Silencing A Nation

Free Speech in Canada is Under Siege

Canada has long prided itself on being a tolerant, progressive democracy - a land where ideas could flourish, where dissent could be voiced without fear, and where freedom of speech was a cornerstone of civic life. Yet in recent years, under the leadership of our government, this foundational freedom has come under increasing threat. From sweeping legislation like the Online Harms Act, to growing government influence over the press, to social media censorship and the stark double standards in public discourse around Israel and Palestine, the evidence is mounting: free expression in Canada is being eroded. And we, as citizens, should be deeply concerned.

This post marks the beginning of a multi-part series examining the erosion of free speech in Canada. In the coming weeks, I’ll delve into the various mechanisms - both legislative and social - that are chipping away at our ability to speak freely and engage in open dialogue. From controversial bills, to state influence over media, to the uneven application of speech protections depending on one’s political stance, each post will explore a different facet of how this fundamental freedom is being compromised. Today, we begin with a closer look at Bill C-63, the so-called Online Harms Act, and why it raises serious concerns for anyone who values open discourse.

Bill C-63: Regulating Speech in the Name of Safety

The Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) marks a turning point in how Canada approaches speech in the digital age - and not necessarily for the better. On paper, it aims to curb hate speech and online abuse. But in practice, it opens the door for policing speech, subjective enforcement, and state intrusion into personal expression.

One of the most alarming provisions is the introduction of the pre-emptive peace bonds, allowing courts to issue restraining orders or even impose jail time on individuals who haven’t committed a crime but who someone believes might engage in hateful speech in the future. This isn’t just a slippery slope - it’s a cliff.

Even more troubling is the broad and ambiguous language used to define “harm.” What qualifies as hateful? Who decides what’s harmful? And will intent, context, or education matter anymore - or will all nuance be flattened under the weight of ideological rigidity?

This is not a theoretical concern. We’re already seeing this dynamic play out in workplaces and institutions across the country.

A friend of mine - an intelligent, thoughtful, and compassionate person - recently found herself at the center of a workplace controversy. In a conversation with colleagues about the grim historical origins of childhood fables and rhymes, she mentioned that the original version or “Eenie meenie minie mo” contained the N-word. She spoke the word aloud while recounting the rhyme’s dark past, not in a hateful or derogatory manner, but as a historical fact in an academic-style conversation.

One colleague was offended and said so. My friend apologized, thanked them for their perspective, and attempted to clarify her intention. That should have been enough.

But it wasn’t. The same colleague returned later to accuse her - more forcefully - of using “inappropriate and blatantly disrespectful” language. My friend again apologized, but the colleague insisted that her perspective wasn’t just a perspective, but the perspective - objectively correct and morally unassailable.

A formal complaint was filed. Management became involved. The social fallout was even worse: colleagues unfriended her on social media, refused to speak to her at work, and ultimately, she was terminated. Not for using hate speech - but for referencing a historical reality in a context that some found uncomfortable.

This is the world we’re living in. And this is the climate that Bill C-63 risks further institutionalizing.

It’s essential to state: we should not protect actual hate speech that encourages violence, harassment, or discrimination. But there’s a difference between hate and offense. A society that cannot distinguish between malice and uncomfortable truth is not a healthy one. If our laws begin to mirror the punitive overreach already appending socially - where reputations and careers can be destroyed by one misunderstood phrase - we are all at risk.

What happens when curiosity, context, and discussion are redefined as harm?

And what happens to those who dare to question the prevailing consensus, even with humility and good faith?

Free societies do not police words - they challenge them, debate them, and disarm them through open conversation. Once we accept the idea that offensive words must be criminalized, we give the state - and increasingly, our employers, peers, and digital platforms - the power to define morality on our behalf.

Bill C-63 doesn’t just threaten free speech in theory. It amplifies a climate of fear already growing in workplaces, universities, and communities across the country. It emboldens those who believe their worldview should be enforced, not debated. And it makes it harder - if not impossible - for people like my friend to participate in society without fear of misstep, misunderstanding, or mischaracterization.

We must ask ourselves: Do we want a country where people are fired not for what they believe, but for how carefully they fail to tiptoe around a constantly shifting list of approved words?

Because that’s the future Bill C-63 could bring.

What’s Actually in the Bill - and Why People Are Worried

If you’re wondering whether Bill C-63 really poses such a serious threat to freedom of expression in Canada, you’re not alone. So let’s break down what’s actually in the proposed legislation - and why legal experts, civil liberties groups, and free speech advocates are sounding the alarm.

1. Pre-Emptive Peace Bonds

One of the most controversial components of Bill C-63 is the introduction of peace bonds that allow for restrictions - even jail time - on individuals who haven’t committed any crime. If someone alleges that another person may commit a hate-related offence in the future, a court can order that person to wear an electronic monitor, abstain from drugs or alcohol, surrender their firearms, obey a curfew, or even remain under house arrest.

This amounts to punishment based on perceived risk, not proven action - a concept that has historically been incompatible with liberal democracies and the presumption of innocence.

2. Life Sentences for Speech Crimes

The Bill significantly increases penalties for certain speech-related offences, including life imprisonment for advocating genocide or committing a crime “motivated by hatred.” While the goal of punishing incitement to genocide is understandable, critics argue that these sections are overly broad and potentially unconstitutional, especially when tied to vague definitions of “hatred.”

3. A Redefined - and Vague - Standard of “Hatred”

The bill attempts to define “hatred” as speech that “involves detestation or vilification” but “does not mean disdain or dislike.” At first glance, this might sound reasonable - but detestation is still subjective. One person’s impassioned critique might be another’s “vilification.” And when laws carry heavy penalties, subjectivity is dangerous.

Worse, the process doesn’t follow the same evidentiary standards as criminal trials. Truth is not a valid defence. Nor is intent. This sets the stage for ideological policing and abuse of process, where controversial or dissenting viewpoints are punished not because they cause actual harm, but because they make someone feel harmed.

Expert Concerns

This isn’t just right-wing paranoia or fringe theorizing. Respected organizations across the political spectrum have raised serious concerns about Bill C-63:

• PEN Canada called the life sentences for speech crimes “alarming” and condemned the peace bonds as “prior restraint,” a red flag for any democratic society.

• The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) stated bluntly that Part 2 of the bill must be removed, citing serious threats to civil liberties.

• OpenMedia, a digital rights group, warned that the bill empowers the government to “weaponize human rights law” by enabling complaints over lawful but offensive speech.

• The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) described it as enabling “ideological enforcement” and warned that it could chill public debate.

Even Amnesty International, typically aligned with progressive causes, joined calls to separate and rework the bill to ensure proper scrutiny.

Where Do We Go From Here?

When laws start punishing intent instead of action, and emotion instead of evidence, we’re not just rewriting the criminal code - we’re rewriting the social contract. We’re saying that truth, context, and nuance no longer matter - only feelings do. And worse, we’re telling people that being offended grants them the right to silence others.

Canadians need to wake up and look beyond the good intentions claimed by the authors of Bill C-63. Safety does not need to come at the expense of freedom, especially when “safety” becomes a moving target defined by ideology rather than principle.

This isn’t a fringe issue. This is about the kind of country we want to live in - a place where we can disagree, speak candidly, learn from history, and yes, make mistakes without being destroyed for them. This is about silencing a nation.

Because if we let this bill pass unchallenged, we may soon find that freedom of speech still exists in Canada - just not for people like you.

Ⓒ June 2025. Beki Lantos. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted in any form by any means without prior written permission of the author.