Hi Ross,
My colleagues have already emailed you with some of the crazy – and, frankly, scary – details of the Online Harms Act.
What is particularly notable about this bill, though, is the number of people who have come out against it.
What it proposes – steep penalties for wrongthink, etc – is so egregious that an eclectic mix of people from all across the political spectrum have vocalized their opposition.
Here is what just a few of them have said:
Canada’s former chief justice Beverley McLachlin:
“Life sentences for sending out some words. That’s heavy. And it will, I suspect, be challenged … Where is the line between hateful comment, for example, and a person’s right of free speech?”
The Handmaid’s Tale author Margaret Atwood:
“The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting! Trudeau’s Orwellian online harms bill”
Elon Musk:
“This is insane.”
Legacy media journalist Andrew Coyne:
“My initial reaction had been ‘one cheer’ for the new law. I now think there is very little in it worth saving. Better to pull the whole thing and start over.”
University of Ottawa Law professor Michael Geist:
“The government seems ready yet again to gaslight its critics and claim that they have it all wrong. But the text of the law is unmistakable…”
Despite this high-profile opposition, many of Canada’s legacy outlets have glossed over these very real concerns, and published long pieces about the good intentions of the Bill.
Sadly, Ross, good intentions don’t mean much when the policy outcome is… prosecution for speech the government doesn’t like.
Here at True North, we have felt the heavy hand of the Trudeau government.
Remember, in 2019 the Trudeau-appointed Leaders’ Debate Commission blocked True North from covering the official election debates.
We then sued them for access – and won.
So we know, first hand: Canadians shouldn’t need to sue their own government agencies in order to exercise their basic rights!