[EDITOR’S NOTE: The issue of freedom of speech or freedom of expression is one that I hold to be THE MOST SACROSANCT freedoms that the Creator bestowed upon Humanity. Without it no individual or nation can expect to retain its other freedoms. When ANY government body assumes the right to prevent the individual from expressing their views, ideas or opinions on any subject that government forfits the right to exist and ought to be removed from whatever power it might possess; power, of course, bestowed up it by the people.
As some readers may already be aware I have personally been fighting for the right to freedom of speech/expression since the year 2007 when vested, foreign interest lobbyists here in Canada first attacked me and my former website RadicalPress[.]com by filing a formal complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging that I had committed a “Hate Crime” under the then Sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code.
That particular piece of specious legislation was finally laid to rest back in 2012 when it was repealed by the former Conservative government of PM Stephen Harper after many years of lobbying by numerous individuals and organizations who deemed it to be unconstitutional. At the time it was repealed my case was still in the “Tribunal” stage and was stayed but that didn’t stop the complainants who then turned around and used Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada to lay a second (and identical) complaint against me and my website. In May of 2012 I was arrested, jailed, all of my computers and electronic files “seized”, all of my firearms “seized” and thus began a legal process against me that TO THIS DAY is still ongoing after 15 years!
So if anyone tries to tell you that free speech ought to have limitations placed upon it be very wary of them. Canada already had and continues to have laws in place that deal with libel and defamation so there’s no need whatsoever for these “Hate Crime” laws which only end up being exploited by the NWO forces who were able to influence the politicians into placing them in Canada’s judicial system in order to cover their own asses when the fecal matter finally hits the fan, which by all indications, won’t be long in coming.
As a footnote I might add that it costs the complainant bugger all to lay a complaint against anyone. But it costs the Canadian taxpayer millions in court costs and police costs to prosecute just one individual. In my own case I’ve estimated that thus far the taxpayers of Canada have forked over one and a half million dollars into destroying my website and prohibiting me from naming the guilty party online.]
PRE-CRIME IS HERE: Proposed Canadian Bill C-36 criminalizes THINKING about posting “hate” speech
March 12, 2022
A new proposed bill recently presented to the Canadian parliament would allow people to report so-called “hate speech” online before it even happens.
The proposed “hate speech” law, Bill C-36, allows Canadians to take another person to court if they feel like they might post something hateful online.
According to the proposed legislation, Canadians will be encouraged to report anybody to the authorities. Those who have had reports filed against them will then be taken to court and potentially penalized before they even post any so-called “hate speech” online if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that they have hateful motives.
“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 offense under section 318 [pushing or advocating for genocide] or subsection 318 [inciting or promoting hate],” reads the proposed bill.
“That’s right. A person can get in trouble for something they are suspected of intending to post … online,” wrote David Fiorazo for Harbingers Daily.
The bill makes amendments to Canada’s Criminal Code to create a recognizance for people accused of hate propaganda or hate crimes. It also amends the code to define “hatred” for the purposes of the two aforementioned potential accusations against people.
Furthermore, the bill amends the Canadian Human Rights Act, passed in 1977 and last amended in 2017, to codify into law that communicating hate speech online is a “discriminatory practice.” In this instance, hate speech is defined as any speech that is supposedly “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
The bill tasks the Canadian Human Rights Commission to handle complaints of hate speech or intent to communicate hate speech online and it authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to adjudicate these complaints.
Canadian parliament wants to pass laws that prevent dissent
The introduction of Bill C-36 is just the first salvo in a series of new proposed legislation intended to curtail the expression of dissent online and in public.
Bill C-36, which was first read in late June 2021, died in parliament when the September election was called. It was reintroduced this year in response to the anti-Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) mandate Freedom Convoys. If passed, penalties for breaching Bill C-36 include up to four years in prison.
Another bill designed to curtail dissent, Bill C-229, was recently tabled by left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) member of parliament Peter Julian. Like C-36, C-229 amends the Criminal Code to explicitly ban “symbols of hate.”
Julian and the entirety of the NDP claim Bill C-229 would only be used to target symbols like the insignia of the Ku Klux Klan and the swastika. But they have also expressed their intention to ban the use of the Confederate flag. This signals the desire of the NDP to ban any symbol of dissent that it wants to get rid of.
If passed, the penalty for flying the Confederate flag or any other symbol the government designates to be hateful includes a prison sentence of up to two years.
Fortunately, the future of these bills remains uncertain. Political analysts have noted that C-36 was heavily criticized when it was first presented to parliament last year due to its difficulty to enforce and its attacks on freedom of speech.
Lulu Cheng Meservy, vice president of communications for the online blogging platform Substack, also pointed out that there were several “alarming aspects” to C-36.
These include the bill’s fuzzy and circular definition of what speech is considered “hateful,” and the fact that it encourages citizens to basically act as snitches for the government.
Finally, the fact that it wants to create a precedent in law for punishing people for something they have not actually done yet is a grave cause for concern.