Author Archives: admin

IRST READING: Another NDP bill threatens to jail Canadians for speech

Posted on by

FIRST READING: Another NDP bill threatens to jail Canadians for speech

Two years in jail for any Canadian caught ‘condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying’ Indian residential schools

Leah Gazan
NDP MP for Winnipeg Centre Leah Gazan steps up to the podium at a news conference, Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2024 in Ottawa. Photo by Adrian Wyld /THE CANADIAN PRESS

First Reading is a Canadian politics newsletter curated by the National Post’s own Tristin Hopper. To get an early version sent directly to your inbox, sign up here.

Article content

T

For the third time in two years, a member of the NDP has introduced a private members’ bill

Last week, the House of Commons completed its first reading of Bill C-254, a private members’ bill introduced by the NDP’s Leah Gazan that would criminalize “residential school denialism.”

As the bill’s text states, any Canadian found to be “condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying the Indian residential school system” could be punished with up to two years in jail.

Article content

B

A judge would also be able to order the forfeiture of “anything by means of or in relation to” the speech offence.

“Since the discovery of unmarked graves (we have seen) an increase in denialism about what occurred in the residential schools. This is horrific,” said Gazan in a Friday statement on Parliament Hill.

Article content

Loading...

This is the second time Gazan, the MP for Winnipeg Centre, has put forward a bill to jail who she’s called “residential school denialists.” She introduced an identical bill in the 44th Parliament.

Article content

Bill C-254 also comes just 16 months after a private member’s bill by the NDP’s Charlie Angus that proposed to jail Canadians for speaking well of fossil fuels.

The Fossil Fuel Advertising Act, which died on the order paper with the dissolution of Parliament in March, would have prescribed strict punishments for any Canadian caught in the act of “promoting” a “fossil fuel, a fossil fuel-related brand element or the production of a fossil fuel.”

Article content

If a normal citizen had been caught perpetrating such a promotion, the punishment could be as severe as a $500,000 fine. If done as a representative of an oil company, it would have prescribed a two-year jail term.

Gazan’s reintroduced bill comes just as an upstart B.C. political party, OneBC, is campaigning hard against the notion that the summer of 2021 had yielded a wave of previously undiscovered graves at the sites of former Indian residential schools.

“No graves in Kamloops. No genocide. No wrongs left to reconcile. No land, cash, or power grabs. No looking back,” read a social media post by OneBC leader Dallas Brodie responding to Bill C-254.

The “unmarked graves” phenomenon began in May 2021 when Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation in B.C. garnered international headlines by announcing that a ground-penetrating radar survey had found “the remains of 215 children” at the former site of the Kamloops Indian Residential School.

A

The statement would prompt then prime minister Justin Trudeau to lower the flags on federal buildings to half-mast for an unprecedented five months.

Four years later, none of the 215 have been confirmed as graves, and Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc is now referring to the 215 as “anomalies.”

In August, a poll by the Angus Reid Institute found that Canadians still generally believed that Indian residential schools constituted a form of “cultural genocide” against Canadian Indigenous people (68 per cent agree vs. 23 per cent disagree).

Nevertheless, that same poll found that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous respondents were doubtful that the 215 anomalies were actually children’s graves

A majority of Canadians (Indigenous respondents 56 per cent, all respondents 63 per cent) said Canada should “only accept the claim if further information is publicly available to verify through excavation.”

Article content

Angus Reid Institute

Article content

In 2021, Gazan twice referred to the 215 as lying in a “mass grave” — a claim that went beyond Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc’s initial statements, which had said simply that the 215 were unmarked burials.

Gazan changed this to “unmarked graves” in a June 1, 2021 House of Commons statement, and has not mentioned the alleged Kamloops Indian Residential School burials in her Parliamentary statements ever since.

Private members’ bills very seldom become law, and Bill C-254 does include multiple caveats under which a charge of “denialism” can be dismissed. Defences of Indian residential schools are allowed if it’s an “opinion based on a belief in a religious text” or if the accused is able to establish that “the statements communicated were true.”

The bill also specifies that Canadians are allowed to say whatever they want in “private conversation.”

Long before Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc ever commissioned a ground-penetrating radar survey at the Kamloops Indian Residential School, the seven-year-long Truth and Reconciliation Commission inquiry concluded that Canada’s system of Indian residential schools had featured outsized rates of student mortality, particularly in the pre-First World War era.

Article content

As per the Commission’s 2015 final report, an estimated 3,200 children had died while attending Indian residential schools, predominantly from outbreaks of tuberculosis. Many of those were buried in on-site graveyards that were subsequently abandoned.

Senior Liberal Would Jail You for Quoting the Bible

Posted on by

Liberal MP moves to muzzle “hateful” religious scripture

Liberal MP Marc Miller is defending his remarks about limiting religious defences in hate speech cases, stating freedom of worship is not threatened.

Walid Tamtam, True North

Nov 02, 2025

Source: Facebook (Marc Miller)

Share

Liberal MP Marc Miller is defending his remarks about limiting religious defences in hate speech cases, stating freedom of worship is not threatened, but public incitement of hatred should not be shielded by citing scripture.

Miller, who chairs the House Justice Committee, made headlines Thursday after questioning if Canada’s Criminal Code allows too much leeway for individuals to defend hate speech by referencing religious texts.

“There are religious texts that say [hateful things],” he told committee witnesses, specifically referencing Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans. “Clearly, there are situations in these texts where these statements are hateful. They should not be used to invoke or be a defence.”

On Friday, he reinforced the message online, writing: “There should be no defence to the crime of publicly inciting hatred because, for example, someone relied on Leviticus 20:13 or Deuteronomy 22:22, which prescribe death to homosexuals and adulterers.”

The remarks sparked criticism from conservative commentators and faith advocates, who accused Miller of targeting scripture and religious speech.

“Mark Carney’s Minister wants to CONTROL which Bible passages can be read at church,” political commentator Jasmin Laine posted on X, citing Miller’s reference to Biblical chapters “hateful to LGBTQ people.”

Miller responded on the platform: “That couldn’t be further from the truth. You can read whatever you want. However, if you commit a public hate crime, you shouldn’t be able to use it as defence to what otherwise would be a public hate crime. This isn’t rocket science.”

The debate centres on Section 319 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes the willful promotion or public incitement of hatred against identifiable groups.

Miller did not propose immediate amendments to the law, but questioned whether current exemptions reflect the government’s intent.

“We have to be honest about what is being said, how it’s being justified, and whether our laws are working the way we say they are,” Miller told the committee.

Free Speech Persecution — Abuse BY Process:

Posted on by

Pro-lifer arrested for defending the unborn needs your help with his mounting legal bills

Alexander Kissiakov of Montreal was eventually acquitted of the charges, but he’s seeking $15,000 to help cover his legal expenses.

Featured Image LifeFunder

LifeSiteNews

Help arrested pro-lifer cover legal expenses: LifeFunder

(LifeSiteNews) – Alexander Kissiakov of Montreal, who was arrested and charged for standing in front of an abortion clinic handing out pamphlets to pregnant women to tell them about the psychological consequences of abortion, is asking the pro-life community to help him cover the legal costs he incurred for promoting a pro-life message.

On October 31, Kissiakov launched a LifeFunder to raise $15,000 to help cover legal expenses. It is only now that he can tell his story, as the court had issued a peace bond that prevented him from speaking publicly about his case until now.

“If you find my cause honorable and have the means to contribute, your support would be deeply appreciated,” Kissiakov said.

In September 2022, Kissiakov was arrested after protesting in front of an abortion clinic, where he gave a pamphlet to a person he thought was a patient but later turned out to be a nurse at the clinic who was offended by what he was doing.

“Following a renewed desire to ‘live by faith’ after watching Pastor Chuck Baldwin’s sermon, I stood on September 13, 2022, in front of an abortion clinic to distribute informational pamphlets to pregnant women about the psychological consequences of abortion — because I believed they had the right to know,” he said.

“Most declined to take one, and I respected their choice as they respected my right to be there.”

Kissiakov said that after the nurse said “no” to taking a pamphlet, the police were later called. He was wearing a shirt that quoted Psalm 22:10 on the front: “From my mother’s womb you have been my God.”

When police arrived, he was told to leave right away by the security guard, and that if he did not, the police would remove him. He made it a point to ask the police if he was under suspicion of committing a crime, and he was told he was not.

He said that he asked many times if he was being charged and was told he was not. Eventually, Kissiakov said, “police became agitated. They grabbed me violently, my phone fell, and the recording stopped.”

“They searched me while I was against the wall without informing me what crime I had committed or whether I was under arrest. After repeated demands for clarification, the police finally said that I was under arrest,” he said. 

He was told by one officer that he had done “mischief.” He later learned that he was charged with two counts of criminal harassment, one toward the nurse and one toward the users of the clinic.

He was also charged with one count of mischief for allegedly having “prevented, interrupted, or interfered with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property exceeding $5,000 (the abortion clinic).”

“In other words, what began with the police assuring me I had committed no crime ended in three criminal charges,” he said.

After the trial, with the help of his video evidence, all charges against him were dropped after it became clear to the judge that he was told by police that he was not being charged, with him saying, “one officer even submitted a written confession to that effect.”

“The nurse claimed that I had followed her and tried to enter the clinic, but her account contradicted both my video evidence and the Crown’s own submissions,” he noted.

“She further alleged that I told her, ‘According to God’s law, one cannot have an abortion.’ I believe she confused the biblical verse on my T-shirt for words I had spoken, as I made no such statement. The judge found the nurse’s testimony unreliable and dismissed that charge.”

Kissiakov said the court determined that he was not in the wrong, with him saying, “neither security nor the police witnessed any interaction between me and the patients. Video evidence showed that I approached women briefly and always politely.”

“The court ruled that none of this behavior met the threshold for intimidation required under section 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, and that there was no evidence any patient actually feared for her safety. Filming women’s faces while expressing opposition to abortion did not constitute harassment. I was acquitted on this charge as well,” he noted. 

Surveillance footage confirmed that he has never blocked access to the clinic.

Kissiakov noted that although he was acquitted on all charges “due to insufficient evidence,” the judge expressed “serious concern about statements I made during my testimony.”

He paraphrased her remark below:

“He claimed to act under the supremacy of God, above human law; believed he had a duty to inform only women, expecting less violent reactions from them; wished to position his camera lower to better film women seeking abortions; continued filming one woman after she refused his pamphlet; defied repeated police orders because he believed his conscience overrode them; admitted lying to men to reach women with his message; and acknowledged his actions were politically incorrect and unwelcome but necessary to follow his conscience. The court warned that if the prosecution pursued a peace bond under section 810, it would be inclined to consider it.”

Kissiakov agreed to the peace bond, which is said to be “why I have been unable to speak publicly about this matter until now.”

“I am now seeking $15,000 to help cover my legal expenses. If you find my cause honorable and have the means to contribute, your support would be deeply appreciated,” he said.

Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns of Threats to Free Speech From Bill C-8

Posted on by
Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns of Threats to Free Speech From Bill C-8
On Thursday, CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas was in Ottawa with other free speech advocates for the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to talk about the problems with Bill C-8, a federal bill to make changes to Canada’s telecommunications and cybersecurity laws. As written, section 15.2 could give the government sweeping powers to cut off Canadians’ phone or internet service in the name of cybersecurity, even for minor or suspected threats – no need for any warrant. Ministers would be able to issue secret orders to telecom companies like Bell or Rogers, with huge fines for those who disclose the minister took this action.

Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns: Liberal Hate Crimes Bill (C-9) Raises Free Speech Concerns

Posted on by

Canadian Constitution Foundation Warns: Liberal Hate Crimes Bill (C-9) Raises Free Speech Concerns

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) is concerned that key aspects of the Carney government’s proposed hate crimes legislation would unduly infringe on freedom of expression. 

Among other changes to the Criminal Code, Bill C-9 would establish a standalone hate crime provision that would allow for up to life in prison for committing an act motivated by hatred, would create new intimidation and obstruction crimes related to buildings used for religious worship or primarily by identifiable groups, and would establish a new crime of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying certain symbols such as terrorist flags or Nazi swastikas in a public place. [But not the communist hammer and sickle or the Israeli flag.]

The CCF has identified the following concerns: 

  • Overbreadth of the hate-symbol provision (s. 319(2.2)): It could chill legitimate speech in cases where it is unclear whether a symbol is “principally associated with a terrorist group” or “resembles a symbol” outlawed under the provision;
  • Extreme sentencing under the new hate crime offence (s. 320.1001): A person who commits mischief against property motivated by hatred could face up to seven years in prison, rather than the current two years;
  • Removal of Attorney General oversight: The bill would allow police to charge a person with hate speech without receiving the Attorney General’s consent, which is an important safeguard for freedom of expression that has been part of Canada’s law for decades; and
  • Lowering the threshold for “hatred”: The definition of “hatred” added as a new section 319(7) appears to lower the bar for hate speech set by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases like R v Keegstra and R v Whatcott, which could chill speech and public debate.

CCF Executive Director Joanna Baron questioned the need for parts of the bill considering Canada already has “robust hate propaganda laws. Creating new offences for hate-motivated crimes and lowering safeguards like Attorney General oversight is unnecessary and invites excessive prosecutions,” she said. ‘The new hate symbol offence only targets displays done with the intent to promote hatred, but without Attorney General consent as a safeguard, there is a real risk that people using these symbols in art, journalism, or protest will be charged first and vindicated later,” Baron added.

“I’m also very wary that banning hate symbols could be a slippery slope,” Dehaas said. “In free countries, we ought to criminalize violence, not speech, so this sets a worrying precedent.” (Canadian Constitution Foundation, September 19, 2025)

Antifa is very real, just follow th

Posted on by

Antifa is very real, just follow the money…

I have been punched by them. And I can confirm that Antifa is not a “myth”…

Richie McGinnissOct 18
 
READ IN APP
 

Opinion:

Thank you for reading and supporting PolitiBrawl. Continue to support independent journalism by becoming a paying subscriber on Substack today:

Upgrade to paid

There has been a lot of chatter about Antifa since Trump and his DOJ declared them a domestic terrorist group, and the left continues to claim that Antifa doesn’t exist.

I embedded with Antifa and their allies during the so-called “Summer of Love.” Chronicled in my book, RIOT DIET, I mostly refer to them as the “Umbrella Gang,” classified as anyone who was wearing black bloc to conceal their identities and carrying an umbrella or a shield to thwart law enforcement’s non-lethal munitions. Here’s the thing: If I walk up to someone in the streets and ask, “Hey, bro, are you Antifa?” Most especially if they are actually an active member of the group, their answer will be, “no” likely followed by some unpleasant names like “fascist” or “nazi”, which in a big crowd could easily earn me a punch to the head.

Source: Richie McGinniss, Portland BLM riots 2020

And for those who claim Antifa can’t possibly exist because it doesn’t have a leader my answer is simple: Antifa is decentralized and incognito by design.

Antifa’s members converse in encrypted chat networks and their twitter accounts hide behind anonymous banners. A dynamic leader is not required because their marching orders have not changed since the beginning: Trump is Hitler and Americans must do everything possible, including acts of violence, to keep him and his Nazi sympathizers from fulfilling their agenda. I have received death threats from members of this group. I have been punched by them. And I can confirm that Antifa–contrary to what Democrat Congressman Jerry Nadler claimed–is not a “myth.”

When covering protests, occasionally I will spot Antifa flags or patches. They are displayed by newbies or posers who can’t help but proudly display the logo of the organization that is most effective when it remains anonymously hidden behind a black mask and an umbrella or shield.

A message from our sponsor (piece continues below)

s)

Much like shell corporations, secret societies, 4Chan boards, and yes, radical Islamist terror cells, Antifa’s actual members and contributors are obscured behind a web of nonprofits and front groups. They show up to much larger protests and use these demonstrations as staging areas to achieve their goals.

The overwhelming majority of those who attend these forward-facing protests are normies who simply see the flyer on social media and want to pick up a free sign then feel part of something bigger: the “resistance” or the never-Trump tribe. But with the increased police presence comes an opportunity for a small group of well-organized and scurrilous agitators. Their aim is to antagonize police and create a spectacle of violence. If anyone within the protest appears to align with Trump, or asks a question that they deem to be slightly “faschy”, or even films something unsavory on a public street, they will be surrounded and harassed… or worse.

These individuals come well prepared. I’ve seen them utilize tools like leaf blowers (to blow away tear gas) metal saws (to cut through nonscalable fencing) and molotov cocktails (to firebomb police). They employ advanced tactics: heat resistant gloves to throw tear gas back at the cops, turtled shields that would be the envy of any Roman Legionnaire, lasers to blind cops, even trumpets to communicate orders of retreat and attack, as if on the battlefield during the Revolutionary War. Their allies in the media have parroted the idea that Trump and his ilk are all fascists, so they believe their cause is just as righteous as those of George Washington, Lincoln, or General Patton fighting Hitler in WWII.

Do these people pledge allegiance or go through a rigorous initiation process? No. Are they part of a complex network of safe houses, regional cells, and clandestine group chats where they plan the next clash? Yes.

If and when the police crack down, or when counter protesters fight back, then they are able to say, “look at Trump and his fascist friends!” During 2020, this played out like clockwork in hotspots such as Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, DC, etc. Now it’s happening in many of those same places today. Back then it was Black Lives Matter. But now that BLM has been proven to be an abjectly corrupt nonprofit, they have pivoted to new monikers, new catch phrases. Yet the same old playbook remains.

Source: Richie McGinniss, Portland BLM riots 2020

Take the example of the No Kings protests that are taking place nationwide today. Since the start of Trump 2.0, “No Kings” has staged bi-monthly protests in thousands of towns and cities across all fifty states. The fundamental building blocks for this scale of demonstrations include but are not limited to printed signs, permits, transportation, social media campaigns, media outreach the list goes on. All of this stuff requires money. “No Kings” is primarily funded by “Indivisible”, which has received over $7.6 million from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation since 2017. So while the “No Kings” movement claims to be grassroots, its primary donor is a billionaire who made his money through the same capitalistic practices that the most extreme elements of these protests claim to oppose.

It may not come as a surprise to the reader that Soros’ Open Society Foundation bankrolled the bail funds that ensured rioters would be let back onto the streets within hours of committing violent crimes against police. Soros was also the primary funder of progressive prosecutors’ campaigns in liberal urban enclaves throughout the United States. Many of those prosecutors are still doling out sweetheart sentences to violent rioters today.

So as the protests unfold over the course of Trump’s second term don’t forget:

Antifa is very real. The protests are primarily funded by billionaires who want to control the narrative. These protests are used as cover for rioters to agitate violence and sow the seeds of unrest. And the next time someone tells you that Antifa is just an idea, feel free to send them my way: @richiemcginniss.

Stop the Muzzle and Monitor Bill Before It Destroys Free Speech and Privacy

Posted on by

Stop the Muzzle and Monitor Bill Before It Destroys Free Speech and Privacy

Stop the Muzzle and Monitor Bill Before It Destroys Free Speech and Privacy

petition author imageCitizenGO – started this petition to Minister of Industry Mélanie Joly, Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree, and all MPs – 2025/10/08

Bill C-8, officially titled An Act respecting cyber security, has passed Second Reading and now moves through committee toward a final vote. Although framed as a cybersecurity measure, it functions as the Muzzle and Monitor Bill, a sweeping law designed to silence dissent and monitor citizens without oversight.

If passed, the bill grants the Minister of Industry the power to order telecom companies to disconnect individuals from internet, mobile, and payment services in secret.

No warrant. No judge. No public explanation. No appeal. No process. No transparency.

One internal directive is enough to erase someone’s digital presence.

The bill also enforces a mandatory gag order. Any person disconnected must remain silent. Speaking to friends, journalists, or even the courts triggers immediate fines: $25,000 for a first offence and $50,000 for each repeat offense.

Businesses face up to $15 million in penalties for warning customers, refusing an order, or going public. Company executives who object will face criminal charges and jail.

Censorship is only the beginning. Bill C-8 also builds the legal foundation for mass surveillance. It allows government agents to collect Canadians’ browsing history, location data, and financial records, all without a warrant.

Encryption backdoors become possible. Privacy disappears. Once a backdoor is created, it will not stay in government hands. Hackers and foreign adversaries will find it.

While civil liberties collapse, critical infrastructure remains unprotected. No new safeguards apply to hospitals, schools, or essential systems. The bill strips freedoms without securing anything.

Bill C-8 does not stand alone. It forms part of a broader framework that now includes:

  • Bill C-9, the so-called “Online Harms Act,” better described as the Everything is Hateful Bill, which redefines broad categories of expression as punishable “hate.”
  • Bill C-2, the “Strong Borders Act,” better described as the Peeping on Canadians Bill, introduces sweeping powers to monitor, collect, and centralize private data across government agencies.

Together, these bills create a legal regime of censorship, surveillance, and ideological control.

Speech is regulated. Privacy is erased. Dissent is punished.

Legal scholars, human rights advocates, and cybersecurity experts have all raised the alarm.

This is not a debate about safety.

It is a shift toward authoritarian governance.

Call on Minister of Industry Mélanie Joly, Minister of Public Safety Gary Anandasangaree, and all MPs to vote NO on Bill C-8, the Muzzle and Monitor Bill, and to defend our rights to free expression, privacy, and lawful access to digital services.

Sources:

Bill C-8 would allow minister to secretly cut off phone, Internet service, CCF warns -Canadian Constitution Foundation

Bill C-8 could strip internet, phone access for dissenting persons – Rebel News

From Bill C-26 to Bill C-8: House of Commons Reintroduces Key Cybersecurity Legislation – Dentons Data

Parliamentary Library: Legislative Summary of Bill C-8

Cyber security Bill C-8 passes second reading | The Catholic Register

Bill C-8 revives Canadian cyber security reform: What critical infrastructure sectors need to know

Government needs to fix dangerous flaws in federal cybersecurity proposal – CCLA

Federal Bill C-8 signals coming change for Canadian cybersecurity | Insights | MLT Aikins

Bill C-8 | openparliament.ca

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-8 (45-1) – First Reading – An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts – Parliament of Canada

CANCEL CULTURE: THEY DIDN’T LAUGH AND YOU WON’T GET THE CHANCE: Calgary venue cancels comedian Ben Bankas over Indigenous joke

Posted on by

: Calgary venue cancels comedian Ben Bankas over Indigenous jokes

A Calgary casino cancelled a performance by Toronto comedian Ben Bankas after receiving two complaints about jokes he made regarding residential schools.

Oct 9


 
READ IN APP
 
Source: Facebook

Author: Quinn Patrick

A Calgary casino cancelled a performance by Toronto comedian Ben Bankas after receiving two complaints about jokes he made regarding residential schools.

“They said that they got two complaint emails, and they forwarded one of them to me,” Bankas told True North. “I guess some woman saw the video on Facebook and was offended.”

The video, posted to social media by Bankas on the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, showcases him from a previous set saying that he’d just returned from Winnipeg, and it was like “an Indigenous zombie apocalypse.”

“I was thinking it’d be nice if there’s, you know, some sort of school we could send them to,” he continued. “Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. Say what you want about the residential schools, but you know, it’s nice architecture… I’m just saying it like those schools… If you wanted to go to a residential school now, in 2025 it’d be like $40,000 a year. Those motherf**kers got it for free.”

He was scheduled to play at the Grey Eagle Casino on the Tsuut’ina Nation in Calgary on Oct. 24, but the venue cancelled after receiving two complaints.

“This comedian goes by the name of ‘Ben Bankas,’ is due to perform at your event centre on October 24 2025 as advertised on social media,” reads the complaint shared with Benkas. “I would strongly advise your team to reconsider unless some sort of public apology is made to the Indigenous people of Canada.”

The comedian had performed in Calgary several times at the Yuk Yuk’s comedy club in recent years before moving to the Deerfoot Inn & Casino for larger seating capacity.

“For two years I was doing sold out shows at Yuks and then we stepped up to Deerfoot, and then this was like the next step up,” said Benkas. “I think they still should have done the show even though they were offended,” reflected Benkas. “But with everything that’s going with Bill C-8 and C-9, it’s a…weird time.”

Bill C-8 is currently before Parliament for its second reading, which would make changes to the Telecommunications Act. Section 15.2 (1) of one of the Bill’s parts enables the federal government to “prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specific person, including a telecommunications service provider.”

The justification for doing so includes “any reasonable grounds to believe it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, or degradation.”

Meanwhile, Bill C-9, entitled An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), was introduced last month.

The proposed legislation would define “hatred” in the Criminal Code.

When asked whether he faced any other backlash from the video, Bankas said there were a few “death threats and weird DMs (direct messages).”

“One person said they ‘were going to hunt me down like the animal I was,’” he said.

Before the show was cancelled, roughly 1,700 of 2,300 available tickets had been sold. While those who purchased tickets have been refunded, the two parties involved are still sorting out payment.

“It’s unconfirmed if they’re going to pay me because there was a guarantee,” he said. “It wasn’t a percentage of ticket sales. So it’s up in the air whether they’re going to pay me or not. I think they should.”

When True North contacted Grey Eagle Casino, they stated the show was cancelled due to “unforeseen circumstances” but declined to comment on Bankas’ financial situation.

Outside of the recent venue cancellation, Bankas said his career is going great.

“Audiences love it. The shows are all selling out. Pretty much everything is sold out for the next two months,” he said. “I just put out a special aimed mostly towards a Canadian audience called Invasion. It’s on my YouTube channel.”

The show at Grey Eagle Casino has been relocated to Yuk Yuk’s comedy club in Calgary for seven shows between October 24 and 27.