MacDonald Gets 10 Years For Production Of Atomwaffen Videos

An Ontario man, Patrick Gordon MacDonald, received a 10 year jail sentence for a series of terrorism offences. Specifically, he was convicted for creating 3 videos encouraging people to join the group Atomwaffen. While he posted other content online, it’s these videos which caused the most trouble.

One might think that there’s little else to do in the way of solving crime in Canada. Police spent a lot of time and money going after him.

It’s true that the creation of the videos predates Atomwaffen’s designation by Ottawa as a terrorist organization. However, it didn’t seem to matter much. The videos MacDonald made were called:

  1. Grey Zone
  2. Fission
  3. Feuernacht

The ruling doesn’t go into great detail about the contents of the videos, but these remarks are made.

[35] The videos had two purposes: a) to recruit new members; and b) to propagate AWD terrorist ideology by encouraging viewers to start the revolution and purge the weak. The Fission video invites viewers to join AWD in their efforts to “vanquish the modern world”; the narrator continues stating “we call forward all who are willing to descend, like a howling wolf, on the frail fold and rend limb from limb those without the stomach to fight”, “from the ashes of the kike system, our new order shall emerge” and concludes by saying “join us or perish with the rest”, which is a statement that expressly incites fear in members of the public.

[36] In the Feuernacht video, the narrator exhorts viewers to “burn it all, purge the weak, join the division”. The Grey Zone video concludes by telling viewers to “get the program”, “create your own cell”, and “start the revolution”. It describes the terror that will be unleashed on “fat, treacherous bureaucrats” and “Jewish snakes”, “we will storm your mansions, creating caskets from your dining tables and tombstones of your bedposts”. All three videos end with the same email address: awdrecruiting@tutonota.com.

Apparently, there was nothing in any of them to indicate it was trolling or satire.

“Grey Zone” was filmed at an abandoned cement plant in Belleville, Ontario. The police spent some time comparing the graffiti and marks on the cement wall. They also pulled MacDonald’s phone records (including location data), to confirm he was in Belleville. (Paragraph 38)

“Fission” was filmed at a former school in St. Ferdinand, Québec in July 2019. The police pulled MacDonald’s bank records to show that he had made purchases in the area. Oddly, phone records show that his cell wasn’t in the area, and the Judge simply concluded it might have been loaned out at that time. (Paragraph 38 f/g)

The Judge doesn’t say where Feuernacht was created, but ruled that it was shot by the same camera which created the other 2 videos.

On some level, it’s quite something the effort that was spent to find out where, when and by whom these videos were made. That said, it’s telling that there are many other serious crimes that go on in Ontario that receive little to no investigation.

Side note: another honeypot has decided to call out Atomwaffen. It’s amusing when they turn against each other.

MacDonald’s Counsel Does Lackluster Job

To be blunt, it’s not really clear what the strategy was supposed to be. There were several things that implicated MacDonald, and there seemed to be no effort to attempt any mitigation.

[17] The Defence did not attack any of Dr. Perry’s evidence about the history of AWD, the formation of AWD, or dispute her opinion evidence that AWD’s core ideological views were based on neo-Nazi accelerationism or that it encouraged its members to engage in acts of violence against the state, Jewish people, minorities, and others with the intent to create a race war to establish a white ethno-state.

[20] I accept Dr. Perry’s expert evidence about the history and the ideological beliefs of the AWD group, including her opinion that AWD was a terrorist group within the definition of section 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code in the 2018-2019 time period, because AWD encouraged its members to commit violent acts against the state, Jewish people, minorities, and others to create a race war to establish a white ethno-state. I also accept Dr. Perry’s opinion evidence that one of AWD’s purposes was the facilitation of carrying out a terrorist activity and as such, it was a terrorist entity in 2018-2019. Her opinion was not contested on this point.

[27] The Accused posted the recruitment videos and violent Nazi images online under the online pseudonym “Dark Foreigner” for AWD on several media platforms using the hashtag “atomwaffen division”. The login information and password for these accounts were found above the ceiling tiles in the Accused’s residence during the search of his premises. The fact that the Accused hid the login information and passwords for these accounts above the ceiling tiles indicates his knowledge that AWD was a terrorist group. The post by “Dark Foreigner” on Tumblr on April 16, 2018, included an image showing the trefoil symbol, a person wearing a balaclava skull mask, a military camouflage jacket, an assault jacket, and carrying a weapon with the words “Nazi” and “Atomwaffen” inscribed at the bottom.

[29] Finally, the pamphlet of “the AWD program” written in Russian was also found hidden above the ceiling tiles in the Accused’s room in the basement. While the recruitment pamphlets of AWD were written in Russian, the fact that the Accused hid the pamphlets above the ceiling tiles indicates that he knew about the ideology of AWD and tried to conceal the pamphlet to avoid detection of the fact that he was a participant in the activities of AWD and that it was a terrorist group.

[30] The metadata contained in the Grey Zone video, namely in the JPEG files, confirms that these images were filmed using the Accused’s Fuji camera and lenses that had the identical serial number as the Fuji camera and lenses that were found in the Accused’s residence during the search of his premises. This is strong evidence that the Accused was involved in taking images with his Fuji camera and lenses that were included and found in the Grey Zone video. It is also strong evidence that the Accused was aware of AWD’s ideology and that it was a terrorist group.

[34] The Defence did not argue that contributing to or participating in the production of the recruitment videos would not amount to participating or contributing to a terrorist activity. The issue is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Accused is the person that participated in the production of the recruitment videos and posted the violent Nazi images online.

While the decision convicting MacDonald is long, here are a few highlights. The Defence apparently never tried to argue that creating these videos didn’t amount to terrorism. Instead, his lawyers tried arguing that it wasn’t him.

However, a few things really hamstrung MacDonald: (a) metadata from his camera; (b) cellphone activity; (c) AWD pamphlet and login information for his social media accounts hidden in the ceiling; and (d) clothing that appeared to match those seen in the videos.

[3] The Defence raises two arguments against the conviction:

a. Firstly, the Crown’s evidence does not identify the Accused as the person who participated in or contributed to the production of the three recruitment videos and posted AWD propaganda images online beyond a reasonable doubt; and

b. Secondly, the Defence submits that the expert evidence of Dr. Perry, to the effect that AWD was a terrorist group in the 2018-2019 period that promoted the use of violence in Defence of the white race, was not sufficiently reliable to constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the Judge however, the Defence never really challenged the testimony from Barbara Perry about Atomwaffen’s core ideological beliefs.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

2019: MacDonald creates 3 promotional videos for Atomwaffen. It’s noteworthy that all of this happened prior to the group being designated as a terrorist organization in 2021.

February 3rd, 2021: Atomwaffen is officially classified as a terrorist group.

November 18th to December 3rd, 2024: MacDonald formally goes on Trial.

April 2nd, 2025: Justice Smith convicts MacDonald on 3 counts of participation in activity of terrorist group. He remains out on bail.

August 7th, 2025: Justice Smith agreed to let Matthew Kriner give opinion evidence during the sentencing hearing of MacDonald.

September 8th, 2025: MacDonald is sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Is An Appeal Likely To Succeed?

10 years is a long time for a first arrest. MacDonald had no prior record, so that should count for a lot. He also remained on bail for 2 years without incident.

On the other hand, Judges are given a large amount of deference when handing down sentences, and Appellate Courts may be reluctant to interfere. This last ruling is not yet available on CanLII, but should be interesting to read.

But if he does appeal, perhaps he should get a better lawyer.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1939/2025onsc1939.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc4582/2025onsc4582.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2002-284/latest/sor-2002-284.html
(4) https://sppc.gc.ca/eng/nws-nvs/2025/08_09_25.html
(5) https://x.com/JeremyMacKenzi/status/1965106679634112626/
(6) https://jeremymackenzie.substack.com/p/talk-shit-get-ten-years

“Atomwaffen Applicant” To Be Sentenced For Participation In Terrorist Group

Last month, Seth Bertrand was found guilty of participation in activity of a terrorist group. The organization is the Atomwaffen Division, or AWD, also known as the National Socialist Order, or NSO. He is expected to be sentenced in October, and faces up to 10 years in prison.

It’s a fair question to ask whether this was explicitly set up by the authorities (as Grant Bristow did with Heritage Front), or if it has simply been heavily infiltrated. In either situation, Bertrand is in serious trouble.

He has effectively screwed up his life over graffiti, a broken window, and some slashed tires. Moreover, he ran his mouth to undercover police, explicitly stating that he wanted to join a “domestic terrorist organization”.

During that time, Bertrand apparently also reached out to: (a) Injekt Division; (b) National Partisans; and (c) The Minutemen. Similarly, one has to ask if any of these are ‘legitimate’ organizations, or merely fronts created by the police.

The way Bertrand describes things, he was angry and frustrated in early 2021 from various lockdown measures and the apparent helplessness in his life. This likely is true.

In, 2023, he pleaded guilty to inciting hate, and to 3 counts of mischief. However, he fought the terrorism charge, which was by far the most serious.

Diagolon Engages In “Fed-Jacketing” Against Atomwaffen

As an aside, law enforcement operations aren’t safe from being critcised by each other. Even Alex Vriend (a.k.a. “The Ferryman’s Toll”) commented recently that Atomwaffen was obviously a trap. The irony seems lost.

This site previously covered the gun grab of Gary Schill here and here. Detective Constable Ernest Carmichael testified that police regularly infiltrated the in-person meets, and that the Telegrams chats were monitored.

Consider that Jeremy MacKenzie testified in 2022 that he was willing to have a “continuous relationship with law enforcement”. He also detailed some of his previous cooperation. By Vriend’s own logic, anyone currently promoting Diagolon is either a retard or a fed.

Identities Of Witnesses, Undercover Officers Shielded From Public

These rulings also come with an Order attached under s.486.5 and s.486.31 of the Criminal Code. They prohibit any information that could identify the witnesses from being disclosed. Furthermore, the identities of “Undercover Officer Alex” and “Undercover Officer Eric” are also to be shielded.

Perhaps “Undercover Officer Jeremy” would have been too obvious.

One has to wonder what other cases these 2 have testified in, and if there are any more coming up. A likely explanation is that the operation is ongoing. It’s hard to “confront one’s accusers” in Court when Defendants don’t even know who they are.

Questions From Bertrand’s AWD/NSO Application

Why do you want to join NSO? What stands out to you, from other groups?

your professionalism and your propaganda quality everything about the NSO just stands out to me.

Why should we bother to recruit you?

I have wanted to be apart of something big ever since I was redpilled the NSO/AWD has been the biggest when i was running my division i strived to be as good as you guys plus i have already proven myself worthy of another divisions trust a stunt of mine made it in local news.

Question: Anything else?

If I do get accepted I promise all my loyalty to you i want nothing more then to be apart of a group that’s actually doing things to help save/protect the white race “if he wish not to fight in a world where struggle is the way of life then he does not have the right to exist”-adolf hitler.

Timeline Of Major Events In Case

February 3rd, 2021: Atomwaffen is designated as a terrorist organization by the Federal Government.

February 15th and 20th, 2021: Bertrand wrote graffiti on private property.

February 21st, 2021: Bertrand emails the National Socialist Order, requesting to join. The NSO is another name which AtomWaffen is known by.

February 21st, 2021: Bertrand throws a brake rotor through the front window of the WETrans Centre.

February 26th, 2021: Bertrand uploads a voice post which said, “look on the bright side, if I do end up going to jail, um, I can recruit people from inside the prison”.

March 6th, 2021: Bertrand sends an email to Folkish Aryan Resistance, asking to join. He adds that he’s good with vehicles and weapons.

March 2021: On 2 separate occasions, Bertrand punctured the tires of a vehicle parked outside. He was caught on surveillance camera doing so.

May 20th, 2021: Bertrand left a note outside the home of a gay couple, which included swastikas, and the words, “The AtomWaffen knows who you are!” and “hail Hitler”.

January 30th, 2022: Bertrand meets with “Undercover Officer Eric”, whom he believes to be the leader of a group looking to employ him. He admitted to the above graffiti and vandalism. For some reason, Bertrand took it upon himself to explain what AtomWaffen in, describing it as a “domestic terrorist organization”. He would later claim that he was entrapped and manipulated.

May 5th, 2022: Bertrand is arrested, and he explains to the police that there were people out to get whites. He described Atomwaffen Division as “a paramilitary terrorist organization”, which he “wanted to jump on that”. He later tried to justify the application since they weren’t listed as a terrorist organization. Or at least, that’s what he believed.

August, 2023: Bertrand pleads guilty to mischief and inciting hate, receiving a 5 month conditional sentence.

September 3rd, 2024: More hearings take place, and they continue into the Fall and Winter.

December 30th, 2024: Justice Carroccia dismissed an attempt to have Bertrand’s statements to police blocked from consideration at Trial. His rights weren’t violated in obtaining them. He claimed that he didn’t really understand he was under arrest, and had merely been detained for his participation in the national convoy.

February 27th, 2022: Justice Carroccia dismisses a Motion brought by the Defence to throw out the case for lack of evidence. She believed it was strong enough to send to Trial

April 9th, 2025: Bertrand stands Trial. Part of the Crown’s case came from Garth Davies, and Associate Professor at Simon Fraser University.

[23] The Crown also relies on the evidence of Dr. Garth Davies who was qualified as an expert to give opinion evidence on the identification of, and explanation of, specific ideologically motivated violent extremist (IMVE) groups including Atomwaffen Division, National Socialist Order, National Partisan Movement, Injekt Division, and Folkish Resistance Movement.

August 6th, 2025: Bertrand is convicted of participating in terrorist activity.

He’ll be sentenced in a matter of weeks, but it’s hard to predict the exact outcome. Patrick Gordon MacDonald recently received 10 years in prison for his convictions for making 3 videos promoting recruitment for Atomwaffen. Considering Bertrand already has a criminal record, jail time for him seems likely, although not inevitable.

In the big picture, one has to ask how many of these people really are terrorists, and how many are useful idiots that are easy to set up.

(1) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1303/2025onsc1303.html
(2) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc4591/2025onsc4591.html
(3) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-2002-284/latest/sor-2002-284.html
(4) https://www.sfu.ca/iccrc/members/memberprofiles/garth-davies.html
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc1939/2025onsc1939.html
(6) https://x.com/ferryman4747/status/1953636876642136402
(7) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/windsor-terrorism-seth-bertrand-far-right-1.7420091
(8) https://www.ctvnews.ca/windsor/article/it-was-kind-of-like-a-job-interview-accused-windsorite-admits-to-communications-with-terrorist-organization/

Anti-SLAPP Ruling Upheld: When “Recycling” Your Defamation Cases Goes Horribly Wrong

A long awaited Court of Appeal decision has finally been handed down. Justices Zarnett, Young and Favreau have upheld a December 2023 ruling from Justice Chalmers of the Ontario Superior Court. That initial verdict saw a $1.1 million defamation case against CSASPP thrown out under anti-SLAPP laws, with $132,000 in costs awarded. Another $10,000 in costs was ordered in this subsequent ruling.

CSASPP is of course the Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy. In January 2021, it began a Proposed Class Action against Bonnie Henry and the Government of British Columbia. This has been covered elsewhere on this site.

See here, here and here for background information.

That said, a hilarious detail seems to have been overlooked. The case against CSASPP was almost entirely borrowed from an earlier defamation case…. against this website. To clarify, there were 2 separate actions, with overlapping allegations.

[1] This website was sued in September 2021 for detailed criticism of various anti-lockdown cases.

[2] CSASPP and its staff were sued in June 2022 over much, MUCH more mild criticism, and to silence a fomer donor from complaining to the Law Society of Ontario.

Given that this there were 2 different lawsuits, with very different circumstances, one would expect that 2 very different cases would have been prepared. Instead, it seems that the documentation for the first case was simply repackaged and reused for the second case. From the ruling:

[86] …. Finally, because of evidence in the appellant’s own materials of other extremely vitriolic and sustained criticisms of him by others, including the publication “Canuck Law”, he found that if there was damage to the appellant’s reputation, it was not shown to have been caused by the respondents, as opposed to other sources.

[91] The difficulty with the appellant’s submission is the motion judge’s causation finding. The motion judge referred to the evidence from the appellant of a concerted campaign against him by a group known as “Canuck Law” who was not a party to his action. The motion judge stated: “the [appellant] references the group extensively in the material filed on this motion. In articles posted on the Canuck website, the [appellant] was the subject of disparaging and racist comments”. Referring to that and some judicial criticism, he concluded that there was no evidence that any damage to the appellant’s reputation was caused by the respondents, as opposed to other sources.

As an aside, the “racist comments” referred to in the CSASPP case actually came from a site called Overdue Revolutions. It was just misrepresented that they originated here.

Not only are anti-lockdown cases being recycled, but defamation ones are as well. By filing evidence that someone else may have engaged in character assassination, it completely undermines the claims that CSASPP had been responsible.

Whatever happened to taking pride in one’s work?

CSASPP/RG DOCUMENTS (June 2022)
(1) CSASPP RG Statement Of Claim
(2) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 1
(3) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 2
(4) CSASPP RG Moving Party Motion Record Volume 3
(5) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 1
(6) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 2
(7) CSASPP RG Responding Motion Record Volume 3
(8) CSASPP RG Moving Party Supplemental Motion Record
(9) CSASPP RG Moving Party Record Motion To Strike
(10) CSASPP RG Plaintiffs Responding Record Motion To Strike
(11) CSASPP RG Transcript Brief
(12) CSASPP RG Moving Party Factum (Arguments)
(13) CSASPP RG Responding Plaintiff Factum
(14) CSASPP RG Moving Parties Reply Factum
(15) CSASPP RG Reasons For Judgement
(16) CanLII Posting Of Decision

CSASPP/RG APPEAL DOCUMENTS (2024)
(1) CSASPP Defamation Appellant Factum
(2) CSASPP Defamation Respondent Factum
(3) https://www.covidconstitutionalchallengebc.ca/status-updates
(4) https://www.scribd.com/document/768627727/2024-09-12-Notice-of-Merit-Hearing-13-January-2025
(5) https://www.scribd.com/document/758138683/2024-08-06-Defendant-Respondents-Motion-Record-to-Dismiss-for-Delay

1ST LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2022)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Statement Of Claim
(2) Law Society Of Ontario Intent To Defend
(3) Law Society Of Ontario Amended Statement Of Claim
(4) Law Society Of Ontario Requisition For Amended Claim
(5) Law Society Of Ontario Motion Record, To Strike
(6) Law Society Of Ontario Moving Party Factum To Strike
(7) Law Society Of Ontario Plaintiff Responding Factum

2ND LAW SOCIETY OF ONTARIO CLAIM (July 2023)
(1) Law Society Of Ontario Second Statement Of Claim

“Frozen Bank Accounts” Lawsuit Dropped Without A Fight

A much hyped case challenging Ottawa’s decision to freeze bank accounts of peaceful protestors has come to an end. Lawyers have discontinued the claim, before a single Statement of Defence had been filed.

Clients and donors contributed at least $150,000 to a case that never even finished the pleadings.

It was all a giant nothing-burger.

While lawyers could simply have challenged the freezing of bank accounts, and probably advanced the case, they had to turn it into a giant conspiracy. They pleaded that Government officials had relied on the postings of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), doing no research whatsoever. This is the infamous #HateGate scandal. Ironically, they made the same mistake they accuse law enforcement of: not bothering to get their facts straight ahead of time.

Against CAHN, and Bernie Farber, the Plaintiffs essentially made defamation allegations, but without spelling out what they were. However, because of Ontario’s anti-SLAPP laws, Defendants filed a Motion to dismiss. It was granted, along with nearly $50,000 in costs being awarded. What’s interesting is that once the Motion is initiated, Plaintiffs are prohibited from amending their claim to prevent this.

And the Plaintiffs’ lawyers billed almost $100,000, over a pleading they bungled.

Granted, the anti-SLAPP decision only got Farber and CAHN off the hook. Theoretically, the case could still proceed against the others. However, the Statement of Claim was so poorly drafted it would have faced a Motion to Strike. Most likely, clients would have to pay tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars in more costs. Instead, the suit was dropped.

This is pretty shoddy work for a major commercial litigation firm.

The Notice doesn’t specify the terms, but it’s entirely possible that the Defendants agreed not to seek any costs in return for discontinuing.

Interestingly, at least one group is still asking for money. Shouldn’t donations be returned, if Plaintiffs aren’t going ahead with their case?

LAWYER DETAILS:
(1) https://lobergector.com/
(2) https://lobergector.com/emergencies-act
(3) https://lobergector.com/contact-us

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Cornell Notice Of Action
(2) Cornell Statement Of Claim
(3) Cornell Farber CAHN Notice Of Motion Anti-SLAPP
(4) Cornell Farber CAHN Motion Record Anti-SLAPP
(5) Cornell Richard Warman Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(7) Cornell Vincent Gircys Affidavit Anti-SLAPP
(8) Cornell Factum Of Farber CAHN Anti-SLAPP
(9) Cornell Defendant Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(10) Cornell Plaintiff Cost Submissions Anti-SLAPP
(11) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Ottawa Police Services
(12) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Assiniboine Credit Union
(13) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Canadian Tire Bank
(14) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Meridian Credit Union
(15) Cornell Notice Of Intent To Defend Fraser Stride Credit Union
(16) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc5343/2024onsc5343.html
(17) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2025/2025onsc543/2025onsc543.html
(18) Cornell Notice Of Discontinuance

(1) https://takeactioncanada.ca/justice/

Action4Canada Injunction Application Booked For May 26th

The British Columbia Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in 2 weeks for an Application for an (interim) Injunction in a defamation case. It’s been set for May 26th.

Last December, Action4Canada and 4 individuals (3 named, 1 unnamed) were sued in Kelowna for defamation. It was filed by a self-described “drag artist and entertainer” named Tyson Cook.

An Injunction Application is asking the Kelowna Court to order the removal of all of the posts in question, and to prohibit new ones from going up. It’s worded to imply that it would last indefinitely, with an alternative suggestion of 1 year.

The Application also seeks validation of service against Tori Olason, through regular mail, and a suspected Facebook account. The process server claims that it’s not safe to return, given a neighbour threatened to call the police to report trespassing.

Interestingly, James Kitchen has resigned as counsel for Action4Canada. He was listed as counsel for that organization, as well as Tammy Mitchell.

The Application names Graeme Flannigan and Action4Canada, but not Mitchell. One has to wonder if cooler heads have prevailed, at least for one person. Flannigan appears — for now — to be self representing.

Flannigan is also the only one so far to file any detailed response. Action4Canada and Mitchell put in their bare-bones “denial”. On the other hand, he’s making statements in support of a justification or fair comment defence. Furthermore, there’s the suggestion that lumping unrelated Defendants together into a single suit is an abuse of process.

Flannigan says that Cook has been selling buttons related to various online posts, and has used the publicity for content. The implication is that far from suffering damages, Cook may have actually profited from all of this.

One thing weighing against Cook: having waited so long to take any action, the Court may not view it as being urgent.

Note: Action4Canada supports silencing its own critics, but screams “lawfare” when the shoe is on the other foot. We’ll have to see how this turns out.

COURT DOCUMENTS:
(1) Cook Action4Canada – Notice Of Civil Claim
(2) Cook Flannigan Response To Civil Claim
(3) Cook Action4Canada Response To Civil Claim
(4) Cook Mitchell Response To Civil Claim
(5) Cook Kitchen Resigns As A4C Counsel
(6) Cook Notice Of Application For Injunction

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) Revisited: A More Nuanced View On It

Last year, this site covered Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. Critics denounced it immediately as a draconian attack on free speech and free expression. There are certainly reasons to be concerned.

***Now, before someone starts posting in the comments that it died with when Parliament was dissolved, I know. But the point is, a similar version can always be brought back. Considering that hearings already taken place, it’s worth looking at what happened.

Bill C-63 was eventually split into 2 different sections: (a) child exploitation and abuse; and (b) the more “free speech” elements of it. Who knows what will happen in the next iteration.

In December 2024, the House of Commons held their hearings on the legislation. A total of 22 different witnesses testified, with a range of different ideas.

Despite all of the warning signs surrounding Bill C-63, there are some provisions that most people can actually get on board with. As always, readers are encouraged to check for themselves.

Filed Submissions From Humane Canada

Animal sexual abuse (bestiality) is illegal under section 160 of the Criminal Code, which recognizes that child sexual assault and animal sexual assault are linked crimes, however there is no legislation that prohibits possessing or sharing online content that features animal sexual abuse. Closing this “bestiality loophole” would fulfill the initial promises of Bill C-84 in 2019 to strengthen protections for children, other vulnerable individuals, and animals. Animals are often used as part of the child sexual abuse grooming process. A 2018 report by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection analyzing case law found that 82% of bestiality cases in Canada have involved the sexual abuse of a child.

Considering the upward trend in police-reported child sexual exploitation where most offences include a cyber component, with 79% of incidents of child pornography and 20% of sexual violations against children recorded as cybercrimes by police, we urge the government to explicitly include animal sexual abuse images and videos, as well as material that depicts harming or killing an animal, in their definition of content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and harmful content.

Proposed Amendments
Include the explicit mention of animal sexual abuse images and content under the definition of ‘content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor’ and animal harms under the definition of ‘harmful content’, using similar wording to the United Kingdom’s recently passed Online Safety Act:

In their filings, Humane Canada asked that Bill C-63 be amended to include content aimed at harming animals. This would be worded in a similar way to laws prohibited such content involving children.

Filed Submissions From International Justice Mission

We agree with and uphold MP Virani’s decision to split the Bill, prioritizing Section 1 and 4 to address online child sexual exploitation and abuse. Bill C-63 is a critical and long-awaited piece of legislation that will help ensure children, both in Canada and abroad, are protected offline and online, and that penalties for in-person and online offenders of child sexual abuse and exploitation are aligned.

IJM commends the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice, for the years of detailed policy work and public consultation to create this bill. The Online Harms Act has the potential to strengthen the responsibility of technology companies to prevent child sexual abuse (CSA) and exploitation from happening on their platforms and to prevent the spread of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) online. If passed, Bill C-63 will position Canada as one of the leading countries in preventing online sexual exploitation of children, alongside its Five Eyes peers, Australia and the United Kingdom.

International Justice Mission included several recommendations for Bill C-63.

1. Ensure livestreaming child sexual abuse is specifically included in the legislation.
2. Take a preventive and safety by design approach.
3. Take into account victim and survivor voice when developing regulations.
4. Include offender deterrence in addition to protecting Canadian children.
5. Include private messaging and video-chat platforms and features.

There’s nothing in their filing that’s objectionable. People can agree that content that abuses children should be removed from the internet.

The testimony from the witnesses (over 3 days) is freely available.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc met with MP Mona Fortier in early 2025 to discuss:

“…access to justice, criminal justice, and social policy issues related to online child sexual abuse and online violence against children and possible legislative or policy initiatives that could reduce victimization and/or improve victim recovery.”

The group also met with Michelle Rempel-Garner and Craig Oldham.

Foreign Groups At The Heart Of Censorship Laws

While there were commendable aspects to Bill C-63, or at least the first parts, the latter ones raise real questions about the stifling of free speech. Interestingly, the most powerful groups behind it aren’t actually Canadian. They represent foreign lobbies.

Part of the problem is that terms are so poorly defined — and probably on purpose — that they can be selectively applied, depending on the politics involved. This is not good at all.

1. Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs (CIJA)

CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, has lobbied the Canadian Parliament over 2,000 times since the year 2000. They’ve been pushing for censorship and a variety of hate speech laws (antisemitism) the entire time.

CIJA also arranges for Canadian politicians to go abroad for free trips to Israel each year. This is similar to how AIPAC functions in the United States. This is not limited to Liberals or Conservatives, but seems to involve all parties.

The group also gets funding from the “conservative” administration in Ontario.

2. B’Nai Brith National Organization Of Canada

B’nai Brith describes its activities as such: “The Organization’s purpose is to relieve poverty, prevent discrimination and antisemitism, improve the moral and ethical development of the community, provide assistance to victims of human rights abuses, relieve conditions associated with the elderly.” Bill C-63 is specifically listed.

3. National Council Of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)

NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, has been similarly involved in pushing for censorship and hate speech laws in the name of Islamophobia. This isn’t limited to one group or ideology. And like their Jewish counterparts, NCCM also gets large tax subsidies.

4. Canadian Medical Association (CMA)

The Canadian Medical Association takes this view:

Support the passage of Bill C-63, an Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to address the escalation of online harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence targeting physicians, other health workers, and anyone seeking health care treatment, including measures to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Keep in mind, the CMA supported lockdowns and vaccine passports in recent years. It’s quite understandable that large segments of society don’t trust them.

It’s also worth mentioning that a number of non-ideological groups are concerned with Bill C-63. This is likely because it will impact their businesses.

  1. American Chamber of Commerce
  2. Google (which owns YouTube)
  3. Rumble
  4. X (formerly Twitter)
  5. Facebook
  6. Pinterest
  7. LinkedIn

To be clear, there is a genuine public interest in removing content that involves abuse of children or animals. No decent person would argue otherwise.

However, the rest of the Bill seems designed to crack down on free speech and certain political views. And it appears to be driven primarily be foreign interest groups. We’ll have to see what happens next.

Unfortunately, even legislation that’s (reasonably) well written can cause problems. While politicians vote on the bills themselves, the details are typically implemented by regulation. This means that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will be making important decisions.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=13035098
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13487005/br-external/HumaneCanada-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13531934/br-external/InternationalJusticeMission-e.pdf
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632025
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=631668
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632024
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=937469
(8) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/SponsoredTravel-DeplParraines.aspx
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=378700&regId=964738
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=358918&regId=946132&blnk=1
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=372582&regId=951907