“Someone must have slandered Joseph K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested.” —Franz Kafka, The Trial
According to reports from informed news sources like the National Post, LifeSite News, and True North regarding Canada’s Liberal/NDP government’s latest totalitarian proposal Bill C-63, our freedom of speech is on the Parliamentary chopping block. Just one “wrong” post on the Internet, an offhand remark, an ambiguous statement, or a stinging political comment may plunge one into bankruptcy or even silence one forever.
Prime Minister Trudeau’s Justice Minister Arif Virani’s “Online Harms Act,” or Bill C-63, aims to eliminate exposure to child pornography and protect minors against online sexual abuse—the ruse of a pretextual government—while, at the same time, reducing online “hate” and “hate speech.” For the real core and intent of the Bill is to create a new class of ostensible criminals whose nature will be defined by the government and its ancillary organizations. The implications are truly terrifying.
Marty Moore, litigation director for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, warns that Bill C-63 will allow for the “creation of a new government agency with a broad mandate to promote ‘online safety’ and target ‘harmful content.’” The term “safety” is misleading, since the government “is clearly seeking to censor expression simply based on its content, and not on its actual effect.”
If Trudeau and his minions succeed in their effort to muzzle and potentially incriminate “troublesome” sectors of the population by exponentially inflating the definition of hate, Canada will take its place alongside tyrannical regimes like those in North Korea and Communist China. Canadians must understand what Bill C-63 actually proposes.
- The definitions of “hate speech” and “hatred” will entail concepts like “inciting violent extremism or terrorism” and “fomenting hatred,” no matter how inconclusive, obscure, or equivocal in the actual context such locutions may be. In effect, such terms can apply indiscriminately to almost any expression, comment, or concept sufficiently opaque or enigmatic that an arbiter or magistrate can readily deem them hateful.
- The Bill creates a layer cake of government-appointed digital commissioners to process grievances and accusations, including anonymous complaints, as well as to enforce a pre-determined code of speech standards on internet platforms and live-streaming services. Three levels of unelected, cushy government bureaucrats — a Digital Safety Commission, a Digital Safety Ombudsperson, and a Digital Safety Office — deciding one’s fate is not a comforting thought.
- It grants excessive power to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) to adjudicate according to its own interpretation of what constitutes “hate” or “racism” or “discrimination.” For example, in a Discussion Paper On Religious Intolerance, the CHRC famously targeted Christmas as an example of religious discrimination since its roots are founded in Christianity. “Canada’s history with religious intolerance is deeply rooted in our identity as a settler colonial state,” it pontificated, denouncing Christmas as an example of validating “white, male, Christian” identities in an attempt to exclude those of differing identities. Of course, Eid remains sacrosanct.
- The punishment for “hate propaganda” and like offenses in the verbal domain, no matter how vague or cryptic, snakes along a sliding scale from massive fines ($70,000) to enacting “protective measures” such as electronic monitoring devices, house arrest, ex parte warrants, and exclusion from public spaces, culminating if the commissioners so determine in life imprisonment. The Commission would receive complaints from anyone at any time and place and would adjudicate according to its own “balance of probabilities” pseudo-process. The Bill would obviously laser in on outspoken people like Jordan Peterson, Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant, Brian Peckford, Dr. Mark Trozzi, Pastor Artur Pawlowski, Rex Murphy, Spencer Fernando, and others. As The Counter Signal remarks, “The Liberals have called Tucker Carlson hateful, so it’s no wonder critics are worried how this bill could criminalize political dissent.” Under Bill C-63, if Tucker Carlson were a Canadian, he would almost surely find himself behind bars for the rest of his natural days. Ultimately, no Canadian citizen would be spared the sweep of the panopticon eye. Pro-family advocates, anti-abortionists, dissident political commentators, and patriots like those who supported the Truckers Freedom Convoy could be subject to similar punitive legislation. All it takes is some presumably anonymous person or government stooge to be offended or apparently fearful of their object’s possible but undisclosed intentions. We seem to be at the confluence of a bloated bureaucracy, an unaccountable judiciary, a totalitarian project, and the advent of sheer administrative madness.
If this bill passes, one could be jailed for life for sharing opinions and beliefs that oppose the radical Left’s politically correct narratives. Even if the Bill is defeated, it would still be something of a pyrrhic victory if the Bill’s sponsor Justin Trudeau, the single worst prime minister in the entire history of Confederation bar none, is not defeated as well in the approaching election. For Justin Trudeau and Bill C-63 are one and the same — the Bill is the man.