The “National Action Plan on Combatting Hate” doesn’t exist yet. Whenever it is released, you may see ministers on the culture portfolio boast of the public consultations that helped shape it. If that happens, don’t take them at their word.
Back in April, Canadian Heritage ran online consultations for a future “National Action Plan on Combatting Hate” that could introduce anti-hate laws and curb freedom of expression. While the department publicly encouraged
“every person in Canada” to participate in a survey about what this plan should include, email records show that people were screened out if they believed that an anti-hate plan wasn’t needed at all.
Canadian Heritage didn’t really consult the public on this matter — it consulted anyone who agreed with the
Liberal platform point to create a National Action Plan on Combatting Hate. It’s yet another example of a government department being used to effect partisan goals and manufacture consent for something the public might not actually want.
Internal emails show a question was added to a survey to weed out those critical of the government's plans after too much negative feedback
apple.news
While the Liberals and Canadian Heritage have kept their descriptions of the future anti-hate plan
vague, the survey conducted in April gave hints. Those who passed a screening question could make suggestions about what they thought should be a priority for government: national anti-hate education campaigns, increasing media representation for communities affected by hate and supporting new technology to help communities monitor hate.
Suggestions could also be made for an “Anti-Racism law,” a law to make traditional and social media “follow standards that reject hate” and a law to “add people or groups who fund, help, or take part in white supremacist activities to a formal list of white supremacist groups.” (
‘Cuz we all know that only Whites are Racists, so…?)
These suggestions can understandably be met with concern because Liberals tend to define “hate” very broadly — and if media and society were required to tiptoe around “hate” (which could include anything from serious hate speech to mild disagreements about political issues), this would impact our freedom of expression.
Similarly, “white supremacy” is traditionally understood as violent, evil and KKK-esque — but the federal government has, previously, stretched this to include less obvious
“structural” white supremacy, which is expressed “through our governments, education systems, food systems.” When societal evils are construed this broadly, anyone can be guilty, etc…
Kick’n it Liberal-Style!!!
