A UK woman recently received a
sentence of 15 months in prison for a Facebook post under the country’s new Online Safety Act, legislation that is similar in many ways to Canada’s proposed Online Harms Act.
The UK law, enacted in 2023, will come into full effect next year, but the
part relating to “false and threatening communications” came into effect Jan. 31 this year and is already being enforced.
Two men also received prison sentences, one of 20 months and the other of 38 months, for their online comments related to recent rioting across the UK, which centred on the issue of immigration. Judges ruled that they were guilty of “the stirring up of racial hatred” as defined in the
Public Order Act of 1986. So it’s not only the new Online Safety law that has led to jail time for social media posts.
Similarly in Canada, some online comments have been punished under existing Criminal Code provisions. In those cases, however, the convicted individuals operated websites or generally committed crimes that went beyond posting on social media.
The potential consequences for online posts will change if
Bill C-63 passes in Canada. The bill includes the Online Harms Act along with related changes to the Criminal Code. It was tabled in February and received second reading in June before Parliament rose for the summer.
Lawyers Marty Moore and Josh Dehaas say Canada could see convictions similar to those in the UK, though there are some key differences between the two countries’ laws.
The Case of Julie Sweeney
Julie Sweeney, 53, of Cheshire county in northwestern England, was sentenced on Aug. 14 to 15 months jail time for a post in a local Facebook community group.The post featured a photo of people helping repair a mosque in Southport, in Merseyside county just north of Cheshire, that had been damaged by rioters. “It’s absolutely ridiculous. Don’t protect the mosque. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it,” Sweeney wrote.
Online activity has been a focal point for law enforcement following riots that took place across the UK in late July and early August. The riots were incited by false online claims that the suspect in the stabbing death of three children was a Muslim asylum seeker. Rioters attacked mosques as well as hotels housing asylum seekers.
UK authorities have been seeking those responsible for the misinformation as well as those considered to be stirring up hatred and violence through online posts.
Sweeney was convicted of the Online Safety Act’s
threatening communications offence, which is defined as sending a message that “conveys a threat of death or serious harm.” At the time of sending, the person must either intend to incite fear or be “reckless as to whether an individual encountering the message would fear that the threat would be carried out.”
Judge Steven Everett, who sentenced Sweeney, said “even people like you need to go to prison” and “have to learn to take responsibility for their language, particularly in the context of the disorder that was going on around the country.” Sweeney is the primary caregiver for her husband and had no previous criminal record.
Under existing Canadian law, Sweeney’s comment could be considered “advocating genocide,” said Dehaas, counsel with the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
“I think that, based on the test for advocating genocide, it’s possible that she would be guilty of that in Canada,” he told The Epoch Times. “That’s already illegal in Canada, and she could go to jail for years, just like she could in the UK.”
The
Criminal Code provision against advocating genocide states: “Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely, (a) killing members of the group; or (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.”
Bill C-63 would increase the maximum penalty for advocating genocide to a life sentence, up from five years in prison.
It is currently a rare charge, Dehaas said, and it requires the attorney general (or anyone with the attorney general’s consent) to approve the charge. Charges in the UK under the Public Order Act of 1986
also require the attorney general’s consent, and have been laid against people for social media posts related to the riots.
Moore, litigation director with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, also said that someone like Sweeney could be prosecuted in Canada.
“I think that kind of language in Canada would probably be subject to investigation and prosecution under our current Criminal Code prohibitions,” he told The Epoch Times.
Bill C-63 would make a life sentence the maximum penalty not only for advocating or promoting genocide, but also for committing a hate-motivated offence, Moore said. So if someone commits an offence and it’s deemed to be motivated by hatred, the penalty could be bumped up to life in prison.
Section 320.1001 of the bill says this would apply to “an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament.” Moore said that this current wording could have a life sentence applied to many offences, including speech offences.
The bill also allows prosecution of cases in which someone fears another person may commit a hate offence. That fear must be considered reasonable.
“In the UK, you’re seeing people prosecuted for things they actually said. But in Canada, we would allow the attorney general, or really anyone with the attorney general’s consent, to lay an information, which is the way you charge someone criminally if they fear someone’s going to say something hateful,” Moore said.
While Canada could potentially take things further than the UK in some regards, Canada does generally have better protections for free expression, Moore said.
The UK does not have a codified constitution like Canada to protect free speech. And the definitions of hate crime and hate speech in Canada are balanced against those rights, whereas “the UK offences are using very broad language,” he said.
The Case of Jordan Parlour
Jordan Parlour, 28, was the
first person to be convicted for online comments related to the recent riots, according to an Aug. 6 UK Crown Prosecution Service news release. He was sentenced to
20 months’ imprisonment on Aug. 9.
His post on Facebook said people should “be smashing” a hotel that houses asylum-seekers in Leeds. There was no evidence Parlour physically went to the hotel, which did sustain some damage, according to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Parlour was convicted of “using threatening words or behaviour to stir up racial hatred” under the Public Order Act, the release said.
A post he made on the platform X on Aug. 7 said all hotels full of asylum-seekers should be burned. “That’s 100% the plan, plus gloves. No car either so no number plates to travel and a change of clothes nearby,” he added.
Some online comments had been prosecuted in the UK before the riots as well. For example, West Yorkshire Police officer Mohammed Adil was
charged under anti-terrorism laws earlier this year for messages he shared on WhatsApp in support of Hamas in October and November 2023.
Moore said sections 318 and 319 of Canada’s Criminal Code are comparable to the Public Order Act that Kay and Parlour were convicted under. Section 318 relates to advocating genocide, as discussed above. Section 319 relates to public incitement of hatred and wilful promotion of hatred.
Moore and Dehaas provided some examples of cases in which these criminal charges have been applied to online comments, though they noted their lists may not be exhaustive.
In June, Pascal Tribout of Quebec was charged under Section 319 for comments he allegedly made on social media platform Telegram against Jewish people, according to an
RCMP release. He was also charged for allegedly printing 3D weapons.
A Quebec man named
Raymond Têtu was convicted in 2022 under Section 319 for online comments against Muslim people. He was also accused of uttering death threats against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and advising Twitter users to shoot police officers. He faced 23 charges, including charges related to counterfeit money, weapons, and drugs, and he received a
sentence of 12 years in prison.
Others convicted under Section 319 for online comments similarly faced other charges as well, had criminal records, administrated websites, or made comments offline in addition to their online comments.
Under Canada’s Bill C-63, comments that don’t meet the threshold for criminal charges may be brought before a new human rights tribunal that will be established. Dehaas said some comments that would be subject to criminal charges in the UK could be heard in Canada by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
With a tribunal hearing, there’s no risk of jail time, though the tribunal could
impose fines up to $50,000, and each complainant could receive up to $20,000.
Moore said that anyone can launch a claim against another person through the tribunal and can remain anonymous while doing so. This means it could be easier for claims to be brought against people in Canada than in the UK.
The Case of False Communications
Cheshire Police arrested a woman on Aug. 8 on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred under the Public Order Act, and also for suspected
false communications under the Online Safety Act.
The suspect is British business woman Bernadette Spofforth, according to the Daily Mail, which published an exclusive
interview with her in which she said she regretted her social media post. The Epoch Times could not reach Spofforth for comment as of publication time.
She said she posted that the stabbing suspect in the children’s death was a Muslim asylum seeker, having copied that information from someone in Southport. “If this is true, then all hell is going to break loose,” the post said.
Her post may have been the source for this false claim that spread far and wide thereafter, she said.
“It was just a mistake. I did a really stupid stupid thing, I copied and pasted it from what I saw, and I added the line ‘if this is true,’” she said.
The UK’s Online Safety Act aims at misinformation, but this is something Canada’s Online Harms Act has stayed away from, Dehaas said.
The Criminal Code used to have a provision against false news, but in 1992 the Supreme Court found it
unconstitutional. The court ruled that it was against free expression rights in the case of Ernst Zündel, a holocaust denier who had been charged with spreading false news.
Canada also previously had a provision against hate speech in the Canadian Human Rights Act, Section 13, but that provision was
removed in 2014 amid uproar over its impact on free expression. Bill C-63 would make changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act to essentially reinstate the provision.
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal recently
decided to hear a case of alleged online hate speech. This is significant, Moore said, because online speech is generally under federal jurisdiction as telecommunications. With the provincial tribunal claiming jurisdiction in B.C.
, this is an unusual instance of online speech coming before a tribunal even before Bill C-63 is passed.
The Case of Elon Musk and Social Media Platforms
The UK’s Online Safety Act places a duty on social media companies to monitor content and address what is deemed harmful. That aspect of the law will be enforced starting next year. Canada’s proposed legislation does the same.
The penalty for failure to do so in Canada is up to
6 percent of a company’s gross global revenue or $10 million, whichever is greater; in the UK, it’s up to 18 million pounds (about C$32 million) or
10 percent of the company’s qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has criticized social media companies for allowing crime “on your premises” regarding posts related to the riots.
Elon Musk, owner of the platform X, has received criticism for his own posts on the riots, including a comment earlier this month that “civil war is inevitable” in the UK. Starmer’s spokesperson
told Reuters there is “no justification” for his comments.
Musk also received a
warning recently for “a risk of amplification of potentially harmful content” from Thierry Breton, the EU Commissioner for the Internal Market.
Breton sent Musk a
letter on Aug. 12 concerning the broadcast of Musk’s interview with former President Donald Trump. The European Commission later denied involvement in the matter, saying Breton acted on his own, without the approval of the president or other commissioners.
Moore said a debate is playing out globally over how free social media and online activity should be.
The UK’s Online Safety Act and Canada’s Online Harms Act, as well as
Australia’s Online Safety Act, are also aimed at preventing harm to children online and punishing people who publish intimate photos without permission.
Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg told the U.S. House of Representatives in a
letter dated Aug. 26 that the White House had pressured his company to “censor” COVID-19 content during the pandemic.
Many countries are having to figure out now how to balance online safety with free speech rights, Moore said.
