Bill C-63, a.k.a., the Act to enact the Online Harms Act, was introduced into the House of Commons last week.

It might very well be the most censorious piece of legislation to ever emerge in the western world. And there’s going to be harm all right if this odious bill is passed into law – harm to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press.

And really, what’s not to hate?

Incredibly, the law will be retroactive. So, if you said anything “hateful” on social media a decade or so ago, you are fair game to be charged. And oh, just what is the benchmark when it comes to “hate”? As always, the devil is in the details, and the nitty-gritty details are so far AWOL.

It gets worse: your accuser gets to remain anonymous. And if you happen to find out who your accuser is, you are forced to remain silent under penalty of law.

Violators of this law can be subjected to enormous fines (with the federal government getting its piece of the fiscal action, of course). And you can even be placed under house arrest on the mere hunch you might say something hateful in the future. Bill C-63 is Nineteen Eighty-Four meets Minority Report.

So we visited Toronto’s Yonge Dundas Square recently to ask passersby what they thought of this draconian legislation. But we added a twist to our query. Which is to say, our initial query was: “Did you hear about Vladimir Putin’s new hate speech law that can put people under house arrest in Russia if they say something ‘hateful’ in the future?”

The typical response was that this is a brutal law and that thankfully we live in a country that cherishes free speech.

Then we fessed up, noting that this proposed law is not Putin’s doing, but rather, we’re talking about Justin Trudeau’s new Internet censorship law, Bill C-63.

Cue the look of shock.

On the plus side, with the exception of one person, nobody thought this proposed law was a good idea.

And really, has Justin Trudeau thought this through? Is the Prime Minister not concerned someone might file a complaint against HIM regarding his ongoing – and highly racist – use of blackface makeup?

Or is this yet again a matter of one law for thee, one law for me?