'Orwellian': Margaret Atwood, Elon Musk sound alarm over Trudeau Liberals' Online Harms Act

Justin Trudeau has finally managed to unite people from across the political spectrum – against his Liberal government's Online Harms Act. Upon its release, the proposed legislation garnered criticism from conservatives, however, it has now come under attack by lifelong liberals, and those who fall somewhere in between.

Among those warning of the potential consequences of Bill C-63, which Justice Minister Arif Virani claimed would make the internet a safer place for all, especially children, are legendary Canadian author Margaret Atwood and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

"If this account of the bill is true, it's Lettres de Cachet all over again," Atwood wrote in a post on X, referring to the royal orders used to forcibly imprison individuals during the period preceding the French Revolution.

"The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting!" she added, calling the bill "Orwellian."

Virani himself replied to Atwood, suggesting that the article she posted, which cited the text of the bill, "mischaracterizes" it.

Atwood's comments on Bill C-63 caught the attention of longtime Trudeau critic and fellow Canadian Jordan Peterson.

"If even the mother of the progressive feminists in Canada thinks that Bill C-63 is dangerous," he wrote, "then perhaps the rest of us might think twice as well."

Musk's warning against the bill was brief, but no less effective in bringing attention to what it would actually entail.

"This is insane," he wrote, quoting an article from Not the Bee that pointed out that the legislation would potentially allow judges to hand down life sentences for "speech crimes."

As he did with Atwood, Virani attempted to prove to Musk that the bill wasn't all that bad, and that the article being shared was "misleading."

The Online Harms Act defines "hate speech" as "the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination," however it adds that speech "does not express detestation or vilification ... solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends."

If passed, the bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to make it so anyone spreading "hate speech" is liable so long as the speech is not deleted, which some have interpreted to mean that the government wants to retroactively come after people for potentially violative content they've posted in the past.