C-11 Censorship Bill Pass Committee

This week, Liberals passed the C-11 censorship bill through committee. That means it will return to the House of Commons, with a majority from Trudeau’s Liberals and with a little help from his New Lapdog Party friends.

This reminds me of an early episode of Parks and Recreation in which the protagonist, government bureaucrat Leslie Knope, has to prevent her own meeting. At 9 p.m. sharp, she closes the committee, leaving citizens angry and upset.

The same happened here.

“Canadians watching the hearing would be rightly appalled and wonder how a democratic country that sees itself as a model for the world would descend to the level of passing over a hundred amendments without discussion, debate, or even public disclosure of the… play through the content of the changes,” said Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet Law at the University of Ottawa.

Of course, no one should be surprised that the Liberal-NDP coalition ended the debate prematurely. After all, it is a censorship law. One that subordinates podcasts and YouTube videos to the administrative bureaucracy of the federal government.

That means unelected government snobs – who live off your taxes – tell you what’s “Canadian” enough for you to see on the once-free internet.

150 Proposed and ignored changes

Without Jagmeet Singh’s New Democratic Lapdog Party, the C-11 censorship bill would never have passed the committee. Resentment towards Singh is already building and you see it whenever he visits anywhere. Demonstrators call him out the door. At first, the corporate press tried to portray the hecklers as white supremacists. “Poilievre’s people,” claimed the blue ticks on Twitter.

But then Singh was pushed out of a Brampton event by tan-skinned Sikhs. So it’s clear that people are angry that the left-wing opposition to Trudeau’s government is now his lapdog. That Singh did what he wouldn’t do during the election.

Suppose there were arguments for a Trudeau-Singh coalition. The C-11 censorship law is where Singh needs to build a backbone and say no.

Critics proposed over 150 modifications for the C-11. Leading experts spoke to the committee and criticized it on many points. Namely, to give the Radio, Television and Telecommunications Commission of Canada (CRTC) the power to regulate and censor user-generated content.

Things like podcasts, YouTube videos, Twitter posts, Facebook posts, Instagram posts. As it is, you can certainly have a website and write whatever you want (within reason Canada does not have absolute freedom of speech). But heaven forbid you share your opposing opinions on the social media platforms that everyone uses.

And if Canadians give the CRTC that inch, it’s going to take them a mile. C-11 censors what we can post on social media. You can guarantee that the next iteration of the bill will be the CRTC, which censors what Canadian websites can print… for public health and safety, of course. To combat misinformation and misinformation.

C-11 Censorship Nothing to worry about?

The Liberals and CRTC tell us to relax. They don’t expect to tamper with these new powers. But by their definitions, this blog post is riddled with misinformation. But nothing I have written here is a lie.

And I have never censored negative comments. I can’t say that about the Liberals. Last year, Heritage Secretary Steven Guilbeault said government bureaucrats needed protection from online scrutiny. Guilbeault also wanted to create a digital security officer with the power to block websites.

So much for regulating social media.

Steven Guilbeault is no longer Minister for Heritage. Unfortunately, a radical Greenpeace activist who broke the law in his protests is now causing far more damage as Environment Minister.

This isn’t your grandparents’ liberal party. Certainly not the Liberal Party of Wilfred Laurier, who said, “Canada is free and liberty is its nationality.”

This is Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party. Who said Canada has “no core identity” and that we are “the first post-national state”?

Even Peter Menzies, a former vice chairman of the CRTC, has now called the bill “beaten.”

Will the Senate save the day?

Some describe Canada’s Senate as the country’s “solid second thought.” It is hoped that this will be the case with the C-11 censorship law.

Fortunately, the Senate committee chair is a conservative. Senator Leo Housakos rightly accused the government of trying to “enforce this legislation without proper parliamentary scrutiny.”

“Thanks to official opposition in the Senate and some other senators from other groups and factions, those plans have been stymied,” Housakos said. “It has been made clear to the Trudeau government that this flawed legislation will be carefully and thoroughly investigated; one that is conducted transparently and includes witnesses whose voices and concerns have been silenced elsewhere.”

Even if Canadian Senators are appointed and not elected, the #NeverVoteConservative crowd should shake their heads. The Conservatives are the only major party opposed to the C-11 censorship law.

And you can guarantee that C-11 censorship is aimed at cannabis connoisseurs and activists.

Cannabis Expression & C-11 Censorship

Canada’s rules on the promotion and advertising of cannabis are quite strict. But on the Internet, it’s a free market. Of course, legal manufacturers and dealers cannot advertise directly. But there is much more leeway here than with classic broadcasters and print magazines.

The C-11 censorship put an end to that. Just like this site possibly.

Taking another step with C-11 censorship, my writing in particular promotes cannabis, common law traditions, and sovereign individuals. This differs from the “sovereign citizen” movement, which Canadian and American intelligence agencies describe as domestic terror.

But do government officials know this?

Will the RCMP work with the CRTC to remove all mention of “Common Law” from the Canadian Internet? Will they take a blanket approach, censoring any notion that citizens can find truth and justice beyond the institution of the state?

It would be natural for the government of the man who said people who disagree with his COVID policies are a “small marginal minority” who hold “unacceptable views” that “do not represent the views of Canadians”.

Do Canadians trust in handing the power of free speech online to the Trust Fund’s acting coach, who said people who disagree with him are “very often misogyny and racist” and then asked, “Do we tolerate these people?”

How long will Canadians tolerate Justin Trudeau?