Online hate is a growing problem, says Allard Law PhD student Kaitlyn Cumming, and “we're seeing more instances tied to political or cultural identity and based on ideology.” But for victims of hate, the next step isn’t always clear.
Last spring, Cumming and UBC Sociology PhD student Sophie Liu launched a new study exploring how individuals respond to incidents of online hate – whether that might mean reporting an incident to a social media company, going to police or not reacting at all. Their research is funded through a $30,000 award from UBC’s PhD CoLab pilot program and supported by UBC’s Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions.
How individuals choose to address incidents of online hate is important, says Cumming, because these incidents pose significant challenges to democracy and social cohesion. “Hate makes people feel unsafe and fearful,” she says. “When people feel those things, democracy can’t function as well.”
But taking action against hate in online spaces is notoriously difficult, and Cumming suspects there's a disconnect between the law and the reality individuals face when seeking recourse.
Victims may have to contend with anonymous perpetrators, and official channels for addressing online hate speech – such as human rights tribunals, the criminal justice system and platform-specific reporting mechanisms – each have their own limitations. Within the criminal justice system, for example, “It’s not easy prosecuting hate crimes, and many victims may not be comfortable reporting to police in the first place,” says Cumming.
If we can identify avenues where people feel they can do something about an incident of hate, then that helps with the fear and maybe the helplessness that goes along with it. Hopefully that helps someone feel a little bit more empowered – I think that's a positive for democracy.
This challenge is compounded by the fact that the legal system has been slow to adapt to online realities. BC’s Human Rights Code, for example, prohibits publicly exposing individuals or protected groups to hatred based on personal characteristics in channels such as articles or public signs, but it wasn’t until a 2024 decision by the BC Human Rights Tribunal decision – Chilliwack Teachers’ Association v Neufeld (No. 3) – that this protection was extended to online spaces. Because of this decision, a complaint brought by the Chilliwack Teachers’ Association against a previous school trustee, who is alleged to have made homophobic and transphobic statements online, will now proceed to a hearing.
But even with this recent decision, the process for complainants remains complex and time-consuming, says Cumming.
A proposed piece of legislation, Canada’s Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), would compel online platforms to do more to address hate online and to make it easier for individuals to report harmful online content through the creation of a federal Digital Safety Commission and a Digital Safety Ombudsperson. With an election on the horizon and Parliament prorogued, Bill C-63’s future is uncertain, but Cumming believes that change is needed to empower victims.
Together with Liu, Cumming is asking individuals what they see as the best options for seeking recourse when confronted with instances of online hate. She hopes their findings will help bridge the gap between how legislators and those in the justice system think about the law and how people who are victims of hate actually experience it.
“If we can identify avenues where people feel they can do something about an incident of hate, then that helps with the fear and maybe the helplessness that goes along with it,” says Cumming. “Hopefully that helps someone feel a little bit more empowered – I think that's a positive for democracy.”
