Who gets to define harm?

2 min read · May 29, 2026
New Power Labs

Canada is debating hate speech, online harms, surveillance, and public safety. Those debates have included:

Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, debates around hate speech, hate crimes, intimidation, and public safety. It passed the House of Commons in March 2026 and is now before the Senate.

Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, focused on harmful online content, platform responsibility, and content moderation.

Bill C-22, the Lawful Access Act, would require telecoms and digital service providers to modify their systems to give surveillance capabilities to police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Each bill responds to a legitimate concern. Hate exists. Online exploitation exists. Serious crime exists.

In the United States, the movement against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) did not begin with a ban on DEI. It started when definitions shifted: when diversity became discrimination, gender inclusion became gender ideology, climate and equity-focused investing became political activism, and educational content became indoctrination.

The battleground was the definition. Once definitions changed, institutions began to respond. Universities faced funding threats tied to diversity initiatives. Asset managers faced pressure for incorporating climate risk into investment decisions. Foundations and nonprofits faced growing scrutiny for equity-focused grantmaking. Corporate suppliers and government contractors were required to certify compliance with new rules.

Shifting definitions influence funding, investment, procurement, partnerships, and institutional support. Organizations did not need to be prohibited from acting. Many simply concluded that the legal, reputational, or financial risk was no longer worth it.

Canada's debates around hate, harm, surveillance, and online regulation are not the same as the American anti-DEI movement. But Bills C-9, C-63, and C-22 raise important questions about definitions: What constitutes hate? What constitutes harm? What constitutes extremism? What constitutes a security threat? Who decides?

History suggests that powers rarely remain confined to their original purpose.

Once governments establish mechanisms for regulating speech, monitoring activity, restricting access, or enforcing compliance, those mechanisms can be adapted to political priorities.

An important part of any law is who gets to decide what the words mean. When definitions change, institutions change and capital moves. That ultimately influences who remains investable, fundable, employable, insurable, and contractable.

Narinder
New Power Labs

Like what you’re reading? Subscribe to get weekly Equity Shots in your inbox.