New Crime: Promoting Terrorism Online

Summary#

• This bill would create a new crime for wilfully promoting terrorist activity or a terrorist group through spoken, written, or online statements. The goal is to curb praise, support, or publicity that could help extremist groups.

• It sets a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison. It also adds safeguards for truthful reporting, good‑faith religious opinions, public‑interest discussion, and efforts to flag or remove extremist content.

• Key changes:

  • Makes it a crime to wilfully promote any terrorist activity, any terrorist group, or any activity of a terrorist group, through communications.
  • Prosecution does not have to prove the statements caused anyone to take part in terrorism or that they named a specific group or act.
  • Provides defences if the statements are true; are good‑faith religious opinions; are public‑interest discussion reasonably believed to be true; or were meant to point out content that should be removed.
  • Classifies the new crime as a “terrorism offence,” which affects how police and courts handle it.
  • Requires any sentence for this offence to be served back‑to‑back with sentences for other terrorism offences (not at the same time), except life sentences.
  • Lets police seek court‑approved wiretaps for investigations into this offence.

What it means for you#

• General public and social media users

  • Posting praise or support for a terrorist group or its activities on social media, in videos, or in chats could lead to charges if done on purpose.
  • Sharing news, research, or commentary is protected if it is true or a good‑faith public‑interest discussion you reasonably believe is true.
  • Flagging extremist content to call it out or get it removed is protected if done in good faith.

• Journalists, researchers, educators

  • Reporting on, quoting, or analyzing terrorist groups is allowed if statements are true or part of good‑faith public‑interest discussion.
  • You should avoid language that crosses from reporting or analysis into endorsement or promotion.

• Faith leaders and communities

  • Good‑faith religious opinions or arguments based on religious texts are protected.
  • Statements that go beyond opinion and promote a terrorist group or its activities could still be an offence.

• People convicted of terrorism‑related crimes

  • If convicted of this new offence along with other terrorism crimes, you would serve the sentence for this offence consecutively (one after another), not at the same time.

• Law enforcement

  • Police would have a clearer charge to use against propaganda and public praise that supports extremist groups.
  • Wiretap orders could be sought for investigations into this offence, with court approval.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents’ View#

• Gives police and prosecutors a clearer tool to stop propaganda that helps extremist groups recruit and spread.
• Closes gaps by targeting promotion of groups and activities, not just direct calls to commit a specific terrorist offence.
• The defences protect legitimate journalism, academic work, public debate, and good‑faith religious expression.
• Consecutive sentences increase accountability for people involved in multiple terrorism crimes.
• Wiretap access helps investigators act earlier, especially online.

Opponents’ View#

• Risk to free expression: terms like “promote” and “terrorist group” may be broad and could chill lawful speech.
• May overlap with existing terrorism speech laws, creating confusion or double charging.
• Journalists, scholars, and community advocates may self‑censor for fear of crossing an unclear line.
• Proving “good faith” or “reasonable belief” can be hard, leading to uneven enforcement.
• Could divert resources toward speech cases rather than focusing only on direct incitement or plots.