Censorship Industrial Complex
“Minority Report”: The Sequel. A warning to the Canadian Church
From the Frontier Centre for Pubic Policy
In the 2002 futuristic movie, “Minority Report,” viewers are introduced to a ground-breaking technology that allows law enforcement to preview a crime before it is committed. Then this determination becomes the basis for the arrest and the sentencing of the “pre-crime” perpetrator.
In a case of life imitating art, on February 26, the Canadian government tabled legislation containing provisions that are eerily like the plot imagined in Tom Cruise’s blockbuster.
The proposed legislation should be of great concern to churches and pastors who may face unprecedented legal exposure if it is passed.
Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, seeks to “promote online safety.” The Act endeavours, in part, to protect children from online sexual exploitation and requires the mandatory reporting of online child pornography by internet providers. So far, so good.
But the proverbial devil is lurking in the details of the provisions pertaining to online hate speech, which are simply breathtaking.
The Act represents what many consider to be the most dangerous assault on free speech this country has ever seen, prompting Canadian novelist, Margaret Atwood, to refer to the proposed legislation as “Orwellian.”
This bill would not only have a glacial effect on free speech, but it would also trigger an open season on religious organizations that do not align with mainstream dogma.
Here are some of the reasons behind this apocalyptic assessment of this piece of legislation.
The bill defines hate speech as speech that “is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
This definition is so vague, ambiguous, and far reaching that it could apply to any opinion that diverges from the government-sanctioned media narrative.
The responsibility of judging complaints would be lodged with the Human Rights Commission. This fact alone is deeply worrisome, as the threshold for deciding guilt is much lower in the Human Rights Tribunal than in a criminal court, where a person must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Plaintiffs could file their complaints anonymously without incurring any legal costs. Defendants, on the other hand, would be bound to retain legal counsel at considerable expense to them.
Should they win their case, the plaintiffs stand to be awarded up to $20,000. The defendants could be imposed an additional fine of up to $50,000. Should a legal violation be considered to have been motivated by hate, the defendants could also face life imprisonment!
The incontrovertible proof that Bill C-63 is not about protecting children but strangling free speech resides in what is now ironically referred to as the “Minority Report” provision.
As unhinged as it sounds, the legislation states that if a member of the public has grounds to believe that someone is likely to engage in hateful speech, that person can appeal to a provincial judge who may then subject the defendant to house arrest and other restrictions.
Human nature being what it is, there is no telling the number of people who will be incentivized to file complaints knowing they have much to gain and nothing to lose.
Conservative churches would become instant targets in the tsunami of human rights violation initiatives that the proposed legislation would trigger.
In response, churches may decide to play it safe by restricting their services to in-person participation or by self-censuring.
While either choice would no doubt be welcome by a government that wants to silence those who hold “unacceptable views,” to quote Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, such restrictions would no doubt prove to be detrimental to the churches and the common good.
The proposed legislation is not about protecting children. It’s about unleashing the mob against those who would oppose an agenda that is already proving to be an existential threat to liberal society.
Bill C-63 is currently at the nexus of the fight to preserve our most fundamental freedoms, Canadian democracy, and the well-being of future generations.
Churches have a window of opportunity to voice their opposition to this appalling piece of legislation.
What can be done?
First, be informed. Videos posted by the Canadian Constitution Foundation are a great place to start.
Second, promote congregational awareness. Church leaders can no longer pretend that such issues are beyond the scope of their pulpit. To denounce injustice is indeed part and parcel of the church’s prophetic mandate.
Third, church members should contact their member of parliament to express their opposition to Bill C-63.
Canadian churches have historically chosen to remain on the far edges of the culture war currently raging in the Western world. But if Bill C-63 receives royal assent, these same churches may soon unwittingly find themselves in the middle of the very battlefield they so vigorously sought to avoid.
Pierre Gilbert is Associate Professor Emeritus at Canadian Mennonite University.
From the Brownstone Institute
On August 27, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg issued a statement confirming what the Twitter Files, Murthy vs. Missouri, and many others had long claimed – that the Biden administration aggressively pushed to censor First Amendment-protected speech on social media, in particular relating to Covid-19 and the Hunter Biden laptop.
In the case of Covid, Zuckerberg writes that the Biden White House “repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain Covid-19 content, including “humor and satire.”
Zuckerberg also notes that the “FBI warned us about a potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma,” a Ukrainian energy company that Hunter Biden sat on the board of. The laptop was not “disinformation”, it was real and Twitter and Facebook wrongly suppressed the New York Post story that exposed it.
But Zuckerberg’s statement missed a key detail – at least three Facebook staff members participated in the Aspen Institute’s Hunter Biden table-top exercise that game-planned how to suppress the story two months in advance of the New York Post story.
The Aspen Institute “table-top” brought together a host of media and Big Tech including Facebook, the New York Times, Twitter, the Washington Post, and “anti-disinformation” NGO First Draft, to create their very own disinformation operation, literally planning day-by-day how they would respond to the leak.
Zuckerberg, however, writes, “That fall, when we saw a New York Post story reporting on corruption allegations involving then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s family, we sent that story to fact-checkers for review and temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply.”
You can almost see the fall maple leaves feathering their way innocently to the forest floor.
“It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we should not have demoted the story.”
But there was no surprise, as Facebook had participated in the Aspen exercise two months before the story broke.
Even for Aspen’s Garret Graff, who coordinated the exercise, things went even better than planned:
Regarding Covid-19, Zuckerberg says the government “repeatedly pressured” Facebook to “censor.” Regarding the Hunter Biden laptop, he only mentions they were “warned” “about a potential Russian disinformation operation.” There is no mention of pressure to censor. Did the federal government push Facebook to attend the Aspen Institute exercise? It seems they attended of their own volition.
Attending the Aspen suppression planning for Facebook was Nathaniel Gleicher, “head security policy at Meta,” who continues in his position to this day. The Twitter Files show Gleicher also met regularly with the Department of Defense (DoD) and FBI, and participated in a Harvard-led pre-election tabletop with the DoD whilst the Hunter Biden story was being suppressed on Facebook.
Surely someone as senior as Gleicher, tasked as he was with such sensitive and high-level contacts, would have told his boss about his attendance? After all, the laptop story could have a real impact on the outcome of a presidential election.
Twitter’s Yoel Roth also attended the Aspen exercise and played a critical role in suppressing the Hunter Biden story on that platform. Did Gleicher play the same role at Facebook? Gleicher’s participation has been known publicly since Michael Shellenberger first broke that story, 18 months and more than 100 million impressions ago.
If Zuckerberg believes suppressing the story was wrong, why has he kept Gleicher in such a senior role? If he knew of Gleicher’s participation in the Aspen exercise, why didn’t he blow the whistle at the time? Instead, he places all the blame at the foot of the federal government. No doubt they exerted pressure, but that does not appear to be the whole story.
Is Zuckerberg attempting to absolve himself of responsibility?
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
From LifeSiteNews
Canada is suggesting measures to counteract ‘misinformation’ and promote ‘marginalized’ groups are included in the WHO pandemic treaty, an initiative which experts have warned will undermine national sovereignty.
Canada wants to add misinformation and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures to the World Health Organization’s controversial global pandemic treaty.
According to a July summary report from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), Canada is suggesting measures to counteract “misinformation” and promote “marginalized” groups be added to the WHO global pandemic treaty.
“Comprehensive prevention strategies, inclusive surveillance practices, and addressing challenges for marginalized communities are essential for effective pandemic prevention,” it said.
“Data ownership, privacy, inclusivity, race-based data and cultural sensitivity are important issues which could be given greater consideration,” the report continued.
“Data collection can be a challenge, compounded by strained relationships between Indigenous people and the health system, marked by trust deficits and ingrained power differentials,” it claimed.
The report discussed Canada’s participation in the WHO global pandemic treaty. Formally known as the Pandemic Accord, the agreement would give the WHO increased power over Canada and other countries in the event of another “pandemic” or other so-called emergencies.
The PHAC report further discussed the importance of countering so-called “misinformation” in the event of another pandemic.
“Countering misinformation and disinformation is critical to pandemic response efforts, as seen by its impact on vaccination and immunization rates around the world,” the report said.
“Efforts should be made to hold social media platforms accountable for the content they host. However, it is imperative to address misinformation in a manner that respects freedom of speech and expression,” it continued.
However, it seems unlikely that those “countering misinformation” would work to safeguard opinions that differ from the globalist narrative, considering Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s response to the 2022 Freedom Convoy which protested COVID regulations.
In addition to using violent police force to drive the protestors out of Ottawa, the Trudeau government froze the bank accounts of Canadians who donated to the protest.
In addition to potentially suppressing legitimate opinion, Conservative MP Colin Carrie has warned that the treaty could “institutionalize” freedom-throttling COVID “pandemic mistakes.”
Similarly, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis has repeatedly warned that the new International Health Regulations (IHR) contained in the treaty will compromise Canada’s sovereignty by giving the international organization increased power over Canadians.
Lewis also gave her endorsement of a petition demanding the Liberal government under Trudeau “urgently” withdraw from the United Nations and its WHO subgroup, due to the organizations’ undermining of national “sovereignty” and the “personal autonomy” of citizens.
The petition warned that the “secretly negotiated” amendments could “impose unacceptable, intrusive universal surveillance, violating the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
US lawmakers accuse Pfizer, Eli Lilly of testing new drugs on prisoners in Communist China
From Deal With It: A Cruel, Senseless Fate Ends A Brilliant Career
Rethinking Public Education
Ottawa’s tariffs undercut Ottawa’s EV mandate
-
Agriculture1 day agoP&H Group building $241-million flour milling facility in Red Deer County.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Canada wants to add DEI measures to globalist WHO pandemic treaty
-
Crime2 days agoHunter Biden pleads guilty to tax charges, avoids public trial
-
International1 day agoTelegram founder Pavel Durov criticizes French authorities in first statement after his arrest
-
National1 day agoUnemployment Surges as Trudeau’s Policies Wreak Havoc on the Economy
-
Brownstone Institute9 hours ago
The Curious Case of Mark Zuckerberg
-
Crime2 days agoOfficials Arrest Father Of Suspected Georgia School Shooter
-
International9 hours agoISIS supporter used Canada in terror plot to massacre New York City Jews, motivated by October 7th Hamas attack on Israel: FBI