Connect with us

Media

Trudeau’s ‘online harms’ legislation includes life imprisonment for ‘hate speech’

Published

1 year ago

10 minute read

Justice Minister Arif Virani

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

While the government claims the bill is intended to protect kids, Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre said Liberals are looking for clever ways to enact internet censorship laws.

Details of new “online harms” legislation to regulate the internet have emerged, revealing that the bill could lead to more people jailed for life or fined $20,000 for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.

Bill C-63 is titled “An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.”

It was introduced by Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons today and passed its first reading in the afternoon.

The new bill 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 under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claim will target certain cases of internet content removal, notably those involving child sexual abuse and pornography.

According to the Trudeau government, Bill C-63 aims to protect kids from online harms and crack down on non-consensual deep-fake pornography involving children and will target seven types of online harms, such as hate speech, terrorist content, incitement to violence, the sharing of non-consensual intimate images, child exploitation, cyberbullying and inciting self-harm.

Virani had many times last year hinted a new Online Harms Act bill would be forthcoming.

While the Trudeau government claims the bill is being created to protect kids, Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) leader Pierre Poilievre said the federal government is looking for clever ways to enact internet censorship laws.

During a February 21, press conference, Poilievre said that Trudeau is looking to in effect criminalize speech with he does not like.

“What does Justin Trudeau mean when he says the word ‘hate speech?’ He means speech he hates,” Poilievre said.

As part of the new bill, the Trudeau Liberals are looking to increase punishments for existing hate propaganda offenses in a substantial manner.

The Online Harms Act will also amend Canada’s Human Rights Act to put back in place a hate speech provision, specifically Section 13 of the Act, that the previous Conservative government under Stephen Harper had repealed in 2013 after it was found to have violated one’s freedom of expression.

The text of the bill, released Monday afternoon, reads that the Canadian Human Rights Act will be amended to add a section “13” to it.

This section reads, “It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”

“In this section, hate speech means the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination,” the bill reads.

A “Clarification – hate speech” in the bill reads, “For greater certainty, the content of a communication does not express detestation or vilification, for the purposes of subsection (8), solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”

Earlier Monday, details of the bill were released to the media in a technical briefing.

“New standalone hate crime offence that would apply to every offence in the Criminal Code and in any other Act of Parliament, allowing penalties up to life imprisonment to denounce and deter this hateful conduct as a crime in itself,” the technical briefing reads.

“The maximum punishments for the four hate propaganda offences from 5 years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide and from 2 years to 5 years for the others when persecuted by way of indictment.”

For now, the law will affect all social media platforms as well as live-streamed video services, notably Meta and Google (YouTube).

Bill creates three ‘Digital Safety’ positions to enforce rules and let anyone file ‘complaints’

Bill C-63 mandates the creation of the Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office.

The ombudsperson along with the other offices will be charged with dealing with public complaints regarding online content as well as put forth a regulatory function in a five-person panel “appointed by the government.” This panel will be charged with monitoring internet platform behaviors to hold people “accountable.”

Bill C-63 also includes text to amend Canada’s Criminal Code and Human Rights Act to define “hatred” as “Content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.‍ (contenu fomentant la haine).”

Most worryingly, the new bill will allow it so that anyone can file a complaint against another person with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for “posting hate speech online” that is deemed “discriminatory” against a wide range of so-called protected categories, notably gender, race, those, or other areas.

If a person is found guilty of violating the Human Rights Act by going against what the government deems to be hate speech, they face fines of $20,000 along with being mandated to take down any postings online, notably on social media.

Many aspects of Bill C-63 come from a lapsed bill from 2021.

In June 2021, then-Justice Minister David Lametti introduced Bill 36, “An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act (hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech).”

It was blasted as a controversial “hate speech” law that would give police the power to “do something” about online “hate.”

It was feared that it would target bloggers and social media users for speaking their minds.

Bill C-36 included text to amend Canada’s Criminal Code and Human Rights Act to define “hatred” as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain (haine).”

If passed, the bill would theoretically allow a tribunal to judge anyone who has a complaint of online “hate” leveled against them, even if he has not committed a crime. If found guilty, the person would be in violation of the new law and could face fines of $70,000 as well as house arrest.

Two other Trudeau bills dealing with freedom as it relates to the internet have become law, the first being Bill C-11, or the Online Streaming Act, that mandates Canada’s broadcast regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), oversee regulating online content on platforms such as YouTube and Netflix to ensure that such platforms are promoting content in accordance with a variety of its guidelines.

Trudeau’s other internet censorship law, the Online News Act, was passed by the Senate in June 2023.

The law mandates that Big Tech companies pay to publish Canadian content on their platforms. As a result, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, blocked all access to news content in Canada. Google has promised to do the same rather than pay the fees laid out in the new legislation.

Critics of recent laws such as tech mogul Elon Musk have said it shows “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.”

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
Business / 4 hours ago

RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate

International / 4 hours ago

RFK Jr. tells Tucker how Big Pharma uses ‘perverse incentives’ to get vaccines approved

Censorship Industrial Complex / 4 hours ago

Global media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report

Business

The CBC is a government-funded giant no one watches

Published on June 21, 2025

By

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Kris Sims

The CBC is draining taxpayer money while Canadians tune out. It’s time to stop funding a media giant that’s become a political pawn

The CBC is a taxpayer-funded failure, and it’s time to pull the plug. Yet during the election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney pledged to pump another $150 million into the broadcaster, even as the CBC was covering his campaign. That’s a blatant conflict of interest, and it underlines why government-funded journalism must end.

The CBC even reported on that announcement, running a headline calling itself “underfunded.” Think about that. Imagine being a CBC employee asking Carney questions at a campaign news conference, while knowing that if he wins, your employer gets a bigger cheque. Meanwhile, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has pledged to defund the CBC. The broadcaster is literally covering a story that determines its future funding—and pretending there’s no conflict.

This kind of entanglement isn’t journalism. It’s political theatre. When reporters’ paycheques depend on who wins the election, public trust is shattered.

And the rot goes even deeper. In the Throne Speech, the Carney government vowed to “protect the institutions that bring these cultures and this identity to the world, like CBC/RadioCanada.” Before the election, a federal report recommended nearly doubling the CBC’s annual funding. Former heritage minister Pascale St-Onge said Canada should match the G7 average of $62 per person per year—a move that would balloon the CBC’s budget to $2.5 billion annually. That would nearly double the CBC’s current public funding, which already exceeds $1.2 billion per year.

To put that in perspective, $2.5 billion could cover the annual grocery bill for more than 150,000 Canadian families. But Ottawa wants to shovel more cash at an organization most Canadians don’t even watch.

St-Onge also proposed expanding the CBC’s mandate to “fight disinformation,” suggesting it should play a formal role in “helping the Canadian population understand fact-based information.” The federal government says this is about countering false or misleading information online—so-called “disinformation.” But the Carney platform took it further, pledging to “fully equip” the CBC to combat disinformation so Canadians “have a news source
they know they can trust.”

That raises troubling questions. Will the CBC become an official state fact-checker? Who decides what qualifies as “disinformation”? This isn’t about journalism anymore—it’s about control.

Meanwhile, accountability is nonexistent. Despite years of public backlash over lavish executive compensation, the CBC hasn’t cleaned up its act. Former CEO Catherine Tait earned nearly half a million dollars annually. Her successor, Marie Philippe Bouchard, will rake in up to $562,700. Bonuses were scrapped after criticism—but base salaries were quietly hiked instead. Canadians struggling with inflation and rising costs are footing the bill for bloated executive pay at a broadcaster few of them even watch.

The CBC’s flagship English-language prime-time news show draws just 1.8 per cent of available viewers. That means more than 98 per cent of TV-viewing Canadians are tuning out. The public isn’t buying what the CBC is selling—but they’re being forced to pay for it anyway.

Government-funded journalism is a conflict of interest by design. The CBC is expensive, unpopular, and unaccountable. It doesn’t need more money. It needs to stand on its own—or not at all.

Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

International

Seattle Police Department investigating attack on journalist during Antifa protests

Published on June 21, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By 

“I turned around and somebody pulled him back and he kicked me in the face. I pulled out pepper spray and I nailed him in the face, and then I retreated and called 911 and then the police never showed up.” Higby said he waited for police for about 45 minutes but they never came.

Seattle Police are investigating an attack on an independent conservative journalist last weekend during anti-Trump and anti-ICE rallies in Seattle.

Cam Higby says he was assaulted by Antifa members as he attended the sometimes violent “No Kings Day” protests in Seattle at a Department of Homeland Security Building (DHS) on June 14.

Separately, independent journalist Brandi Kruse says she also was assaulted by Antifa members in Tukwila, just south of Seattle. Both attacks were captured on video posted to social media.

“It was out of nowhere, completely out of nowhere that they got violent,” said Higby, whose attack was captured on vide and posted to X. The attack left him bloodied, bruised and with a concussion that is still causing headaches, vision impairment and memory issues nearly a week later, he said.

In a Friday interview, Higby told The Center Square he had been covering the protests in Seattle all day and took a seat on the ground near the federal building by himself when the assailants came out of nowhere.

“They took over the streets, they lit fires to cars, they shot fireworks at cars. Then it’s out of nowhere where this guy yells, ‘Hey Cam, it’s time for you to leave,’ and they charged me and I knew one of them and I’d identified him earlier in the night because he threatened to kill me three weeks earlier,” Higby. told The Center Square

The attacker he was referring threatened to kill Higby in an Instagram post, he said, which was reported to police.

“They crossed the street to get to me and charged me and before I could stand up, I was pinned up against the wall,” said Higby. “They were grabbing at my gas mask and my helmet and just keeping me in place and one of them picked me up and choked me out from the rear. And then he released me, punched me twice in the head with SAP gloves which were filled with steal or lead shot. I turned around and somebody pulled him back and he kicked me in the face. I pulled out pepper spray and I nailed him in the face, and then I retreated and called 911 and then the police never showed up.”

Higby said he waited for police for about 45 minutes but they never came.

Video journalist Jonathan Cho, who was also covering protests, picked him up and took him back to his car across town, Highboy said.

Higby said he went to urgent care the next morning and then to the emergency room when his symptoms related to the concussion were getting worse.

“They said if I had a brain bleed, I’d already be dead. I think it’s very likely that if I wasn’t wearing a helmet, that I would have been either killed or critical,” Higby said.

Kruse, host of the unDivided video podcast, told The Center Square she had only been at the Tukwila protest scene for 30 seconds when she was attacked.

“I didn’t even get a chance to cover it. Within 30 seconds of walking up, I heard a couple of people shout, ‘that’s Brandi Kruse.’ And then they started to form around me, and initially it was they were blocking my camera with their umbrellas because they don’t want you to document their criminal conduct. And then they started spraying water at me, and then they got a little more aggressive,” Kruse said. “They were dumping full bottles of water and hurling bottles of water and it hit me a couple of times from behind.”

Kruse said she tried to walk away but was followed with protesters pushing signs into her face and continuing to hurl things at her.

“But the thing is they won’t let you walk away, and they don’t want you to walk away. I’m just sort of looking over my shoulder and then I see this individual coming from behind me to the right who had something that they were starting to spray. And you know, your mind goes in a million different places, and you don’t know what it could be, but as soon as it hit my eyes and I got the smell, I knew it was some sort of bug spray because it had that distinctive smell. We found out later it was this hornet and wasp killer that can spray like up to 20 feet,” said Kruse, who posted to social media video of the attack and security escort pouring water into her eyes to flush out the spray which she shared burned painfully for days.

In the assault on Higby, police say they know who the assailant is but have yet to make an arrest. Higby said he’s “10 thousand percent sure” it’s the same person who threatened him weeks before.

Higby told The Center Square he’s been informed that despite the seriousness of the assault, prosecutors may not be inclined to pursue charges.

Seattle Police responded to an email from The Center Square on Friday requesting details on the case and received the following response: “This case is an open and active investigation assigned to SPD’s homicide & Assault Unit. SPD policy prevents me from releasing suspect details or ‘leads,’” wrote Eric Munoz, detective in SPD media and public affairs.

Seattle Police Guild President Mike Solantold The Center Square in a Friday interview that he was skeptical as to whether prosecutors would pursue charges, despite the serious nature of the attack on Higby. He also condemned the lack of coverage in the mainstream media of the assaults on journalists.

“I think the bigger conversation here is why isn’t corporate media drawing attention to this political violence as they’re watching journalists get assaulted and it doesn’t appear to be covered by corporate media at all. My question is why, and the fact that that’s not happening is a major problem with what’s unfolding in our nation,” said Solan.

Kruse said she was also disappointed that members of the mainstream media have ignored the attack.

“I was getting text messages from former colleagues in television news in Seattle asking if I was OK, saying they saw the video, but then never reporting on it. So it’s not as if they’re oblivious…..if these were the proud boys, or if these were right-wing extremists and they assaulted journalists, there’s no way that it wouldn’t be covered,” said Kruse.

Kruse said she’s been in contact with officials in the Trump administration who are paying attention to the case, but has also filed a police report with Tukwila PD.

Continue Reading

Trending

X