Bill C-9 and the Policing of Dissent

How Canada’s hate-reporting system turns lawful opinion into police business

As I watch the reaction to Bill C-9 unfold in real time on social media, I cannot help but think that another important line has been crossed in Canada.

Most of us saw the writing on the wall months ago and tried to warn others by screaming it from the rooftops. But as with Covid, nobody listened, and we were probably called racists for doing so. So here we are, another important battle lost.

From a legal point of view, we are now becoming almost indistinguishable from the system in the UK, and that’s a frightening thought.

In the UK, police have recorded non-crime ‘hate’ incidents against schoolchildren for classroom insults, despite no criminal offence having taken place. The system finally became so absurd that the British government recently announced that it would scrap the practice in order to stop police wasting their time on petty arguments. Just imagine the absurdity of this: police resources being tied up over petty squabbles in the schoolyard!

We have now entered a time where the government has extreme control of our speech.

So much so, that we’re even being warned that criticizing or boycotting a company based on moral or ethical reasons can be treated as a hate incident, even when police openly acknowledge that no criminal offence has occurred. From there, the matter can still be reported and subjected to further police investigation to determine if the elements of a hate crime are met.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the twilight zone. We have arrived in the progressive future the Left has been pushing for so long, and it sucks.

The danger here is not only what will eventually result in charges. It is that police are inviting complaints and opening the door to police attention over expression that is not criminal at all.

Durham Police openly acknowledges that these so-called hate or bias incidents are not criminal offences. Yet it still encourages people to report them and even uses the lawful boycott of companies supporting the 2SLGBTQI+ community as an example.

Edmonton Police Service was caught posting this tweet and then deleting it shortly after. So even the normal, everyday act of calling someone a shithead in a moment of anger is now grounds for investigation, apparently.

Furthermore, it appears that the powers that be are anxious to test the limits of this new law. At the same time that police services in Edmonton and Durham are warning Canadians to watch their tongues, the City of Regina approved a temporary noise permit allowing a downtown mosque to broadcast an amplified call to prayer on Fridays.

So, while a Muslim prayer is being projected into a shared public space without any meaningful public consultation, Canadians are being warned that any objection or supposedly hostile speech may attract police attention.

The message is difficult to miss: their expression will be accommodated while your opposition to it may become a police matter. Resistance is futile, apparently.

If the intention was to bait the public into an angry response, it would be difficult to design a better scenario.

The mere fact that police agencies are publishing these outrageous warnings is evidence of coercion and intimidation. Their inherent authority as law enforcement agencies gives these messages a weight that ordinary political statements do not carry. This is extreme in every sense of the word and it should greatly concern you.

For those who have continuously told us that we have nothing to fear from ever-encroaching laws if we don’t do anything wrong, I ask you this question:

Is having a different opinion now a crime?

That is exactly what happened in the British Harry Miller case. Police contacted Miller over his controversial but lawful tweets, recorded the matter as a non-crime hate incident, and then warned him despite acknowledging that he had committed no offence. The High Court found that the police intervention had unlawfully interfered with his freedom of expression and created a substantial chilling effect. The judge emphasized that Miller reasonably believed he was being warned not to express his views under threat of possible prosecution.

This is douchebaggery of the highest order and must be called out at every opportunity.

Bill C-9 from a Police Perspective

A few things I immediately noted from a policing perspective. The types of complaints that will be made as a result of Bill C-9 will quickly bury police under a mountain of new social media complaints.

Nearly 15 years ago, while working in Alberta, I started feeling the burnout from dealing with stupid Facebook bullying complaints. Most involved high school students calling each other names online and then upping the ante by going to the police.

Now imagine having an overdue file queue of 50 social media hate complaints, all from people who were offended by what some stranger posted online. In most of these cases, the complainants will likely never even meet the subject.

These types of complaints are also extremely petty in nature, and can keep you busy forever because the complainants are never satisfied unless their complaint results in formal charges. It’s the gift that keeps on giving.

With the passing of Bill C-9, the government has now further armed social justice warriors. These self-righteous and brave keyboard warriors will be doing shifts to search for and report anything they deem offensive as hate.

I can also see them baiting people into arguments online, just so that they can then use those responses in their complaints to police.

This is not police work.

Bill C-9 will have exactly the chilling effect on free speech that its architects must have known it would have. When police are already encouraging complaints about lawful speech, nobody can seriously pretend this is merely an unfortunate side effect of the legislation.

I expect that police agencies will establish new specialty units to handle these types of files, allowing general duty officers to focus on actual crime.

In one sense, that may free up frontline officers. But it would also mean creating a permanent specialty unit whose sole reason for being is to investigate frivolous internet nonsense.

Unless a miracle happens and this law is somehow reversed or struck down by the Supreme Court (if our Charter means anything), we are looking at a very dark future. Indeed, the chilling and dystopian reality in the UK has now also become reality in Canada.

You are apparently expected to pay your taxes, fund the tyrants and then sign up for MAID just as you come to the end of your useful, tax-paying life. They want to squeeze every last dollar out of you before you begin depending on the very system that you funded all your life. And they want you to keep your mouth shut while you do it.

Friends, this is not living. I love Canada as much as you do, and I miss her every day. But this is not living.

Do yourself a favour and start building options. You’ll be glad you did.

With much love,
Exiled Mountie