Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

Desperate Liberals move to stop MPs from calling Trudeau ‘corrupt’

Published

3 months ago

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Conservative MP Corey Tochor argued the term “corrupt” is an accurate description of Trudeau and his government.   

“If you ask the Ethics Commissioner about all of the infractions that the Prime Minister has been charged and convicted with on corruption, you will find the truth to be that this is a corrupt government and Prime Minister”

Liberals are pushing for the word “corrupt” to be banned in Parliament amid ongoing ethics scandals within the Trudeau government.  

On April 19, Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) Mark Gerretsen moved to prohibit MPs from referring to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government as “corrupt,” arguing it is disrespectful towards the Liberal government.  

“My point is that, today, during question period, the member for Regina—Wascana referred to the Prime Minister as ‘corrupt’ and to the government as ‘corrupt,’” he told the House of Commons.  

“Although he did it today, it has been done a number of times in the House,” he continued. “I would say that terminology specifically goes against Standing Order 18.” 

The House of Commons’ Standing Order 18 regulates speech within the House to ensure that MPs do not use disrespectful or offensive language.  

“No member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the royal family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof,” it states. “No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.”  

“I would encourage the Chair, during this time of reflection over that week that he indicated he was going to do that, to consider my comment on this and to weigh into whether or not this is actually,” Gerretsen added before being interrupted by Conservative MPs calling for a debate. 

However, Gerretsen refused to debate his suggestion, instead pushing for Conservatives to be censored. Gerretsen’s recommendation was supported by Bloc Quebecois MP Martin Champoux.  

“I would like to build on what my colleague just said,” Champoux said. “I actually raised a point of order about this yesterday with the Speaker, who was in the chair at the time, to ask him to once again set out strict rules and clear guidelines for members to follow.” 

“That would help us to better understand how far we can go,” he argued. “Right now and for the past few months, there has been a lack of consistency in the way freedom of expression is interpreted in the House and in the way measures are applied when members cross the line or do not follow the guidelines, which, again, are not exactly clear.” 

However, Conservative MP Corey Tochor argued the term “corrupt” is an accurate description of Trudeau and his government.   

“If you ask the Ethics Commissioner about all of the infractions that the Prime Minister has been charged and convicted with on corruption, you will find the truth to be that this is a corrupt government and Prime Minister,” he declared.  

Indeed, between the ArriveCAN app scandal, alleged Chinese election meddling and the SNC-Lavalin affair, Canadian MPs seem well within their rights to call, or at least remain concerned, that Trudeau and his government are “corrupt.” 

So, why are Liberals moving to have the term banned? 

It appears Trudeau and his government prefer Canadians remain unaware of past and ongoing corruption scandals, preferring to silence those who remain unconvinced by Liberal Party propaganda.  

Unfortunately, it seems this trend is only going to continue.

As LifeSiteNews recently reported, law professor Dr. Michael Geist warned that the Trudeau government is “ready” to “gaslight” opponents of Bill C-63, a proposed law that could lead to jail time for vaguely defined online “hate speech” infractions.  

While the banning of the word “corrupt” in Parliament may not yet be implemented, who is to say that if Bill C-63 is passed that the Trudeau government won’t decide to consider such accusations of corruption as meeting the definition of online “hate speech.”

Indeed, perhaps the Liberals’ move to ban the word “corrupt” should be considered a sign that they know they’ve lost the public’s trust and are acutely aware silencing opposition is their only option.

In fact, it would appear that Trudeau’s only response to dismal polling figures with respect to his scandal-plagued government’s popularity is to double down on censorship, rather than consider why citizens feel the way they do.

As the late U.S. President Harry S. Truman warned: “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” 

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
Economy / 9 hours ago

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 9 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 9 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

Censorship Industrial Complex

New federal legislation should remind Canadians of Orwell’s 1984

Published on July 24, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen

The legislation seeks to punish citizens not just for what the governments deems as “hate speech” but also grants the state power to bring Canadians before tribunals on suspicion that they might say something hateful in the future.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 (and it’s been 40 years since the actual year 1984). In the novel, Orwell explains the dangers of totalitarianism by exploring what happens when government exercises extreme levels of control over citizens including censoring and controlling language. While Canada is a relatively free country in 2024, there are aspects of Orwell’s world reflected in government policy today.

The Human Freedom Index, published annually by the Fraser Institute and Cato Institute, defines freedom as a social concept that recognizes the dignity of individuals by the absence of coercive constraint. In a free society, citizens are free to do, say or think almost anything they want, provided it does not infringe on the right of others to do the same.

Canada currently fares relatively well compared to other countries on the Human Freedom Index, placing 13th out of 165 countries. However, our score has dropped six spots on the index since 2008 when Canada recorded its highest ever rank.

This is not surprising given the Trudeau government’s recent efforts to control and manage the free exchange of ideas. The recent Online Streaming Act imposes various content rules on major streaming services such as Netflix, and requirements to extract funds to be redirected toward favoured groups. The Act seemingly seeks to bring the entire Internet under the regulation of a government body.

In another piece of recent legislation, the Online News Act, the government attempted to force certain social media platforms to pay other legacy news outlets for carrying content. In response, the social media platforms chose simply not to allow content from those news providers on their platforms, resulting in a dramatic reduction of Canadians’ access to news.

Now, a new piece of federal legislation—Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act—seeks to control language and grant government power to punish citizens for what the government deems to be unfavourable speech.

The government has sold Bill C-63 as a way to promote the online safety of Canadians, reduce harms, and ensure the operators of social media services are held accountable. In reality, however, the bill is Orwell’s Big Brother concept brought to life, where government controls information and limits free exchange. The legislation seeks to punish citizens not just for what the governments deems as “hate speech” but also grants the state power to bring Canadians before tribunals on suspicion that they might say something hateful in the future. Not surprisingly, many have raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Bill, which will surely be tested in court.

Put differently, the Bill dictates that citizens may not only be punished for speech crimes, but also punished when another person or group of individuals believes they are likely to commit such a crime. The legislation outlines punishment mechanisms at the government’s disposal, including electronic monitoring devices, house arrest or jail time. Frighteningly, if the government doesn’t like what you say or even suspects they won’t like what you might say, then you could face serious repercussions.

That sounds eerily similar to Orwell’s concept of the Thought Police. In 1984, a secret police force investigates and punishes “thoughtcrimes,” which are personal and political thoughts unapproved by the state. The Thought Police monitor citizens and arrest anyone who engages in such crimes, to prevent personal autonomy and freedom of thought, thus providing the state with immense power and control over the populace.

The big government approach inherent in the Online Harms Act and others is antithetical to the idea of personal freedom. Famed English philosopher J.S. Mill was particularly observant in recognizing the perils of controlling and punishing speech government officials deem “dangerous.” In his book On Liberty, Mill stated “If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth; and since the general of prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.”

Orwell’s famous novel provides a guidebook for what governments should avoid doing at all costs. Unfortunately, hints of 1984 have seeped into government policy in Canada today. The erosion of personal freedom is not something we should take for granted anymore.

Authors: 

 

Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

‘We are in the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history’

Published on July 21, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Tom Olohan

“It’s hard to get a free people to give up freedom, you have to make them afraid, you have to make them very afraid. And that’s why you hear this echo chamber that its free speech that’s endangering us”

Jonathan Turley, a Fox News contributor and George Washington University law professor, issued some stark warnings on the future of free speech.

During the July 12 episode of MRC UnCensored, MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider spoke with Turley about his new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, and his observations about free speech and the media from a long and successful career.

Turley warned that journalism schools have abandoned long-held standards and young Americans have been indoctrinated against free speech. He made clear that a dangerous public-private partnership between powerful institutions threatened the future of the First Amendment.

“We are now in what the book refers to as the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history, and the reason is indeed this alliance that has never formed before, of the government, corporations, academia [and] the media, all aligned against free speech,” he said.

 

Turley followed with a description of this alliance’s twisted rationale. “You now have on college campuses and in many media outlets, the unrelenting mantra that free speech is dangerous, that it is threatening us, threatening jobs, even threatening lives,” Turley said. “And the idea here is very simple, it’s hard to get a free people to give up freedom, you have to make them afraid, you have to make them very afraid. And that’s why you hear this echo chamber that its free speech that’s endangering us and if you just give the government more power over your speech you’ll be happy and safer.”

When Turley warned that the “wave” of censorship arriving in America “began in Europe,” Schneider lamented that American free speech had once inspired advocates of freedom in Europe and the world, such as Lech Wałęsa and Václav Havel. “And something has changed again, in Europe, in here, where people now see free speech as a threat to democracy, as a pose to the most important central element of democracy.”

Turley dug deep from his experience and observations to explain this state of affairs. He mentioned that he had poured 30 years of work into his book and observed the media make a massive turn for the worse during that period.

The Fox News contributor also noted that journalism schools have officially abandoned objectivity and neutrality. Turley made the point that the media had abandoned its principles in part because new graduates had been taught to abandon them: “J-schools now teach that, that objectivity and neutrality get in the way of social and political agendas. That’s what we’re producing from J-schools and its having an impact.”

Reprinted with permission from NewsBusters.

Continue Reading

Trending

X