Canuckistan

Killing Free Speech in Canada

by Judith Bergman

  • As has become standard in such cases, the charter contains no definition of what constitutes “hate”, making it a catchall for whatever the Canadian government deems politically inopportune. This is all exhaustingly familiar by now: Germany already has legislation that requires social media platforms to censor their users. France is working on it.

 

  • The Conservative members of the committee… recommended instead that sanctions regarding hate crimes online or elsewhere should be dealt with under the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code. They also recommended that “The definition of ‘hate’ under the Criminal Code be limited to where a threat of violence, or incitement to violence, is directed against an identifiable group” and that “rather than attempting to control speech and ideas, the Government explore appropriate security measures to address all three elements of a threat: intent, capability and opportunity”.

 

  • “Sickening ideologies which encourage individuals to take the lives of their fellow human beings have faced a concerning proliferation both at home and around the world. Yet sadly, Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Members of this Committee have tried to use these troubling events as a way to bolster their political fortunes. They have tried to paint anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their narrow value set as an extremist.” – Conservative Party dissenting opinion in “Taking Action to End Online Hate”.

If Canada’s government proves sympathetic to the new recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the prospects for free speech in Canada look increasingly bleak. Pictured: The Parliament of Canada, in Ottawa.
.

In May, Canada launched a so-called Digital Charter, meant to promote “trust in a digital world”. The charter contains ten principles, three of which deal with “hate speech and disinformation”.

The charter, said Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, will target fake news and hate speech online. “The platforms are failing their users, and they’re failing our citizens,” he said. “They have to step up in a major way to counter disinformation. And if they don’t, we will hold them to account and there will be meaningful financial consequences.”

“The Government of Canada,” the charter says, “will defend freedom of expression and protect against online threats and disinformation designed to undermine the integrity of elections and democratic institutions. Canadians can expect that digital platforms will not foster or disseminate hate, violent extremism or criminal content.”

Continue Reading Article

Related:

Canada Allows Jihadi Who Stabbed Three Soldiers to Roam Free Despite ‘Significant Threat’ to the Public

What could possibly go wrong? Only venomous “Islamophobes” could possibly object, right? After all, all Ayanle Hassan Ali did was stab three Canadian soldiers and explain that Allah told him to do it. How could anyone deny this fine young man the right to roam freely around Toronto, Hamilton, and other Ontario cities?

4 thoughts on “Canuckistan”

  1. What is “hate-speech” and why should it be considered a crime if it’s NOT already: a) a threat; and b) slander (fraud)? If it’s not either PHYSICALLY threatening speech – or emotionally threatening BECAUSE it could physically impact one’s life, like how fraudulent slander causes other people to react to one as if one were a criminal in need of hating and beating – then it’s THE TRUTH: and so it SHOULD cause one the emotional distress of ‘hurt feelings!’ So it isn’t objectively “offensive,” but is, in fact, socially beneficial in that it helps defend society from criminals, whether or not said predictably victim-blaming criminal is subjectively “offended” by their victims being told about THEIR offenses! Having no facts to justify their aggressive hypocrisy, criminals resort to using emotive ‘arguments’ to justify their crimes by playing the victims. So they (liberals, muslims) criminalize hurt feelings to make offending people, (criminals, by accusing them of their crimes) illegal!

  2. So they want to make it illegal to accuse criminals of their crimes, since that might hurt their feelings and in offending them with the often-painful truth, “make” them commit even more crimes! Is there anything which really ought to qualify as hate speech and be banned? NO – not because it’s “hateful” (because that sort of nonsense is only making subjective assessments based on emotions;) and “HATE” is really only the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing crimes (like islam); without ‘hate’ we would never bother to accuse criminals of their crimes in order to stop those crimes. Unreasonable false displays of hatred and anger on the other hand, are what the Left is good at – but that’s already illegal, not because of the anger displayed – that’s just the outrageous holier-than-thou virtue-signalling packaging used to disguise their preposterous extortion attempts – but because it’s fraudulent slander.

  3. ALL “Hate-Speech Laws” ARE CRIMES! “Progressive” criminals – who like all criminals desire an equality of outcome over a true equality of opportunity, and to get it will always try to socially engineer ever-more rights and ever-less responsibilities for them selves, by offloading their responsibilities onto their victims by stealing their victims’ rights – pretend to hold submissive masochism as the highest virtue (for their victims to hold, not them) and the ultimate crime to be causing offense and hurting other people’s (criminal’s) feelings, (i.e: by accusing them of their crimes). Such criminal leftists who try to make “hate” into a crime, only ever make it ‘illegal’ to hate crime itself! Speech which is already disallowed is incitement of immediate violence and death-threats … and even those aren’t illegal, if say they call for the police to use violence to counter ongoing mob violence and looting, or call for the death-penalty for murderers!

  4. Re: Canada already has hate speech laws in its criminal code, according to which anyone who publicly “incites [or willfully promotes] hatred against any identifiable group” commits an indictable offence”[1]. The “identifiable group “includes “any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.”[2] Section 318 prohibits advocating or promoting genocide. “Identifiable Group” includes crime-gangs; so it’s illegal to promote “hate” of criminals, like islam’s “muslims,” because they’re a “religion” (blame a “god” for their own criminal desires and actions) which itself openly promotes genocide. So it’s “illegal” to defend one’s self from “muslims” intent on genociding us, by genociding them first. Also, re: “sexual orientation, gender identity” – so it’s to become “illegal” to condemn those who openly identify as pedophiles, too. Thanks, liberals! WHEE!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.