Peter Menzies: Scotland’s Draconian Hate Speech Laws Can Serve as Canada’s Canary in the Coal Mine

Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf answers questions during First Minister's Questions at the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh on March 28, 2024. Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images

Commentary

If you want a preview of the sort of chaos Canada’s Online Harms Act could lead to, you need look no further than the land of my ancestors—Scotland.

There, we continue to see insane policies from this once-sensible country. The previous leader of the ruling Scottish National Party, Nicola Sturgeon, made the right of transgender inmates to serve their time in women’s prisons her hill to die on and that was the end of her leadership, although she remains a member of the Scottish Parliament. Now, Scots are in thrall to a leader following the same woke agenda, First Minister Humza Yousaf.

Famous for expressing his profound alarm at the number of white people in charge of things in Scotland (where 95 percent of people are white), Mr. Yousaf  has made himself the target of civil libertarians due to a crackdown on what he calls hate speech.

It is now illegal in Scotland to behave toward or communicate material to anyone in a fashion that a “reasonable person” (let me know when you find one) would agree is “threatening or abusive.” If a court finds that the statements are capable of stirring up hatred against a protected group (race, religion, orientation, age, etc.). The  person convicted of saying these bad things could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison.

Renowned author and feminist defender J.K. Rowling was among the first to dare authorities to use the law—which has also captured the ire of celebrities such as Elon Musk and Joe Rogan—against her.

Ms. Rowling, wealthy author of the wildly popular Harry Potter books, has been a  target of the far left for her insistence on referring to trans women as men. Mr. Yousaf called her trans tweets “unsettling and offensive” and Rowling blasted back, calling out Mr. Yousaf’s “bumbling incompetence and illiberal authoritarianism.” Scottish police quickly made it clear they would not be arresting Ms. Rowling and, no doubt relieved, Hogwarts sheathed its wands.

GB News wondered, though, whether the April 7 match between long-time Glasgow rivals Celtic F.C. and Rangers F.C. might not lead to mass arrests given the historical nature of the chants exchanged by fans and their clubs’ sectarian backgrounds (Catholics traditionally aligned with Celtic; Protestants with Rangers).

While the slurs exchanged in Glasgow go far beyond anything most Canadians have ever experienced at a sporting event, GB News’s  tongue in cheek fears are unlikely to be realized, if only for logistical reasons. (There were 50,000-plus Rangers fans at Ibrox Stadium but no seats were set aside for visiting Celtic fans).

What Canadians can learn from the Scottish controversy, however, is that, given the chance to squeal on each other for saying things which offend them, people will dive right in. Scottish police have been overwhelmed with thousands upon thousands of complaints.

The Online Harms Act, for all its sins, is probably not going to engage Canadian police at that level. But my guess is that people who feel offended will behave in precisely the same way as the Scots in terms of filing complaints. Given that the body that will handle those in this country, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, could award “victims” as much as $20,000, indignation could turn into a lucrative side hustle for those so inclined.

That is among a number of reasons why David Thomas, former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, has spoken out against the Online Harms Act.

“Under the proposed new powers, the tribunal will be able to award $20,000 to ‘any victim identified’ in a communication deemed to be hate speech,” Mr. Thomas wrote in the National Post.

“How many victims might be identified if the hate speech is posted online? Is everyone who sees a hate speech message a victim?”

As Mr. Thomas said, when it comes to defending yourself against a complaint, the often years-long process “is the punishment.” He said the organization struggles to keep up with its current caseload and would be overwhelmed by the thousands of complaints anticipated if the Online Harms Act comes into force.

Furthermore (my words, not his) the tribunal is not bound by the regular rules of evidence and is frequently referred to as a Kangaroo Court.

The government says the act is designed to protect children from Online Harms. But it also smuggles in a series of draconian actions that would, for instance, make it possible to be sentenced to life in prison for advocating genocide. A heinous thing to do, without question, but the same sentence as that imposed on serial killers such as Robert Pickton who didn’t just talk about killing people, he actually slaughtered them by the dozen? Even Mr. Yousaf’s laws haven’t gone that far.

It is both ironic and sad that Scotland, which through legendary heroes such as William Wallace has inspired the global struggle for liberty, is now a leader in its suppression.

More troubling is that Canada is following in its footsteps.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.