Freedom of Speech And Censorship

Click on image below to see a Video about Health Canada wanting to censor your social media posts. It’s really Justin Trudeau! Health Canada email reveals agency’s attempt to Censor Canadian’s Social Media Posts! Evil Globalist Jacinda Ardern who locked down the people of New Zealand is another World Economic Forum operative! Click on the image below to see a video about the hypocrisy of Justin Trudeau! Justin Trudeau, as always, showing what a hypocrite he truly is! Click the image below to see a Video about the Draconian Trudeau Hate Speech Law that can Imprison You for Life if you Say Something He Doesn’t Like! Communist State!!! Canadian Hate Speech Law… Bill C-63 is Draconian and is Trudeau’s attempt to shut you up and put you in jail for life if you are a political dissident… totalitarianism is alive and well in Canada under Trudeau the Dictator!! Click on the image below to see a video about Trudeau’s Orwellian Hate Speech Law Your opinion is welcome only if it agrees with Trudeau As seen on Rebel News, Ezra Levant describes some of the Orwellian and totally unbelievable facets of the proposed Bill C-63 by the Trudeau government. Click on the image below to see a video about Bill C-63 getting the first reading The Freedom of every Canadian depends on defeating this Bill. Justin Trudeau’s long-promised Online Harms Act, Bill C-63, has been tabled. The bill reintroduces a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibiting online “hate speech,” which the bill defines as speech “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” Trudeau and his justice minister claim the bill will comply with the Charter, but their record on civil liberties and free speech should concern all Canadians. Click on the image below to see a video by Rowan Atkinson (Mr. Bill) talking about the importance of freedom of speech in society. Rowan Atkinson (a.k.a. Mr. Bean) eloquently states that the only way to guarantee Freedom of Speech is to allow all speech, no matter if you don’t like what’s being said or not! Otherwise, anything you say can be misconstrued as “hate speech” if it doesn’t agree with the person’s viewpoint who you oppose!!! Online Harms Act Would Kill Dialogue and Free Speech, Not Encourage It (Epoch Times, 3/22/2024) Barry W Bussey says “I will be the first to admit that there must be limits on freedom of speech …. For example, if you are inciting a crowd to go to a person’s house and throw rocks through the victim’s windows or burn the house down, that is a speech that has gone way too far. Such incitements to violence are not on. Our society cannot survive with that level of violent rhetoric. However, severe limits on speech must be at a minimum or else we cannot survive as a free and democratic society. Speech must not be so curtailed that a person is not permitted to voice an opposing opinion for fear that he or she will offend someone who has a different opinion. Unfortunately, the federal government’s Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, does not encourage dialogue. It does the opposite. On the one hand, the government talking point is that it allows, “Canadians to express their thoughts and opinions by creating a safer and more inclusive online space.” But on the other hand, this act encourages those who are offended to report on anyone they deem dangerous even if the alleged perpetrator has not done anything but merely speaks an idea that is “likely” in the mind of another to cause hatred or “could cause a person to commit an act that could cause” violence; or “could cause a person to commit an act that could cause” extremism or terrorism. This leaves the door wide open to subjectivity. There is a lot of room for differences of opinion over what speech is “likely” to cause hatred or “could cause” violence or extremism or terrorism. Remember that the prime minister is already on record saying that he supports some protests that he agrees with and does not support those he does not agree with.” This is the problem with legislating against “online harms.” It’s near impossible to put together a definition that won’t be too open to interpretation and therefore open to abuse and result in an assault on freedom of speech. That’s the main concern with Trudeau’s Online Harms Act. Make no mistake about it, we have a lot of problems with the online world. As the parent of children who will be entering their teenage years in the near future, I’m deeply troubled by the ills of social media and the abuse and exploitation that happens within it. But this doesn’t mean we should give Justin Trudeau personal discretion to define what is and isn’t an “online harm” and how it should be dealt with. (Epoch Times, 3/26/2024) The Freedom Party of Canada is totally against Bill C-63 and if elected will trash the bill immediately. We agree that speech that encourages violence is not allowed. Otherwise all other speech is allowed. Click the image below to see a Video about the Suppression of Free Speech that is happening in today’s world by the Left Watch the video below to see how Wokeism is an all out Assault on Europe Online Harms Act Would Kill Dialogue and Free Speech, Not Encourage It (Epoch Times, 3/22/2024) Free speech is important, says Hannah Arendt, because it is the only way that we can truly understand the world. Arendt is someone whom we should pay attention to since she saw first-hand what happens when speech is taken to the extreme. A Jewish woman who had lived in the hateful atmosphere of Nazi Germany, she ultimately fled to the United States where she wrote at length on the rise of totalitarianism. The freedom to engage in ongoing dialogue is crucial for us to understand the world in which we live, and it is the only way that our society can be free. Unfortunately, the federal government’s Bill C-63, or the Online Harms Act, does not encourage dialogue. It does the opposite. On the one hand, the government talking point is that it allows, “Canadians to express their thoughts and opinions by creating a safer and more inclusive online space.” But on the other hand, this act encourages those who are offended to report on anyone they deem dangerous even if the alleged perpetrator has not done anything but merely speaks an idea that is “likely” in the mind of another to cause hatred or “could cause a person to commit an act that could cause” violence; or “could cause a person to commit an act that could cause” extremism or terrorism. This leaves the door wide open to subjectivity. There is a lot of room for differences of opinion over what speech is “likely” to cause hatred or “could cause” violence or extremism or terrorism. Remember that the prime minister is already on record saying that he supports some protests that he agrees with and does not support those he does not agree with. Do you think the bureaucrats in the new Digital Safety Commission will also choose which to support and which to reject and punish based upon the accepted ideological position of the government? Ah… the attempts by Health Officials to maximize their power and minimize yours. This has to stop and the Freedom Party of Canada will make sure it does! Censoring Political Opponents is Why RFK Jr. Says Biden is a ‘Worse Threat’ to Democracy Than Trump (Epoch Times, 4/3/2024) During the interview with CNN, anchor Erin Burnett asked Mr. Kennedy if he thought President Biden and President Trump posed an equal threat to democracy. “I can make the argument that President Biden is the much worse threat to democracy, and the reason for that is President Biden is the first candidate in history—the first president in history that has used the federal agencies to censor political speech, so to censor his opponent,” Mr. Kennedy responded. The next day, Mr. Kennedy reiterated his stance on Fox News and added: “If you have a president who can censor his political opponents, he has the license for any kind of atrocity—that is a genuine threat to our democracy.” “All of this, the use of the courts, the use of prosecutors, the use of all these federal agencies to change our political landscape, it just is wrong, and we should be debating about it,” Mr. Kennedy added. The White House cited a report in 2021 that labeled Mr. Kennedy as one of the “disinformation dozen” who distributed what it deemed inaccurate information about COVID-19 vaccines. Last month, the Supreme Court heard arguments on Murthy v. Missouri, a case that derives from a lawsuit by Missouri and Louisiana Republican state attorneys general alleging that the Biden administration instructed Big Tech companies to remove social media postings that didn’t support the government’s narrative of the COVID pandemic, the 2020 presidential election, and other controversial subjects. Similar litigation brought forth by Mr. Kennedy was incorporated into the legal filing. Lower court rulings banned multiple White House officials from corresponding with Facebook, Google, and X (formerly Twitter) about content moderation. Mr. Kennedy entered the presidential race last April, challenging President Biden for the Democrat party nomination. After encountering multiple hurdles by the DNC and accusing the organization of “rigging the primary” and not allowing any candidate to compete against President Biden, Mr. Kennedy announced he would run as an independent in October 2023. President Trump and President Biden don’t talk about the chronic disease epidemic, AI, and the “corrupt merger between state and corporate power which is undermining democracy,” Mr. Kennedy said. “President Trump and President Biden don’t have the capacity to address it because they’re part of that system. “They’re both being financed by BlackRock and State Street and Vanguard, the military contractors and pharmaceutical industries and that system just spits out bad policies,” he explained. WE MUST BAN HATE SPEECH LAWS…. HATE SPEECH LAWS MEAN NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH Peter Menzies: Scotland’s Draconian Hate Speech Laws Can Serve as Canada’s Canary in the Coal Mine (Epoch Times, 4/9/2024)(By Peter Menzies) If you want a preview of the sort of chaos Canada’s Online Harms Act could lead to, you need look no further than the land of my ancestors—Scotland. There, we continue to see insane policies from this once-sensible country. The previous leader of the ruling Scottish National Party, Nicola Sturgeon, made the right of transgender inmates to serve their time in women’s prisons her hill to die on and that was the end of her leadership, although she remains a member of the Scottish Parliament. Now, Scots are in thrall to a leader following the same woke agenda, First Minister Humza Yousaf. Famous for expressing his profound alarm at the number of white people in charge of things in Scotland (where 95 percent of people are white), Mr. Yousaf has made himself the target of civil libertarians due to a crackdown on what he calls hate speech. It is now illegal in Scotland to behave toward or communicate material to anyone in a fashion that a “reasonable person” (let me know when you find one) would agree is “threatening or abusive.” If a court finds that the statements are capable of stirring up hatred against a protected group (race, religion, orientation, age, etc.). The person convicted of saying these bad things could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison. Renowned author and feminist defender J.K. Rowling was among the first to dare authorities to use the law—which has also captured the ire of celebrities such as Elon Musk and Joe Rogan—against her. Rowling blasted back, calling out Mr. Yousaf’s “bumbling incompetence and illiberal authoritarianism. What Canadians can learn from the Scottish controversy, however, is that, given the chance to squeal on each other for saying things which offend them, people will dive right in. Scottish police have been overwhelmed with thousands upon thousands of complaints. The Online Harms Act, for all its sins, is probably not going to engage Canadian police at that level. But my guess is that people who feel offended will behave in precisely the same way as the Scots in terms of filing complaints. Given that the body that will handle those in this country, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, could award “victims” as much as $20,000, indignation could turn into a lucrative side hustle for those so inclined. That is among a number of reasons why David Thomas, former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, has spoken out against the Online Harms Act. “Under the proposed new powers, the tribunal will be able to award $20,000 to ‘any victim identified’ in a communication deemed to be hate speech,” Mr. Thomas wrote in the National Post. “How many victims might be identified if the hate speech is posted online? Is everyone who sees a hate speech message a victim?” John Carpay: Bill C-367 Threatens Religious Freedom in Canada (Epoch Times, 4/6/2024) A Globe and Mail story reports that the Bloc Québécois and special interest groups want to amend Bill 63 (Online Harms Act) “to stop religion from being used as a defence for hate speech.” In a similar vein, Bloc Leader Yves-François Blanchet has introduced private member’s Bill C-367, to repeal one of the defences available to an accused person when criminally charged with promoting hatred or anti-Semitism. If Bill C-367 is passed by Parliament, this will remove the Section 319(3) religious defence. This, in turn, would make it possible to characterize certain sections of religious texts as illegal hate speech. Click on the Rebel News video below to see how we don’t need Hate Speech Laws in Canada… we just need to enforce our existing laws! The Freedom Party of Canada will work to remove all hate speech laws and promote total freedom of speech. No one can define hate speech and every definition is subjective. Therefore it can be used to silence others who oppose your views. This is totally undemocratic and unconstitutional. Click on the video below to see where two Conservative Candidates were dropped for their views on Freedom! In the table above, it shows that all major federal Canadian parties support restrictions on the Freedom of Speech! The Freedom Party of Canada believes all speech must be free in this country. Speech that threatens violence of any sort would not be allowed under law however. Elon Musk Calls Online Harms Act an ‘Attack on the Rights of Canadians’ (Epoch Times, 5-8-2024) Elon Musk is once again speaking out against the proposed Online Harms Act, calling it an “attack” on free speech rights in Canada. The billionaire owner of social media platform X called the proposed legislation “a terrible attack on the rights of Canadians to speak freely” in a May 7 post on X. Mr. Musk waded into the issue in response to an article about the new changes being brought in with the proposed legislation, and in response to psychologist and author Jordan Peterson who also commented on the new bill. Mr. Peterson, an outspoken free speech advocate, called the legislation “the most Orwellian piece of legislation ever promoted in the West.” “Mr. Musk, it’s much much worse than you have been informed: plans to shackle Canadians electronically if accusers fear a ‘hate crime’ might (might) be committed,” Dr. Peterson said in a May 7 post. Mr. Peterson has been outspoken on issues of free speech, including his opposition to the Liberal government’s Bill C-16, which added the protection of gender identity and expression to the Human Rights Code and Criminal Code. Dr. Peterson’s Twitter account was temporarily suspended for his comments about transgender actor Elliot Page, but it was reinstated by Elon Musk after he purchased the social media platform in 2022. Mr. Musk, who has said his purchase of Twitter was a $44 billion investment in free speech, has criticized the Online Harms Act on the platform in the past. He called certain measures of the legislation “insane” in a March 12 post in response to an article posted on X. Entitled “Canadian law would allow judges to hand down life sentences for ’speech crimes’ (no, this isn’t a joke),” the article was posted by Not The Bee, a self-described news and entertainment website with actual news “that seems like it should definitely be satire.” Justice Minister Arif Virani responded to Mr. Musks comment about the bill’s proposed life imprisonment sentence for hate propaganda posts. “The article you shared is misleading. I’d be happy to discuss our legislation and how X can work with us to help keep kids safe and stop hatred,” Mr. Virani said in a March 12 post. “It looks like you agree that we all have a responsibility to protect free expression by stopping the worst kinds of hate speech,” he added. The post included text from the platform’s Help Center, with a section highlighted that said, “We recognize that if people experience abuse on X, it can jeopardize their ability to express themselves.” Online Harms Act Bill C-63, known as the Online Harms Act, was introduced by the Liberal government in February in a bid to reduce Canadians’ exposure to “harmful content” on the internet. The legislation is currently at second reading in the House of Commons. Attorney General Arif Virani has said the Online Harms Act would bring a new level of security to online communities and increase protection against the often inappropriate content appearing on children’s screens. Bill C-63 seeks to establish special protections for children and make online services like Facebook and YouTube “accountable for and transparent about how they are reducing exposure to harmful content.” Compliance is to be monitored by a five-member Digital Safety Commission. But besides protection for children, the bill also proposes a number of other changes on online regulation and criminal prosecution. The bill paves the way for what some critics have called “future crime” provisions, where a judge could place certain restrictions on a defendant for up to a year if the court is satisfied that the individual may commit a future hate crime. Some of the restrictions include wearing an electronic bracelet and curfews. Defendants who refuse could be sentenced for up to one year in jail. If the bill is passed, a new definition of “hatred” would be added to section 319 of the Criminal Code, which refers to the public incitement of hatred and the wilful promotion of hatred and anti-Semitism. Bill C-63 would also add a new standalone hate crime offence to the Criminal Code that would apply to existing offences. The new bill would also amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, specifying that posting “hate speech” online counts as discrimination. The government has said this would apply to speech based on detestation or vilification centred on race, religion, sexual orientation, and other grounds. Maximum punishments for hate propaganda offences in Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code would also be raised to life imprisonment from the current five years. The government has said the maximum penalty would reflect the seriousness of the offence, and emphasized that in all cases courts would have the flexibility to give proportional sentences. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been critical of the proposed legislation and has urged the government to make several “substantial” amendments. The agency said it has concerns about loss of free speech as well as the vague wording the bill uses to define offences, such as “incitement to genocide” and “offence motivated by hatred.” THE ABOVE BILL IS A WAY FOR THE DICTATOR TRUDEAU TO SILENCE AND IMPRISON HIS CRITICS…. CREATING A TRUE COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP IN CANADA!!! HELL ON EARTH! Watch the Rowan Atkinson video below where he discusses Freedom of Speech and the atrocities happening throughout societies due to Woke Culture being forced upon us! Click on the image below to see a video by Laura Lynn Thompson (May 10, 2024) called “Is Free Speech on it’s Last Legs” with Lisa Miron Watch the Rebel News video below “RCMP seeking new tools to punish people who criticize politicians”. You know this had to come from Trudeau! The RCMP must have been infiltrated or paid off in some manor by the Trudeau Liberals to do this! We see here that Ezra Levant calls Mike Duheme, the Commissioner of the RCMP “Trudeau’s Hand Picked Top Cop”! There you have it… the instigator again… is Justin Trudeau. Get Trudeau out of politics and all of our Canadian problems are solved.. .or at least greatly improved… he is the reason Canada is in such horrible condition! The moment you limit free speech… it is no longer free speech! What will the Freedom Party of Canada do to Guarantee Freedom of Speech in Canada? 1) Automtically reverse any Trudeau Hate Speech and Censorship laws. 2) Ban Hate Speech laws in Canada so that you can say whatever you want. No one can define hate speech so it ends up being Dictators who tell you want you can say. 3) No one can compel you to say anything or call them what they want to be called. 4) No one can redefine basic terminology. Woke terminology will be deleted from all official mediums, government documents, laws, bills and from schools. 5) Guarantee complete freedom of speech in the Constitution and ban Hate Speech laws forever in Canada, requiring a Referendum of the Canadian people with a 100% majority vote to overturn these! 6) Punish harshly any speech that “threatens” harm to an individual, group, organization or religious group. For example, if someone said “I’m going to shoot you tomorrow”, that is threat speech. If someone intimates something by saying something like “I don’t know…there might be an explosion at your religious place of worship tomorrow”, that is threat speech and this will be punished harshly under the law. The difference with this speech is it is “tied to an action” of discrimination or hatred. The threat of the action or implication of the action is what will be punished. If a person said “I think your religion is evil or garbage” that is not threat speech. 7) It’s time to go back to the old ways of freedom of speech. If someone calls you a name, they’re an asshole and you can call them a name back or choose to ignore them. When it gets physical, that’s where the law steps in.