Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act has undergone recent changes since 2015. These changes have resulted in many legal issues that violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, namely, those freedoms regarding section 2(b), the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. This paper will discuss the background of Bill C-51, its legal issues regarding the violation of section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as applying each issue to the Oakes Test to determine if there are any justifications to the Charter violations.
Background
Bill C-51, or the Anti-Terrorism Act was adopted by Parliament after the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 (Department of Justice 1). This act aimed to prevent terrorists from …show more content…
This paper will discuss the violations specifically under section 2(b) the freedom of through, belief, opinion, and …show more content…
The Civil Liberties Association states new measures taken in Bill C-51 makes free speech “chilled because the offense is vague and overbroad” (2). Due to this broad definition of the offense, defenses may be overlooked because there is no clear-cut method of defining the offense. In Sheryl Hamilton’s article, Criminalizing Expression: Obscenity and Hate Speech, she notes there are four defenses to hate speech that would fall under the freedom of expression. Firstly, if the facts stated can be proven to be true; secondly, if statements are made as part of good faith and in a religious discussion; thirdly, if the statement is relevant to public interest; and finally, if the statement is uttered to remove it from public circulation (103). Because there is no clear definition of the offense under Bill C-51, any of these defenses can be called into question as being irrelevant to statements made—either in person or online. For example, if there was a religious discussion in an online forum that discuss hate speech in some way, it would be considered lawful under the defenses for hate speech. Additionally, ideas of terrorism is significant to the public interest. Lately, it has been a common topic—not only in countries across the ocean, but in our own neighbourhoods. Discussion that could typically labeled as in the public interest, have potential to be charged as
Background
Bill C-51, or the Anti-Terrorism Act was adopted by Parliament after the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 (Department of Justice 1). This act aimed to prevent terrorists from …show more content…
This paper will discuss the violations specifically under section 2(b) the freedom of through, belief, opinion, and …show more content…
The Civil Liberties Association states new measures taken in Bill C-51 makes free speech “chilled because the offense is vague and overbroad” (2). Due to this broad definition of the offense, defenses may be overlooked because there is no clear-cut method of defining the offense. In Sheryl Hamilton’s article, Criminalizing Expression: Obscenity and Hate Speech, she notes there are four defenses to hate speech that would fall under the freedom of expression. Firstly, if the facts stated can be proven to be true; secondly, if statements are made as part of good faith and in a religious discussion; thirdly, if the statement is relevant to public interest; and finally, if the statement is uttered to remove it from public circulation (103). Because there is no clear definition of the offense under Bill C-51, any of these defenses can be called into question as being irrelevant to statements made—either in person or online. For example, if there was a religious discussion in an online forum that discuss hate speech in some way, it would be considered lawful under the defenses for hate speech. Additionally, ideas of terrorism is significant to the public interest. Lately, it has been a common topic—not only in countries across the ocean, but in our own neighbourhoods. Discussion that could typically labeled as in the public interest, have potential to be charged as