2024-06-15 Saturday Peaceful Freedom Rally
11:00am - 12 noon Markham and Lawrence
Bill S-210 An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material
As anticipated by Michael Geist this Senate Bill has been reported out of committee without amendment on June 7th. That means it only requires one more vote in the House of Commons to become law - and it looks set to pass. Michael Geist is a lawyer who has commented on this bill numerous times, most recently here
I am not a lawyer and have no experience with the relevant sections of the Criminal Code but S-210 points to the definition of sexually explicit material in Criminal Code subsection 171.1(1) I believe the actual definition is at 171.1(5) which states “In subsection (1), sexually explicit material means material that is not child pornography, as defined in subsection 163.1(1), and that is…” which is followed by a fairly broad definition of sexually explicit material. This is why Professor Geist and others are saying the Bill’s definition of sexually explicit material encompasses Google Search and Netflix in addition to straight up porn sites. If I’m reading the Criminal Code correctly child pornography would NOT fall under Bill S-210. Child pornography is already a crime and presumably the police and prosecutors do actually prosecute it.
Subsection 171.1(1) is already a crime too and presumably police and prosecutors could actually prosecute that section as well but presumably don’t prosecute it, at least to the satisfaction of the bill’s sponsor, Senator Miville-Dechêne. I haven’t seen anyone explain why the existing Criminal Code provision is not sufficient. Have there been attempts to prosecute web sites under 171.1(1)? If those prosecutions have failed, could there be a more surgical amendment to the Criminal Code to plug any gaps? Do the police lack sufficient resources and/or education?
Proceeding under the Criminal Code may be more difficult for police and prosecutors but it provides more protection for public access to the internet. Bill S-210 goes to the other extreme of providing easy enforcement and easy blocking. Section 5 of the bill explicitly says that collateral blocking of legal material is perfectly acceptable. We’ve just seen and are still living the impact of COVID related censorship. I fear Bill S-210 could be used against a website like www.thehighwire.com which covers gender issues from time to time. If the HighWire which is based in the US, doesn’t want to implement age verification or fight an application in Canadian federal court then they could end up blocked in Canada. I think that the experience with COVID means it’s possible that whichever bureaucracy ends up enforcing Bill S-210 could take sides in the gender debate and use the bill as a weapon to suppress one side of the argument. Professor Geist and others have raised many other issues with this bill.
You can take action here. Scarborough-Guildwood MP John McKay voted in favour of this bill on second reading although the Liberals generally opposed the bill.
Rally at Markham and Lawrence this Saturday from 11:00am - 12 noon
Please bring a freedom related sign, flag, flyers etc. if you have them.
Healthy Planet has moved across Lawrence into Cedarbrae Mall. I will be experimenting with locations around Cedarbrae Mall, but expect to end up directly outside Healthy Planet towards noon.