March 2024
Re: “Don’t call the cops. Call a mind reader” (Toronto Sun Editorial, 4 March): The Liberals On-line Harms Act, Bill C-63, has many objectionable elements, but one that really frightens me is the idea that police and the courts could arrest or otherwise take legal action against someone who “may” commit an on-line hate crime. As someone who was falsely accused of “misbehaviour” several years ago, I find this quite frightening.
Now, my situation wasn’t related to on-line hate, but there similarities in how it was allowed to play out.
Back in December 2019, I was the subject of a Section 117 Public Safety Warrant, and had my legally owned hunting rifles seized, based solely on anonymous accusations made through Crime Stoppers. It was alleged that on numerous occasions during November 2019, I was observed in a manic state through the front window of my house, waving my rifles around and yelling loudly, threatening to “get even” with some people with whom I used to work.
Despite the anonymous complainant trying to pass themselves off as one of my neighbours, there were no photos, videos, audio recordings, or witnesses willing to come to court and be subject to cross-examination. There wasn’t even a 9-11 call, which is something that might be expected when a person in an apparent manic and violent state is observed waving rifles around and threatening to “get even” with people. I know why there were none of the above.
Those accusations against me were completely false, not just kind of false, nor an exaggeration of the truth, but completely false. It’s very disturbing that someone could make such accusations, with nothing to support those accusations, and successfully get police action, leading to court proceedings.
Fortunately, I had alibi evidence that refuted all the allegations. On four occasions, I wasn’t even at home on the alleged dates and times, along with having witnesses willing to testify that on the dates when I was at home, they were with me and nothing of the sort happened. Unfortunately for me, my local police service did a poor job of investigating the allegations before taking action. It was only after I lodged a formal complaint against the lead investigator that the police service dug a little deeper into the allegations. (Yeah, why were there no photos or videos of the “misbehaviour,” especially in an era when everyone has a cell phone glued to their hands?)
The Crown Attourney saw fit to withdraw this application in April 2021, prior to a judicial ruling, but not until I’d spent almost $9000 hiring a lawyer.
Now, could you imagine having to contest an accusation that you might commit an offence, with nothing to substantiate that allegation other than the accuser’s say-so, especially if that person is anonymous? There are many of us out there who have thought about walking up to that annoying boss or co-worker and punching them out for being a jerk, but we don’t do it because we know that’s wrong, regardless of how much we may want to do it anyway.
At least in my case, I was accused of actually doing something, but unless you do something like post a manifesto on social media, explicitly stating your intentions, how are you supposed to defend yourself against a crime that someone claims you “might” commit?
Even though I was able convince the Crown Attourney that she had no reasonable prospect of succeeding with the application, which would have resulted in the permanent forfeiture of my firearms, along with a 5-year weapons prohibition and any repercussions of such a prohibition, I’m sure there are some out there who think that I “got away with it.”
Welcome to 1984 my fellow Canadians. I hope you enjoy it.
By the way, I have a very good idea who made these anonymous allegations, but unfortunately, I have only circumstantial evidence, so I haven’t been able to take any legal action. Yet!
Sources: https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-dont-call-the-cops-call-a-mind-reader, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/online-harms-bill-explainer-1.7124140#:~:text=Prime%20Minister%20Justin%20Trudeau%20said,affected%20by%20terrible%20things%20online.%22.
*************************************************************************************************************
The original editorial that inspired this column:
EDITORIAL: Don’t call the cops. Call a mind reader
In the dystopian world of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet, new legislation introduced to combat online hate will give authorities house arrest power if a complainant believes a virtual hate crime is about to be committed.
Quite apart from the constitutional challenges this represents, there are other serious concerns. Who’s defining what hate is? Are we sending mind-readers on house-to-house searches looking for people who might break the law?
This is reminiscent of the 2002 movie Minority Report, where police use psychic technology to arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crimes.
Under the new legislation, a person could be forced to wear an electronic tag if requested to do so by the attorney general, or stay home if ordered to do so by a judge.
Justice Minister Arif Virani defended the Online Harms Act. He compared the restrictions to a peace bond and said it would be “calibrated carefully” and meet a high threshold to apply.
“If there’s a genuine fear of an escalation, then such an individual or group could come forward and seek a peace bond against them from doing certain things,” Virani said.
Except you don’t get a peace bond just by thinking someone will do you harm. This law is very subjective. What if someone irrationally fears another person is going to cause them harm?
What guarantee do we have that the law will be applied evenly? Will some groups use it to silence their foes?
In recent months we have seen real — not virtual — hatred on our streets week after week. Thousands of protesters take to the streets regularly with hateful messages aimed at the Jewish community. They’ve targeted Jewish schools, Jewish hospitals, Jewish restaurants, Jewish shops and statues of renowned Jewish Canadians. There are already laws in place that police could use to stop threatening behaviour, but they’re rarely applied.
Now, though, the government proposes that someone can claim to read the mind of another person and that they’re about to cause them online harm. And that would be sufficient to have a person confined to his or her home.
This law should be tossed out on constitutional grounds. If not, we’ll need clairvoyants, not police, to enforce it.
