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
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.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Conservatives slam Liberal bill to allow police to search through Canadians’ mail
From LifeSiteNews
Conservatives are warning that the Liberals’ new border bill will allow police to search Canadians’ mail.
During a June 5 debate in the House of Commons, Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Frank Caputo voiced concerns over Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, which will permit police and government officials to open and examine Canadians’ mail.
“This is something I know I am going to get mail about,” Caputo said. “We are now talking about language in the Charter, what is referred to as an expectation of privacy.”
Bill C-2, introduced by the Liberals under Prime Minister Mark Carney, is framed as legislation to combat drugs making their way across the border. However, many have pointed out that it severely infringes on Canadians’ Charter rights.
The Liberals have failed to address this concern in their 130-page legislation, leading Conservatives to demand accountability.
“If they can put out a 130-page bill, certainly they can put out a four or five-page Charter statement,” he said. “Certainly, somebody in the government asked if it was Charter compliant — but they won’t say.”
Under Bill C-2, Canada would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to “remove barriers that prevent police from searching mail, where authorized to do so in accordance with an Act of Parliament, to carry out a criminal investigation.”
It also seeks to “expand Canada Post inspection authority to open mail.”
As LifeSiteNews previously reported, legal organizations have warned that the legislation could lead to a cashless economy as it would ban cash payments over $10,000.
“Part 11 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to prohibit certain entities from accepting cash deposits from third parties and certain persons or entities from accepting cash payments, donations or deposits of $10,000 or more,” the legislation proposes.
In a June 4 X post, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) warned that “If Bill C-2 passes, it will become a Criminal Code offence for businesses, professionals, and charities to accept cash donations, deposits, or payments of $10,000 or more. Even if the $10,000 payment or donation is broken down into several smaller cash transactions, it will still be a crime for a business or charity to receive it.”
The JCCF pointed out that while cash payments of $10,000 are not common for Canadians, the government can easily reduce “the legal amount to $5,000, then $1,000, then $100, and eventually nothing.”
“Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step towards tyranny and totalitarianism,” the organization warned. “Cash gives citizens privacy, autonomy, and freedom from surveillance by government and by banks, credit card companies, and other corporations.”
Similarly, Carney’s move to restrict Canadians is hardly surprising considering his close ties to the World Economic Forum and push for digital currency.
In a 2021 article, the National Post noted that “since the advent of the COVID pandemic, Carney has been front and centre in the promotion of a political agenda known as the ‘Great Reset,’ or the ‘Green New Deal,’ or ‘Building Back Better.’
“Carney’s Brave New World will be one of severely constrained choice, less flying, less meat, more inconvenience and more poverty,” the outlet continued.
In light of Carney’s new leadership over Canadians, many are sounding alarm over his distinctly anti-freedom ideas.
Carney, who as reported by LifeSiteNews, has admitted he is an “elitist” and a “globalist.” Just recently, he criticized U.S. President Donald Trump for targeting woke ideology and has vowed to promote “inclusiveness” in Canada.
Carney also said that he is willing to use all government powers, including “emergency powers,” to enforce his energy plan.
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Crime24 hours ago
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
-
Addictions1 day ago
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day ago
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
-
Business23 hours ago
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Courageous Discourse21 hours agoHealthcare Blockbuster – RFK Jr removes all 17 members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel!
-
Business3 hours agoEU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
-
Health17 hours agoRFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’
-
Censorship Industrial Complex20 hours ago
Alberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill