Censorship Industrial Complex
Jordan Peterson, Canadian lawyer warn of ‘totalitarian’ impact of Trudeau’s ‘Online Harms’ bill
From LifeSiteNews
“You don’t even know who it is… you can be accused regardless of your intent, regardless of the factual [reality], or [the] reality of your utterance, by people who do not have to identify themselves or take any responsibility whatsoever if their denunciation turns out to be false,”
In a recent podcast episode, well-known Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and Queen’s University law professor Bruce Pardy blasted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government over Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, a proposed piece of legislation which, if passed, could lead to large fines and even jail time for vaguely defined online “hate speech” infractions.
“Recently, the Trudeau woke mob has managed to extend themselves even further into the legal nether lands with a new bill called C-63, which isn’t law in Canada yet, but is soon likely to be, and it is the most totalitarian Western bill I’ve ever seen by quite a large margin and in multiple dimensions,” said Peterson in a recent Everything You Need to Know video podcast dated April 14, which was posted on his YouTube channel.
“And that was my conclusion, upon reading it and then my conclusion, upon rereading it and rereading it again, because I like to make sure I have these things right.”
Joining Peterson was Canadian lawyer Bruce Pardy and podcaster Konstantin Kisin. Pardy serves as executive director of Rights Probe, a law and liberty thinktank, and professor of law at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. As for Kisin, he is a Russian-British satirist, social commentator, who serves as co-host of the TRIGGERnometry YouTube show.
Peterson noted that in his view, Bill C-63 is “designed… to produce a more general regime for online policing.”
“To me, that’s what it looks like,” he said.
The trio spent the better part of two hours discussing Bill C-63, which was introduced by Justice Minister Arif Virani in the House of Commons in February and was immediately blasted by constitutional experts as troublesome.
Among other things, the bill calls for the creation of a Digital Safety Commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and the Digital Safety Office, all tasked with policing internet content, including already illegal internet content such as child exploitation material.
However, the bill also seeks to police “hate” speech online with broad definitions, severe penalties, and dubious tactics.
Details of the new legislation to regulate the internet 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.
Right at the start of the interview, Peterson noted that when thinking about Bill C-63, he thought of it as a “real masterpiece of right thinking, utopian, resentful foolishness.”
Due to the fact that the bill allows for accusations to be filed by anyone, and that there is no obligation for the government to reveal the name of the accuser to the accused, Peterson warned that Bill C-63 could see widespread corruption by individuals acting in bad faith.
“You don’t even know who it is… you can be accused regardless of your intent, regardless of the factual [reality], or [the] reality of your utterance, by people who do not have to identify themselves or take any responsibility whatsoever if their denunciation turns out to be false,” he warned.
Pardy chimed in to say that when it comes to Bill C-63, Canadians “don’t even know what the rules are going to be.”
“Basically, it just gives the whole control of the thing to our government agency, to the bureaucrats, to do as they think,” he said.
Regarding Pardy’s remarks, Peterson observed that the Trudeau government is effectively “establishing an entirely new bureaucracy” with an “unspecified range of power with non-specific purview that purports to protect children from online exploitation” but has the possibility of turning itself into an internet “policing state.”
Bill uses protecting kids as ‘cover,’ will have a ‘chilling effect upon speech’
Pardy told Peterson that one of the main issues with C-63, in his view, is that it “starts with the cover of protecting children… from online harm,” but that beneath this “great cover” it “enables” a crackdown on the “very idea of free speech.”
Pardy warned that Bill C-63 will see the return of an “old” Human Rights Act provision, titled Section 13, that was repealed by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2013 after it was found to have violated the right to free expression.
“One of the problems with the human rights regime is that complaints can be made very, very easily without a lawyer, without any cost,” said Pardy. “And because the Canadian federal government has jurisdiction over the internet, this section is going to authorize complaints of all kinds to be made against people who are speaking their minds online…”
Pardy noted that the revival of this type of process will “have a chilling effect upon speech, no question about it,” and it risks ending the “idea of free speech itself.”
Pardy observed that society already has a mechanism to protect kids, despite modern society’s idea that the “government is responsible for keeping people safe.”
“That’s ignoring the best mechanism we already have to keep children safe, which is their parents, right. It’s assuming that this is what this state is for if you went up to somebody on the street, anybody at random,” he said.
“We’ve lost the proposition that we’ve made a choice to have this large overwhelming government tell us what to do in place of all of the other things we used to have.”
Speaking further, Pardy observed that what laws like Bill C-63, and many other laws already passed by the Trudeau Liberals such as Bill C-16, are attempting to do, is change the way people perceive how laws should be enforced.
“The ethos of managerialism has supplanted the rule of law as the basic idea instead of the rule of law,” said the law professor.
“We have rule by law now, which means that the law is nothing more than a tool for the government to use to create a law on a whim,” he continued, adding that this is “not the way the Western legal system used to work.”
Criminalizing ‘hateful’ speech is ‘troublesome’ if bureaucrats decide what is ‘hateful’
In a recent opinion piece critical of Bill C-63, law professor Dr. Michael Geist said that the text of the bill is “unmistakable” in how it will affect Canadians’ online freedoms.
Geist noted that the new bill will allow a new digital safety commission to conduct “secret commission hearings” against those found to have violated the law.
“The poorly conceived Digital Safety Commission lacks even basic rules of evidence, can conduct secret hearings, and has been granted an astonishing array of powers with limited oversight. This isn’t a fabrication,” Geist wrote.
He observed specifically how Section 87 of the bill “literally” says “the Commission is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence.”
Peterson noted that giving “hate speech” such prominence and such a broad definition is “troublesome” as it will be up to bureaucrats to decide what is “hateful.”
“The whole notion of hateful speech, that’s troublesome. One, for me, because there’s an obvious element of subjective judgment in it,” he said, questioning who gets to decide what is “hateful” and on what “grounds” do they have the authority to make such a judgement.
Peterson warned that if Canada decides to “open the door” of tasking bureaucrats with determining what is or isn’t “hateful” speech, and if it blocks transparency on who is making accusations of hate, it “leads us to anonymous denunciation,” which he sees as dangerous because it fails to hold complainants accountable.
To make his point, Peterson said that “everybody, including every school child who’s like older than three, and maybe even three,” understands that there’s almost “nothing worse than a snitch, and all children are wise enough to know that.”
“Even if you are being bullied at school, let’s say, it has to get pretty damn brutal and bad before going to report it to the authorities is acceptable or justifiable,” he said.
“Now you know you can debate about the conditions under which that should or shouldn’t occur. My point is that even kids know that.”
Geist has noted that when it comes to Bill C-63, the “most obvious solution” to amend the bill “is to cut out the Criminal Code and Human Rights Act provisions, which have nothing to do with establishing internet platform liability for online harms.”
Giving historcal examples for why Bill C-63 worries him, Peterson explained that “we certainly know from places like the Soviet Union, just exactly what happens, or East Germany, what happens when one-third of the citizens, which was the case in East Germany, become government informers.”
“…Trust is gone. The worst people have the upper hand. It’s a complete catastrophe… Now in Bill C-63, you have a concatenation of these problems… now you know hate speech is going to be constrained and it can be identified by anonymous informants,” forecasted the psychologist.
Indeed, it is not just Peterson, Pardy and Geist who are warning of Bill C-63, but major law groups as well.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has said Bill C-63 is “the most serious threat to free expression in Canada in generations. This terrible federal legislation, Bill C -63, would empower the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute Canadians over non-criminal hate speech.”
JCCF president John Carpay recently hand-delivered a petition with 55,000-plus signatures to Canada’s Minister of Justice and all MPs, urging them to reconsider their sponsoring of the law.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Canadian university censors free speech advocate who spoke out against Indigenous ‘mass grave’ hoax
From LifeSiteNews
Dr. Frances Widdowson was arrested and given a ticket at the University of Victoria campus after trying to engage in conversation about ‘the disputed claims of unmarked graves in Kamloops.’
A Canadian academic who spoke out against claims there are mass unmarked graves of kids on former Indigenous residential schools, and who was arrested on a university campus as a result for trespassing, is fighting back with the help of a top constitutional group.
Dr. Frances Widdowson was arrested and given a ticket on December 2, 2025, at the University of Victoria (UVic) campus after trying to engage in conversation about “the disputed claims of unmarked graves in Kamloops,” noted the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) in a recent news release.
According to the JCCF, Widdowson was trying to initiate a “good faith” conversation with people on campus, along with the leader of OneBC provincial party, Dallas Brodi.
“My arrest at the University of Victoria is an indication of an institution that is completely unmoored from its academic purpose,” said Widdowson in a statement made available to LifeSiteNews.
She added that the “institution” has been “perpetuating the falsehood” of the remains of 215 children “being confirmed at Kamloops since 2021, and is intent on censoring any correction of this claim.”
“This should be of concern for everyone who believes that universities should be places of open inquiry and critical thinking, not propaganda and indoctrination,” she added.
UVic had the day before Widdowson’s arrest warned on its website that those in favor of free speech were “not permitted to attend UVic property for the purpose of speaking publicly.”
Despite the warning, Widdowson, when she came to campus, was met with some “100 aggressive protesters assembled where she intended to speak at Petch Fountain,” noted the JCCF.
The protesters consisted of self-identified Communists, along with Antifa-aligned people and Hamas supporters.
When Widdowson was confronted by university security, along with local police, she was served with a trespass notice.
“When she declined to leave, she was arrested, detained for about two hours, and charged under British Columbia’s Trespass Act—an offence punishable by fines up to $2,000 or up to six months’ imprisonment,” said the JCCF.
According to Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett, UVic actions are shameful, as it “receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually while it facilitates the arrest of Canadians attempting to engage in free inquiry on campus.”
Widdowson’s legal team, with the help of the JCCF, will be defending her ticket to protect her “Charter-protected freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly.”
Widdowson served as a tenured professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta, before she was fired over criticism of her views on identity politics and Indigenous policy, notes the JCCF. She was vindicated, however, as an arbitrator later found her termination was wrongful.
In 2021 and 2022, the mainstream media ran with inflammatory and dubious claims that hundreds of children were buried and disregarded by Catholic priests and nuns who ran some Canadian residential schools. The reality is, after four years, there have been no mass graves discovered at residential schools.
However, as the claims went unfounded, over 120 churches, most of them Catholic and many of them on Indigenous lands that serve the local population, have been burned to the ground, vandalized, or defiled in Canada since the spring of 2021.
Last year, retired Manitoba judge Brian Giesbrecht said Canadians are being “deliberately deceived by their own government” after blasting the former Trudeau government for “actively pursuing” a policy that blames the Catholic Church for the unfounded “deaths and secret burials” of Indigenous children.
As reported by LifeSiteNews, new private members’ Bill C-254, “An Act To Amend The Criminal Code” introduced by New Democrat MP Leah Gazan, looks to give jail time to people who engage in so-called “Denialism.” The bill would look to jail those who question the media and government narrative surrounding Canada’s “Indian Residential School system” that there are mass graves despite no evidence to support this claim.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Top constitutional lawyer warns against Liberal bills that could turn Canada into ‘police state’
From LifeSiteNews
‘Freedom in Canada is dying slowly and gradually, not by a single fell swoop, but by a thousand cuts,’ wrote John Carpay of the JCCF.
One of Canada’s top constitutional legal experts has warned that freedom in the nation is “dying slowly” because of a host of laws both passed and now proposed by the Liberal federal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney, saying it is “up to citizens” to urge lawmakers to reverse course.
In an opinion piece that was published in the Epoch Times on December 15, John Carpay, who heads the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), gave a bleak outlook on no less than six Liberal laws, which he warned will turn Canada into a “police state.”
“Freedom in Canada is dying slowly and gradually, not by a single fell swoop, but by a thousand cuts,” he wrote.
Carpay gave the example of laws passed in the United Kingdom dealing with freedom of online speech, noting how in Canada “too few Canadians have spoken out against the federal government gradually taking over the internet through a series of bills with innocuous and even laudable titles.”
“How did the United Kingdom end up arresting thousands of its citizens (more than 30 per day) over their Facebook, X, and other social media posts? This Orwellian nightmare was achieved one small step at a time. No single step was deemed worthy of fierce and effective opposition by British citizens,” he warned.
Carpay noted how UK citizens essentially let it happen that their rights were taken away from them via mass “state surveillance.”
He said that in Canada Bill C-11, also known as the Online Streaming Act, passed in 2023, “undermines net neutrality.” Bill C-11 mandates that Big Tech companies pay to publish Canadian content on their platforms. As a result, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, blocked all access to news content in Canada.
“The Online Streaming Act undermines net neutrality (all online content being treated equally) and amounts to an aggressive expansion of government control over the internet and media companies. The CRTC now has broad power over what Canadians watch, hear, and access online, deciding what is discoverable, permissible, or even visible,” noted Carpay.
Carpay also warned about two recent bills before the House of Commons: Bill C-2, the Strong Borders Act, Bill C-8, and Bill C-9, as well as the Combating Hate Act.
He cautioned that Bill C-2, as it reads, “authorizes warrantless demands for subscriber data and metadata from online providers.”
“Bill C-2 should be called the Strong Surveillance Act, as it gives sweeping powers to a host of non-police government officials to conduct warrantless searches,” warned Carpay.
He observed how Bill C-2 would grant law enforcement “unprecedented powers to monitor Canadians’ digital activity,” without any “judicial oversight.”
“Any online service provider—including social media and cloud platforms, email domain hosts and even smaller service providers—would be compelled to disclose subscriber information and metadata,” he warned.
When it comes to Bill C-8, or The Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, Carpay warned that if passed it would “allow government to kick Canadians off the internet.”
“The government’s pretext for the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act is to ‘modernize’ Canada’s cybersecurity framework and protect it against any threats of ‘interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation,’” wrote Carpay.
“Sadly, it remains entirely unclear whether ‘disinformation’ (as defined by government) would constitute ‘interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation’.”
Lawyer warns new laws ‘grant government unprecedented control’
Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act, has been blasted by constitutional experts as allowing empowered police and the government to go after those it deems have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.
Carpay, who has warned about this bill and others, noted that when it comes to Bill C-9, it affects Canadians’ right to religious freedom, as it “removes needed protection from religious leaders (and others) who wish to proclaim what their sacred scriptures teach about human sexuality.”
“Marc Miller, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, has stated publicly that he views certain Bible and Koran passages as hateful. Bill C-9 would chill free speech, especially on the internet where expression is recorded indefinitely, and particularly for activists, journalists, and other people expressing opinions contrary to government-approved narratives,” he wrote.
“This law also vastly increases the maximum sentences that could be imposed if a judge feels that the offence was ‘motivated by hatred,’ and creates new offences. It prohibits merely displaying certain symbols linked to hate or terrorism in public, and extends criminal liability to peaceful protest activity.”
Carpay said that both C-8 and C-9 together “collectively grant government unprecedented control over online speech, news, streaming services, and digital infrastructure.”
He said that the Liberal federal government is “transforming Canada’s centuries-old traditions of free speech and privacy rights into something revocable at the pleasure of the CRTC, politicians, and bureaucrats,” adding that Canadians need to wake up.
“Laziness and naivete are not valid reasons for failing to rise up (peacefully!) and revolt against all of these bills, which are slowly but surely turning Canada into a police state,” he wrote.
Carpay said that Canadians need to contact their MPs and “demand the immediate repeal of the Online Streaming Act and the Online News Act,” and “reject” the other bills before the House.
When it comes to Bill C-9, as reported by LifeSiteNews, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) launched a petition demanding that a Liberal government bill that would criminalize parts of the Bible dealing with homosexuality under Canada’s new “hate speech” laws be fully rescinded.
The amendments to Bill C-9 have been condemned by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who penned an open letter to the Carney Liberals, blasting the proposed amendment and calling for its removal.
Canadian gov’t considers sharing census data on gender-confused children
Residential school burials controversy continues to fuel wave of church arsons, new data suggests
Canada’s sudden rediscovery of energy ambition has been greeted with a familiar charge: hypocrisy
Alberta’s new diagnostic policy appears to meet standard for Canada Health Act compliance
RFK Jr reversing Biden-era policies on gender transition care for minors
Canada Hits the Brakes on Population
Brown University shooter dead of apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound
-
Business2 days agoTaxing food is like slapping a surcharge on hunger. It needs to end
-
Health2 days agoFDA warns ‘breast binder’ manufacturers to stop marketing to gender-confused girls
-
Uncategorized18 hours agoMortgaging Canada’s energy future — the hidden costs of the Carney-Smith pipeline deal
-
International2 days ago2025: The Year The Narrative Changed
-
Business1 day agoThere’s No Bias at CBC News, You Say? Well, OK…
-
Health2 days agoAll 12 Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies Found the Same Thing: Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier
-
Agriculture2 days agoSupply Management Is Making Your Christmas Dinner More Expensive
-
Daily Caller2 days agoTrump Reportedly Escalates Pressure On Venezuela With Another Oil Tanker Seizure