Ottawa’s new anti-hate bill is a mistake

Open this photo in gallery:

It’s a scary time. The air is full of angry words. Hate crimes are on the rise. Now, many would say, is the time to bring in tougher laws against hate speech.

The government certainly thinks so. New federal legislation would criminalize the display of certain hate symbols and make it easier to lay charges for spreading hate propaganda.

In fact, this is the worst time for such measures. Democracy is under attack around the world. The right to speak is democracy’s foundation stone. Using the law to curb expression, even of the most extreme kind, is always a mistake, and it is especially dangerous now.

Just look at what is happening south of the border. Since the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, President Donald Trump and his allies have been threatening to crack down on the “radical left,” which they blame for the crime. Attorney General Pam Bondi said that “we will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” Though she backtracked later, the threat still hangs in the air.

Mr. Trump seems to think that hate speech is anything that he, personally, deems hateful or even critical. He is threatening to shut down broadcasters he considers unfair to him and silence late-night comics that make fun of him. The President who called himself a leading victim of censorship is itching to gag his detractors.

It could never happen in Canada, you might say. Our government is basically sane. We have the Charter to protect us.

Let’s not fool ourselves. We have seen our own moments of panic, like the post-war Red Scare or the October Crisis of 1970. At such times, even the most level-headed governments can be tempted to limit dissent.

Of course, Ottawa says it has no intention of muzzling critics. Justice Minister Sean Fraser was all reason and moderation when he spoke about the proposed changes last Friday. The government, he said, is taking “great pains” to protect free expression.

Anti-hate bill could mean 10 years in prison for obstructing access to places of worship

But a look at the Combatting Hate Act does not inspire confidence. If it goes through, authorities will no longer be required to get a green light from the Attorney General to lay hate-propaganda charges. That removes an important check on police and prosecutors, put into the law precisely to make clear that such a charge should come only after careful deliberation.

Another provision would make it illegal (as a government backgrounder puts it) to “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by publicly displaying certain terrorism or hate symbols.” It specifies the Nazi swastika, the SS insignia and the symbols of designated terrorist groups. What that means is that someone could be arrested in Canada simply for waving a flag, a bad idea no matter how odious the idea it represents.

Flags, placards, slogans, buttons – protesters employ all of these things in exercising their right to speak out. Many cause offence to others. Some are designed precisely to do so. One person’s freedom cry may sound to another like hate. If we value the right to protest, we have to put up with even hurtful forms of expression (as long as they don’t amount to slander, libel or a direct incitement to violence).

Yet another change would make it a crime to willfully intimidate and obstruct people around schools, community centres and places of worship. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association points out, police already have the power to protect such places under the laws against mischief, intimidation, threats and harassment. Giving them powers they do not truly need is never a good idea.

The Decibel podcast: Charlie Kirk, free speech, and Canada’s new anti-hate law

The rise of hate in this peaceful country is deeply troubling. We should be doing all we can to reinforce the tolerance that we consider a national hallmark. But the blunt force of the law is not the way. The risk is too great.

Instead of criminalizing vile words, we should counter them. The best way to combat hate is to expose it to the cleansing light of day.

Nearly a century ago, Louis Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court expressed this truth best. He said that the antidote to odious speech is “more speech, not enforced silence.”

The nation’s founders, he said, were wise enough to understand “that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.”