Another Attack on Free Speech: The Government’s Push to Punish Words Before They’re Spoken

Another Attack on Free Speech: The Government’s Push to Punish Words Before They’re Spoken By Dale Jodoin Canada’s government is once again toying with the idea of giving itself the power to silence citizens before they’ve even spoken. The latest versions of their so-called “hate speech” bills—first Bill C-36 in 2021 and now Bill C-63 in 2024—have one thing in common: they try to criminalize suspicion, not actions. Let’s be clear. Under these proposals, you don’t have to commit a crime. You don’t even have to post something online. All it takes is someone convincing a judge that you might spread hate in the future. Suddenly, you’re slapped with restrictions. You can lose your right to speak freely, to use the internet without conditions, and if you slip up, you can even end up in jail. That’s not free speech. That’s not democracy. That's the government deciding who is safe to speak and who isn’t, long before a single word is uttered. The Return of Section 13 by Another Name We’ve seen this movie before. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was scrapped in 2013 for being too broad, too easily abused. It lets people drag others through expensive hearings for online comments. The Conservatives ended it, rightly calling it a tool for censorship. But the Liberals brought it back in disguise. Bill C-36 tried to re-introduce hate speech complaints and the “fear of hate crime” peace bond. It died when the election was called, but the same spirit came roaring back in Bill C-63—the so-called Online Harms Act. This bill doesn’t just target child exploitation or violent threats. It lumps in “hate” without ever drawing a clear line on what that means. That’s the danger. When politicians get to decide what “hate” is, anything they don’t like can fall under that label. Punished Without a Crime Think about it. In Canada, you’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. These bills flip that upside down. They say: we don’t need to prove you guilty—we just need to suspect you. It’s the kind of law you’d expect in authoritarian countries, where leaders crush dissent by accusing opponents of “dangerous speech.” In those places, people disappear into jails not for what they did, but for what they might say. And here we are, in Canada, pretending that kind of law belongs in a free society. The Slippery Slope Nobody Wants to Admit Governments always start with promises. “This is just to stop hate.” “This is to protect children.” Nobody disagrees with protecting kids or preventing real violence. But once the machinery is in place, it’s a short step to using it against political critics, journalists, or ordinary citizens who dare to speak too loudly. It’s not hard to imagine. A protest against higher taxes, immigration policies, or government spending could easily be painted as “hateful” if it offends the ruling party’s sensibilities. A strong opinion online could be flagged as dangerous, and suddenly you’re on the wrong side of the law—without ever committing a crime.Canadians Should Be Furious Every Canadian, left or right, should be furious about this. Free speech isn’t about protecting easy opinions. It’s about protecting the hard ones, the unpopular ones, the ones governments don’t want to hear. When a government claims the right to pre-emptively gag people, it’s admitting it fears its own citizens. And when citizens can be silenced before they speak, democracy itself is on life support. This is not a left-versus-right issue. It’s a freedom issue. It’s about whether Canada remains a place where people can criticize the government without looking over their shoulder for a knock on the door. The truth is simple: you can’t fight hate by outlawing speech. You can only fight it with more speech, better arguments, and open debate. Bills like C-36 and C-63 don’t protect Canadians. They protect politicians from criticism. And if we let this pass, we’ll wake up one day to find our voices already gone.