Censorship Industrial Complex
Trudeau government ‘gaslighting’ critics of Online Harms Act, legal expert warns
From LifeSiteNews
Dr. Michael Geist pointed out that Bill C-63 gives a digital safety commission an astonishing array of powers with limited oversight.
One of Canada’s top legal pundits warned that the federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is “ready” to “gaslight” opponents of a new bill that could lead to jail time for vaguely defined online “hate speech” infractions.
In recent an opinion piece critical of Bill C-63, which is the Online Harms Act that was introduced in the House of Commons on February 26, law professor Dr. Michael Geist said that the text of the bill is “unmistakable” in how it will affect Canadians’ online freedoms.
Geist noted that the new bill will allow a new digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the new law.
“The poorly conceived Digital Safety Commission lacks even basic rules of evidence, can conduct secret hearings, and has been granted an astonishing array of powers with limited oversight. This isn’t a fabrication,” Geist wrote.
He observed specifically how Section 87 of the bill “literally” says “the Commission is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence.”
The Liberals under Trudeau claim Bill C-63 will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography.
The reality is that the federal government under Trudeau has gone all in on radical transgender ideology, including the so-called “transitioning” of minors, while at the same time introducing laws that on the surface appear to be about helping children.
As for Geist, he noted that when it comes to Bill C-63, the “most obvious solution” to amend the bill “is to cut out the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act provisions, which have nothing to do with establishing Internet platform liability for online harms.”
“Instead, the government seems ready yet again to gaslight its critics and claim that they have it all wrong,” Geist said. “But the text of the law is unmistakable and the initial refusal to address the concerns is a mistake that, if it persists, risks sinking the entire bill.”
Bill C-63 was introduced by Justice Minister Arif Virani and then immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.
Bill C-63 will modify existing laws, amending 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.
One of Canada’s foremost constitutional rights groups, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), warned that the proposed “Online Harms Act” is a serious threat to freedom of “expression” and could lead to “preemptive punishment for crimes not committed.”
Geist observed that the Trudeau government with Bill C-63 “is ready to run back the same playbook of gaslighting and denials that plagued” as it did with its other internet censorship Bills C-11 and C-18.
“Those bills, which addressed Internet streaming and news, faced widespread criticism over potential regulation of user content and the prospect of blocked news links on major Internet platforms. Rather than engage in a policy process that took the criticism seriously, the government ignored digital creators (including disrespecting indigenous creators) and dismissed the risks of Bill C-18 as a bluff,” Geist wrote.
“The results of that strategy are well-known: Bill C-11 required a policy direction fix and is mired in a years-long regulatory process at the CRTC and news links have been blocked for months on Meta as the list of Canadian media bankruptcies and closures mount.”
Geist observed that Bill C-63 had “offered the chance for a fresh start,” but instead there “were red flags,” particularly with respect to the “Digital Safety Commission charged with enforcing the law and with the inclusion of Criminal Code and Human Rights Act provisions with overbroad penalties and the potential to weaponize speech complaints.”
“The hope – based on the more collaborative approach used to develop the law – was that there would be a ‘genuine welcoming of constructive criticism rather than the discouraging, hostile processes of recent years,’” Geist wrote.
“Two weeks in that hope is rapidly disappearing,” he added.
Geist observed that Bill C-63’s changes to the Human Rights Act “absolutely open the door to the weaponization of complaints for communication of hate speech online that ‘is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.’”
Indeed, the bill, as per Section 13.1, would allow for those found in violation to face penalties up to $20,000 for the complainant as well as up to $50,000 to the government (Section 53.1).
LifeSiteNews has previously reported that many, including prominent Canadians who are not known to be conservative such as author Margaret Atwood, oppose Bill C-63. Additionally, billionaire Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson have been critical of Bill C-63.
Marty Moore, litigation director for the JCCF-funded Charter Advocates Canada, previously told LifeSiteNews that Bill C-63 will allow a new digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the new law, raising “serious concerns for the freedom of expression” of Canadians online.
The JCCF launched a petition, which can be signed here, calling on Trudeau to “stop” the Online Harms Act.
Business
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview
From LifeSiteNews
By Robert Jones
Durov, who was detained in France in 2024, believes governments are seeking to dismantle personal freedoms.
Tucker Carlson has interviewed Telegram founder Pavel Durov, who remains under judicial restrictions in France nearly a year after a surprise arrest left him in solitary confinement for four days — without contact with his family, legal clarity, or access to his phone.
Durov, a Russian-born tech executive now based in Dubai, had arrived in Paris for a short tourist visit. Upon landing, he was arrested and accused of complicity in crimes committed by Telegram users — despite no evidence of personal wrongdoing and no prior contact from French authorities on the matter.
In the interview, Durov said Telegram has always complied with valid legal requests for IP addresses and other data, but that France never submitted any such requests — unlike other EU states.
Telegram has surpassed a billion users and over $500 million in profit without selling user data, and has notably refused to create government “backdoors” to its encryption. That refusal, Durov believes, may have triggered the incident.
READ: Arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov signals an increasing threat to digital freedom
French prosecutors issued public statements, an unusual move, at the time of his arrest, fueling speculation that the move was meant to send a message.
At present, Durov remains under “judicial supervision,” which limits his movement and business operations.
Carlson noted the irony of Durov’s situating by calling to mind that he was not arrested by Russian President Vladimir Putin but rather a Western democracy.
Former President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev has said that Durov should have stayed in Russia, and that he was mistaken in thinking that he would not have to cooperate with foreign security services.
Durov told Carlson that mandates for encryption “backdoors” endanger all users, not just suspects. Once created, such tools inevitably become accessible to hackers, foreign agents, and hostile regimes.
“In the US,” he commented, “you have a process that allows the government to actually force any engineer in any tech company to implement a backdoor and not tell anyone about it.”
READ: Does anyone believe Emmanuel Macron’s claim that Pavel Durov’s arrest was not political?
Durov also pointed to a recent French bill — which was ultimately defeated in the National Assembly — that would have required platforms to break encryptions on demand. A similar EU proposal is now under discussion, he noted.
Despite the persecution, Durov remains committed to Telegram’s model. “We monetize in ways that are consistent with our values,” he told Carlson. “We monetized without violating privacy.”
There is no clear timeline for a resolution of Durov’s case, which has raised serious questions about digital privacy, online freedom, and the limits of compliance for tech companies in the 21st century.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Alberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill
From LifeSiteNews
Senator Kristopher Wells and other senators are ‘interested’ in reviving the controversial Online Harms Act legislation that was abandoned after the election call.
A recent Trudeau-appointed Canadian senator said that he and other “interested senators” want the current Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney to revive a controversial Trudeau-era internet censorship bill that lapsed.
Kristopher Wells, appointed by former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last year as a senator from Alberta, made the comments about reviving an internet censorship bill recently in the Senate.
“In the last Parliament, the government proposed important changes to the Criminal Code of Canada designed to strengthen penalties for hate crime offences,” he said of Bill C-63 that lapsed earlier this year after the federal election was called.
Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online.
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 in essence 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.
Wells said that “Bill C-63 did not come to a vote in the other place and in the dying days of the last Parliament the government signaled it would be prioritizing other aspects of the bill.”
“I believe Canada must get tougher on hate and send a clear and unequivocal message that hate and extremism will never be tolerated in this country no matter who it targets,” he said.
Carney, as reported by LifeSiteNews, vowed to continue in Trudeau’s footsteps, promising even more legislation to crack down on lawful internet content.
Before the April 28 election call, the Liberals were pushing Bill C-63.
Wells asked if the current Carney government remains “committed to tabling legislation that will amend the Criminal Code as proposed in the previous Bill C-63 and will it commit to working with interested senators and community stakeholders to make the changes needed to ensure this important legislation is passed?”
Seasoned Senator Marc Gold replied that he is not in “a position to speculate” on whether a new bill would be brought forward.
Before Bill C-63, a similar law, Bill C-36, lapsed in 2021 due to that year’s general election.
As noted by LifeSiteNews, Wells has in the past advocated for closing Christian schools that refuse to violate their religious principles by accepting so-called Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs and spearheaded so-called “conversion therapy bans.”
Other internet censorship bills that have become law have yet to be fully implemented.
Last month, LifeSiteNews reported that former Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault, known for his radical climate views, will be the person in charge of implementing Bill C-11, a controversial bill passed in 2023 that aims to censor legal internet content in Canada.
Anti-Trump protests planned across the country on Saturday as LA violence continues
Telegram founder Pavel Durov exposes crackdown on digital privacy in Tucker Carlson interview
Carney’s Promise of Expediting Resource Projects Feels Like a Modern Version of the Wicked Stepmother from Disney’s Cinderella
