Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Elon Musk skewers Trudeau gov’t Online Harms bill as ‘insane’ for targeting speech retroactively

Published

1 year ago

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

It literally spits in the face of all Western legal traditions, especially the one about only being punished if you infringed on a law that was valid at the time of committing a crime

Billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk remarked that it is “insane” that the Trudeau government’s proposed “Online Harms” bill would target internet speech retroactively if it becomes law.

“This sounds insane if accurate!” wrote Musk on Tuesday, in reply to an X (formerly Twitter) user named Camus who detailed that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government’s Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, could see Canadians fined or even jailed for things posted on the internet prior to the bill becoming law.

Camus noted how Bill C-63 could give police “the power to retroactively search the Internet for ‘hate speech’ violations and arrest offenders, even if the offence occurred before the law existed.” 

A brief time later, X’s “CommunityNotes” program – a system in which users collectively “fact-check” information shared on the site –confirmed what Camus had written was accurate, quoting a section of the bill’s text.  

“Part 3 of Bill C-63, which is still at first reading stage and is not yet law, adds to the Canadian Human Rights Act: ‘a person communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech so long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it,’” CommunityNotes wrote. 

Camus observed about Bill C-63 that the “Trudeau regime has introduced an Orwellian new law.” 

“This new bill is aimed at safeguarding the masses from so-called ‘hate speech,’” he wrote. “The real shocker in this bill is the alarming retroactive aspect. Essentially, whatever you’ve said in the past can now be weaponized against you by today’s draconian standards.” 

Camus observed how historian Dr. Muriel Blaive has weighed in on “this draconian law,” labeling it outright “mad.”  

Bill C-63 was introduced by Liberal Minster Attorney General Arif Virani on February 26 and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome. 

The bill, if passed, will modify existing laws, amend the Criminal Code as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act, in what the Liberals claim will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography. 

However, the bill also seeks to police “hate” speech online with broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics. 

Trudeau’s new bill a ‘terrible attack’ on speech, Musk warns

On Tuesday, well-known Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson replied to Musk by saying about Bill C-63, “It’s much much worse than you have been informed: plans to shackle Canadians electronically if accusers fear a ‘hate crime’ might (might) be committed.” 

“It’s the most Orwellian piece of legislation ever promoted in the West.” 

Musk replied to Peterson by saying Bill C-63 is “[a] terrible attack on the rights of Canadians to speak freely!” 

Other notable X users, such as Canadian lawyer David Freiheit, who is known online as Viva Frei, confirmed Musk’s concern that Bill C-63 could go after X users from posts/tweets made long ago. 

“It’s pretty close to accurate, Elon. If someone has the ability to delete a ‘hate speech’ tweet / post and does not, and someone else retweets that tweet, it would qualify as ‘publication’ under the law and be sanctionable,” he wrote. 

Details of the new legislation to regulate the internet show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories. 

The bill also calls for the creation of a digital safety commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and a digital safety office. 

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has said Bill C-63 is “the most serious threat to free expression in Canada in generations. This terrible federal legislation, Bill C -63, would empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute Canadians over non-criminal hate speech.” 

In a recent podcast, Peterson and Queen’s University law professor Bruce Pardy warned of the “totalitarian” impact Trudeau’s new Online Harms bill will have on Canada. 

Peterson observed that the Trudeau government is effectively “establishing an entirely new bureaucracy” with an “unspecified range of power with non-specific purview that purports to protect children from online exploitation” but has the possibility of turning itself into an internet “policing state.”  

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 5 hours ago

Bloodvein Blockade Puts Public Land Rights At Risk

Business / 6 hours ago

The Truth Is Buried Under Sechelt’s Unproven Graves

Business / 6 hours ago

Ottawa’s so-called ‘Clean Fuel Standards’ cause more harm than good

Censorship Industrial Complex

Decision expected soon in case that challenges Alberta’s “safe spaces” law

Published on September 13, 2025

By

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Alberta Court of Appeal will soon release its decision in a case challenging whether speaking events can be censored on the basis of potential “psychological harm” to an audience, infringing Charter-protected freedoms of expression (section 2(b) and peaceful assembly (section 2(c).

This case stems from the University of Lethbridge’s January 30, 2023, decision to cancel a speaking event featuring Dr. Frances Widdowson, who has frequently challenged established narratives on Indigenous matters.

In written argument filed in 2024 the University claimed it cancelled the event, in part, because it had obligations under Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act to ensure a workplace free of “harassment” and free of hazards to “psychological and social wellbeing.”

Lawyers argue that these provisions (which might be described as a “safe spaces” law) compel employers to censor lawful expression under threat of fines or imprisonment.

Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett said, “Safe spaces provisions are a serious threat to Charter freedoms. Employers who don’t censor ‘unsafe’ speech are liable to be fined or even jailed. This isn’t just the government censoring speech, it is the government requiring citizens to censor one another.”

Given the University’s defence, lawyers asked the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta to allow an amendment to the lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the “safe spaces” laws. However, the Court denied the request. According to the Court’s apparent reasoning because the safe spaces law is worded vaguely and generally, it is immune from constitutional challenge.

Mr. Blackett says, “I think the Court got things backwards. If legislation infringes Charter rights in a vague or general way, infringements become impossible to justify – they don’t become Constitution-proof.”

Widdowson and co-litigant Jonah Pickle appealed the ruling to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which heard argument on Monday. A decision from the Court of Appeal is expected soon.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK’s top cop wants to ‘stop policing tweets’: report

Published on September 11, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

‘I don’t believe we should be policing toxic culture wars debates,’ said Sir Mark Rowley, chief of the London Metropolitan Police.

In a remarkable shift, Britain’s most senior police officer is to recommend changes to the law which could allow police to “stop policing tweets” within weeks.

Sir Mark Rowley, chief of London’s Metropolitan Police, said he will approach the Home Secretary with proposals which could see police return to policing real-life crime.

Sources close to Rowley told the UK’s Daily Telegraph:

He wants Shabana Mahmood, the new Home Secretary, to change the rules so police officers are not required to record or investigate complaints when there is no evidence the suspect intended real-world harm.

The change would be a remarkable departure from the crackdown on “non-crime hate incidents,” which have seen British people given sentences of several years for remarks made online.

Rowley’s move to change the law comes alongside the UK Labour government’s proposal to introduce digital ID – which could tie access to bank accounts and work to online speech.

Return to common sense policing?

The Telegraph’s source said Rowley “is proposing a shake-up of legislation that would give officers greater discretion to use ‘common sense’ when deciding whether to record and investigate complaints about comments on social media.”

The proposed change follows the arrest of comedy writer Graham Linehan, prompting the Metropolitan Police Chief to respond.

Responding to Linehan’s arrest, Rowley said on September 3 that a return to common sense was needed as a series of high-profile arrests over “non-crime hate incidents” was undermining public trust in the police.

He said the policies of successive governments had left the police in an “impossible position” over hate speech laws.

“[O]fficers are currently in an impossible position. I have offered to provide suggestions to the Home Office on where the law and policy should be clarified.”

Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson, who was doorstepped by police last November for a tweet described as a “non-crime hate incident,” responded on September 9 by saying Rowley’s step towards defending free speech was “disingenuous” at best.

“At the risk of being arrested,” Pearson said, “I suggest Met chief Mark Rowley is a total muppet.”

Commenting on the recent arrest of comedian Graham Linehan for online speech, she added, “It is disingenuous in the extreme for the commissioner to say officers’ hands are tied in cases like that of Graham Linehan.”

Pearson explains that Linehan, famous for writing sitcoms, was arrested by five armed police after a “notorious trans activist” reported his tweets to police.

Rowley’s claim is that guidelines to police compel them to treat such appeals as crime reports, leaving no room for discretion.

Pearson then refers to the many real-life crimes to which British police do not routinely respond – even over decades:

It’s perfectly clear that the police have discretion to ignore complaints, even crimes, if they want to. Let’s see now:

Phone theft – ignored.

Shoplifting – essentially legal.

Carjacking – we’ll send you a crime number.

Burglaries – help yourself, lads!

Sexual harassment, child gang rape – er, sorry, cultural sensitivities.

Pearson concludes that the police chief is himself being dishonest – at best – in saying that speech crime laws tie the hands of officers.

For Sir Mark to claim that his officers were unable to use their common sense and ignore a complaint from a notorious trans activist about [Linehan] is to insult the public’s intelligence.

Baronness Winterbourne of the House of Lords responded, recommending that “[i]nstead of blaming Parliament for your officers’ inability to think for themselves intelligently, perhaps you might firmly tell them, please, to stop being stupid.”

As the latest Telegraph report shows, government advice to police already exists – which has not prevented the policing of so-called “non-crime hate incidents.”

More than 13,200 non-crime hate incidents were recorded by police in the 12 months to June 2024, a similar number to the previous year, despite new guidelines requiring police to investigate only ‘when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate and not simply because someone is offended.’

Rowley was also recorded on a UK radio show defending the officers who carried out Linehan’s arrest.

Graham Linehan’s case is but one of many in which British people have been prosecuted for online speech. As the Free Speech Union reported in April 2025, new data showed that over 12,000 people in Britain are arrested for speech crimes every year.

Hitchens: Disband the police?

Peter Hitchens, a veteran conservative commentator and staunch Christian, spoke out on GB News – calling for the British police to be completely abolished and replaced.

Hitchens, a devout Christian, said the British police should be “disbanded” as they have become a “sinister menace to the freedom of speech.”

“They’re not responsible for crime anymore,” Hitchens explained. “They’re a politically correct body who think they’re policing thought.”

He told GB News’ Michelle Dewberry that “the police don’t believe they should be doing what we think they should be doing. They do believe they should be arresting people for incorrect tweets. The only solution is to disband them and start again.”

Elsewhere Hitchens argued this was no novel development, saying this “new style of policing” went back 20 years.

Two-tier Keir Starmer

The embattled Prime Minister Keir Starmer has long been accused of “two-tier” policing in cracking down on “far-right thugs” who commit online speech crimes.

As the murder of Charlie Kirk focuses attention on the toxic speech of the left, Britain’s justice system sees no evil when left-wingers call for the collective murder of people on the right.

Whilst former Conservative councilor Lucy Connolly received a 31-month sentence for an angry tweet about illegal migrants, a councilor for Starmer’s own Labour Party was found not guilty of incitement to violence after demanding that everyone he saw as “far right” be murdered.

Ricky Jones was declared innocent after publicly calling for his comrades to “cut the throats” of the so-called “disgusting Nazi fascists” who were protesting over the murder of children by a man of migrant heritage. Three girls were killed in Southport by a Rwandan youth last July. After stabbing the nine children in a frenzied assault, Axel Rudakubana told police, “It’s a good thing those children are dead.”

When angry protests broke out at the murders, Jones responded on video, saying of the so-called “far-right” protesters: “We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.”

Jones was freed, Connolly was jailed.

Despite the obvious dangers in preferring the policing of speech to genuine threats and crimes, there seems to be no cause for concern from the point of view of Britain’s prime minister.

During Wednesday afternoon’s questions, Sir Keir Starmer was asked whether he would commit to revising speech laws to “ensure legitimate free expression is protected.”

Starmer replied with a stock response: “I’ve been clear throughout, we must ensure the police focus on the most serious issues and the issues that matter most to our constituencies and all communities.”

He ended by saying he was proud of Britain’s long history of free speech, which he said he would always protect.

“And that includes tackling issues like antisocial behavior, knife crime and violence. And we have a long history of free speech in this country. I’m very proud of that, and I will always defend it.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X