In the United Kingdom, an average of 30 individuals are arrested daily for making offensive comments. Additionally, around 13,000 people each year are recorded for “non-crime hate incidents,” which can include actions as trivial as hanging laundry that a neighbor perceives as targeting them. This situation raises concerns as Canada considers a new bill, C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, which would grant police the authority to determine what constitutes hate speech.

The proposed legislation would eliminate the requirement for the attorney general to approve hate crime charges, allowing law enforcement to act more swiftly against hate speech. Proponents argue that this change would enhance the ability of police to protect communities. However, critics, including Joanna Baron, executive director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, warn that the bill could infringe on free speech rights and lead to increased prosecutions. "Creating new offences for hate-motivated crimes and lowering safeguards like attorney general oversight is unnecessary and invites excessive prosecutions," she stated.

The implications of such legislation are highlighted by recent incidents in the U.K. One notable case involved Deborah Anderson, a cancer patient, who was visited by police at her home due to comments she made on Facebook. The officer, who did not specify the comments, suggested that Anderson could be called in for an interview if she did not apologize. Anderson firmly responded, "I’m not apologizing to anybody," questioning the police's role in mediating personal disputes.

This incident reflects a broader trend in British policing, where officers are increasingly involved in regulating speech. Thames Valley Police later stated that no further action was taken after engaging with both parties involved. However, critics argue that police should exercise discretion and not pursue trivial complaints.

Another case involved Graham Linehan, a comedy writer, who was arrested at Heathrow Airport by five armed officers due to tweets he posted. Linehan, known for his controversial views on gender identity, faced backlash for his statements. The Metropolitan Police commissioner defended the officers' actions, stating they had reasonable grounds to believe an offense had occurred. He acknowledged the challenges police face in navigating cultural debates but emphasized the need for legal clarity.

The situation in the U.K. serves as a cautionary tale for Canada as it considers the implications of the Combatting Hate Act. Critics fear that removing attorney general oversight could lead to a similar environment in Canada, where police may act without sufficient checks on their authority. The U.K.'s non-crime hate incidents are based on subjective perceptions of hostility, which can include feelings of unfriendliness or contempt. This low threshold for what constitutes a hate incident raises concerns about the potential for overreach.

As Canada moves forward with the proposed legislation, the experiences in the U.K. highlight the delicate balance between addressing hate speech and protecting individual rights. The potential for swift action by law enforcement may come at the cost of justice and common sense, echoing the fears of those who advocate for free speech.