What happens elsewhere often announces what is likely to happen to us.
Since 1er April, a new law came into force in Scotland which considerably broadens the notion of “hate crime”.
It is no longer just comments targeting an ethnic or religious group that could be targeted, but also those targeting transgender people, the disabled and the elderly.
Rowling
As always, the law is cloaked in a good intention: the protection of vulnerable people.
However, many fear a considerable reduction in freedom of expression.
The police say they will be overwhelmed by complaints as the law is so broad and offers handles to angry activists who want to silence critics.
As expected, 8,000 complaints of hate speech were filed in the first week. At this rate, these complaints would, over twelve months, be more numerous than the total number of complaints for all other crimes combined.
This is where Edinburgh resident JK Rowling, the famous author of the series, comes into the picture. Harry Potter.
Mme Rowling, who has the means to be frank, says things as she sees them.
- Listen to Joseph Facal’s column via QUB :
For her, a trans woman remains a biological man and should not face biological women in a sporting competition or be able to be transferred to a women’s prison.
She has nothing but contempt for the quibbles around the pronouns “he”, “she” and “iel” (in the English version of course).
When the minister responsible was asked if Mme Rowling could be prosecuted for using a pronoun which is not the one desired by the person concerned, she replied: it will be up to the police to decide. Uh…
Mme Rowling, who is not shy, asks for nothing better than to be targeted in order to expose this new delusion to broad daylight.
As Dirty Harry said, “make my day.”
Why am I telling you about this? Because Quebecers and Canadians are also concerned.
The Trudeau government has just tabled Bill C-63 to tackle what it calls online harm.
Social networks, we agree, are open sewers: occasionally, a magnificent piece of jewelry floats in a flood of smelly decomposing matter.
AFP
We know the causes of the problem: anonymity, the force of penetration and the virtual absence of rules.
We know the perverse effects: hysterization of the debate, defamation, cyberdependence, propagation of falsehoods, conspiracy, criminal activities, etc.
Obliged?
But the law is broad, very broad and makes comments made in the past and still on the internet punishable. I will come back to it.
Our freedoms are infinitely more fragile than we believe and censors always invoke noble motives when they want to restrict them.
In this hubbub, a massive truth is lost sight of: if you don’t like what circulates on social networks, who compels you to frequent them?