Important Whatcott update: In court this week for “hate crime” and I will be running for Parliament in Toronto’s University-Rosedale riding, Lord willing
Dear Friends,
The courthouse where I am standing trial for my so-called “hate crime,” May 25 -June 12, 2026, is located at 361 University Ave, Toronto, ON which is providentially located in Chrystia Freeland’s riding “University-Rosedale.” As many already know, Chrystia decided to ditch her constituents for much more important matters, like consulting Zelensky on Ukraine’s economy. Chrystia did such a fine job with the finances in Canada, not to mention she played a direct role in freezing people’s bank accounts when they protested her government’s draconian lockdown and coercive vaccine policies; I was actually delighted to see her go. I became even more enchanted with Chrystia’s departure when I realized the bylection to replace her is taking place approximately the same time my trial is happening, which lines everything up perfectly (perhaps providentially), as I am required to be in her riding when the byelection is happening to stand trial for my so-called “hate crime,” and really who is better suited and more qualified to represent this riding in Parliament than myself?
Anyways, here is my common sense, conservative Christian, Rural Albertan, election platform; tailored to meet the needs of downtown Toronto’s University-Rosedale riding. This riding seems to be populated by a diverse mixture of wealthy Liberal Anglo-Saxons (Rosedale), sodomites (downtown), university students and faculty (west end and downtown) and a mixture of immigrant cultures, Portugese, East Indian, Iranian, and not an insignificant minority of Chinese and Jews. Anyways, Christ and conservatism is the answer for all of them and indeed if they embrace my platform and vote for me, we could even help bring Toronto to its sense and in the process overcome some of the cultural and political divides driving Alberta separatism! Here is my Christian, conservative, common sense, election platform:
Anyways, God has provided me with an official agent who resides not too far from the riding and a couple potential helpers. It seems the Lord is bringing this worthwhile ministry and possible career advancement to fruition.
If you would like to donate to my political campaign you will be able to do so in a couple months or so. I am reading through the election regs and my official agent and I will open an election account when I get to Ontario, but at this point we are both sort of incompetent when it comes to this sort of thing, so please bear with us until we figure it out and get it done.
I am still in need of some volunteers for signature gathering and helping at all cadidate meetings. I need 100 signatures (and a few extra after that number is recommended by Elections Canada for a margin of error). The signatures need to be gathered in the riding before the election starts. Over 105,000 people reside in the riding, so we should be able to get 130 signatures or so without too much trouble, especially if I have a few helpers.
I have a good friend in Hamilton willing to host me for my hate crime trial. If I could get some accomodations closer to my riding that would be a blessing and I might have one good friend from the United States willing to come up and help me so I need a spot for him too.
Anyway, my hearing for the verdict on whether or not homosexual activist Nick Mule’ will be allowed to give “expert” testimony on my Gospel flyer distributed in the Toronto Homosexual unGodly Pride Parade in June 2016, will be rendered this coming Thursday at 10 am (Toronto time).
My election will be somewhat low budget (the biggest expense will be looking after my friend from the United States and my above election flyer). What I really need help with is money for myself to get to court in Ontario and to find a place to stay closer to the riding and my courthouse if possible. If you would like to help with these important needs you can do so here:
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”Ephesians 6:12-13
Invocation of Emergencies Act was illegal https://cafe.nfshost.com/?p=10945
Christine Van Geyn20 Jan 2026
A generational civil liberties victory has been upheld. On Jan. 16, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the Trudeau government illegally invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022 in response to the Freedom Convoy.
The unanimous judgment, which upheld the lower court’s decision in 2024, is meticulous, devastating and leaves little room for doubt. Future governments facing political turmoil have been put on clear notice: they cannot casually reach for emergency powers to solve a domestic protest.
The case was brought by the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, along with several individuals directly affected by the emergency measures. The court accepted the CCF’S argument that the Emergencies Act was never meant to be easy to use.
The act was deliberately crafted as a response to the abuses of the War Measures Act, infamously deployed by Pierre Trudeau during the October Crisis in 1970. Parliament replaced that law with one designed to restrain executive power, not expand it. As the Federal Court of Appeal emphasized, “one must not lose sight … of the history of the Act and of the context in which it was adopted.” Parliament, the court noted, “precisely circumscribed Cabinet’s discretion” to prevent the casual or political use of emergency powers.
Yet that is exactly what happened in February 2022.
The Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act in response to noisy and disruptive protests in Ottawa and blockades at several border crossings. The court rejected, point by point, the government’s attempt to justify that decision.
To invoke the act lawfully, cabinet had to reasonably believe that Canada faced a “threat to the security of Canada” — a term Parliament deliberately imported from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act and associated with serious violence. The government attempted to dilute that meaning, arguing that economic disruption and protest activity could qualify.
The court flatly rejected that argument. “To claim that the threshold for declaring a public order emergency … could be lower than the threshold for using the surveillance powers … under the CSIS Act would make little sense,” it wrote. “If anything, it should be the reverse.” Emergency powers, the judges made clear, demand more justification, not less — particularly when they authorize “a vast array of draconian powers without any prior authorization.”
Even more damaging was the court’s assessment of the evidence. Aside from the situation in Coutts, where a weapons cache was discovered but resolved using ordinary law before the Emergencies Act was invoked, there was no credible proof of serious violence: “When properly understood as requiring bodily harm, the evidence is quite simply lacking.”
CSIS ITSELF HAD ASSESSED THERE WAS NO THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.
CSIS itself had assessed that there was no threat to national security, and the government invoked emergency powers before a requested alternative threat assessment was completed.
The court’s conclusion was blunt: “As disturbing and disruptive as the blockades and protests could be, they fell well short of a threat to national security.”
The government also failed the Emergencies Act’s “last resort” requirement. Emergency powers may be used only when existing laws are insufficient. Yet the protests were ultimately cleared using the Criminal Code — the very tools already available at the time. The RCMP commissioner at the time had even advised the government that police had not exhausted their existing powers.
What was lacking in Ottawa, the court observed, was not legal authority but policing resources and co-ordination. That is not a national emergency. It is a failure of governance.
Equally damning was the government’s disregard for provincial opposition. Most provinces warned that invoking the Emergencies Act would be unnecessary and divisive. Cabinet failed to meaningfully engage with that opposition.
“In a federation,” the court wrote, “provinces should be left to determine for themselves how best to deal with a critical situation, especially when it largely calls for the application of the Criminal Code by police forces.” The judges emphasized that if the situation does not exceed capacity or authority of the provinces, “they should be left to their own devices.”
The regulations enacted after the declaration fared no better under constitutional scrutiny.
The court ruled that the sweeping ban on assemblies violated freedom of expression by criminalizing mere attendance at protests, including peaceful expression on Parliament Hill. Individuals could face up to five years in prison “not because of anything they were doing,” but because someone else nearby might breach the peace. That, the judges held, was grossly overbroad and unconstitutional.
Perhaps most chilling was the ruling on the financial measures. Banks were compelled to share Canadians’ private financial information with police without a warrant, without notice, and without recourse. Financial institutions were effectively deputized as agents of the state and told to “leverage the news” and social media to identify suspects.
The court found that this ad hoc system “lacked procedural safeguards” and allowed privacy to be invaded based on “potentially unfounded, subjective beliefs.” It violated the Charter’s protection against unreasonable search and could not be justified.
This decision now stands as binding precedent. It places real legal constraints on future governments and ensures that the Emergencies Act cannot be repurposed as a political convenience. It restores the act to what Parliament intended: a narrow, exceptional tool, not a blunt instrument against dissent.
The government spent millions defending the indefensible. It lost completely. And in doing so, it handed Canadians one of the most important civil liberties rulings in a generation.
That is worth celebrating. (National Post, January 29, 2026)
Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian
Constitution Foundation.
A rights ruling to be celebrated
Invocation of Emergencies Act was illegal
Christine Van Geyn20 Jan 2026
A generational civil liberties victory has been upheld. On Jan. 16, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the Trudeau government illegally invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022 in response to the Freedom Convoy.
The unanimous judgment, which upheld the lower court’s decision in 2024, is meticulous, devastating and leaves little room for doubt. Future governments facing political turmoil have been put on clear notice: they cannot casually reach for emergency powers to solve a domestic protest.
The case was brought by the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, along with several individuals directly affected by the emergency measures. The court accepted the CCF’S argument that the Emergencies Act was never meant to be easy to use.
The act was deliberately crafted as a response to the abuses of the War Measures Act, infamously deployed by Pierre Trudeau during the October Crisis in 1970. Parliament replaced that law with one designed to restrain executive power, not expand it. As the Federal Court of Appeal emphasized, “one must not lose sight … of the history of the Act and of the context in which it was adopted.” Parliament, the court noted, “precisely circumscribed Cabinet’s discretion” to prevent the casual or political use of emergency powers.
Yet that is exactly what happened in February 2022.
The Trudeau government invoked the Emergencies Act in response to noisy and disruptive protests in Ottawa and blockades at several border crossings. The court rejected, point by point, the government’s attempt to justify that decision.
To invoke the act lawfully, cabinet had to reasonably believe that Canada faced a “threat to the security of Canada” — a term Parliament deliberately imported from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act and associated with serious violence. The government attempted to dilute that meaning, arguing that economic disruption and protest activity could qualify.
The court flatly rejected that argument. “To claim that the threshold for declaring a public order emergency … could be lower than the threshold for using the surveillance powers … under the CSIS Act would make little sense,” it wrote. “If anything, it should be the reverse.” Emergency powers, the judges made clear, demand more justification, not less — particularly when they authorize “a vast array of draconian powers without any prior authorization.”
Even more damaging was the court’s assessment of the evidence. Aside from the situation in Coutts, where a weapons cache was discovered but resolved using ordinary law before the Emergencies Act was invoked, there was no credible proof of serious violence: “When properly understood as requiring bodily harm, the evidence is quite simply lacking.”
CSIS ITSELF HAD ASSESSED THERE WAS NO THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY.
CSIS itself had assessed that there was no threat to national security, and the government invoked emergency powers before a requested alternative threat assessment was completed.
The court’s conclusion was blunt: “As disturbing and disruptive as the blockades and protests could be, they fell well short of a threat to national security.”
The government also failed the Emergencies Act’s “last resort” requirement. Emergency powers may be used only when existing laws are insufficient. Yet the protests were ultimately cleared using the Criminal Code — the very tools already available at the time. The RCMP commissioner at the time had even advised the government that police had not exhausted their existing powers.
What was lacking in Ottawa, the court observed, was not legal authority but policing resources and co-ordination. That is not a national emergency. It is a failure of governance.
Equally damning was the government’s disregard for provincial opposition. Most provinces warned that invoking the Emergencies Act would be unnecessary and divisive. Cabinet failed to meaningfully engage with that opposition.
“In a federation,” the court wrote, “provinces should be left to determine for themselves how best to deal with a critical situation, especially when it largely calls for the application of the Criminal Code by police forces.” The judges emphasized that if the situation does not exceed capacity or authority of the provinces, “they should be left to their own devices.”
The regulations enacted after the declaration fared no better under constitutional scrutiny.
The court ruled that the sweeping ban on assemblies violated freedom of expression by criminalizing mere attendance at protests, including peaceful expression on Parliament Hill. Individuals could face up to five years in prison “not because of anything they were doing,” but because someone else nearby might breach the peace. That, the judges held, was grossly overbroad and unconstitutional.
Perhaps most chilling was the ruling on the financial measures. Banks were compelled to share Canadians’ private financial information with police without a warrant, without notice, and without recourse. Financial institutions were effectively deputized as agents of the state and told to “leverage the news” and social media to identify suspects.
The court found that this ad hoc system “lacked procedural safeguards” and allowed privacy to be invaded based on “potentially unfounded, subjective beliefs.” It violated the Charter’s protection against unreasonable search and could not be justified.
This decision now stands as binding precedent. It places real legal constraints on future governments and ensures that the Emergencies Act cannot be repurposed as a political convenience. It restores the act to what Parliament intended: a narrow, exceptional tool, not a blunt instrument against dissent.
The government spent millions defending the indefensible. It lost completely. And in doing so, it handed Canadians one of the most important civil liberties rulings in a generation.
That is worth celebrating. (National Post, January 29, 2026)
Christine Van Geyn is the litigation director for the Canadian
We use Brevo as our marketing platform. By submitting this form, you agree that the personal data you provide will be transferred to Brevo for processing in accordance with our privacy policy.
To the Australian Government
We call on you to:
– Repeal the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026.
– Commit to protecting freedom of expression and due process, including the presumption of innocence.
– Review current Speech Suppression laws to stop their weaponisation.
The Speech Suppression Laws have passed. The consequences are now real.
The Australian Parliament has just passed sweeping new criminal and migration laws that dramatically expand the state’s power over speech, association and expression.
The laws are un-Australian and go against the very idea of justice and fairness that we as a nation hold so dearly. It hands the state the power to criminalise speech, suppress dissent and punish people without due process.
In some cases, decisions may be made without procedural fairness, and penalties can flow from speech, symbolic expression, or perceived association rather than proven wrongdoing.
The laws mark a sharp departure from established Australian values of fairness, proportionality and the rule of law.
Under this law, claims of “association” can now ruin lives, leaving people branded and punished without real safeguards or a fair way to fight back, similar to the crack down of The Communist Party in the 1950s.
The fight is not over.
Parliament can repeal laws. Powers can be limited. Safeguards can be restored.
4. The politicians who imposed this vile police state act on Canadians, especially Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland be sued for violation of Canadians’ civil rights.
Story by Jim Bronskill
• 6h •
OTTAWA — The Federal Court of Appeal has ruled it was unreasonable for the Liberal government to use the Emergencies Act four years ago to quell protests in the national capital and at key border points.
The decision issued Friday affirms a 2024 Federal Court ruling that rejected use of the emergencies law and found invocation of the act led to the infringement of constitutional rights.
The Federal Court of Appeal said the government lacked a basis to declare that the events across Canada posed a threat to national security or amounted to a national emergency — requirements that must be satisfied to invoke the Emergencies Act.
For about three weeks in January and February 2022, downtown Ottawa was filled with protesters, including many in large trucks that blocked streets around Parliament Hill.
The usually placid city core was beset by blaring horns from big rigs, diesel fumes, makeshift encampments and even a hot tub and bouncy castle as protest participants settled in.
The influx of people, including some with roots in the far-right movement, prompted many businesses to temporarily shut down and aggravated residents with noise, pollution and harassing behaviour.
Public anger mounted over a lack of enforcement action by Ottawa police.
While many people demonstrated against COVID-19 health restrictions, the protest attracted some with a variety of grievances against then-prime minister Justin Trudeau and his government.
Trucks also jammed key border crossings to the United States, including routes at Windsor, Ont., and Coutts, Alta.
On Feb. 14, 2022, the government invoked the Emergencies Act, which allowed for temporary measures, including regulation and prohibition of public assemblies, the designation of secure places, direction to banks to freeze assets, and a ban on support for protest participants.
It was the first time the law had been used since it replaced the War Measures Act in 1988.
In a Feb. 15 letter to premiers, Trudeau said the federal government believed it had reached a point “where there is a national emergency arising from threats to Canada’s security.”
The Public Order Emergency Commission, which carried out a mandatory review after the use of the act, concluded in early 2023 that the federal government had met the very high legal standard for using the law.
The Trudeau government’s move was also scrutinized in Federal Court.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and several other groups and individuals argued in court that Ottawa lacked sound statutory grounds to usher in the emergency measures.
The government contended the steps taken to deal with the turmoil were targeted, proportional and time-limited, and complied with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Richard Mosley, the Federal Court judge who heard the case, concluded the federal decision to issue the proclamation did not bear the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and was not supported in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints.
Ultimately, there “was no national emergency justifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act,” Mosley said in his January 2024 ruling.
He also found the regulations barring participation in public assemblies violated the Charter guarantee of free expression. He said the scope of the regulations was overbroad and captured people “who simply wanted to join in the protest by standing on Parliament Hill carrying a placard.”
He also cited the federal government’s failure to require that “some objective standard be satisfied” before bank accounts were frozen, concluding this breached the Charter prohibition against unreasonable search or seizure.
The federal government appealed the decision, saying it was unfair to fault federal decision-making using “20/20 hindsight.”
The three-judge Federal Court of Appeal panel said that as disturbing and disruptive as the blockades and the “Freedom Convoy” protests in Ottawa could be, “they fell well short of a threat to national security.”
The Court of Appeal said this was borne out by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s own assessment, and the judges pointed to the fact that although an alternative threat assessment was requested, the Emergencies Act was invoked before it could be completed.
The Emergencies Act defines a national emergency as an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians, exceeds the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it and cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada.
The Court of Appeal concluded the government “did not have reasonable grounds to believe that a national emergency existed,” taking into account the wording of the act, its constitutional underpinning and the record that was before it at the time the decision was made.
The judges said the failure to meet the requirements to declare a public order emergency led them to conclude the federal proclamation “was unreasonable” and exceeded the bounds of legal authority.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said on social media Friday that by upholding the Federal Court’s decision, the Federal Court of Appeal is upholding Charter rights.
“When this Liberal government divides people and violates their freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression, it loses,” Poilievre said. “A Conservative Government will ensure the Emergencies Act can never be used again to silence political opposition.”
Canadian Civil Liberties Association executive director Howard Sapers said the court decision will force governments to consider in future how they meet the legislative thresholds in the Emergencies Act.
“This decision provides some guidance and some guardrails in terms of interpreting the legislation, refining the understanding of it,” he said during a media conference Friday. “The act could still be used and a government could still try to abuse it, but at least now there’s some there’s some precedent decision.”
It was not clear Friday whether the federal government would seek leave to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Simon Lafortune, a spokesman for Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, said the government was reviewing the ruling and assessing next steps.
He said the government “remains steadfast in its commitment to ensuring the safety and security of Canadians.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan. 16, 2026.
The War On Free Speech In Australia Is Getting Cartoonishly Absurd https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8oHQXQmLi4 A mentally disabled Australian woman is being prosecuted for antisemitic hate crimes after accidentally pocket-dialing a Jewish nutritionist, resulting in a blank voicemail which caused the nutritionist “immediate fear and nervousness” because she thought some of the background noises in the recording sounded a bit like gunshots.
Powerful New Documentary “The Hate Network” Exposes the Canadian Anti-Hate Network
Oakville. January 11, 2026 A large audience of free speech supporters got a sneak preview of the rough cut of The Hate Network a powerful documentary about the desperate plight of freedom of speech in Canada. It traced the hysterical anti-free speech measures imposed by all levels of government during the COVID scare, culminating in the imposition of The Emergencies Act, the modern War Measures Act to deal with a parking problem in Ottawa, the three-week protest in January 2022 by the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy.
At the centre of this documentary by Greg Wycliffe is an expose of one of most dangerous opponents of free speech in Canada CAHN, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. This private group, with ties to the masked and violent Antifa, puts out highly slanted smear pieces on all those on the right whom they call “haters”. They have received over $1,000,000 from the federal government, plus $500,000 in 2020 from the super woke Bank of Montreal. At times, they seem to be the bully boys for the Liberal Party’s far left DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) agenda, the film argues. An impressive cast of experts is interviewed including Canadian Army veteran Jeremy MacKenzie, videographer and lawyer Caryma Sa’d, lawyer John Carpay, Professor Frances Widdowosn, Professor Bruce Pardy, Pastor Artur Pawlowski, Pastor Henry Hildebrandt and many others. For most of human history, there has been little freedom of speech Queen’s University law Professor Bruce Pardy noted. For the last few hundred years in some European countries “freedom has been a brief blip in human history” and we may be about to lose it.
The documentary warned of the imminent threats to freedom of two pending pieces of police state legislation, BillsC-8 and C-9. We must get active to fight these vile pieces of speech control. We must stop being “nice” Canadians the audience was told. “Nice people don’t (speak up); good people do.” Pastor Henry Hildebrandt who was fined over $500,000 for keeping his Aylmer church opened for worship during COVID and threatened with years in prison, stated his resolve to speak up “with Holy Ghost boldness” to oppose this tyranny, Quoting Martin Luther, he concluded: “Here I stand; I can do no other.” [Hier stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders ]
Jewish Lobby Group Brags It Got Saskatoon Man Charged For Internet Hate
[You’d think with all the complaints by the Jewish lobby about growing “anti-semitism” in Canada, Jewish lobby groups might be a little more cautious about throwing their weight around. But, no they boast of scouring the Internet to try to silence those who criticize Jews (“anti-Semitism.) ““Moore’s virulent antisemitism has no place in Canadian society,” said Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy for B’nai Brith Canada. ““B’nai Brith Canada will continue to document, report, and pursue every available legal avenue to protect Jewish Canadians and to ensure justice,” said Robertson.” That is to shield Jews from strong criticism which was always one of the main reasons for Canada’s notorious “hate law” (now Sec. 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code) enacted after decades of Jewish lobby pressure. It never was about hate (whatever that is) The Supreme Court came clen in the Whatcott decision 2012) Whites and Christians are not protected from hate because they are not vulnerable minorities. Not “vulnerable minorities” but privileged minorities!]
Saskatoon man makes first court appearance on hate crime charge
Brandon Moore, 45, is accused of making anti-Semitic comments online.
SASKATOON — A Saskatoon man facing a hate crime charge made his first appearance in Saskatoon Provincial Court on Dec. 18. He is accused of making anti-Semitic comments online.
Brandon Moore, 45, is now scheduled to appear in court on Jan. 13, 2026, to enter an election. He isn’t in custody.
Moore is charged with public incitement of hatred and unsafe storage of a firearm. SPS say their investigation started in 2024 after they received a complaint about someone making anti-Semitic comments online. They say they identified the suspect and executed a search warrant at a Saskatoon home, that resulted in the seizure of digital evidence as well as a firearm.
In a media release Thursday, the B’nai Brith Canada Advocacy said the arrest was a result of their advocacy.
“Moore’s virulent antisemitism has no place in Canadian society,” said Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy for B’nai Brith Canada. “We applaud the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS) for investigating…and taking action to protect the Jewish community and all Canadians.”
B’nai Brith Canada said they had grown increasingly concerned about Moore’s conduct online. They said this led them to file several complaints with the SPS.
“B’nai Brith Canada will continue to document, report, and pursue every available legal avenue to protect Jewish Canadians and to ensure justice,” said Robertson.
The charges against Moore haven’t been proven in court. (Saskatoon Today, December 18, 2025)
“Street-Level Warning” for Canadians living under this legislation.
Canada’s Digital Guillotine: How Your Words Are About to Be Policed
The first Monday of 2026 has come and gone, and Ottawa is already sending a clear message: your voice online is no longer yours.
Prime Minister Mark Carney and his Liberals are moving faster than most Canadians realize, reviving the Online Harms Act, the same bill that died last year, but now armed with even bigger budgets, bigger bureaucracies, and bigger ambitions.
This is not about child safety. That’s the story they tell to make it seem harmless. The truth is far darker. This law gives a government commission the power to decide what is “harmful” and what isn’t. It gives platforms the choice to remove anything that might offend regulators or risk fines. In practice, this means anything you post, share, or even joke about could vanish. Your opinion, your commentary, your criticism, your religion, your art, all under the shadow of a $200 million bureaucracy designed to watch, judge, and silence.
It doesn’t matter if you’re careful, if you follow the rules, if you never break a law. This law is vague on purpose. It’s not meant to catch criminals. It’s meant to catch thinkers, questioners, people who challenge the narrative, people who refuse to stay silent. Ordinary Canadians like you and me could be flagged simply for sharing something a bureaucrat doesn’t like. A political cartoon could disappear. A video questioning government policy could be taken down. Even a private discussion could be scrutinized.
And the platforms will comply, because the fines are massive, and the government isn’t joking. They want control, and the easiest way to get it is to make everyone self-censor.
You post, you hesitate, you delete before anyone sees it, just to be safe. That’s the plan. That’s the real effect. This is how freedom dies quietly, without headlines, without drama, with people convinced they are just “being careful.”
Carney’s government is fast-tracking this. They are not waiting, not debating, not listening to the alarm bells that have been ringing since the first iteration of this bill in 2024. Consultations have been quiet, conversations behind closed doors, decisions made in rooms Canadians cannot enter.
The machinery is being built now, the rules written in shadow, the system designed to sweep every word, every post, every thought under the watchful eye of the state.
And make no mistake, this is just the beginning. The law is part of a larger plan. Expanded surveillance powers, AI monitoring, digital oversight, platforms acting as extensions of government judgment, it is all connected. Canada is on the edge of a digital panopticon, where the things you say, think, and share are never private, never safe, and never yours alone.
The first Monday of 2026 is more than a date. It’s a warning. The government is ready to take action, and if Canadians do not act, we will wake up one day in a country where free expression is conditional, where speaking out is risky, where silence is survival. This is the Canada Carney is building. Watch your words. Question everything my friends. Share this everywhere. If you do not, you may find your voice erased, and the freedoms you took for granted gone forever. This is not joke.
Step-by-Step Descent Since 2024
Feb 26, 2024: Bill C‑63 introduced. Digital Safety Commission and platform duties proposed. Public warned of chilling effects.
2024: Parliamentary debate; critics cry foul over vague definitions and administrative censorship.
Dec 4, 2024: Bill split into “child safety” and “broader harms” components, a tactical move to push through censorship.
Jan 6, 2025: Parliament prorogued, Bill dies. Liberals quietly vow to return.
2025: Behind-the-scenes consultations hint at regulating AI, deepfakes, political speech, and religious commentary.
Early 2026: Signals show Carney’s Liberals pushing full throttle to reintroduce the bill, with $200M+ bureaucracy poised to monitor, flag, and erase online content.
The Chilling Effect
Imagine a Canada where:
Your opinion can be removed instantly, judged by unelected bureaucrats.
Political criticism is censored before it reaches an audience.
Religious beliefs are monitored, flagged, and potentially suppressed.
Platforms remove lawful content preemptively to avoid fines, meaning your voice disappears because corporations are too afraid to defend it.
This isn’t dystopian fiction. The UK’s Online Safety regime shows how quickly regulation can criminalize digital expression, and Canada is now following the same path, only faster, under Carney.
The Midnight Man, [1/5/2026 1:20 AM] “I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” John Diefenbaker
Well, not any more. If you dissent, our wretched leadership and powerful minorities want to shut you up
I’ve seen the Canada of my youth that cherished free speech become a crabbed, mean cancel culture, now contemplating even greater restrictions. So, on my birthday I braved bitter cold to lead about 15 CAFE associates to join a rally at Hamilton City Hall to oppose the Liberals’ latest forays into thought control on the Internet. [I fly the Red Ensign the flag of the REAL Canada.]
CAFE supporters contributed the bulk of the 30 people who gathered at Hamilton City Hall to oppose the police state censorship bills C-8 AND C-9.
G
