Censorship Industrial Complex
“Minority Report”: The Sequel. A warning to the Canadian Church
From the Frontier Centre for Pubic Policy
In the 2002 futuristic movie, “Minority Report,” viewers are introduced to a ground-breaking technology that allows law enforcement to preview a crime before it is committed. Then this determination becomes the basis for the arrest and the sentencing of the “pre-crime” perpetrator.
In a case of life imitating art, on February 26, the Canadian government tabled legislation containing provisions that are eerily like the plot imagined in Tom Cruise’s blockbuster.
The proposed legislation should be of great concern to churches and pastors who may face unprecedented legal exposure if it is passed.
Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, seeks to “promote online safety.” The Act endeavours, in part, to protect children from online sexual exploitation and requires the mandatory reporting of online child pornography by internet providers. So far, so good.
But the proverbial devil is lurking in the details of the provisions pertaining to online hate speech, which are simply breathtaking.
The Act represents what many consider to be the most dangerous assault on free speech this country has ever seen, prompting Canadian novelist, Margaret Atwood, to refer to the proposed legislation as “Orwellian.”
This bill would not only have a glacial effect on free speech, but it would also trigger an open season on religious organizations that do not align with mainstream dogma.
Here are some of the reasons behind this apocalyptic assessment of this piece of legislation.
The bill defines hate speech as speech that “is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
This definition is so vague, ambiguous, and far reaching that it could apply to any opinion that diverges from the government-sanctioned media narrative.
The responsibility of judging complaints would be lodged with the Human Rights Commission. This fact alone is deeply worrisome, as the threshold for deciding guilt is much lower in the Human Rights Tribunal than in a criminal court, where a person must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Plaintiffs could file their complaints anonymously without incurring any legal costs. Defendants, on the other hand, would be bound to retain legal counsel at considerable expense to them.
Should they win their case, the plaintiffs stand to be awarded up to $20,000. The defendants could be imposed an additional fine of up to $50,000. Should a legal violation be considered to have been motivated by hate, the defendants could also face life imprisonment!
The incontrovertible proof that Bill C-63 is not about protecting children but strangling free speech resides in what is now ironically referred to as the “Minority Report” provision.
As unhinged as it sounds, the legislation states that if a member of the public has grounds to believe that someone is likely to engage in hateful speech, that person can appeal to a provincial judge who may then subject the defendant to house arrest and other restrictions.
Human nature being what it is, there is no telling the number of people who will be incentivized to file complaints knowing they have much to gain and nothing to lose.
Conservative churches would become instant targets in the tsunami of human rights violation initiatives that the proposed legislation would trigger.
In response, churches may decide to play it safe by restricting their services to in-person participation or by self-censuring.
While either choice would no doubt be welcome by a government that wants to silence those who hold “unacceptable views,” to quote Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, such restrictions would no doubt prove to be detrimental to the churches and the common good.
The proposed legislation is not about protecting children. It’s about unleashing the mob against those who would oppose an agenda that is already proving to be an existential threat to liberal society.
Bill C-63 is currently at the nexus of the fight to preserve our most fundamental freedoms, Canadian democracy, and the well-being of future generations.
Churches have a window of opportunity to voice their opposition to this appalling piece of legislation.
What can be done?
First, be informed. Videos posted by the Canadian Constitution Foundation are a great place to start.
Second, promote congregational awareness. Church leaders can no longer pretend that such issues are beyond the scope of their pulpit. To denounce injustice is indeed part and parcel of the church’s prophetic mandate.
Third, church members should contact their member of parliament to express their opposition to Bill C-63.
Canadian churches have historically chosen to remain on the far edges of the culture war currently raging in the Western world. But if Bill C-63 receives royal assent, these same churches may soon unwittingly find themselves in the middle of the very battlefield they so vigorously sought to avoid.
Pierre Gilbert is Associate Professor Emeritus at Canadian Mennonite University.
From LifeSiteNews
By Dan Frieth
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
U.S. President Donald Trump has launched a fierce rebuke of Brazil’s moves to silence American-run social media platforms, particularly Rumble and X.
In his letter dated July 9, 2025, addressed to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Trump ties new U.S. trade measures directly to Brazilian censorship.
He calls attention to “SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms,” pointing out that Brazil’s Supreme Court has been “threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market.”
Trump warns that these actions are “due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans,” and states: “starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs.” He also adds that “Goods transshipped to evade this 50% Tariff will be subject to that higher Tariff.”
Brazil’s crackdown has targeted Rumble after it refused to comply with orders to block the account of Allan dos Santos, a Brazilian streamer living in the United States.
On February 21, 2025, Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Rumble’s suspension for non‑compliance, saying it failed “to comply with court orders.”
Earlier, from August to October 2024, Moraes had similarly ordered a nationwide block on X.
The court directed ISPs to suspend access and imposed fines after the platform refused to designate a legal representative and remove certain accounts.
Elon Musk responded: “Free speech is the bedrock of democracy and an unelected pseudo‑judge in Brazil is destroying it for political purposes.”
By linking censorship actions, particularly those targeting Rumble and X, to U.S. trade policy, Trump’s letter asserts that Brazil’s judiciary has moved into the arena of foreign policy and economic consequences.
The tariffs, he makes clear, are meant, at least in part, as a response to Brazil’s suppression of American free speech.
Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Brazil for censoring American platforms may also serve as a clear signal to the European Union, which is advancing similar regulatory efforts under the guise of “disinformation” and “online safety.”
With the EU’s Digital Services Act and proposed “hate speech” legislation expanding government authority over content moderation, American companies face mounting pressure to comply with vague and sweeping takedown demands.
By framing censorship as a violation of U.S. free speech rights and linking it to trade consequences, Trump is effectively warning that any foreign attempt to suppress American voices or platforms could trigger similar economic retaliation.
Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Canadian pro-freedom group sounds alarm over Liberal plans to revive internet censorship bill
From LifeSiteNews
The Democracy Fund warned that the Liberal government may bring back a form of Bill C-63, which is aimed at regulating online speech.
One of Canada’s top pro-democracy groups has sounded the alarm by warning that the Canadian federal government is planning to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.
The Democracy Fund (TDF), in a recent press release, warned about plans by the Liberal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney to bring back a form of Bill C-63. The bill, which lapsed when the election was called earlier this year, aimed to regulate online speech, which could mean “mass censorship” of the internet.
“TDF is concerned that the government will try once more to give itself the power to criminalize and punish online speech and debate,” the group said.
“TDF will oppose that.”
According to the TDF, it is “concerned that the government intends to re-introduce the previously abandoned Online Harms Bill in the same or modified form.”
Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online. The bill died earlier this year after former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the 2025 federal election.
While protecting children is indeed a duty of the state, the bill included several measures that targeted vaguely defined “hate speech” infractions involving race, gender, and religion, among other categories. The proposal was thus blasted by many legal experts.
The Online Harms Act would have censored legal internet content that the government thought “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group.” It would be up to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to investigate complaints.
The TDF said that Bill C-63 would have made it a criminal offense to publish ill-defined “harmful content.”
“It required social media companies to remove potentially harmful content or face punitive fines. Many defenders of civil liberty, including TDF, worried that the application of this badly defined concept would lead to mass surveillance and censorship,” the group said.
The TDF warned that under Carney, the government is “once again considering new or similar legislation to regulate online speech, with the Minister of Justice claiming he would take another look at the matter.”
Mark Joseph, TDF litigation director, pointed out that Canada already has laws that “the government can, and does, use to address most of the bad conduct that the Bill ostensibly targeted.”
“To the extent that there are gaps in the Criminal Code, amendments should be carefully drafted to fix this,” he said.
“However, the previous Bill C-63 sought to implement a regime of mass censorship.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews last month, a recent Trudeau-appointed Canadian senator said that he and other “interested senators” want Carney to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.
Another recent Carney government Bill C-2, which looks to ban cash donations over $10,000, was blasted by a constitutional freedom group as a “step towards tyranny.”
Carney, as reported by LifeSiteNews, vowed to continue in Trudeau’s footsteps, promising even more legislation to crack down on lawful internet content.
He has also said his government plans to launch a “new economy” in Canada that will involve “deepening” ties to the world.
Under Carney, the Liberals are expected to continue much of what they did under Justin Trudeau, including the party’s zealous push in favor of abortion, euthanasia, radical gender ideology, internet regulation and so-called “climate change” policies. Indeed, Carney, like Trudeau, seems to have extensive ties to both China and the globalist World Economic Forum, connections that were brought up routinely by conservatives in the lead-up to the election.
COWBOY UP! Pierre Poilievre Promises to Fight for Oil and Gas, a Stronger Military and the Interests of Western Canada
USAID Quietly Sent Thousands Of Viruses To Chinese Military-Linked Biolab
Canada’s euthanasia regime is already killing the disabled. It’s about to get worse
‘Far too serious for such uninformed, careless journalism’: Complaint filed against Globe and Mail article challenging Alberta’s gender surgery law
-
International2 days agoSecret Service suspends six agents nearly a year after Trump assassination attempt
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoThe Covid 19 Disaster: When Do We Get The Apologies?
-
Crime22 hours agoSweeping Boston Indictment Points to Vast Chinese Narco-Smuggling and Illegal Alien Labor Plot via Mexican Border
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta school boards required to meet new standards for school library materials with regard to sexual content
-
Business2 days agoWEF-linked Linda Yaccarino to step down as CEO of X
-
Automotive2 days agoAmerica’s EV Industry Must Now Compete On A Level Playing Field
-
Environment22 hours agoEPA releases report on chemtrails, climate manipulation
-
Business2 days ago‘Experts’ Warned Free Markets Would Ruin Argentina — Looks Like They Were Dead Wrong