Wow, what a hot potato this one is. Under the rubric of doing something about racism, hatred, etc., the Canadian Government has bought in a bill that has a high potential for abuse, especially at the hands of corrupted politicians.
To convict a person of a crime that they will commit is reminiscent of the Minority Report. It was my understanding that in western law a person cannot be convicted of a crime they have not committed. But, with this bill, it seems, no more.
I predict that the Supreme Court of Canada will throw the measure out upon first test. If they don’t, NESARA law will see all restrictive measures like this one nullified.
Thanks to Tammy.
With Bill C-36, Trudeau Government Launches Dangerous New Assault On Your Freedom Of Expression
Spencer Fernando, Insight, June 24, 2021
(https://spencerfernando.com/2021/06/24/with-bill-c-36-trudeau-government-launches-dangerous-new-assault-on-your-freedom-of-expression/)
The trend in all of this legislation is clear: More government control, less freedom. And C-36 takes that to a terrible new level.
With Bill C-10 having passed in the House of Commons and going on to the Senate, the Liberals are wasting little time in launching yet another assault on your freedom of expression.
The Liberals have introduced Bill C-36, which they claim is aimed at countering ‘online hate’:
As you can clearly see in this description of the legislation, they are leaving the definition of ‘hate’ deliberately vague:
“Bill C-36 would allow a person to appear before a provincial court, with the Attorney General’s consent, if the person fears that another will commit an offence “motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.”
Hate is defined in the bill as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain,” but hatred is not incited solely because it “discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
In addition, the bill would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to make it a “discriminatory practice” to communicate hate speech through the internet where it is “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.””
Vague & Dangerous
When it comes to government power and authority, vagueness is dangerous.
And consider how vague the idea of “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain.”
Interestingly, the Merriam-Webster dictionary lists ‘disdain’ as a word ‘related’ to ‘detest,’ making that distinction nearly irrelevant.
How do you figure out whether someone ‘detests’ or ‘disdains’?
Could someone give a speech in which they say they ‘disdain’ people from a certain country, yet not say they ‘detest’ them?
Who decides what emotion someone is feeling?
Then, the legislation lists ‘Exclusions,’ noting “For greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred, for the purposes of this section, solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
But what if someone says something that humiliates someone in such a way that it invites others to detest them?
Would that then be a hate crime?
You can see how absurd all of this is.
And it gets even worse.
Under the section “Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime,” C-36 makes it possible for the government to bring someone before a judge if someone else is worried they could commit a crime. I’ve included that section below in its entirety, because it is essential for all Canadians to familiarize ourselves with how dangerous this legislation is:
Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.012 (1) 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 offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.
Appearances
(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.
Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.
Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.
Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.
Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.3(2)(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.
Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.
Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.
Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.
Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.
That is all incredibly disturbing, because it means that someone ‘fearing’ that another person will commit a ‘hate propaganda offence’ or ‘hate crime’ can initiate a process that would result in someone facing a severe loss of freedom and/or financial damage, all without that person having actually committed any crime, not to mention that ‘hate propaganda’ and ‘hate crime’ are incredibly vague in the legislation.
This is the kind of legislation you would expect to see in an anti-democratic, Communist state that is seeking to create wide pretexts to arrest or punish whomever the government feels has ‘stepped out of line’ with the official government message.
That’s why the vagueness of this is – in the eyes of the Trudeau government – a feature, not a bug.
The more vague the definition of hate in Bill C-36 is, the more the government can abuse their power and apply that power in a politically biased way to chill and silence their opponents, while giving themselves and their ideological allies a free pass.
Free expression under attack
With Bill C-10, and now Bill C-36, there can be zero doubt that the Trudeau Liberal government is engaged in an attack on your freedom of expression.
They abhor your rights and your ability to think for yourself, and they want to control you and impose a chilling effect on speech across our nation.
Rather than protecting our rights as a government is supposed to do, the Liberals are trying to restrict and attack our rights.
Bill C-36 is incredibly dangerous, goes against Canada’s values, and must be stopped.
Spencer Fernando