Connect with us

National

Former human rights tribunal chair speaks out against Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms’ bill

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

‘If this passes, God help us, because I don’t know where it will go,’ former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal David Thomas warned of Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms’ bill.

A former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has warned that the Trudeau government’s proposed “Online Harms” bill could have a devastating impact on speech in the nation.

During a March 13 interview with independent media outlet True North, lawyer and former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal David Thomas blasted Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which could jail Canadians for “hate speech,” warning Canadians to be careful what they post online.  

“What we are likely to see right away is a chilling effect,” Thomas explained, adding that the proposed legislation will have “a big impact on free political discourse in this country and I think that’s what we should all be concerned about immediately.”  

“If this passes, God help us, because I don’t know where it will go,” he lamented.  

Appointed in 2014 for a seven-year term, Thomas is the former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the body tasked with adjudicating violations of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  

“The reason I am speaking out right now is that nobody who is on the tribunal is free to speak, they’re like judges sitting on the bench,” he revealed.   

“That’s why I think it’s important for somebody with inside knowledge to convey these concerns about this legislation,” Thomas continued.  

He explained that the “vagueness” of the proposed legislation means that “that nobody really knows” what would be considered “hate speech.” He warned it would cause uncertainty and fear across Canada. 

Thomas described the Online Harms Act as “an incredibly damping piece of legislation, which I think, of course, will infringe on our Charter rights to freedom of expression.” 

Thomas further warned that if the bill is passed, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal will be overrun with the number of cases against Canadians for “hate speech.” 

“To adjudicate these cases themselves takes years. When someone lodges a complaint when they get a final decision, it would not be surprising if it took three to five years or even longer,” he predicted.   

“That’s a terrible thing, especially for an administrative tribunal which is supposed to be delivering access to justice to the public,” Thomas lamented.  

Bill C-63, introduced a few weeks ago, will create the Online Harms Act and 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. 

However, the bill also seeks to punish “hate speech” and increase punishments for existing hate propaganda offenses in a substantial manner. 

Penalties for violations of the proposed law include $20,000 fines and jail time, including life in prison for what it deems the most serious offenses.  

According to the proposed legislation, the bill would not only punish those who committed a “hate crime” but also those suspected of committing one in the future.   

“A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit; (a)an offence under section 318 or any of subsections 319(1) to (2.‍1); or (b) an offence under section 320.‍1001,” the text of the bill reads.  

Thomas is not alone in his concerns over the legislation. Increasingly, prominent Canadians and even Americans have begun commenting on Trudeau’s authoritarian rule over Canada, particularly his restricting of internet speech. 

Earlier this week, tech mogul Elon Musk called the proposed legislation “insane” as the new law would “allow judges to hand down life sentences for ‘speech crimes.’” 

In late February, prominent Canadian anti-woke psychologist Jordan Peterson warned the new bill would undoubtedly lead to his criminalization. 

Similarly, a top constitutional lawyer warned LifeSiteNews that the legislation will allow a yet-to-be-formed digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the law, raising “serious concerns for the freedom of expression” of Canadians online. 

Additionally, Campaign Life Coalition recently warned that Bill C-63 will stifle free speech and crush pro-life activism. 

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

Agriculture

Was The Ostrich “Cull” A Criminal Act?

Published on

Trish Wood is Critical Trish Wood

Based on our Criminal Code — the answer is yes!

There is little doubt in my mind that what occurred at Universal Ostrich Farms represents a violation of our Criminal Code. This is not hyperbole for clicks — but rather a conclusion based on years as a science writer and judicial reporter.

The idea of code violations really took hold for me yesterday when I read a note posted by a follower from a Canadian veterinarian who is outraged over the cruelty and bad science that underpin this ugly chapter in our history.

But first: There are reports from the ostrich farm that there were two rounds of shooting. One at night, in the dark and another in the morning. If true, this suggests a horror. That some birds weren’t killed instantly. Did some lay dying overnight and “finished off” in daylight? Help me understand how this could even happen? Why were some of the corpses beheaded – which is an unapproved method of killing. Were some found alive after the snipers left and beheaded by CFIA staff?

It’s been reported, but not verified, that roughly 1000 rounds (bullets) were fired to kill between 300 and 350 birds. Simple math says — three shots each, give or take. But we know it wouldn’t have worked out that way. Some would have died instantly and others would have been shot repeatedly — perhaps fighting and writhing until the end. This outcome should have been predicted. We need to see the plan. What instructions were the shooters given and by whom?

This “culling” requires a criminal prosecution and I do hope that someone visits a local lawyer about how to push a Crown for charges. There will be government recordings and they should be made public. I suspect this event went badly off the rails.

Because they were firing at night, in order to prevent media from attaining the gruesome truth, it’s likely some of the marksmen missed their targets even with portable lighting and scopes. That kill shot might have been the head — which is quite small and always moving. The body is less likely an instant kill but an easier target.

We must demand both the criminal, animal cruelty investigation and a public inquiry, under oath to determine how CFIA argues this was necessary. I do hope the veterinary science schools will step up — especially Guelph which is considered one of the best in the world.

Below is the criminal code on animal cruelty.

After an international conference on Avian Flu — a Swedish vet and academic wrote a paper on acceptable killing methods. Shooting birds is listed under “Less Acceptable”. Here is the link.

CFIA’s own handbook says killing by shooting should only be used as a last resort. From a CTV story.

The manual says gunshots should be considered “as a last resort” for euthanasia, while breaking a bird’s neck is also appropriate in some situations, and is listed among methods “when dealing with larger birds such as emus and ostriches.”

It’s difficult to know what actually happened during the actual killing but accounts of the infamous 1932 Emu War in Australia suggest the birds would have been very aware they were about to die. We can understand better the bird’s experience of it by looking at that case given the similarities between these species.

The military was deployed with machine guns to cull emus that had been ruining local farm crops. History reports that the emus won the battle because they were using strategy and tactics to stay alive including posting lookouts. From Britanica, link here.

“It soon became clear that one emu in each group served as a lookout to warn the others, giving them time to escape. Meredith stated publicly that the emus could “face machine guns with the invulnerability of tanks.” Such statements made military action against the emus increasingly unpopular, with opponents arguing that such treatment of emus was inhumane.”

These are intelligent creatures with a will to live and to protect themselves.

Emus proved difficult to kill during the Emu War for a combination of reasons related to their natural resilience, speed, unpredictable behaviour, and the unsuitability of the military’s tactics and equipment.

This is another Jenga pull in our country’s downfall at the hands of robotic bureaucrats and “scientists” who long ago parked their humanity in service of groupthink and politics.

Why didn’t CFIA take advantage of offers to keep the birds alive by moving them to the United States? The same reason the Liberal government invoked violence and the Emergencies Act against peaceful protestors even though there was a deal being struck with the city and Convoy leaders wanted to talk.

It is the flex. The kind used around the world by tyrants to keep uppity citizens frightened and docile — which Canada most certainly is these days.

We are a signatory to a treaty with the animal equivalent of the WHO – called the World Organization for Animal Health, headquartered in Paris. This is to protect our poultry producers and their markets.

It is this international body that governs how CFIA behaves. And it rules with the same kind of fear mongering propaganda that the human version does. A good idea — badly executed and designed to save industry at any cost. Culling sick animals is sometimes necessary. But that’s not what happened at the ostrich farm.

Stay critical.

#truthovertribe

Trish Wood is Critical is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Continue Reading

Business

CBC cashes in on Carney as the news industry playing field tilts further in its favour, crippling the competition

Published on

“Private” sector will find it more difficult to compete. Plus! Outrage over manipulation of Trump speech and the common error of burying balance

These are happy days at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

With the threat of a “defund the CBC” Conservative government fading ever faster in its rearview mirror, the nation’s publicly-funded commercial news and entertainment corporation (aka public broadcaster) is poised to take an even larger share of the market thanks to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first budget.

Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.

Your encouragement is appreciated.

Sure, tens of thousands of public sector employees may be about to lose their jobs, services face cutbacks and the feds might be rewriting collective bargaining rules in their favour. But as we learned Nov. 4, the CBC will – as promised in last spring’s election – get a $150 million top up to the $1.4 billion Parliament already allocates to it. There’s every chance that means it will be an even more aggressive competitor in the news market for viewers, listeners, readers and advertisers. One in three working journalists in the country already work for CBC/Radio Canada. If an 11 percent hike in funding is reflected in newsroom job growth, that number could move closer to 37 per cent.

Federal funding for “private sector” news organizations has remained flat (with the exception of a $12 million boost to a fund introduced as Covid relief). That means the news industry playing field has been tilted even more in the CBC’s favour, making it harder for outlets that are not the CBC to compete or even survive. There will be less opportunity for news innovators and increased private sector job losses will lead to demands for larger subsidies from industry lobby groups such as News Media Canada and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Good news for the CBC means bad news for others. This is either a really bad mistake by Carney or, making the CBC even more dominant as a news source (it has the most popular domestic website) is part of his plan.

Further brightening the outlook for journos at the Mother Corp was the news from CBC President Marie-Philippe Bouchard that there’s no need to investigate antisemitism within its ranks and, while its relationship with rural and western Canadians could be better, it’s unlikely the status quo will be disrupted. Editor in Chief Brodie Fenlon confirmed that conclusion by testifying before a Senate committee that the CBC’s newsrooms are the least biased he’s ever worked in.

Yup, life at the Mother Corp’s looking rosier than ever.

Perhaps as an unintended metaphor for CBC’s growth at private media’s expense, Postmedia’s Brian Passifiume illustrated his relative poverty by jocularly complaining about the lack of a free lunch for those within the budget lockup.

Time was when journos would refuse a free lunch from a subject of their coverage. Now they complain publicly about not getting one.


Speaking of the budget, a couple of items caught the eye.

One was the jaw-dropping Tweet by the Hill Times’ Stu Benson noting how journalists were partying post-budget at Ottawa’s trendy Metro Brasserie with government MPs and bigwigs. It, accompanied by photos, stated:

“Hundreds of politicos, journalists, and libatious Liberals joined Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne for a post-budget victory lap at the @MetroBrasserie_ on Nov. 4 at @EarnscliffeCda X @politicoottawa’s”

In response, Twitter sage Norman Spector shared Benson’s post and wrote:

“How it works in Ottawa: Politicos, journalists and Liberals at a post-budget victory lap – a shindig co-sponsored by a lobbying firm.”

And media wonder why so many no longer have faith in them?

The other item involved what is termed an “advance” story posted by the CBC. The problem wasn’t that the story failed to contain all the key elements and expected perspectives. It did. The problem was that none of those were introduced at all until the 10th paragraph and you have to go another 28 paragraphs or so before the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP are even mentioned, making the piece read like a government news release. This is a common error in newsrooms where staff should know by now that most people consume news by reading a headline and – give or take – the top six paragraphs before moving on.

So, unless reporters introduce balance within the first three paragraphs, most people will be unaware that alternative views exist.

CBC is hardly alone in making this error, although its dominance in the market enhances its impact.


Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.

Your encouragement is appreciated.

During my spells in Ottawa – briefly within the Parliamentary Press Gallery and longer at the CRTC – I was struck by how little so many reporters working there know about how government and its institutions actually work.

Most, in my recollection, cover only the drama, intrigue and theatre of politics. For too many, the daily routine consists of scanning news releases, phoning their contacts and watching Question Period on CPAC before venturing (maybe) across Wellington Street (is it still called that?) for a scrum or two.

What most don’t bother with at all are some of the most important aspects of the machinery of government such as the work of committees, the regulations that follow passage of legislation or, as Blacklock’s Reporter Publisher Holly Doan pointed out last week, the estimates that follow a budget.

These are important matters and the lack of coverage by subsidized media leaves the public ill-informed. For instance, as the Liberals move to buy off opposition MPs to form a majority government people did not vote for, they will also be able to claim control over committees.

So, as the nation morphs inexorably into a permanent one-party state, the absence of coverage in these areas will be increasingly evident. If you want to be a fully informed citizen, find a news outlet that covers these important matters and subscribe.

Share

A little more than a year ago, people were being fired at CTV for manipulating quotes from Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

That practice delivered an even more devastating impact on public trust in journalism when it was revealed that the BBC program Panorama had blended two phrases from US President Donald Trump. As The Standard reported:

In a clip from a Panorama programme, broadcast before the election, Trump appears to tell supporters: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol…and I’ll be there with you. And we fight, we fight like hell.

“But the words were taken from different sections of his speech, nearly an hour apart. In the original footage, his language is more restrained: “We’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women,” adding his supporters will march “peacefully and patriotically” to make their voices heard.”

Opposition MPs are demanding an inquiry. In this clip, GB News takes no prisoners. Reports Saturday indicate the chair of the BBC would be officially apologizing.


Michael Geist is not a journalist. He’s a law professor and internet expert. And his coverage of the budget – in a Substack note – was a fabulous example of the importance of a free and open internet as a source of valuable information about important matters overlooked by mainstream media. He said:

“Canadian government departments are big believers that AI will be the source of reducing expenses. Finance, Justice, CRTC, Fisheries, CRA, ESDC all cite new efficiencies from AI to explain how they will meet the 15% spending reduction target in the budget.”

And, as I wrote in The Line a couple of months back:

“Two years ago, the Liberals were hoping to claim they’d saved legacy media from Big Tech. All they really did was stake it for AI to devour.”

But you won’t read that in legacy media. Just here. Tell your friends.

Oh and one last treat for those of you who enjoy a snappy front page:


Readers will notice a new DONATE button has been added. Please consider making use of it and help us save journalism from bad journalism.

Donate

(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)

Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to The Rewrite.

Your encouragement is appreciated.

Continue Reading

Trending

X