Title: Concerns Raised Over Mark Carney's Censorship Policies

Mark Carney's Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is drawing attention for its strict adherence to British traditions. Reports indicate that the new PMO mandates the use of British spelling in all documents and expects staff to dress in formal business attire. Anecdotal evidence suggests that men are particularly expected to wear black shoes, a norm in London's financial and political circles, where the saying goes, "never wear brown in town."

However, Carney's admiration for British customs appears to extend beyond dress codes. In recent years, the United Kingdom has gained notoriety for its approach to political censorship. The U.K.'s Free Speech Union has reported that police make approximately 30 arrests daily, totaling around 12,000 annually, for offensive online messages. Laws such as the Communications Act of 2003 and the Public Order Act of 1986 have been used to suppress jokes and political discourse. For instance, in September, comedy writer Graham Linehan was arrested at Heathrow Airport on suspicion of violating the Public Order Act for allegedly "inciting violence" through jokes about transgender issues posted on social media.

In England and Wales, police also document "non-crime hate incidents," meaning no actual crime is necessary for police intervention. A seemingly innocuous tweet can lead to a police visit and a permanent record that may be accessible to certain employers. This trend raises concerns about the implications for free speech in Canada, especially as the Carney government recently introduced Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, on September 19.

Bill C-9 proposes five significant changes to the Criminal Code, each raising alarms regarding free expression. First, it removes the requirement for provincial attorneys general to consent to hate propaganda charges, allowing police to initiate charges independently. This change is concerning because hate offenses are often vague and subjective, making them susceptible to misunderstanding and misuse. Even if charges are later dropped, the serious nature of such allegations can have lasting repercussions.

Second, the bill criminalizes the "wilful promotion of hatred" through the public display of certain symbols. While local media often report on individuals displaying symbols like the swastika, such displays are currently not illegal. This clarity has been beneficial, as it allows society to identify and reject extremist views openly. Advocates argue that forcing these symbols underground could inadvertently empower extremists and increase societal polarization.

Third, Bill C-9 introduces a new standalone "hate crime" offense. If any crime is found to be motivated by hatred, it will not only be considered during sentencing but will also constitute a separate offense, potentially carrying a sentence of up to life in prison. This aspect of the bill has raised significant concerns about the implications for free speech.

The fourth and fifth provisions of the bill criminalize "intimidating" or "obstructing" individuals accessing cultural or religious sites. Critics argue that this legislation is redundant, as it addresses actions already deemed illegal, such as blockading and intimidation. The enforcement of these laws by police raises additional concerns.

Perhaps most troubling is the proposed change to the definition of hatred within the bill. It suggests a statutory definition that describes hatred as "the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike." This contrasts with the current legal understanding, which emphasizes that hatred is the "most extreme manifestation" of such emotions, as established in landmark Supreme Court cases.

Overall, the changes proposed in Bill C-9 appear aimed at increasing the number of charges, prosecutions, and convictions related to speech deemed undesirable. While the PMO's emphasis on British traditions may seem innocuous, many Canadians are wary of adopting a culture of censorship similar to that seen in the U.K. The right to free speech, even when it offends those in power, remains a fundamental concern for many citizens.