It’s All About Thought Control: Liberals plan to introduce new hate speech bill before summer break

Liberals plan to introduce new hate speech bill before summer break

By True North Wire – June 23, 2021 Facebook Twitter Pinterest WhatsApp Linkedin

The Liberals plan to release a new bill targeting online hate speech before the House of Commons breaks for the Summer.

According to the National Post, Justice Minister David Lametti plans to table a bill that will “amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act (hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech).”

It is not immediately clear if the legislation will include regulation of internet content or only cover types of hate speech which the government consulted on last year.

The proposal comes as the Liberals try to pass the controversial internet regulation bill, C-10, which has been attacked for limiting free speech online.

Speaking at the Banff World Media Festival, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault hinted at the forthcoming legislation, going so far as to admit the bill will be divisive.

“Now, this is going to be controversial. People think that C-10 was controversial. Wait till we table this legislation,” he said. https://www.youtube.com/embed/pXtqCRpelxw?feature=oembed

Lametti’s bill has the potential of reviving an extremely controversial former law — Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Section 13 was heavily criticized for going beyond hate speech, effectively prohibiting speech online that was perceived as offensive. At the time, the section was widely condemned by civil rights groups.

Section 13 was repealed in 2013 thanks to a private member bill from a Conservative MP, but Lametti’s parliamentary secretary, Arif Virani, confirmed that the Liberals are examining the section to see if any of it should be returned to. https://www.youtube.com/embed/h0RY7403WoU?feature=oembed

True North fellow and free speech expert Lindsay Shepherd says government hate speech laws inevitably end up censoring legitimate free speech which some find offensive, adding that social media platforms already censor dissenting opinions.

“It all goes back to this: we don’t want the government defining online hate, because it will inevitably cast too wide of a net. We know that a Reddit forum for gender critical feminism was banned. A pro-life news site called LifeSiteNews had their YouTube channel banned. Rebel News was kicked off of PayPal,” she said. 

“This shows us that if the views you’re expressing fall outside the liberal-progressive orthodoxy, you can and will be shut out — and with a return of section 13 or some other similar online hate speech law, Canadians who express non-politically correct opinions could potentially face fines or legal trouble.”

In 2019, Shepherd testified at the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on regulation of hate speech online. https://www.youtube.com/embed/Bgk6gC_nG7o?feature=oembed

We’re asking readers, like you, to make a contribution in support of True North’s fact-based, independent journalism.

Unlike the mainstream media, True North isn’t getting a government bailout. Instead, we depend on the generosity of Canadians like you.

How can a media outlet be trusted to remain neutral and fair if they’re beneficiaries of a government handout? We don’t think they can.

This is why independent media in Canada is more important than ever. If you’re able, please make a tax-deductible donation to True North today. Thank you so much.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Wha

From Bad to Worse

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Thursday, March 18, 2021

From Bad to Worse

It is less than two months since I posted an essay entitled “Death and Doctors” that discussed how in the depravity of modern progressive liberalism those who are supposed to have dedicated their lives to healing disease and injury, alleviating pain and suffering, and saving lives are now expected to take the lives of the vulnerable at either end of the lifecycle through abortion or physician assisted suicide.   As I pointed out in that essay, both of these practices were against the law throughout most of Canadian history and the latter practice was only legalized quite recently.   It was in 2014 that Lower Canada – Quebec to those who are vulgarly up-to-date – became the first province to legalize physician assisted suicide and in February of 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada once again flexed the shiny new muscle that Pierre Trudeau had given them in 1982 by striking down the law against physician assisted suicide in its Carter ruling.   The Court placed a one year delay on this ruling coming into effect in order to give Parliament time to fix the issues with the law which the Court considered to be constitutionally problematic.   The Liberals, however, won a majority government in the Dominion election that year and so passed Bill C-14 instead, which completely legalized the practice and, indeed, allowed for physicians under certain circumstances, to go beyond assisting in suicide and actively terminate the lives themselves.   Note that while I would like to think that had Harper’s Conservatives remained in power the outcome would have been different, I am not so naïve as to be certain of that.   Indeed, the week after the Carter ruling, I had discussed how the Conservatives appeared to be preparing to capitulate on this issue in “Stephen Fletcher, the Byfields, and the Failure of Canada’s New Right”.

Now, one might be tempted to think that with regards to the issue of physician assisted suicide there is not much further in the wrong direction that our government could have gone than Bill C-14.   One would be very wrong in thinking so, however, as the government has just demonstrated.  

On February 24th of last year, a few weeks before the World Health Organization hit the panic button because a new virus that is significantly dangerous only to the very sorts of people most likely to be on the receiving end of euthanasia had escaped from China and was making the rounds of the world, Captain Airhead’s Liberals introduced Bill C-7 in the House of Commons.  David Lametti, who became Justice Minister and Attorney General after Jody Wilson-Raybould was removed from this position for refusing to go along with the Prime Minister’s corruption, was the sponsor.    The aim of the bill was to make it easier for those who wanted what they are now calling “Medical Assistance In Dying” or MAID – in my opinion the acronym produced by the old convention of leaving out words of three letters or less would be more apt – but were not already on death’s door to obtain it.   

As bad as the original draft of Bill C-7 was, it has undergone revisions over the course of the year since its first reading that make it much worse.   The most controversial revision is the one that includes a provision that is set to come into effect two years after the bill passes into law and which would allow access to the procedure to those who are neither at death’s door nor experiencing extreme physical pain and suffering but only have severe mental or psychological conditions.    Since it could be easily argued that wanting to terminate one’s own life constitutes such a condition – I suspect the vast majority of people would see it as such – the revised version of Bill C-7 looks suspiciously like it is saying that eventually everyone who wants a physician’s assistance in committing suicide for whatever reason will be entitled to that assistance.

Last week the revised bill passed the House of Commons after the Grits, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, invoked closure on the debate and forced a vote.    Since the bill will eventually make euthanasia available to those with merely psychological problems, why exactly the Bloc would support a bill with the potential to drastically reduce the numbers of their voters remains a mystery.    Jimmy Dhaliwal, or rather Jagmeet Singh to call him by his post-transition name as we would hate to mis-whatever anyone, announced that the NDP would not support the bill.   This should not be mistaken for an example of principled opposition to physician assisted suicide for the mentally ill, it was rather an example of voting the right way for the wrong reason – Singh’s rabid hatred of Canada’s traditional constitution.    In my last essay I pointed out how he, in marked contrast with the more popular and sane man who led his party ten years ago, has taken aim against the office of Her Majesty the Queen and wishes to turn the country into some sort of lousy people’s republic.   Here it is his problem with the Upper Chamber of Parliament that is relevant.   He did not like that some of the revisions were introduced in the Senate rather than the House of Commons.    As for that august body, the Senate passed the bill yesterday, by a vote of 60-25 with five abstentions.   This is easily enough explained.    Yesterday was St. Patrick’s Day, and even though the Senate is the chamber of sober second thought, its members were probably drunk.   The only mystery here is, with apologies to the Irish Rovers, whether it was the whiskey, the gin, or the three-or-four six packs.

A little under a year before Bill C-7 was introduced, it was announced in the federal budget that that the Dominion government would be spending $25 million dollars over a five year period to develop a nation-wide suicide prevention service.   In the fall of last year, after the information began to come out about just how badly the insane and unsuccessful experiment in locking down society to prevent the spread of a virus had affected the mental health of Canadians driving suicide rates through the roof, the government announced that it would be investing $11.5 million towards suicide prevention for “marginalized communities” that had been disproportionately affected by this mental health crisis, which they, of course, blamed on the virus rather than on their own tyrannical suspension of everyone’s basic rights, freedoms, and social lives.   Apparently the government cannot see any contradiction between prioritizing suicide prevention and providing easily available assistance in taking one’s own life.

By funding suicide prevention programs the government would seem to be taking the side in the ancient ethical debate that says that suicide is a bad thing and that it is wrong to take your own life.   The strongest version of this ethical position has traditionally been that of Christian moral theology.   Suicide, in Christian ethics, is not merely a violation of the Sixth Commandment, as the Commandments are numbered by the Jews, the Eastern Orthodox, and most Protestants, but a particularly bad violation of this Commandment because it leaves no room for earthly repentance and is an expression of despair, the abandonment of faith and hope in God.   In other traditions, suicide is generally frowned upon but in a less absolute way.   In some traditions suicide brings shame upon the memory and family of the person who commits it except under a specific set of circumstances in which case it accomplishes the opposite of this by erasing shame that the individual had already brought upon himself and his family through his disgraceful actions, shame which could only be expunged in this manner.   It is easier to reconcile these traditions with each other – preserving one’s family honour is a very different motivation from despair – than it is to reconcile either with physician assisted suicide.    Physician assisted suicide in no way resembles what would have been considered an honourable suicide in any pagan tradition.  In Christian ethics, since taking your own life is so bad, getting someone else to help you do it or do it for you is downright diabolical.  

Perhaps the very worst thing about Bill C-7 is that gives even more power to the medical profession.   The liberalization of the Criminal Code in 1969 and the Morgentaler decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988 gave doctors the power of life and death over the unborn.    This was already too much power, but the Supreme Court’s ruling in Carter in 2015 and the passing of Bill C-14 the following year gave them similar power over the elderly and infirm.   Last year, the Dominion government and every provincial government gave their top doctors dictatorial power over all Canadians, allowing them to suspend all of the basic Common Law rights and freedoms that are the traditional property of all of Her Majesty’s subjects regardless of Charter protections, power which they proceeded to disgracefully abuse as they gleefully and sadistically traded the serpentine staff of Asclepius for the Orwellian symbol of a boot stamping on a human face forever.   Now, Bill C-7 is extending their power of life and death even further in a most irresponsible way.   Physician assisted suicide is the foot in the door for outright euthanasia or “mercy killing”, extending the availability of the former to people who are not already dying will lead inevitably to doctors being allowed to perform the latter on those who are not already dying, and since it is doctors who get to say what is and what is not illness, mental or otherwise, the ultimate effect of this bill is to give the medical profession total and unlimited power of life and death over every Canadian.    Nobody should be trusted with that kind of power, least of all the medical profession as their behaviour over the last twelve months demonstrates.  Indeed, the disgrace they have brought upon their profession by their tyranny and their callous disregard for the social, psychological, spiritual and economic harm they have done with their universal quarantines, mask mandates and social distancing is such, that even seppuku on the part of all non-dissenting physicians may prove insufficient to restore their professional honour. Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 6:46 AM

Another Assault on Religious Freedom Parental Rights

Federal Liberals introduce bill aimed at cracking down on conversion therapy

OTTAWA — Justice Minister David Lametti has added another bill to the government’s agenda, tabling new amendments to the Criminal Code, to crack down on the practice of conversion therapy in Canada.

The legislation — a campaign promise and evolution on the government’s position last parliament — is proposing to prohibit unwanted religious counselling seeking to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual; gender identity to cisgender; or reduce non-heterosexual behaviour, nationwide.

The 11-page bill proposes five new Criminal Code offences, but leaves the door open to allowing adults who willingly want to pursue what has also been called  reparative therapy, to seek that assistance. But that remains possible only under limited circumstances.

What the government is looking to make a crime:

  • causing a minor to undergo conversion therapy;
  • removing a minor from Canada to undergo conversion therapy abroad;
  • causing a person to undergo conversion therapy against their will;
  • profiting from providing conversion therapy; and
  • advertising an offer to provide conversion therapy.

Bill C-8, as it’s been titled, would also allow courts to seize conversion therapy promotional material and order it removed from the internet, though it also presents the same restrictions on matters “alleged to be obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services.”

Based on the proposed changes the government has put forward, the maximum punishment would be five years in prison for some offences, and up to two years in prison for others.

The practice has been widely discredited and disparaged by several health and human rights groups, but these therapies are believed to still be offered in Canada.

Lametti and Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth Bardish Chagger made an announcement about the bill on Monday afternoon.

In announcing the bill, backed by several LGBTQ community members and MPs, Lametti called the proposed legislated ban the “most progressive and comprehensive in the world,” and referenced how the discriminatory practice has led to life-long trauma for Canadians.

“Conversion therapy is premised on a lie, that being homosexual, lesbian, bisexual or trans is wrong and in need of fixing. Not only is that false, it sends a demeaning and a degrading message that undermines the dignity of individuals,” Lametti said.

Though, the government is specifying that the new offences “would not apply to those who provide support to persons questioning their sexual orientation, sexual feelings or gender identity,” such as teachers or school counsellors, pastoral or faith leaders, doctors or mental health professionals, and friends or family members.”

As well, the bill clarifies that the new measures are not meant to “include a practice, treatment or service that relates to a person’s gender transition; or to a person’s exploration of their identity or to its development.”

When asked about these exclusions, Lametti said that a “legitimate conversation with an open end in helping someone to explore their sexuality” is not covered by this legislation, saying that “those kinds conversations are absolutely necessary as people move forward in life.”

Asked about why the legislation allows for adults to still willingly pursue this activity, Lametti said that the government “felt that a competent adult could conceivably defend the right in a court to consent to this kind of activity and we felt that we couldn’t move ahead with that, in that case scenario, simply because the Charter of Rights.”

The pair of ministers were mandated to move forward with a ban on conversion therapy, after Trudeau promised action on eradicating the “harmful and scientifically disproven practice,” during the 2019 fall federal election campaign.

In addition to the bill, the government will be taking additional steps in line with the provinces and municipalities given the span of jurisdictions and potential enforcement requirements, such as bylaw changes.

Some provinces and municipalities in Canada already have measures in place, such as specifying that conversion therapy is not an insured health service, and indicating that they expect health professionals to ensure that conversion therapy is not practiced in their jurisdiction.

Before coming out with the promised ban during the campaign, the Liberal’s position had been that health regulations are a provincial and territorial responsibility and implored the provinces to take this initiative on.

Currently, some offences like kidnapping, forcible confinement, assault or even fraud may apply to those conducting conversion sessions, but the government has indicated that the Criminal Code as it stands could go further to explicitly deter and punish those who engage in this practice.

LGBTQ community reaction

Appearing alongside Lametti and Chagger, conversion therapy survivor Erika Muse delivered an emotional reaction to the legislation, saying that she lives with the damage of conversion therapy daily. She questioned whether the bill as drafted will help people in all circumstances.

“I can’t say that this is a ban that would make me safe,” she said, encouraging parliamentarians to make changes to the bill.

Asked about her comments, in an interview on CTV’s Power Play, Chagger said that the conversation is just beginning, and that there’s time to “work on” the legislation.

In a statement ahead of the details of the bill being known, The Trevor Project — a U.S.-based suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ youth — said it’s proud of the Canadian government for moving to end the practice.

The organization is advancing an initiative aimed at ending conversion therapy in the United States, while similar initiatives to stop the practice are underway in Germany, Mexico and Chile.

“This legislation will save countless LGBTQ young lives,” said The Trevor Project’s Troy Stevenson. Based on a national survey the organization conducted in 2019 in the U.S., LGBTQ youth who experienced conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide.

“Countries across the world are taking active steps to address the devastating harms caused by conversion therapy,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, in a statement.

‘No doubt’ conversion therapy happens

A now-retired Senator, Serge Joyal has already introduced a bill in this Parliament, aimed at cracking down on the practice. His proposal, in Bill S-202 was to make it an offence to advertise conversion therapy services and to obtain financial or other material benefits from providing conversion therapy to anyone under the age of 18.

In a previous interview with CTVNews.ca Joyal said that he wanted to get the ball rolling and push the government to “stand by their electoral platform commitment,” and would be happy to have his proposal — now being spearheaded by Independent Sen. Rene Cormier — to be superseded by a government bill.

“There is no doubt that the practice is still in existence in Canada. It’s not visible, it’s like a submarine. It’s below the water level. But everyone knows that it’s there,” Joyal said.

According to a report published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, in Canada more than 20,000 LGBTQ and two-spirit Canadians have been exposed to conversion therapy treatments or other efforts aimed at repressing or changing their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

Conversion therapy is opposed by several health and human rights groups including the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization, which in 2012 said that these conversion programs “lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.”

The Canadian Psychological Association also opposes conversion therapy as it is “based on the assumption that LGBTQ identities indicate a mental disorder,” and “can result in negative outcomes, such as distress, anxiety, depression, negative self-image, a feeling of personal failure, difficulty sustaining relationships, and sexual dysfunction.”