Bill C-63 is an Orwellian nightmare come true

04/05/2024

How did Canada become so anti-free speech? Under the leadership of Justin Trudeau, the Liberal government has doubled down on its progressive ideology which believes that ethics are relative, knowledge is whatever anyone believes and history is nothing more than wave after wave of oppression that can be fixed by imposing a tyranny on the living.

The result is an identity politics that is intolerantof criticism, abhors debating controversial ideas and is possessed of a tribal mentality that only cares about the needs of its own at the expense of liberty.

FULL ARTICLE

In Canada, the Orwellian nightmare of Big Brother taking control of how citizens think and speak has become a reality. The Trudeau Liberals have three censorship bills at their disposal to do it.

Bill C-11 empowered the CRTC to tell us what to watch. Bill C-18 tried to extort millions from big tech to help fund legacy media.

And now, with the recently introduced On-Line Harms Act — Bill C-63 — they will lock and throw away the key and impose authoritarian censorship laws that are found in places such as Iran or China.

How did Canada become so anti-free speech?

Under the leadership of Justin Trudeau, the Liberal government has doubled down on its progressive ideology which believes that ethics are relative, knowledge is whatever anyone believes and history is nothing more than wave after wave of oppression that can be fixed by imposing a tyranny on the living.

On the surface, Bill C-63 intends to protect children from online bullying and victimization. But when one begins to turn the (104 pages, 5,000 plus word bill), ladened with newspeak, what Orwell foresaw is there in front of you.

The criminal code is amended so that any hate crime is punishable with life imprisonment.
Advocating for genocide goes from five years in prison to life.
The Trudeau Liberals are using the guillotine for speech violations and house arrest for career criminals roaming the streets exploiting a broken bail system.
The thought police are coming for anyone likely to commit a future crime. If a judge believes there are "reasonable grounds" to fear a future hate crime the yet-to-be-charged person can be sentenced to house arrest with electric tagging and communication bans. If the person does not cooperate, they go to jail.
And a Digital Safety Commission will be created with unlimited power to terrorize Canadians. The safety Inquisitor can appoint an inspector who can enter a residence without a warrant and search for information, taking away one's computer and documents.

Canada's best-known writer Margaret Atwood is one of the few among the country's cultural elites to speak out against the bill. She warned that "the definitions or lack of them in the law as to what constitutes punishable speech and or thought are so vague as to invite abuse."

She referred to periods in history such as the French Revolution, when the Law of 22 Prairial denied the accused the right to self-defence, or during the Salem witch trials of 1692/93 when "spectral evidence" led to 19 people hanged for practicing witchcraft. "The possibilities for revenge false accusations and thought crime stuff are so inviting," she wrote on Twitter ("X").

Lawyer Olivier Sequin, who works with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, believes the "government's hate speech is so subjective and vague that just about anything from political opinion to criticism can fall into its net."

Bill C-63 defines hate speech as any communication that expresses "detestation or vilification" of a person or group of people. Individuals and groups can complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that they have been offended by speech that discriminates against them.

The tribunal will act as the inquisition accepting anonymous accusations, and punish wrongdoers with fines of upwards of $50,000 to the government and $20,000 to the complainant. The legal standard used is not beyond a reasonable doubt of proof but the low standard of balance of probabilities.

The Inquisition will delight in making subjective distinctions between anyone having experienced "detestation and vilification" versus dislike and disdain. One must remember that the Human Rights Commission was accused of calling Christmas "racist."

Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, has pointed to "Section 87 of the bill which notes that the Commission is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence."

Already in the criminal code exist laws to deal with the publication of obscene material and child pornography, publishing intimate images without consent; section 319 (1) prohibits the public incitement of hatred towards a group that is identifiable by race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression and criminalizes sedition. And social media companies have their own set of robust rules and censor users for the slightest offence.

The bill is a massive legal overkill by a Liberal government that is desperate for votes, wants to appease special interest groups and makes it easier for the police to arrest people for free speech violations without any due process.

Even before the On-Line Harms Act, Canada suffered from Orwell's prison of self-censorship. Bill C-63 reinforces that mental prison by making it a criminal offence to speak one's mind.

Citizens will avoid criticizing the government; social media companies will act reflexively by removing any content that the government wants to censor; journalists, writers and commentators will not dare criticize gender, ethnicity, religion or the indigenous file for fear of the Inquisition.

In 1984, its protagonist Winston, believed that freedom is the right to believe that two plus two equals four. After he is tortured and his spirit is broken he sits at a café and traces two plus two equals five in the dust on his table.

Once Bill-C-63 passes Canadians will never again believe that two plus two equals four.

Western Standard Guest Columnist

April 4, 2024