes, the accused was aged 18 to 34.

So it seems a substantial number of people behind the kind of online content targeted by the Online Harms legislation are themselves children, or young adults.

The last line of the Statistics Canada report says polarization in society is causing online hate to spread.

“The rapid and constant sharing of misinformation and violent and hateful media can polarize individuals and communities and foster a space for hate to spread both online and offline.”

This echoes comments Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made during an interview with Ryan Jesperson of Real Talk on Feb. 21.

Mr. Trudeau said “social media drivers” and the alternative news sources increasingly available online “prevent people from actually agreeing on a common set of facts.” It undermines legacy media, which “used to project across the country at least a common understanding of things.”

Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre released a statement on Feb. 27 regarding the Online Harms Act, saying, “We do not believe that the government should be banning opinions that contradict the Prime Minister’s radical ideology.”

He said that “serious acts should be criminalized, investigated by police, tried in court and punished with jail, not pushed off to new bureaucracy.”