I’ve been silent for a while, but I want to assure you it has nothing to do with Bill C-63. I’ve been travelling and tend to avoid emails, phone calls and social media while I’m away. In my travels however, I had a brief conversation with an older American gentleman who “felt sad for me being a Canadian.” He has been watching the news and was convinced that our freedom of speech is soon to be taken away because of (and I quote) “the worst prime minister he’s ever witnessed.” I couldn’t argue the point with him but jokingly retorted “that at least he (Trudeau) isn’t ‘the walking dead like you have here.”We had a lengthy discussion on the absurdity of Bills C-11, C-18 and now the more recent Bill C-63. Upon first consideration, these could indeed look like an effort to suppress dissenting opinions. They oddly included ‘online harm' to children. This I support, of course. However it should be a bill in itself, not tossed in to detract attention from the real intent to get past first reading. Frankly, it is time to ‘walk these three bills to the garbage can.’ When inclusion into the Criminal Code is added, this goes beyond online chat. There is simply too much buried in these bills. Read the legal brief, you will agree. Canadians need their voices heard. Speak up!To be fair, I’m guilty of ‘not speaking up’. I've watched all of this without commenting, although have occasionally taken part in some social media vitriol. I’m not proud that I have been silent and instead relied on Twitter ("X") and Reddit, which are some of the worst places to express oneself and hide in anonymity.But just look at the comments about Premier Danielle Smith’s trans puberty blocker policies. Those comments by several anonymous accounts act as a playbook for others to follow, as perfect examples of how to deliver insults and character assassination. I was hopeful we had progressed beyond this to sensible commentary. Regardless, should the owners of these accounts be tracked down and charged criminally? For commenting?When it comes to Bill C-63 which is An Act To Enact The Online Harms Act, that passed first reading in the House in February, there is cause for very serious concern. For any readers who are unfamiliar with this act, have a look. The legal brief is online. It is set to dictate your individual right to say something considered to be “harmful” or “hateful” online that could result in a fine of hundreds of thousands of dollars up to $10 million. Seriously? And worse yet, you could also be jailed, potentially for life. Are we as Canadians so concerned with a random person’s opinion of oneself on social media that someone could be prosecuted in this manner? I wonder who decides what is hate or hateful? But what is even more unnerving is who is the person(s) who drafted such a bill and passed it through first reading? I can’t help but ask “is this really Canada we are talking about?” Maybe it is time to take another look through our history books.In the Britannica dictionary, hate is defined as “to dislike (someone) very strongly: to feel hate for (someone).”Let's face it, some people are just that unlikable! Are we not allowed too ‘not like’ someone anymore? Why is that considered hate?Were you also aware that the Liberal government has already hired an online surveillance company to track your comments? George Orwell will most definitely be rolling in his grave and thinking “I told you so.”I raised the red flag last year about Bills C-11 and C-18 as two big steps in the direction of further controlling what Canadians can say, much less think. Some people told me I was ‘fearmongering'. Clearly, I was right to be concerned about these two bills as they could lead to more control and prosecution. And here we have it in Bill C-63!The most current example, and why Canadians should be concerned, is to be found in Brazil, where a Brazilian court has forced Twitter ("X") to “block certain popular accounts.” Why? Because they have dissenting opinions of the current government describing it as ‘totalitarian’. To Elon Musk’s credit, he has refused this request and is prepared to accept that the Brazilian Supreme court will shut down all access to Twitter ("X"). He considers this an acceptable loss. I guess the freedom of speech Brazilians once had, is now under control of the government-of-the-day.This goes beyond concern; it’s ‘downright scary’ that a government can go against the will of its people and effectively shut down debate and thought.There are currently laws in Canada that protect us from hate speech and much more. Some slight adjustments to wording would likely suffice to include online abuses for what is likely a ‘grey area’ needed for prosecution.I know some people reading this will scoff that this is not the intent of the Bill. Read the legal brief! Or should this Bill be scrapped before the average Canadian ends up with their life forever altered because they dared challenge their least favorite MP, MLA or city councillor? Will we see politicians or bureaucrats charged, or fined or given jail time for similar hateful commentary about their cohorts? I highly doubt it, as I’m sure will most people. One only needs to recall the images and aftermath of the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa to predict the outcome.Canada has truly become a ‘kangaroo court’ when hurt feelings are considered libelous and need to be prosecuted. Respectful discourse and debate should be commonplace and harmless even with a few colourful metaphors added in. What happened to having a ‘thick skin’, or just simply ignoring stupidity?Honestly, I feel we have become a shadow of our former Canada! When neighbouring counties are pointing this out, I know I am right. The majority of Canadians did not vote for this form of governance and hopefully never will again. Unfortunately, this Liberal government seems intent on keeping power no matter the cost, even if it includes shutting down and incarcerating opposing views.It’s time to 'Kill the Bills!'
I’ve been silent for a while, but I want to assure you it has nothing to do with Bill C-63. I’ve been travelling and tend to avoid emails, phone calls and social media while I’m away. In my travels however, I had a brief conversation with an older American gentleman who “felt sad for me being a Canadian.” He has been watching the news and was convinced that our freedom of speech is soon to be taken away because of (and I quote) “the worst prime minister he’s ever witnessed.” I couldn’t argue the point with him but jokingly retorted “that at least he (Trudeau) isn’t ‘the walking dead like you have here.”We had a lengthy discussion on the absurdity of Bills C-11, C-18 and now the more recent Bill C-63. Upon first consideration, these could indeed look like an effort to suppress dissenting opinions. They oddly included ‘online harm' to children. This I support, of course. However it should be a bill in itself, not tossed in to detract attention from the real intent to get past first reading. Frankly, it is time to ‘walk these three bills to the garbage can.’ When inclusion into the Criminal Code is added, this goes beyond online chat. There is simply too much buried in these bills. Read the legal brief, you will agree. Canadians need their voices heard. Speak up!To be fair, I’m guilty of ‘not speaking up’. I've watched all of this without commenting, although have occasionally taken part in some social media vitriol. I’m not proud that I have been silent and instead relied on Twitter ("X") and Reddit, which are some of the worst places to express oneself and hide in anonymity.But just look at the comments about Premier Danielle Smith’s trans puberty blocker policies. Those comments by several anonymous accounts act as a playbook for others to follow, as perfect examples of how to deliver insults and character assassination. I was hopeful we had progressed beyond this to sensible commentary. Regardless, should the owners of these accounts be tracked down and charged criminally? For commenting?When it comes to Bill C-63 which is An Act To Enact The Online Harms Act, that passed first reading in the House in February, there is cause for very serious concern. For any readers who are unfamiliar with this act, have a look. The legal brief is online. It is set to dictate your individual right to say something considered to be “harmful” or “hateful” online that could result in a fine of hundreds of thousands of dollars up to $10 million. Seriously? And worse yet, you could also be jailed, potentially for life. Are we as Canadians so concerned with a random person’s opinion of oneself on social media that someone could be prosecuted in this manner? I wonder who decides what is hate or hateful? But what is even more unnerving is who is the person(s) who drafted such a bill and passed it through first reading? I can’t help but ask “is this really Canada we are talking about?” Maybe it is time to take another look through our history books.In the Britannica dictionary, hate is defined as “to dislike (someone) very strongly: to feel hate for (someone).”Let's face it, some people are just that unlikable! Are we not allowed too ‘not like’ someone anymore? Why is that considered hate?Were you also aware that the Liberal government has already hired an online surveillance company to track your comments? George Orwell will most definitely be rolling in his grave and thinking “I told you so.”I raised the red flag last year about Bills C-11 and C-18 as two big steps in the direction of further controlling what Canadians can say, much less think. Some people told me I was ‘fearmongering'. Clearly, I was right to be concerned about these two bills as they could lead to more control and prosecution. And here we have it in Bill C-63!The most current example, and why Canadians should be concerned, is to be found in Brazil, where a Brazilian court has forced Twitter ("X") to “block certain popular accounts.” Why? Because they have dissenting opinions of the current government describing it as ‘totalitarian’. To Elon Musk’s credit, he has refused this request and is prepared to accept that the Brazilian Supreme court will shut down all access to Twitter ("X"). He considers this an acceptable loss. I guess the freedom of speech Brazilians once had, is now under control of the government-of-the-day.This goes beyond concern; it’s ‘downright scary’ that a government can go against the will of its people and effectively shut down debate and thought.There are currently laws in Canada that protect us from hate speech and much more. Some slight adjustments to wording would likely suffice to include online abuses for what is likely a ‘grey area’ needed for prosecution.I know some people reading this will scoff that this is not the intent of the Bill. Read the legal brief! Or should this Bill be scrapped before the average Canadian ends up with their life forever altered because they dared challenge their least favorite MP, MLA or city councillor? Will we see politicians or bureaucrats charged, or fined or given jail time for similar hateful commentary about their cohorts? I highly doubt it, as I’m sure will most people. One only needs to recall the images and aftermath of the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa to predict the outcome.Canada has truly become a ‘kangaroo court’ when hurt feelings are considered libelous and need to be prosecuted. Respectful discourse and debate should be commonplace and harmless even with a few colourful metaphors added in. What happened to having a ‘thick skin’, or just simply ignoring stupidity?Honestly, I feel we have become a shadow of our former Canada! When neighbouring counties are pointing this out, I know I am right. The majority of Canadians did not vote for this form of governance and hopefully never will again. Unfortunately, this Liberal government seems intent on keeping power no matter the cost, even if it includes shutting down and incarcerating opposing views.It’s time to 'Kill the Bills!'
