Quebec Decides It Needs ANOTHER Hate Speech Law, Only One That's Worse Than The Law It Already Has

from the if-it-ain't-broke,-keep-trying-to-break-it-[fixes-tbd] dept

The best way to combat speech you find offensive is more speech. Despite it being the best way to handle these situations, it's also the least-used option. And, in legislators' hands, "more speech" is rarely on the table. But "more law" almost always is.

An editorial from the Montreal Gazette discussing the Quebec government's proposal for a new "hate speech" law not only points out the potentially damaging side effects of the poorly-drafted bill, but other aspects that should have prevented it from ever getting this far in the legislative process.

To begin with, there are already laws in place to deal with "hate speech."

Certain types of communication are considered unacceptable, particularly speech that intentionally incites others to violence or hatred against a particular group. The Criminal Code already provides for this, and more importantly, it sets out clear parameters for the successful prosecution of hate-speech offences and specifies the conditions under which statements that some may see as hate speech are legally permissible. And as with all crimes, conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

There it is. A law already exists to address these issues. But this law apparently has problems -- like "clear parameters" and requirements for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." The new law will have neither of those.

The legislation, in its current form, fails even to define hate speech, leaving the grounds for a complaint to the provincial human rights commission open to interpretation. Also of concern is that the complainant may remain anonymous. Once a complaint is received, the bill would grant the commission sweeping new powers to investigate an alleged offence, and to then forward cases to the human rights tribunal for action.

The tribunal, in turn, could decide — based on a level of proof that it determines itself — whether a person has engaged in or disseminated hate speech, or “acted in such a manner as to cause such acts to be committed.” If so, fines could be levied and names added to a publicly available list for an indeterminate period of time.

These changes for the worse have been prompted by critics of the existing law, as it fails to criminalize enough speech and raises the bar too high for those hoping to punish people for offending them. Passing this law would allow hecklers to exercise their veto power more frequently, more effectively and, as a bonus, completely anonymously.

The end result, of course, is the chilling of speech. Currently, there's a measure of due process to the proceedings. If this bill passes, that's gone. And with no clear standard expressed in the bill itself, all sorts of previously protected speech will be potentially subject to criminal penalties.

But that's only part of the problem. The other issue is that the bill seems to be a quid pro quo exchange meant to give the government a pass on yet another targeted restriction.

The anti-hate bill was introduced as part of a “package” of sorts, rolled out in June in response to (among other things) concerns about the radicalization of impressionable young people and a rising tide of public anti-Muslim sentiment. The package also included a detailed anti-radicalization strategy and another bill that would ban the wearing of face-coverings while giving or receiving a public service. The face-covering ban will almost exclusively affect Muslims, so the hate-speech bill could be seen as a kind of olive branch to the community, and another way to defend against increasingly vicious anti-Muslim rhetoric in public discourse.

So, the Quebec government wants to crack down on radicalization and force Muslims to look "less Muslim" when engaging with the Quebec government. In exchange, everyone -- not just Muslims -- will be allowed to anonymously report nearly anything that offends them to the commission and allow the bill's vague machinations to take over. It's written from the ground up to be abused. And while it may be a slight nod towards the Muslim community the government is slapping with other restrictions, it's a safe bet that Muslims will also be frequently targeted by hate speech complaints to the tribunal. By leaving the burden of proof entirely in the tribunal's hands, any and all complaints are valid until otherwise determined by a third party in its sole discretion, with no input from the accused. How could that possibly go wrong?

Filed Under: canada, censorship, free speech, hate speech, quebec

Quebec Town Makes It Illegal To Insult Police Officers And Other Public Officials

from the hi,-I'm-a-non-resident-and-I'd-like-to-insult-you dept

I'm not sure where so many public officials get the idea that the job is best-suited to those with the thinnest skin.

Be careful what you write about police officers online — if you live in Granby, Que., you could get slapped with a hefty fine.

The municipality about an hour outside of Montreal is seeking the right to issue fines ranging from $100 to $1,000 to people caught insulting police officers or municipal employees on the internet.

Maybe it's a Quebec thing? Here's a TD post from way back discussing Rawdon, Quebec, which -- in a postively Ardisian move -- not only forced a site offline but sent the cops after the site owner.

The city council of the small town of Rawdon, Quebec (population: 9400) has managed to get a court order to shut down an online forum (French only) because its users were posting messages that were considered 'defamatory and detrimental to the reputation' of the elected board. Police raided the forum owner's house, copied his entire hard drive and asked him to delete the offending posts, and when he said he had over 8,000 messages to look through, they did not specify which ones were specifically targeted.

But hey, #NotAllCanadiens. The South Pittsburg City, Tennessee has also done its part to ensure governing bodies aren't stung by the harsh words of constituents.

The commissioners of a small Tennessee town have just voted to ban negative comments about it from social media. This stupid move was prompted by "criticism and lies" being posted online, which supposedly "hampered" the town's government from performing its duties.

Granby's bylaw rewrite didn't originate from the bruised feels of council members or city commissioners, but rather from its police force, which found Kevlar body armor may be great for stopping bullets, but does little to stop hurtful words.

The move comes after town officials discovered a Facebook page called Les policiers zélé de Granby — The Zealous Police of Granby.

And, of course, defenders are stepping up to explain that this is no more than an extension of stupid, previously-existent bylaw.

According to Catherine Bouchard, the director of legal services for Granby, a bylaw already exists for face-to-face insults and has been used in recent years for online slurs.

In order to raise the level of online discourse, insults directed at a select group of people -- public servants -- must be criminalized. The deputy mayor's justification is even worse.

"In my opinion, if I threaten you via my keyboard, it's as though I am making that threat right in front of you.… For me, it's the same thing," said Robert Riel, Granby's deputy mayor.

Threats are a criminal offense and I would assume there are laws in place to address these. Insults -- whether they're face-to-face or from behind keyboards -- are just the end result of the world being filled with people that aren't always pleasant. If the insult rises to the level of defamation, there's legal recourse for that. If the insults turn into harassment, again, turn to the law.

But all of these different forms of unprotected speech are being thrown in with protected speech under a single, badly-written bylaw. Statements from the town's lawyer throw out terms like "slurs," "defamation" and "insults" as though they were all legally interchangeable, making her grasp of the law appear every bit as tenuous as the deputy mayor's.

And then there's this:

"If you put something out on the internet, I don't know what the expectation of privacy is," Bouchard said.

"Let's say I write something about you that's derogatory or that's insulting … do I have the freedom to write anything about you?

"Your freedom of speech does not give you the right to say anything about anybody you want in an insulting manner. I can't destroy your reputation and who you are because I have freedom of speech."

Well, actually you can destroy a citizen's reputation, Ms. Bouchard. You see, the bylaw only protects city officials from insults, not the general public. Cops and council members can retaliate against those who have hurt their feelings by sending a suddenly-motivated police force to cite offenders.

Bouchard and those voting for this act as though free speech is zero sum. Bouchard acts like public figures would have no other way to counter online insults if it wasn't for this skewed law. The same online platforms and forums can be accessed both by the public and their representatives. But this bylaw can only be used by public figures.

The Huffington Post coverage notes that the local police hadn't offered any comment, but were "eagerly awaiting" the results of the vote. I bet they were. I'm sure there's a few officers who can't wait to take down the people behind the "insulting" Facebook page -- those clever malcontents who thought they were above the law when they expressed themselves using protected speech.

Filed Under: canada, free speech, granby, insults, police, quebec

Quebec Looking To Force ISPs To Block Gambling Sites In Order To Protect Its Own State-Run Gambling Portal

from the there's-nothing-more-sincere-than-a-government-entity-ensuring-its-own-exist dept

Should a government body attempt to block websites for its own financial gain? [To anyone that answered "Yes," I say, "Really?"] This question doesn't seem to be troubling Quebec's government, which submitted a budget that contained the following -- all without uttering a single word like "conflict" or "interest."

In its budget released Thursday, the province said it plans to propose new legislation that would compel Internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to a list of gambling websites drawn up by Loto-Québec.

Loto-Québec, of course, is the province's own revenue stream, which allows citizens to contribute extra funds to their government via games of skill. Great stuff for those who enjoy this more voluntary form of taxation, but the internet is full of other options. And that fact makes Loto-Québec very sad. But the government is always willing to cheer itself up!

The government states its aim is to direct revenues to its own gambling website, Espacejeux, noting Loto-Québec’s revenues have fallen in recent years and stating, “it is only the online gaming market that has growth prospects.”

So, it's hoping to double its money by doubling down on blocking "illegal gambling websites." It cheerfully estimates that -- if it can just get hesitant ISPs on board -- its gambling revenues will generate $13.5 million in 2016-17 and $27 million a year after that, apparently in perpetuity.

Now, there are a lot of fallacies in play here, not the least of which is that budgeted income will always meet planned figures forever -- a conclusion made while operating in a vacuum devoid of external circumstances, perverted incentives or the foibles of the public. But it has to get ISPs to agree to enforce Loto-Quebéc's blacklist first, and so far, ISPs aren't expressing any desire to force their customers into a government-created gambling funnel.

Bram Abramson, chief legal and regulatory officer for independent ISP TekSavvy Solutions Inc., said the proposed legislation raises concerns about the neutral role of Internet providers.

“ISPs are intermediaries and we do what we do best when we act a little bit like utilities: We provide access to the Internet. We should not be put in a position of picking and choosing what people have access to,” he said in an interview Friday.

This is all customers want internet providers to be… all over the world: dumb terminals that provide them access to the Web. They don't want government filtering/blockades, throttling, ISP portals, data caps or anything else governments/ISPs have in mind for them. They want an open pipe and access to the tap. That's it.

But like all of these listed efforts, this too is being done in the [what a crock] "best interests" of Quebec's internet users.

Quebec said the website blocking measure is also aimed at improving public health because “illegal websites do not apply the same responsible gaming rules as Espacejeux. They thus pose a risk to the population, especially young people.”

Ah, yes. The "young people." Who hasn't heard numerous stories about the lasting damages inflicted on unwary youths by rogue gambling sites? Why, it's practically Grand Theft Auto meets the Adult Video Awards in there!

The only thing troubling Quebec's government is the fact that these sites are horning in on its racket. Michael Geist calls it what it is:

…[A] “remarkable and possibly illegal plan as the government seeks to censor the Internet for its own commercial gain.”

And those behind the plan to possibly illegally censor the internet to prop up the province's flagging cash cow just keep doubling down.

In an interview Friday, Quebec Finance Minister Carlos Leitao said the measures are not in place yet but he believes implementing them is “perfectly feasible.”

“This applies to gambling sites, unlicensed gambling sites,” the minister said. “So I don’t think there’s an issue of censorship.”

And again, I must say, "Really?" How does a government-ordered blacklist of sites not veer into "censorship" territory, especially when the list of targeted sites was written by a government entity with both eyes on its own bottom line?

Beyond that, blocking doesn't work and it always causes collateral damage. Blocking illegalgamblinghotspot.tu might (MIGHT!) be acceptable (if a really questionable use of government power and resources), but doing so solely to hit budget figures dreamed up by imaginative government reps isn't -- especially considering the province has no direct control over telecoms, which would mean dragging Canada's federal government into this sloppy, ill-conceived turf war.

Filed Under: canada, competition, filters, gambling, online gambling, quebec, website blocking

Carnival Threatens To Sue Magazine For Using Its Mascot To Illustrate Story

from the intellectual-property? dept

David Canton points us to the news that lawyers for the Quebec Winter Carnival are threatening to sue the magazine Maclean's for illustrating a story about Quebec corruption with the carnival's mascot carrying a suitcase full of cash. The mascot is known as Bonhomme Carnaval, and the lawyers claim that it's an IP violation to use it in this manner:

"For the past 57 years, the Carnival has invested considerable energy and resources into protecting Bonhomme Carnaval's outstanding reputation," said the event's CEO Jean Pelletier in a statement released Monday afternoon. "We are therefore examining the options available to us to enforce our intellectual property rights."

I'm not familiar enough with Canadian trademark law to know how this works, but it does seem pretty silly either way. It's not as if anyone seeing the magazine would think that the carnival endorsed the magazine or anything. The illustration seems like a clever way to graphically illustrate the province of Quebec by using a symbol closely associated with it.

Filed Under: carnival, quebec, trademark
Companies: macleans

Quebec Lawsuit Highlights Problems With The Software Procurement Process

from the time-to-rethink-things dept

FACIL, a free software advocacy group based in Quebec, recently filed a lawsuit against the provincial government (via Michael Geist) for favoring proprietary software without considering the free and open source alternatives. This story got plenty of attention a few weeks ago, but it's important to break down the details to understand what's really happening here.

The government is required by law to place contracts over $25,000 for tender, yet FACIL cites over $25 million worth of contracts between February and June 2008 alone in which no bids were solicited. The government is not being sued for buying proprietary software, as some headlines suggest (via Slashdot), but for failing to adequately evaluate the other options.

The lawsuit highlights a larger problem the procurement process has dealing with software. In the procurement process, the government publishes specifications for what it wants, companies submit bids and an open and transparent method is used to determine the best offer. This is mandatory except in a few special cases, like when only one supplier can meet the requirement. So, if the government publishes specs for Microsoft Office, rather than "office productivity software" then only one supplier can meet the requirement. It would be like seeking bids on a Ford Taurus. It's obvious which company is going to win.

This process may work well for tangible goods, but it's awkward for software because governments tend to use the process to acquire licenses, rather than "software." Everyone is automatically licensed to use free software, so the process isn't even needed here -- and since only the copyright holder (or someone they've authorized) can sell a proprietary software license, the whole process isn't even legally required. The important decision isn't where to obtain a license, but which software to use in the first place. In other words, the process has a huge loophole. As long as the gov't defines what it needs as "Microsoft Office" rather than "office productivity software," no competitive bid is necessary, and the law isn't broken. The copyright loophole for proprietary software basically turns the procurement process into an announcement system.

So, the real problem isn't that the gov't broke the rules, but that the rules are set up with this huge loophole due to the nature of software.

The process should really be adapted so that it can evaluate both proprietary and free options in the open and transparent setting it's supposed to facilitate. The government should solicit bids for office productivity software rather than for Microsoft Office specifically -- and the process itself should be more open so that the "bid" isn't limited to just one offering. The answer is more complex though, since one contract has implications for another throughout the software stack (open standards can help) and the financial incentives for participants need to be reconsidered (not all companies sell software), but finding a solution is imperative for the government to truly act within the spirit of the law. That's what the lawsuit is really about.

Filed Under: canada, facil, procurement, quebec, software
Companies: microsoft

City Council Forces Forum Offline; Claims Debate Should Take Place At Meetings Only

from the civilized-people-don't-do-online-forums dept

Eric Samson writes "The city council of the small town of Rawdon, Quebec (population: 9400) has managed to get a court order to shut down an online forum (French only) because its users were posting messages that were considered 'defamatory and detrimental to the reputation' of the elected board. Police raided the forum owner's house, copied his entire hard drive and asked him to delete the offending posts, and when he said he had over 8,000 messages to look through, they did not specify which ones were specifically targeted.

So he simply shut down the site.

Five other users, posting under their real name, were visited by police as well. The city's lawyer declared: "What we can't do in newspapers, on the radio, or on TV, we can't do on the Internet. This is the message we're trying to get across." The mayor had this to say: "Debate should be civilized and take place during Council meetings.""

Democracy may be messy, but it seems rather pointless to completely shut off an avenue for discussion just because some parties are a little rude. If any individual was being defamatory, charge them with defamation -- don't shut down the whole thing. And, to then claim that debate should only take place at council meetings shows a council that isn't just out of touch with technology, but with democracy as well.

Filed Under: local government, online forums, quebec