Bill C-10 is a Warning Sign for Us All
Democracy relies on free speech to survive. Bill C-10 could allow government regulation of online user-generated content.
While many foreign nations are struggling to uphold democratic ideals, the threat of political suppression has entered our own country. Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is a frightening attack on the internet as a forum for open discussion and free information. Introduced by Minister of Heritage Steven Guilbeault, the controversial Bill seeks to expand Canada’s Broadcasting Act to include online streaming platforms such as YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix. Currently, television broadcasters under the authority of the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) must contribute to the Canada Media Fund, a public-private partnership that was created in 2010 to finance original Canadian content. The primary objective of Bill C-10 is to enable similar government regulation of online streaming platforms, which would compel tech companies to contribute their share and support Canadian culture.
Minister Guilbeault claimed that it is not designed to affect individuals in any way. However, concerns increased recently when the government removed a significant clause from Bill C-10 that was meant to exclude user-generated content from CRTC oversight. According to Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, “if the exclusion is removed – if 4.1 is struck down – the programming we upload to Youtube, that programming that we place on that service would be subject to regulation moving forward.” Given that an amendment was written at the outset, and then removed, alarm and skepticism is absolutely justified. After facing considerable opposition, Steven Guilbeault promised to draft a new amendment and make it “crystal clear” that free expression is protected. Nonetheless, when the amendment was brought forward, it confirmed rather than removed the regulation of user content. Even as pressure is building that may force the government to maintain an exemption for users, it is a warning sign – and one that should not be taken lightly.
The last year has seen a growing campaign for free speech rights, alongside an authoritarian crackdown by social media giants like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Sadly, social pressures are crippling debate about censorship and its harmful effects. Many journalists and politicians have not spoken out against this infringement of fundamental rights, due to polarization between the right and left that is damaging Canadian unity.
Social media censorship is already a problem - government censorship would take the repression to a new level. In fact, the Charter right to free speech was written to safeguard democracy against this threat. The fact that conservatives are targeted more often should not deter anyone in the least from defending the right to free expression - no matter what your beliefs are. As renowned journalist Glenn Greenwald said:
“How is it possible not to realize that when you empower huge corporations & the state to regulate speech and censor the internet, they’re going to use this power to advance their interests, not yours?? Even if your interests sometimes coincides with theirs, who would want this?”
The Conservative Party is speaking out and the NDP is seeking to delay the Bill while it undergoes a new Charter review. However, more voices are needed to ensure this Bill does not pass, allowing unprecedented power over the web. And we need to ignite a broader discussion about the boundaries of censorship and the current issues of “hate speech” and “misinformation.”
Find out more about Bill C-10 and send a letter to your MP by clicking here.
When is Censorship Justified?
There are certain situations where censorship and deplatforming is necessary, such as when someone threatens violence. Aside from this, all other speech should be protected, even if it is offensive. When critical issues are at stake, hearing all sides and open dialogue is essential to create good policy.
Hiding behind the campaign to regulate “hate speech” is an unseen attack on dissent, much like the false flag war on “domestic terrorism.” In a recent American intelligence report, “Domestic Violent Extremism Poses Heightened Threat in 2021,” all manners of anti-authority sentiment were classified as extremism. For instance, their list entitled “Categories of Domestic Violent Extremists” included animal rights and environmental activists, as well as “Anarchist Violent Extremists: DVEs who oppose all forms of capitalism, corporate globalization, and governing institutions, which are perceived as harmful to society.” That essentially treats all opposition to corporatism as a potential threat to be reckoned with.
Misinformation is also heralded as the justification for increased restrictions on social media, particularly regarding Covid-19 and questions surrounding the Covid vaccine. Again this is misguided and dangerous. Open discussion, not repression, is the way to reach a greater understanding of medical and scientific issues. Although some who advocate for content moderation may be well meaning, the result is more division not more safety. Forgotten is the fact that the most prolific purveyors of disinformation are the corporate media networks - instead citizens are blamed. Time and again the fact checkers target small, independent journalists while mainstream newspapers spread falsehoods with impunity. Furthermore, it is important to raise the question: who decides what is "misinformation?” Acclaimed Indian environmentalist and food sovereignty advocate Dr. Vandana Shiva has written that "the extended coronavirus lockdown has been a lab experiment for a future without humanity." Health Canada would classify this as misinformation. There are some who think the lockdown should be more strict like Chile, with police-enforced quarantine rules. According to health officials, lockdowns are proven to stop the spread of Covid-19. All perspectives should get heard, and no one should seize the authority to suppress meaningful debate. It doesn't matter who is right - claiming authority over information is dangerous.
Many great speeches throughout history have left a lasting impact on our consciousness. The right to express your own thoughts without discrimination is fundamental and timeless. Words have power. When we hear Martin Luther King Jr’s last speech, as he invokes the freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of press, we are reminded across time of the ongoing struggle to attain a society where all people are afforded the same economic and human rights: to be heard, to live free from fear, and to enjoy an equal standard of living that allows humanity to thrive and grow towards the future.