Article content continued

In an interview with the National Post after the committee meeting, Erskine-Smith raised examples like online threats, harassment and defamation that are obviously breaking Canada’s laws but that rarely get policed. The proposed administrative judicial system could issue tickets or warnings, the same way it happens “if you’re drunk in the street and disorderly,” he said.

However, critics warned that any such system could simply become a mechanism for people to shut down views with which they don’t agree.

There needs to be a recourse against the platforms and the individuals responsible for the speech

“My question for you is, who is determining what is hateful?” said Jay Cameron, a lawyer for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

Cameron said he was concerned that whether the social media platforms some judicial body were responsible for removing content, it was likely to unfairly target conservative voices. He raised examples of pro-life advocates being silenced simply for stating their beliefs.

Jennifer Klinck, from Egale Canada Human Rights Trust, said she was broadly in favour of “a non-criminal administrative law remedy” for dealing with hate speech but said she was also wary of free speech issues. If it becomes a mechanism for shutting down controversial views, she said that could disproportionately affect vulnerable groups like LGBT people.

“There needs to be a recourse against the platforms and the individuals responsible for the speech,” said Klinck. We need “a variety of tools in the toolbox,” she said.