"I felt that Mr. Cnockaert’s article on unfinished Parliamentary business (“Foreign interference bill passes, but online harms and citizenship bills left on hold until House comes back”) gave a very one-sided perspective of the Online Harms Act, Bill C-63. By choosing to interview only Shimon Fogel, CEO of the pro-Israel Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) about the bill, the article falsely suggested the bill was an open-and-shut case of 'good law' vs. 'evil Internet content.'"
July 2, 2024
Subject: Letter to the editor submission, as per Kate's suggestion
As suggested by Kate, please find my “letter to the editor” submission below in response to Jesse Cnockaert’s article on unfinished Parliamentary business (“Foreign interference bill passes, but online harms and citizenship bills left on hold until House comes back”):
I felt that Mr. Cnockaert’s article on unfinished Parliamentary business (“Foreign interference bill passes, but online harms and citizenship bills left on hold until House comes back”) gave a very one-sided perspective of the Online Harms Act, Bill C-63. By choosing to interview only Shimon Fogel, CEO of the pro-Israel Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) about the bill, the article falsely suggested the bill was an open-and-shut case of “good law” vs. “evil Internet content.”
The reality is far more complicated, as the bill will have dire consequences for free expression if implemented as currently written. As Daphne Keller, a Stanford Cyber Policy expert wrote, Canada’s proposal is “like a list of the worst ideas around the world – the ones human rights groups … have been fighting in the EU, India, Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, and elsewhere.” Indeed, 30 Canadian organizations signed a letter in 2021 decrying the potential danger of Bill C-63 for free expression in Canada, including my own organization.
One of the big issues is that, because it contains a 24-hour takedown requirement, it’s at risk of massive over-compliance by Web platforms. Rather than take the time to examine “controversial” content, platforms are far more likely to remove content at the slightest hint of impropriety – or in response to the loudest voices. If Bill C-63 is passed as is, malicious players could target the content of vulnerable groups in reports to police, leading to the silencing or banning of Indigenous, pro-Palestinian, anti-racist and related groups.
Another red flag is that the bill seeks new ways to criminalize “hateful” online content at a time when accusations of “hate speech” are regularly used to censor Black and Palestinian content. In the latter case, this bill would go into effect at the same time that pro-Israel groups like CIJA seek to institutionalize the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in Canada, a definition which has been repeatedly slammed for conflating criticisms of Israeli government policy with antisemitism.
Let’s be honest, Bill C-63 has been delayed because it’s a poorly written bill that needs to be ditched or rewritten from scratch.
Sincerely,
Thomas Woodley, MPA
438-380-5410
President, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East