Censorship Industrial Complex
Scotland’s crazy anti-hate law may be sign of things to come here

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Scotland had 8,000 complaints in the first week. Is it likely that a similar avalanche of claims will result in Canada if C-63 becomes law?
Actually, there will probably be a lot more here.
For one thing, our population is many times the size of Scotland’s.
Some argue that Scotland’s new hate speech law is more draconian than Canada’s yet-to-be-enacted equivalent, Bill C-63. Others say this is not so — that portions of ’63’ are even greater threats to free speech than Scotland’s extreme new law.
Regardless of who wins in this radical experiment in mass censorship, one thing we can predict with certainty: Both laws will be a goldmine for the legal profession and a nightmare for anyone who has ever dared to write, say or broadcast anything controversial.
How? Well, in the first week that Scotland’s new hate legislation has been in force there has been an avalanche of new claims launched — 8,000, and counting. Every one of those claims will have to be defended by a person who believed that they were exercising their right of free speech.
Now, 8,000 of those people will be caught up in expensive, time consuming, and emotionally draining litigation. Their cases will mostly be heard by officials and judges who were appointed specifically because they shared the same views as the government that appointed them — the same government that felt the need to prosecute these 8,000 people.
That 8,000 surpassed the total number of hate crime allegations in Scotland for all of 2023. A projection is that there will be an estimated 416,000 cases for 2024 if this rate keeps up. The complaints have completely overwhelmed Scotland’s police.
The Scottish Police Federation’s David Threadgold said this about how the new law was being used by angry citizens with an axe to grind: “…the law was being “weaponised” by the public in order to settle personal grudges against fellow citizens or to wage political feuds, while suggesting that the government encouraging the public to report instances of ‘hate’ has clearly blown up in their face.”
We have already seen this Scottish law in action when J.K. Rowling, who is famous not only for her wonderful Harry Potter books, but more recently for stating what we knew as fact for the first few hundred thousand years or so of human history — namely that men are men, and women are women — famously reposted that claim and dared the Scottish police to charge her.
The police announced that she wouldn’t be charged — at least that particular police officer wouldn’t charge her at this particular time.
The other person who has been the subject of many of those 8,000 complaints is First Minister Humza Yousaf — the very man responsible for this monstrosity of a law. Yousaf is himself quite famous for complaining that Scotland has too many white people. Who knew?
That odd observation resulted in a world famous spat with none other than Elon Musk. The online slugfest basically took the form of each man accusing the other of being a racist. At times it looked more like a schoolyard fight.
That a national leader seriously feels that the sledgehammer of the criminal law must be used to sort out such cat fights between citizens is rather alarming.
But, in this regard, Yousaf and Trudeau are birds of a feather. Both are convinced that only “acceptable views” — namely the views they agree with — will be allowed, while “unacceptable views,” namely, those they don’t like, must be disappeared by the machinery of the state.
It should be explained at this point that Scotland’s new law, unlike our C-63, requires police to determine whether or not the person under complaint has “stirred up hatred.”
Bill C-63 has those “hate” complaints heard by the Human Rights Tribunal.
In both cases however, one person’s opinion will judge another person’s opinion. However, one person will be paid to perform this function, while the other person might become a criminal if their opinion fails a completely subjective test.
Scotland had 8,000 complaints in the first week. Is it likely that a similar avalanche of claims will result in Canada if C-63 becomes law?
Actually, there will probably be a lot more here.
For one thing, our population is many times the size of Scotland’s.
For another, C-63 allows people to make complaints anonymously if the tribunal says so. It also promises up to $50,000 per complaint. That’s a powerful motivator. That $50,000 doesn’t come from some magic bank, by the way. If you are the person complained about, it comes from you. And you might be required to fork over an additional $20,000 to the tribunal for their troubles.
I’m not sure if they will expect a tip..
Much has been written about C-63. Many knowledgeable Canadians have discussed in detail the hundreds of objections they can see with this Bill. Senior Canadian voices, such former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, and world famous author Margaret Atwood, have warned Canadians about this seriously flawed legislation.
But what no one has done — except for Trudeau apparatchiks — is to give any good reasons why Canada needs this legislation.
If Scotland’s projected number of complaints for 2024 is 416,000 and they have a population of less than six million, the projection for Canada would be into the millions of complaints. Even setting aside the obvious impossibility of paying for thousands of new tribunal adjudicators, staff, and the thousands of new lawyers required to help the million-plus people who are thrust into this hate complaint boondoggle, why would any serious government even wish such a thing on their citizens?
Do we not have a rather large bag of serious problems we must contend with?
We have a generation of young people, for example, who might never in their lives be able to afford a home of their own. How do we expect these young people to raise a future generation of Canadians without a home in which to raise them? Isn’t that a bigger problem than someone’s hurt feelings?
Another example… Trudeau has just noticed that we don’t seem to have an army anymore. Isn’t that a bigger problem than whether or not someone feels that they have been misgendered, or called nasty names?
There is a list, as long as the longest arm, of very real problems that need urgent attention. Why are we wasting time and money on the brainchild (yes, I use that term loosely) of a desperate prime minister and his few remaining fellow ideologues?
This legislation is totally unnecessary, and an appallingly disrespectful way to treat Canadians. We already have hate laws. We already have laws to protect children. C-63 is as useless as the tired apparatchiks pushing it.
We should definitely pay attention to what is happening in Scotland. It will be our fate if this perfectly awful Bill C-63 is not defeated.
Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Business
Canadian commission suggests more gov’t money for mainstream media to fight ‘misinformation’

From LifeSiteNews
Foreign Interference Commission Justice Marie-Josée Hogue recommended in her final report on election interference that additional taxpayer money be pumped into legacy media outlets that are already receiving billions from the government to make sure news is ‘trustworthy and of good quality.’
The Foreign Interference Commission in one of its many recommendations suggested that the Canadian government hand out millions of additional dollars to legacy media outlets for combating supposed “misinformation and disinformation.”
The suggestion to pump up legacy media with more taxpayer money was made by Foreign Interference Commission Justice Marie-Josée Hogue in her final report on election interference that was released last week. It was one of 51 recommendations from her investigation into election meddling in Canada’s 2019 and 2021 federal elections.
Hogue’s 44th recommendation reads that the federal government, which already spends billions to support legacy media, “should pursue discussions with media organizations and the public around modernizing media funding and economic models to support professional media, including local and foreign language media, while preserving media independence and neutrality.”
According to Houge, “Traditional journalism is struggling,” and because of this “Media organizations are facing financial challenges as citizens turn away from mainstream media, and towards social media or non-traditional platforms that may, for a variety of reasons, be more susceptible to misinformation and disinformation.”
Houge noted that she was on board with a Department of Canadian Heritage witness who testified at a commission hearing that Canadian media should be supported to make sure news is “trustworthy and of good quality.”
“I share their concern about Canada’s professional media. Canada must have a press that is strong and free,” Hogue said.
“It is crucial to have credible and reliable sources of information to counterbalance misinformation and disinformation,” she added.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, the final report from the Foreign Interference Commission concluded that operatives from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) may have had a hand in helping to elect a handful of MPs in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections.
Hogue urged in her January 28 final report that Canada “remain vigilant because the threat of foreign interference is real,” but stopped short of saying CCP interference was influential enough to tilt the outcomes of the elections.
When it comes to legacy media in Canada, the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that it will spend millions more propping up the mostly state-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
This extra funding comes despite the fact the Department of Canadian Heritage has admitted payouts to the CBC are not sufficient to keep legacy media outlets running.
There have been many cases where the CBC has appeared to push ideological content, including the creation of pro-LGBT material for kids, tacitly endorsing the gender mutilation of children, promoting euthanasia, and even seeming to justify the burning of mostly Catholic churches throughout the country.
Furthermore, in October, Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge’s department admitted that federally funded media outlets buy “social cohesion.”
Arts
Trump’s Hollywood envoys take on Tinseltown’s liberal monopoly

Quick Hit:
President Trump has appointed Jon Voight, Sylvester Stallone, and Mel Gibson as “special envoys” to Hollywood, aiming to restore a “Golden Age” and challenge the industry’s entrenched liberal bias. According to RealClearPolitics’ Ethan Watson, the move highlights the necessity of reclaiming cultural institutions from leftist control.
Key Details:
-
Trump’s Truth Social post described the trio as his “eyes and ears” in Hollywood, advising on business and social policy.
-
Hollywood’s leftist dominance, as seen in Disney’s political agenda and the cancellation of Gina Carano, has alienated conservatives.
-
Watson argues that Trump understands “politics is downstream from culture” and that influencing Hollywood is vital to shaping American values.
Diving Deeper:
President Trump’s latest move to reshape Hollywood has the entertainment industry buzzing. By appointing Jon Voight, Sylvester Stallone, and Mel Gibson as his “special envoys” to Tinseltown, Trump is signaling that conservatives no longer need to cede cultural institutions to the left. As RealClearPolitics’ Ethan Watson writes, “Donald Trump understands something many right-wingers haven’t for a long time: It’s time to take back institutions.”
Trump, who has long criticized Hollywood’s liberal slant, sees the entertainment industry as a battleground for shaping public opinion. “Although studies have shown that many Americans, particularly younger people, are unaware of the biggest news story of the day, nearly all of them consume media produced by Hollywood,” Watson notes. This cultural dominance, Watson argues, has been exploited to push a left-wing agenda, alienating conservative voices.
The case of Gina Carano exemplifies Hollywood’s intolerance toward dissent, Watson writes. The former “Mandalorian” star was fired by Disney in 2021 after posting a historical comparison on social media. “In truth, her cancellation was most likely due to her mocking pronoun virtue signaling and COVID-19 precautions that were essentially an entrance fee into the upper echelons of Hollywood,” Watson states. The politicization of entertainment didn’t stop there—Disney executive Latoya Raveneau openly admitted to inserting a “not-at-all-secret gay agenda” into children’s programming.
Watson pushes back against the idea that conservatives should simply “build their own” Hollywood, arguing that the industry is too integral to American culture to be abandoned. “Casting it aside would be like trying to create an alternative to Mount Rushmore or baseball – it’s irreplaceable,” he writes. Trump’s decision to highlight conservative-friendly stars like Stallone, Voight, and Gibson sends a powerful message: conservatives in Hollywood no longer have to stay silent.
Trump’s envoys are a step toward restoring balance in an industry that has become a one-party echo chamber. “Hollywood, along with social media, has become the ‘town square,’ the medium by which Americans share ideas,” Watson explains. With leftist cancel culture stifling dissent, Trump’s initiative is not just about entertainment—it’s about ensuring freedom of expression in America’s most influential industry.
-
Business2 days ago
Trump’s dismantling of USAID is his biggest blow against the Deep State yet
-
Crime2 days ago
Murder of US Border Patrol agent linked to bizarre ‘antifascist trans terror cult’
-
COVID-191 day ago
Canadian judge orders Purolator to compensate employees fired for refusing COVID shot
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
‘Extraordinary’: El Salvador Agrees To Take In Any Gangbangers, Convicted Criminals Deported Out Of US
-
Business2 days ago
CIA Offers To Payout Entire Agency: REPORT
-
Business1 day ago
USPS suspends inbound packages from China, Hong Kong
-
Business2 days ago
Musk vs. The Swamp: Will He and Trump Make Real Cuts?
-
Business10 hours ago
90% of Ukraine news outlets get funding from USAID: new report