Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Hurting someone’s feelings could be punishable under Canadian hate crime bill: legal expert

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms president John Carpay said that Bill C-9 in effect seeks to make it the law to ‘punish the emotion of hate.’

One of Canada’s leading constitutional law experts blasted a new Liberal “hate crime” bill as something that would “empower police” and the government to go after those it deems have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.

In a recent commentary piece posted by The Epoch Times, Canadian legal expert and lawyer John Carpay, founder and president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), observed that the Liberals’ Bill C-9, or Combating Hate Act, is dangerous.

Canada’s Criminal Code should punish bad behaviour, not bad feelings. Canadians need protection from crime, not from offensive opinions that might be considered ‘hateful’ by some but not by others,” Carpay wrote.

Carpay said that it seems the Liberals are “fixated on further criminalizing feelings of hatred that criminals may have had when carrying out their crimes.”

“Defining hate is near-impossible, as can be seen whenever politicians and judges attempt to do so,” he wrote.

Bill C-9 was brought forth in the House of Commons on September 19 by Justice Minister Sean Fraser.

The Liberals have boasted that the bill will make it a crime for people to block the entrance to, or intimidate people from attending, a church or other place of worship, a school, or a community center. The bill would also make it a crime to promote so-called hate symbols and would, in effect, ban the display of certain symbols such as the Nazi flag.

Bill C-9 reads, regarding what is deemed “hateful,” that “For greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred … solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”

Carpay said Bill C-9 “allows Canadians to express ‘disdain’ and ‘dislike’ without worrying about facing criminal charges, yet Canadians must be careful not to possess illegal emotions that involve ‘detestation’ or ‘vilification.’ It’s not ‘hate’ to discredit, humiliate, hurt, offend, and dislike people; it is “hate” to detest and vilify people. Are we clear?”

The new bill increases the maximum penalty a judge can give to people convicted of crimes.

“If the judge decides that the convicted person’s emotions crossed from the legal territory of ‘disdain’ and ‘dislike’ into the crime of feeling ‘detestation’ or ‘vilification,’” Carpay noted.

This means that for a minor crime, where the maximum penalty is two years, a new “hate” crime offense could land someone in jail for up to five years.

“For the man convicted of a crime with a maximum penalty of five years in jail, if the judge determines that he possessed ‘hate’ in his heart, the judge can lock him up for 10 years instead of five,” Carpay stated.

“For more serious crimes, where the maximum penalty is 14 or more years in jail, if the judge thinks the convicted person was ‘hateful,’ the sentence can be imprisonment for life.”

The Liberals’ Bill C-9 has been blasted by the Canadian Conservative Party as a “dangerous” piece of legislation.

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis warned it will open the door for authorities to possibly prosecute Canadians’ speech deemed “hateful.”

Carpay: Bill would ‘empower’ police, government

As it stands, Section 319(6) of Canada’s Criminal Code mandates consent of the nation’s attorney general before a person can be charged with a hate crime. Lewis and Carpay warned that Bill C-9 will eliminate this protection.

“Bill C-9 makes existing laws worse by empowering police to use the Criminal Code to impose their own subjective beliefs about what a police officer personally feels is ‘hateful.’ The bill does this by repealing an important safeguard that protects the free speech of all Canadians, namely the requirement that the attorney general consent to any prosecution for hate speech offences,” Carpay said.

He observed that the attorney general consent “safeguard,” as is the case now, has allowed hate speech prosecutions to proceed, “but only after a review by a higher authority.”

Fraser himself said that “by removing this step, law enforcement would be able to act quickly.”

Carpay noted how the bills promise to make it a “crime” to intimidate a church or place of worship, which is “not true.”

“It is already a crime to utter threats, intentionally provoke a state of fear in people, engage in physical contact (even in a minor way), and physically obstruct people from going about their business,” he wrote.

“Bill C-9 creates a duplicative and superfluous criminal offence of impeding access to a house of worship by intentionally provoking a state of fear; this conduct is already criminal under existing laws. By creating a redundant new law, Bill C-9 appears to be an exercise in virtue-signaling.”

Carpay also lamented how the bill mentions “rising antisemitism” but says nothing about the arson attacks on Catholic and Christian churches plaguing Canada.

“Anti-Catholic hate is obviously not on the minister’s radar. If it was, he would have mentioned it when introducing the Combatting Hate Act,” Carpay wrote.

“It goes to show how Bill C-9 is primarily about politics and appearances, even while undermining free expression in Canada.”

Since taking power in 2015, the Liberal government has brought forth many new bills that, in effect, censor internet content as well as go after people’s ability to speak their minds.

Censorship Industrial Complex

EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech

Published on

logo

By

Presented as a defense of democracy, the plan reads more like the architecture of a managed reality.

European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.
Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.
At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”
The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.
One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.
The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”
Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”
In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.
The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.
Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”
The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organizations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”
In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.
Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.
The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”
Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.
The Commission will also fund a “common research support framework,” giving select researchers privileged access to non-public platform data via the
Digital Services Act (DSA) and Political Advertising Regulation.
Officially, this aims to aid academic research, but it could also allow state-linked analysts to map, classify, and suppress online viewpoints deemed undesirable.
Plans extend further into media law. The European Commission intends to revisit the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to ensure “viewers – particularly younger ones – are adequately protected when they consume audiovisual content online.”
While framed around youth protection, such language opens the door to broad filtering and regulation of online media.
Another initiative seeks to enlist digital personalities through a “voluntary network of influencers to raise awareness about relevant EU rules, including the DSA.” Brussels will “consider the role of influencers” during its upcoming AVMSD review.
Though presented as transparent outreach, the move effectively turns social media figures into de facto promoters of official EU messaging, reshaping public conversation under the guise of awareness.
The Shield also introduces a “Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol” between the EU and signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation to “facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations.”
This could enable coordinated suppression of narratives across borders. Large platforms exceeding 45 million EU users face compliance audits, with penalties reaching 6% of global revenue or even platform bans, making voluntary cooperation more symbolic than real.
A further layer comes with the forthcoming “Blueprint for countering FIMI and disinformation,” offering governments standardized guidance to “anticipate, detect and respond” to perceived information threats. Such protocols risk transforming free expression into a regulated domain managed under preemptive suspicion.
Existing structures are being fortified, too. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), already central to “disinformation” monitoring, will receive expanded authority for election and crisis surveillance. This effectively deepens the fusion of state oversight and online communication control.
Funding through the “Media Resilience Programme” will channel EU resources to preferred outlets, while regulators examine ways to “strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest.”
This includes “impact investments in the news media sector” and efforts to build transnational platforms promoting mainstream narratives. Though described as supporting “independent and local journalism,” the model risks reinforcing state-aligned voices while sidelining dissenting ones.
Education and culture are not exempt. The Commission plans “Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training,” along with new “media literacy” programs and an “independent network for media literacy.”
While such initiatives appear benign, they often operate on the assumption that government-approved information is inherently trustworthy, conditioning future generations to equate official consensus with truth.
Viewed as a whole, the European Democracy Shield represents a major institutional step toward centralized narrative management in the European Union.
Under the language of “protection,” Brussels is constructing a comprehensive apparatus for monitoring and shaping the flow of information.
For a continent that once defined itself through open debate and free thought, this growing web of bureaucratic control signals a troubling shift.
Efforts framed as defense against disinformation now risk becoming tools for suppressing dissent, a paradox that may leave European democracy less free in the name of making it “safe.”
You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.
Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.
With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.
If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.
Thank you for your support.
Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

School Cannot Force Students To Use Preferred Pronouns, US Federal Court Rules

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jaryn Crouson

“Our system forbids public schools from becoming ‘enclaves of totalitarianism.’”

A federal appeals court in Ohio ruled Thursday that students cannot be forced to use preferred pronouns in school.

Defending Education (DE) filed the suit against Olentangy Local School District (OLSD) in 2023, arguing the district’s anti-harassment policy that requires students to use the “preferred pronouns” of others violates students’ First Amendment rights by “compelling students to affirm beliefs about sex and gender that are contrary to their own deeply held beliefs.” Although a lower court attempted to shoot down the challenge, the appeals court ruled in a 10-7 decision that the school cannot “wield their authority to compel speech or demand silence from citizens who disagree with the regulators’ politically controversial preferred new form of grammar.”

Because the school considers transgender students to be a protected class, students who violated the anti-harassment policy by referring to such students by their biological sex risked punishments such as suspension and expulsion, according to DE.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

“American history and tradition uphold the majority’s decision to strike down the school’s pronoun policy,” the court wrote in its opinion. “Over hundreds of years, grammar has developed in America without governmental interference. Consistent with our historical tradition and our cherished First Amendment, the pronoun debate must be won through individual persuasion, not government coercion. Our system forbids public schools from becoming ‘enclaves of totalitarianism.’”

OLSD did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

“We are deeply gratified by the Sixth Circuit’s intensive analysis not only of our case but the state of student First Amendment rights in the modern era,” Nicole Neily, founder and president of DE, said in a statement. “The court’s decision – and its many concurrences – articulate the importance of free speech, the limits and perils of public schools claiming to act in loco parentis, and the critical role of persuasion – rather than coercion – in America’s public square.”

“Despite its ham-fisted attempt to moot the case, Olentangy School District was sternly reminded by the 6th circuit en banc court that it cannot force students to express a viewpoint on gender identity with which they disagree, nor extend its reach beyond the schoolhouse threshold into matters better suited to an exercise of parental authority,” Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at DE, said in a statement. “A resounding victory for student speech and parental rights was long overdue for families in the school district and we are thrilled the court’s ruling will benefit others seeking to vindicate their rights in the classroom and beyond.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X