Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms’ bill likely dead now that Parliament has been suspended

Published

4 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

There is a good chance his now-infamous ‘Online Harms’ bill will be scrapped

An internet censorship bill which would have censored legal online content posted on social media through burdensome regulations is likely dead now that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has prorogued Parliament until the end of March.  

Bill C-63, known as the Online Harms Act, was put forth under the guise of protecting children from exploitation online but also sought to expand the scope of “hate speech” prosecutions, and even desired to target such speech retroactively and preemptively.   

The bill had called for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and a Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content. It was blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome. 

Due to Trudeau announcing on Monday morning that he plans to step down as Liberal Party leader once a new leader has been chosen, Parliament has been shut down. This means all bills, committees and other meetings have all been canceled. 

In Canada, the procedure of proroguing Parliament, which is not often used, must first be approved by Governor General Mary Simon. On Monday, she granted Trudeau’s request to prorogue Parliament until the end of March as the Liberals select a new leader.

Canada’s House of Commons procedure and practice reads, “Bills which have not received Royal Assent before prorogation are ‘entirely terminated’ and to be proceeded with in the new session, must be reintroduced as if they had.” 

“On occasion, however, bills have been reinstated by motion at the start of a new session at the same stage they had reached at the end of the previous session; committee work has similarly been revived.” 

The likelihood of bills being “reinstated” via a motion is highly unlikely, as come March when Parliament resumes, the government will likely fall, as all opposition parties have promised to vote no-confidence in the Liberal government. 

Bill C-63 bill’s “hate speech” section is accompanied by broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics, including levying preemptive judgments against people if they are feared to be likely to commit an act of “hate” in the future.  

Details from the now-defunct Bill C-63 showed 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.  

Bill C-63 was panned by many as being so flawed it would “never” be enforced. 

Other bills that are now likely dead include the highly criticized “pandemic prevention and preparedness” Bill C-293, which sought to give sweeping powers to the government in future so-called emergencies, and the Senate’s S-210 bill, which claimed to want to prevent children from accessing online pornography but could have also ushered in a totalitarian digital ID system according to critics. 

The last time Trudeau prorogued Parliament was in 2020 when he was under scrutiny for the WE charity scandal.  

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

How America is interfering in Brazil and why that matters everywhere. An information drop about USAID

Published on

USAID Corruption & Brazil’s Elections w/ Nikolas Ferreira & Mike Benz | PBD Podcast

If you’re reading this you’re probably aware that there’s an information war going on.  Not the battle between the corporate media vs the new independent journalists. That’s more of a technological and a new media story.  The real battle isn’t only between the players, it’s between the information each side is sharing with their audiences.

The corporate world looks down on independent media.  They use words like disinformation and misinformation and conspiracy.  What they don’t do very often is examine the information being shared and present their own take. In fact, often they don’t share the information at all.

This leaves corporate media faithful in a disadvantaged position.  They’re angry because they can’t understand why the world is changing (for the worse in their opinion).  They won’t give up their corporate addiction because they’ve become intrenched in the belief the independent start ups are sharing misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories.  Because their corporate sources of information choose to ignore or criticize information without presenting a more informed and researched version themselves, their followers are completely missing out on many of the biggest stories that are shaping the century we’re struggling through.

This podcast is a perfect example.  Chances are those who ignore independent media have no idea who Patrick Bet David is. That means they’re very unlikely to know anything about Mike Benz.  Benz has been revealing secrets of the deep state for years.  Recently he’s picked up massive audiences as he makes sense of what’s happening in America and around the world. (Especially with USAID)  PBD also talks to Brazilian social media sensation Niklas Ferreira who has a perspective of politics in South America’s largest and most important nation unlike anything you’ll see in the corporate media.

This podcast is fascinating and it answers a lot of questions, not just about America and Brazil, but about the US deep state efforts to control political movements everywhere.

From the PBD Podcast

Patrick Bet-David sits down with Nikolas Ferreira and Mike Benz to dissect the deep connections between USAID, Brazilian corruption, and the political battle between Lula and Bolsonaro.

Ferreira, one of Brazil’s most outspoken conservative voices, exposes how foreign influence and NGOs may be shaping Brazil’s political landscape, while Benz, an expert in geopolitical strategy, unpacks the hidden power dynamics between Washington and Latin America.

Continue Reading

Business

Apple suing British government to stop them from accessing use data

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

Apple is appealing a UK government order that could force it to create a ‘backdoor’ for authorities to access private user data. The move, pushed by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, threatens the company’s end-to-end encryption protections. President Trump condemned the demand, comparing it to tactics used in China.

Key Details:

  • Apple has lodged an appeal with the UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal, challenging an order that could weaken its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) encryption.
  • The company previously disabled ADP in Britain rather than comply, arguing that a backdoor would compromise user security.
  • UK security agencies argue that encryption helps criminals evade law enforcement, while Apple insists it will never create a ‘master key.’

Diving Deeper:

Apple is grappling with the British government over a surveillance order that could force the company to weaken its own security measures. The tech giant filed an appeal with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the court responsible for overseeing the UK’s surveillance laws, after Home Secretary Yvette Cooper pushed for the company to provide a ‘backdoor’ to encrypted user data.

The controversy centers around Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP), an encryption system that prevents even Apple from accessing a user’s iCloud backups. In February, the company disabled ADP in the UK rather than comply with the order. Without ADP, Apple can access and hand over certain iCloud backups, such as iMessages, if legally required. However, with full end-to-end encryption enabled, even Apple cannot retrieve the data. The UK order could force Apple to rewrite its security features, something the company strongly opposes.

Apple has made it clear that it will not compromise user privacy. “We have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and never will,” the company stated. Apple also warned that creating a backdoor for law enforcement would inevitably make millions of users more vulnerable to cyberattacks.

The UK government, however, argues that such encryption hampers law enforcement investigations, particularly into crimes such as child exploitation and terrorism. A Home Office spokesperson defended the order, stating, “The UK has a longstanding position of protecting our citizens from the very worst crimes while ensuring privacy protections.”

President Donald Trump criticized the UK government’s stance, comparing it to authoritarian surveillance practices. “We told them you can’t do this… That’s something, you know, that you hear about with China,” Trump said.

The case also raises concerns about whether the UK’s actions violate the CLOUD Act, a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and the UK that limits government demands for data on foreign citizens. Reports suggest that U.S. officials are now investigating whether Britain breached this agreement by pressuring Apple to create a ‘backdoor.’

Continue Reading

Trending

X