All Things Canadian

The Canadian media propaganda machine is starting to rival North Korea in terms of their ability to generate mindless hatred for the USA.  Listen to this guy.  Not only is he stupid enough to actually believe that the USA wants to send tanks across the border to invade us--all because of a droll Trump troll from long ago--but he is childish enough to cry like a baby because team USA players dared to shake Trump's hand.   

Under Canada's anti-hate speech laws, this guy should be in trouble, right?  Pretty hateful sounding speech against America, right?  Ah, but you must understand.  This kind of hate speech is approved by the Canadian government, the media, and the liberal left.  To them this is not hate speech at all.  What is hate speech in Canada?  It is simply any speech that the government hates.  Hate Trump and the US citizens?  No problem.  Hate conservatives?  Check.  Hate those bible-totin' Christians to the point of burning about thirty of their churches so far?  Well, wink wink they deserve it, and we won't even bother trying to find the arsonists.

The image below says it all.

It bears repeating:  "Once the government decides what's "acceptable speech," the debate is already over." 

Freedom of  seech, privacy rights, and the right to freedom of assembly in Canada is over.  Here are the bills, all of which decide what is acceptable speech and behaviour.   All of which proclaim, under their breath, that you are no longer allowed to speak your mind on certain topics, defend certain ideas,  think a certain way, or even protest in public in certain ways.

To boil it all down, it is simple:  you are no longer able to say or do anything that your government does not like, and your government will have the power to invade your privacy in any way they see fit to make sure you are compliant.

Here we go.  These are the main bills that I know of.  There may be more that we don't know about.

Let's begin with what was originally going to be just one omni-bill, but in order to make it seem less dangerous, was broken up into smaller bits, to make for easier swallowing a piece at a time.  I refer to bills C-2, C-8, and C-12.  Here is how they will muzzle you and pretty much shred your privacy.  Go here to see a more detailed summary of what they entail.

Under the provisions of these bills:

• they are all generally intended to increase surveillance of individuals by security services with little oversight 

•  Bill C-2. The Bill’s remaining provisions would provide the government, police, and security services with the incredible ability to access Canadians’ private information without prior judicial authorization. 

• One of the most egregious examples of authoritarian control in Bill C-2 is the ability of peace officers and public officers to make “information demands”. With this power, “persons who provide services to the public” (a ridiculously broad category that includes everyone from bakers to healthcare providers) can be ordered to provide officers with a wide array of information about the people to whom they provide services

All it takes for an officer of the law to demand your private info is a "suspicion" that an offence might happen. This is exactly how the Stasi (the east German Communist secret police) were able to operate and have total access to every citizen's life.

• They can also tap your phone, and demand that you give it to them so they can access what is on it.  And anything encrypted?  You have to unencrypt it.

Bill C-8:

• This piece of legislation would give the Minister powers to break encryption security and install backdoors into Canada’s networks for surveillance purposes. This means that the government could surveil all your online activities from banking to personal communications. Canadian privacy and intelligence watchdogs warned in testimony that, if passed, the bill would authorize warrantless seizure of sensitive private information; and collect and share communications, metadata, locational and financial data.

Bill C-9

I have to copy/paste a larger section here, because you need to see just how frightening it really is:

 While Greenpeace Canada agrees that people in Canada should be protected from hate-based incidents, Bill C-9 criminalizes protest, dissent, free expression and assembly in a clear violation of charter rights.

The new provisions in the Bill outlaws the display of certain symbols giving law enforcement and the government broad discretionary power on what those symbols would be. The new provisions would allow police to detain people first, ask questions later during protests and other gatherings, further undermining freedom of assembly and free expression— giving police more discretion overall. It would also include “bubble” laws prohibiting protest in proximity to certain places which are already protected under the law and allow the police to act on the basis of mischief, intimidation, harassment, or threats. Bill C-9’s intimidation and obstruction offences are overly broad, vague, and pose the risk of criminalizing peaceful protests.

According to the ICLMG, the proposed new offences would carry significant penalties, including the threat of jail time, and will result in people who would ordinarily take action to speak out on important social issues refraining from doing so under the fear of being trapped in the dragnet of additional, unclear and broad discretionary powers. If that is not the government’s intent, we urge it to withdraw this bill in favour of approaches that both protect vulnerable communities and ensure the protection of Charter rights and civil liberties in Canada.

Whew.  Still feeling all free and wonderful in this country of ours?  These are only the most recent bills.  Next we take a peek at some golden oldies.

Let's go back to 2017, and bill C-16--the first bill to drive a nail into the coffin of free speech.  Also the first time in the history of western common law that a law was passed that could coerce speech--to make you have to say something.

Say what, you ask?  It makes it illegal to refuse to use someone's preferred pronouns.  If someone comes up to you and you call them a 'he' when they want to be called a 'she', the benevolence of our lawmakers will let that go because you did not know better.  But if you continue to do so against their will, you can be charged with a hate crime.  That means a fine or even jail time if you do not repent.   Here is a quote from a legal analyst:

"In summary, Bill C-16...makes the intentional misuse of pronouns in specific contexts a potentially actionable form of discrimination and hate speech under human rights law"

Next:  Bill C-9:

• could be a crime to quote parts of the Bible that some people might not like

• broadens the definition of "hatred" to make it so subjective that you could be indicted for speech that is merely offensive or unpopular

• criminalizes the display of certain symbols like the swastika in public, even if such symbols are used to oppose what they stand for.

• removes government oversight and consent before initiating hate-speech prosecutions.  Can you imagine the power this will give to far-left entities like provincial human rights tribunals?  Conservatives would be dropping like flies.

Next:  Bills C-63, C-11, and C-18, all of which involve online censorship.  

• you could be fined up to $50,000 for hate speech online--and remember, hate speech could be anything that is offensive or unpopular.  Think about that.

• this one should frankly scare the living shit out of you.  I quote: 

• Pre-crime Punishment (Peace Bonds): The bill introduces a new "peace bond" that allows a judge to impose restrictions on someone if there is a fear they might commit a hate crime or hate propaganda offence in the future.  This is thought crime.  If they think you MIGHT say something naughty, they can impose restrictions, which could include house arrest, a writing ban, or a public speaking ban.  

• And finally, Bills C-11 and C-18 allow your government to censor what you see online.  The CRTC can block online content at their leisure, and can force online platforms to have to pay for news content.  Facebook has already refused, which means they purposely leave out a ton of Canadian platforms so that they don't have to pay.  The bottom line is that you are alrady being blocked from seeing things that the government does not want you to see.   Sound kind of North Korean?  You bet!

Notice:  from 2 million to 4 million in less than two years.  And it happened before  Orange Man Bad rose from the Pit of Despair.   If not Trump, who do we blame?  Hmmm?

What really scares me about this next one is the fact that there are Canadians who are going to believe this.  Watch what these Liberal MP's blame skyrocketing food prices on.

It's not so much that they lie.,   It's that they know they are lying, but really think that we are stupid enough to believe it.  Listen up you twin slimeball MP's:  if climate change caused the high food prices, then all the major countries would be suffering the same, right?  

Wrong.  Canada has by far the highest food prices of all the G7 countries.  Way higher.  So common sense tells you that something is specifically happening in Canada to cause it.  We know the causes.  A one minute google search will tell you.  It's all the result of Liberal policies.  All of it.  And here is the worst irony.  Part of the rise is indeed caused by tariffs--but not Trump's.  Carney placed tariffs on American produce imported into Canada.  Carney's ploy to make him look like he's playing tough guy on Trump is costing you, and he could care less.  He too is betting on your continued blind support and stupidity.

Let's take a peek at the Canadian media coverage of Jamal Jivani.  He's the Conservative MP who went down south and had a meeting with his good friend VP Vance who then helped him meet with Trump. Jamal wanted to help get negotiations going.  He is trying to save Canadian jobs, especially in his riding which relies on the automotive industry.

The Liberal Party, of course, reacted with its usual calm and balanced approach, calling him a nazi sympathizer (see the beginning of the Breitbart News article below).

How did the media treat his visit to Trumpland?  First,  let's look at Jamal's own account, in his interview with the American media outlet Breitbart News.  

I hope my reaction is similar to yours.  Jamal sounded pretty sincere.  It sounds like he really does just want to help to get a deal going before any more economic damage is done to Canada.  He is right about the lack of negotiations and that Carney needs to step up to get things going.  Whatever the impact might be, Jamal getting a meeting with the president is pretty impressive.  Is there a Liberal MP who could have done that?  To me the basic question is, what harm could it do?

Now let's look at Canadian reactions.

We begin with CTV news, and I have to say good for this panel.  No knee-jerk conservative bashing, no eyeball rolling at what this upstart Jamal guy went and did.  The reactions were balanced, and overall they were ready to say that what Jamal did had some positive aspects to it, even if it may in the end not do a whole lot of good.  Only the bottom right guy in the 'Hollywood Squares' box showed at least a hint of TDS.  They did agree, generally, that Jamal's proactive approach should act as a bit of a stick poking Carney in the ribs to get something done.

But, sigh.  Now we move on to the CBC. 

Same old propaganda machine hard at work.  Conservative bashing.  Jamal bashing.  Trump bashing.   From start to finish, not one possible positive about what Jamal did.  The CBC could not even bother to find one conservative who would agree with what Jamal tried to do.  Nope.  They made sure they picked a conservative who would fit right in with the panel.  

I checked.  Most conservative MP's do not have a problem with what Jamal did.  And Polievre has not said anything against it at all.  The CBC could easily have found at least one conservative member for the panel who would have said something positive.  But they just could not do it.  Their anti-Trump anti-conservative garment has to be seamless, woven from whole cloth  from top to bottom.

And speaking of bottom, how about this bottom-feeder mature comment from a CBC analyst?   Jamal isn't just unqualified, or unequipped, but also too ugly.

To finish off, you can take a peek at a few of the typically hysterical CBC listener type responses, here.  Scroll through the four comments.  The last one is particularly juicy insofar as it shows how some our Canadian leftist friends are ready to adopt the strategy of some of their American counterparts, ie if you don't like what someone is saying or doing,  suggest killing them.