conservative-internetlaw-thumb-1.png
conservative-internetlaw-thumb-1.png This article is more than 6 years old

Conservatives considering new law to police how you talk about terrorism on the Internet

Can we stop terrorism by banning people from talking about terrorism in certain ways? Some Conservatives seem to think so. In the wake of this week’s shooting at the National War Memorial and on Parliament Hill, the “Conservatives are understood to be considering new legislation that would make it an offence to condone terrorist acts […]

Can we stop terrorism by banning people from talking about terrorism in certain ways?

Some Conservatives seem to think so.

In the wake of this week’s shooting at the National War Memorial and on Parliament Hill, the “Conservatives are understood to be considering new legislation that would make it an offence to condone terrorist acts online,” the National Post’s John Ivison wrote Friday.

There is frustration in government, and among law enforcement agencies, that the authorities can’t detain or arrest people who express sympathy for atrocities committed overseas and who may pose a threat to public safety, one Conservative MP said. ‘Do we need new offences? If so which?’

 

Sources suggest the government is likely to bring in new hate speech legislation that would make it illegal to claim terrorist acts are justified online.”

But the intent appears to be similar to an amendment to the Anti-Terrorism Act proposed in 2011 that was aimed at outlawing the glorification of terrorism, modeled after a similar law in the United Kingdom.

The latest idea, though, floated by the Conservatives in the wake of the deadly shooting of a soldier in Ottawa, appears to be more vague and wider-reaching.

And back in 2011, the government faced plenty of criticism.

“You can’t police people’s thoughts,” National Post editor Jonathan Kay said back in 2011. “And efforts to do so, such as this, smack of a dictatorial mindset.”

National security legal experts, including University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese, agreed:

“These are not popular things to say. But should they be criminalized? Would they make our ‘streets and communities safer’? People do and have said them. Surely there should be some evidence that these statements cause harm before we make speech a crime….

 

Criminalizing glorification… may permit the government to camouflage a dragnet: it will allow the government to prosecute sympathizers on the theory that when you’re looking for a needle, maybe it’s better to put the whole haystack behind bars. We’ll call that a North Korean approach to public safety.”

Forcese also noted that laws banning glorification can “alienate communities,” causing “intelligence and policing sources [to] dry up” and radical ideas “go underground, with a new martyred status.”

Here’s another question to ponder: who is a “terrorist”? (And who gets to decide?) 

For example:

  • In 2012, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews at the time, listed “eco-terrorists” as threats in a new anti-terrorism strategy. “The minister said that, in addition to foreign threats, the government would be vigilant against domestic extremism that is ‘based on grievances – real or perceived – revolving around the promotion of various causes such as animal rights, white supremacy, environmentalism and anti-capitalism,'” the Globe and Mail reported at the time.
  • Also in 2012, Joe Oliver, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver at the time, issued an open letter railing against “environmental and other radical groups” who take “funding from foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest” and “threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”
  • In 2013, documents released to the Vancouver Observer showed the National Energy Board, RCMP and CSIS coordinating to monitor and identify social media users associated with well-known groups such as Idle No More, ForestEthics, Sierra Club, Eco Society, LeadNow, Dogwood Initiative, Council of Canadians and the People’s Summit in order to make “security plans” and “deter illegal activities” in advance of pipeline hearings. 
  • CSIS’ Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre prepared a threat assessment of Idle No More in January 2013, but a CSIS spokesperson stressed to Postmedia News that the spy agency did not consider Idle No More a terrorist group.

Help us protect Canadians by holding the powerful accountable.

Journalism is an important public service. That’s why PressProgress is prioritizing stories aimed at keeping Canadians safe and holding the powerful accountable during the coronavirus pandemic.

Please consider supporting our award-winning non-profit news organization so we can keep making a positive impact for Canadians.

 

Support Our Journalism
PressProgress
PressProgress is an award-winning non-profit news organization focused on uncovering and unpacking the news through original investigative and explanatory journalism.

Most Shared

thumb-2021-05-010 News

Police Departments Across Ontario Are Issuing Statements Rejecting Use of Doug Ford’s Controversial New Police Powers

Related Stories

News

Doug Ford’s Government Wants TVO to ‘Commercialize’ Online Learning Content Designed for Ontario Schools

View the post
News

Jason Kenney’s Over Budget Anti-Alberta Inquiry Won’t Say If It Will Meet Its Third Deadline Extension

View the post
New

Heritage Minister Promotes Claim That Tech Companies, Academics are Behind a ‘Deliberate Campaign of Misinformation’ to Stop Bill C-10

View the post

Explainers

Politics & strategy

Tom Parkin

How Federal Leadership Can Help Establish Important Social Programs and Health Reforms

View the post
Power and democracy

Andrea Reimer

Why Powerful People Do Stupid Things

View the post
Work & rights

Liz Walker and Shanice Regis-Wilkins

What Anti-Worker Businesses Don’t Want You To Know About the Value of Unions

View the post