From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

A report from the House of Commons Heritage Committee claimed that ‘some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money.’

A report from a Canadian federal committee said MPs should enact laws to penalize social media and tech companies that don’t take action to quell so-called “undesirable or questionable” content on the internet.

MPs from the ruling Liberal, New Democratic Party (NDP), and separatists Bloc Québécois party on the House of Commons Heritage Committee summarized their opinions in a report.

“The Government of Canada notes some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money,” reads the report titled Tech Giants’ Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally.

“Disinformation creates ‘doubt and confusion’ and can be particularly harmful when it involves health information,” it continues.

The report notes how such “disinformation” can cause “financial harms as well as political polarization and distrust in key institutions,” adding, “The prevalence of disinformation can be difficult to determine.”

As noted in Blacklock’s Reporter, the report claims that many of Canada’s “major societal harms” have come from “unregulated social media platforms relying on algorithms to amplify content, among them disinformation and conspiracy theories.”

Of note is the committee failed to define what “disinformation” or “conspiracy theories” meant.

Most of the MPs on the committee made the recommendation that Google, Facebook, and other social media platforms, which ironically have at one point or another clamped down on free speech themselves, “put mechanisms in place to detect undesirable or questionable content that may be the product of disinformation or foreign interference and that these platforms be required to promptly identify such content and report it to users.”

“Failure to do so should result in penalties,” the report stated.

As it stands, the federal government under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has plowed ahead to push laws impacting free speech online.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Canadian legal group The Democracy Fund (TDF) warned that the Liberal government’s Bill C-63 seeks to further clamp down on online speech and will “weaponize” the nation’s courts to favor the ruling federal party and do nothing but create an atmosphere of “fear.”

Bill C-63 was introduced by Liberal Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.

Jordan Peterson, one of Canada’s most prominent psychologists, recently accused the bill of attempting to create a pathway to allow for “Orwellian Thought Crime” to become the norm in the nation.

Conservative MPs fight back: ‘A government bureaucracy should not regulate content’

Conservative MPs fought back the Heritage Committee’s majority findings and in a Dissenting Report said the committee did not understand what the role of the internet is in society, which is that it should be free from regulation.

“The main report failed to adequately explore the state of censorship in Canada and the role played by tech giants and the current federal government,” the Conservatives wrote in their dissenting report, adding, “Canadians are increasingly being censored by the government and tech giants as to what they can see, hear and say online.”

The Conservative MPs noted that when it comes to the internet, it is “boundless,” and that “Anyone who wants to have a presence on the internet can have one.”

“A government bureaucracy should not regulate which content should be prioritized and which should be demoted,” it noted, adding, “There is space for all.”

LifeSiteNews reported how the Conservative Party has warned that Trudeau’s Bill C-63 is so flawed that it will never be able to be enforced or become known before the next election.

The law calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content.

The bill’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying pre-emptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future.

Details of the new legislation also show the bill could lead to more people jailed for life for “hate crimes” or fined $50,000 and jailed for posts that the government defines as “hate speech” based on gender, race, or other categories.

From LifeSiteNews

By Matt Lamb

While Americans may be divided on a variety of issues, including abortion, guns, and parts of the LGBT agenda, a topic they seem to unite around is not injecting six-month-olds with the COVID shot.

President Donald Trump has the opportunity for an easy Day 1 in office victory — remove the COVID jabs from the childhood schedule.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added the shots to the recommended pediatric schedule despite children, especially babies, never being at any real danger of dying from COVID. The shots have been on the recommended schedule for almost two years now – but the widespread push has been a massive failure for the pharmaceutical industry.

Despite the medical establishment getting behind the push for pediatric COVID shots, and millions of taxpayer dollars spent on boosting them, a vast majority of parents are rejecting them. In fact, while Americans may be divided on a variety of issues, including abortion, guns, and parts of the LGBT agenda, a topic they seem to unite around is not injecting six-month-olds with the COVID shot.

According to the pro-vaccine Kaiser Family Foundation, only “15% of eligible children in the U.S. got a shot.”

This means that removing the shots from the recommended schedule would generate minimal pushback from parents.

While public health “experts” would likely complain, the parents have already spoken – they don’t want two or three more jabs for their six-month-old. The CDC currently recommends around 28 different jabs in the first two years of life.

Removal of the shots would be a way for Trump to show he is serious about taking on Big Pharma while also acknowledging the problems with the jabs he pushed through with Operation Warp Speed. It would also fit in with his pledge along with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to “Make America Healthy Again,” since the COVID jabs are linked to numerous problems, including serious heart problems and death.

“That will be one of my priorities, to make sure that Americans – of course, we’re not going to take vaccines away from anybody,” RFK Jr. told National Public Radio recently. “We are going to make sure that Americans have good information right now. The science on vaccine safety particularly has huge deficits, and we’re going to make sure those scientific studies are done and that people can make informed choices about their vaccinations and their children’s vaccinations.”

Evidence also supports removing the shots from the recommended schedule. Presumably, removal would discourage more parents from injecting their kids, as the shots would no longer have the CDC’s stamp of approval.

Medical experts have warned against the COVID shots for kids, as documented by LifeSiteNews.

“The Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children,” Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced in 2022. “We’re kind of scraping at the bottom of the barrel, particularly with healthy kids, in terms of actually being able to quantify with any accuracy and any confidence the even potential of benefit,” Ladapo, a Harvard University-trained doctor, said in 2022.

READ: COVID vaccine-related death estimates suggest millions could have died from the shots

Cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough also called on Trump last week to pull all COVID shots from the market.

“They have not had the safety track record America wanted to see,” he said recently.

“The viral infection [from COVID itself] is like the common cold now,” he said, as reported by Just the News. “So they’re not clinically indicated. They’re not medically necessary. They should be removed from the market.”

President Trump pledged to take on the Deep State. He also wants to make America healthy again and restore actual science to federal policy and not let big corporations write our regulations. He can do so by ensuring that the CDC does not needlessly push injections for a disease that does not really affect children.

Members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices are appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services, so Trump’s HHS secretary could appoint vaccine science realists to the committee.

He could find ways to withhold funding until the shots are removed, or he could issue executive orders formally opposing the shots. He has some shrewd entrepreneurs like Elon Musk around him. Plus, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an experienced litigator – someone can figure it out if they have the will. It is an easy Day 1 victory, and he should take the opportunity.