Tag Archives: Justin Trudeau

                                                             Throne, Altar, Liberty

Posted on by

Taking Offence and Denying Defence

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Wednesday, December 3, 2025

Taking Offence and Denying Defence

The late Sir Roger Scruton had much to say about the difference between “giving offence” and “taking offence.”  In an interview with Douglas Murray for The Spectator about a half a year before his death, for example, he said:

Remember though, that there’s this great distinction between giving offence and taking offence and we’re living in a culture where people become experts in taking offence even when it hasn’t been given.  And that’s what is taught in gender studies. It teaches young women to take offence at every remark a man might make or even his being there, you know. It’s a wonderful theatrical thing to take offence but it doesn’t lead to any lasting relationships. (1)

The importance of this distinction has to do with more than just gender.  Every form of “identity politics” majors in taking offence.  Identity politics is informed and underlain by the contemporary “morality” that has supplanted traditional moralities, including both the older traditional morality informed by classical ethics and Christian moral theology and the more recent morality of classical liberalism, in the civilization formerly known as Christendom in the post-World War II era.  This is one of the key distinguishing feature between the contemporary “morality” and traditional moralities.  Traditional morality taught you to moderate your speech and behaviour so as to avoid giving offence.  Contemporary morality teaches you to take offence and to moderate your speech and behaviour so as to minimize the likelihood of others taking offence.

The distinction is quite simple.  Allow me to illustrate.  If I were to go up to you and say something to the effect of “You dirty rotten so-and-so, you are ugly and stupid, a bum and a loser, and the biggest jerk who ever lived.  Now listen to me you miserable punk, you dress like a clown and smell like a skunk, your mother is a whore and your father is a drunk” then I would be giving offence.  If, on the other hand, I were to say to you “I listened to your lecture on this-or-that historical event and I don’t like your take on what happened because I think it portrays such-and-such a group in a poor light, bolstering unfair stereotypes, and although I am not a member of that group per se, I am deeply offended by your micro-aggression and think you need to be cancelled” or some such blithering nonsense, I would be taking offence.

Ordinarily, when someone gives offence the offence is intentional, he is deliberately trying to hurt the feelings of the person to whom he is speaking.  To the person who takes offence, however, the intentions of the person from whom he takes offence are irrelevant. 

With regards to the importance of intent it is worth observing that the cultural shift from the traditional morality of avoiding giving offence to the contemporary morality of taking offence, occurred simultaneously with the rise of technocratic managers in both government and private business. (2) Traditionally, in the Westminster system, the laws by which we are governed are subject to King-in-Parliament acting through legislation.  While the form remains in Canada, in the post-World War II era, the Prime Minister and Cabinet have increasingly by-passed the constraints the traditional system placed on their ability to impose new rules on Canadians, by relying more-and-more on civil service agencies acting through regulation instead.  The counterpart to this in the private sector is the increased control of middle level managers operating through Human Resource departments.

The reason this is worth pointing out here is because the traditional Westminster system of legislating by King-in-Parliament was closely allied with the Common Law tradition which includes the principle with regards to criminal culpability that actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (a guilty act does not make guilty unless the mind is guilty), that is to say, there needs to be criminal intent for there to be criminal culpability.  HR departments, by contrast, seldom if ever regard intent as an essential component of any of the myriad of made-up offences in the rule books through which they micromanage their employees.  While the parallel is not perfect it is notable.

The other factor that distinguishes giving offence from taking offence is objectivity.  If you give offence to someone by, for example, calling him a horse’s patoot, the offence is objective because it is reasonable to assume that anyone called this would be offended by it.  When someone takes offence that has not been given, however, the offence is largely if not entirely, subjective.  In Biblical hermeneutics, we distinguish between exegesis and eisegesis.  In both of these words the basic verb means to guide or to lead.  Exegesis adds the prefix for “out” and means to bring out of the text the meaning that is already there in it.  This, of course, is the approved hermeneutical method.  The other one, eisegesis, substitutes the prefix for “in” and means to read into the text the meaning you wish to find there.   Taking offence that has not been given is similar to eisegesis in this regards.

In this, as in so many other areas, contemporary morality is a poor substitute for traditional morality.  Morality informs law and when an inferior morality replaces a superior morality the result will be the introduction and multiplication of bad laws. 

The news media recently learned that the Liberal government led by Prime Minister Blofeld has come to an agreement with the Lower Canadian separatists. (3)   The separatists agreed to support the Liberal Bill C-9, a proposed series of amendments to the section of the Criminal Code pertaining to “hate.”  Over the past couple of years, Canadians have become increasingly disturbed and disgusted at a particular type of “protest” that has been popping up all over our country and the wider civilization.  Ostensibly about the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Middle East, these protests openly embrace not merely the cause of the Palestinians but the organization Hamas, glorify its worst actions, and are filled with violent, revolutionary, rhetoric directed not only against Israel but against our country and Western Civilization as a whole.  Bill C-9 is the Liberals’ proposed “solution” to this problem.  It is typical of the “solutions” put forward by politicians, especially Liberals, to problems that are largely of their own creation, in that it creates new statutory offences and laws where the already existing laws are more than sufficient to handle the situation if they would only be followed and enforced.  Bill C-9 would make preventing access to a place of worship or community centre by means of intimidation – which already violates more than one law – into a distinct “hate” offence.  It would also criminalize the public display of certain symbols.  To gain the support of the separatists, the Liberals agreed to include a further amendment in the bill that would remove the existing provision in Section 319 of the Criminal Code that exempts speech that expresses what the speaker holds in “good faith” based on “a belief in a religious text” from criminal culpability.

To do this would be to make a bad law worse.  What I said about bill C-9’s making of new statutory offences in the previous paragraph applies to all laws about “hate speech.”  Anything prohibited by “hate speech” laws that warrants being prohibited by law was already prohibited by law before there were any “hate” laws.  The most defensible limitation on speech in “hate speech” legislation is the prohibition of incitement.  Incitement is the urging or encouraging of others to commit a criminal act.  If the other person(s) actually commit the criminal act, the person who did the inciting shares in their responsibility and therefore criminal culpability for the act.  It is reasonable, therefore, that criminal incitement be prohibited by law, at least if the incitement is acted on.  Criminal incitement, however, was already against the law before “hate speech” laws were thought up. All “hate speech” laws did was single out a specific type of incitement, as if telling people to commit a crime against person X was much worse than telling people to commit the same crime against person Y, if when telling them to commit the crime against person X, you give the person’s race, sex, religion, whatever, as part of the reason. 

Worse, they expanded the prohibited speech beyond actual incitement.  Actual incitement is explicit.  It involves someone saying, in so many words, that such-and-such a criminal act should be committed.  The concept of “hate speech”, however, treats as the equivalent of actual incitement, speech that portrays groups that supporters of “hate speech” laws think should be protected in such a negative light that someone might be inspired to act criminally against that group.   It is interesting, isn’t it, how the progressive supporters of these kind of laws think that in the case of groups to which they think the law should extend special protection, negative portrayals will inspire people to commit crimes who were not already inclined to do so, whereas in the case of groups they do not think should be specially protected by the law – Christians, rather than Jews or Muslims, whites rather than any other race, men rather than women, heterosexuals rather than homosexuals, actual men and women rather than transsexuals – the non-stop stream of negative rhetoric on the part of progressives themselves, usually far more full of expressions of hate in the literal sense of the word than that which they seek to ban, will have no such effect.  Basically, “hate speech” laws in effect protect groups that progressives feel are entitled to special protection from having their feelings hurt.  Here, the thinking of the contemporary morality with regards to taking offence finds its legal manifestation.

The old laws against actual incitement were justifiable limitations on freedom of speech because they were not there to prevent the circulation of ideas but rather to prevent the encouraging of criminal acts.  “Hate speech” laws are not similarly justifiable.  Narrowing the range of ideas that can be circulated is precisely what those who introduce such legislation have in mind.  Moreover, good laws are few in number, clear and easy to understand, protect people and their property from objective, quantifiable, harm and not from subjective hurt feelings and extend this protection to everyone in the realm and not just to certain groups that progressive political parties think need special protection.  “Hate speech” laws do not meet any of those qualifications but are rather the opposite.  They are the textbook example of bad laws.

After the news was leaked about the deal between the Grits and the Bloc, the apologists for removing the exemption came crawling out of the woodworks.  Unsurprisingly, foremost among them was Marc Miller, (4) whom Blofeld just named Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, replacing Steven Guilbeault who resigned from Cabinet last weekend over Blofeld’s pipeline deal with Alberta.  It was difficult, prior to last weekend, to imagine that replacing eco-extremist Guilbeault could be anything but an improvement, but lo and behold, Blofeld managed the unthinkable.  Miller, a childhood friend of Captain Airhead, belongs to the former prime minister’s innermost circle.  If Blofeld really wants to move his party and the government he leads away from the blighted legacy of his predecessor, replacing one Trudeau-insider with another is not the way to go about it.  To the point at hand, however, Miller has been shooting his mouth off for months about how he considers certain Biblical texts “hateful” and wants to see the religious text exemption for “hate speech” eliminated. (5) 

In a meeting of the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which he was at the time the chair, just prior to All Hallows, Miller said “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans — there’s other passages — there’s clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals.”  This is a nonsensical statement.  The Bible identifies many different acts as sins.  This is not ordinarily interpreted as “hatred”, clear or otherwise, towards those who commit such acts, the late Fred Phelps notwithstanding.  When the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not commit adultery”, which act carried the penalty of death under the Mosaic Law, do we understand this to be hatred against adulterers? When the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”, do we interpret this to be hatred against perjurers?    If identifying someone’s behaviour as sinful is expressing “hatred” against that person, then the Bible could be interpreted as expressing hatred against all mankind when it says “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”  That it would be absurd to interpret it this way, however, is generally understood because the text, St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, goes immediately on to say “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”  Far from an expression of hatred towards those who sin, the Scriptures are a message of God’s redeeming love to sinners.  The thought contained in the verse from St. Paul just quoted is also expressed in what is undoubtedly the best-known verse in the Bible “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.’

When his words were immediately understood by several commentators, members of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and provincial ministers as calling for these Scriptural texts, their being read as Scripture lessons in church, and preached on from the pulpit, to be criminalized, Mr. Miller took offence.  All he intended, he maintained, was to say that these texts should not be allowed as defences, in cases of public incitement.  This is how he is now defending the proposed removal of the religious exemption from Section 319.  Note, however, the sleight-of-hand that is at play.  He hopes that those whose suspicions he wishes to allay will understand the public incitement, to which he says sincere belief in these Scriptural texts should not be a defence, to mean someone telling other people that they should commit some kind of violent crime.  If, however, interpreting these Scriptural texts in accordance with traditional Christian orthodoxy as identifying same-sex sexual activity as sinful is itself regarded as an expression of hate, then removing the religious exemption from Section 319 would have precisely the effect that Miller’s opponents say it would have, of opening the door for criminal prosecutions of Christian ministers who faithfully preach on these portions of Scripture.

All one has to do is look at the track record of the Liberal Party since Miller’s lifelong intimate friend Captain Airhead took over as leader in 2013 to realize that Miller should not be trusted to mean merely that the religious defence should be removed from cases of actual, explicit, incitement to violent crime.  One of the first things that Captain Airhead did upon becoming Liberal leader was to ban anyone who held the orthodox Christian view of abortion from running for a seat in the House as a member of the Liberal party.  During Captain Airhead’s premiership, the Liberal government made a lot of noise about combatting Islamophobia and anti-Semitism at the same time that a wave of arson and other vandalism directed against Christian churches was underway.  Arguably, the Liberal government itself had a hand in inciting that wave.   One of Miller’s Liberal colleagues, John-Paul Danko described the factual reporting of the over 120 churches so attacked as a “conspiracy theory.”  Repeatedly, over the course of the Airhead premiership, the Liberal government promoted as “Canadian values” ideas that were contrary to orthodox Christian moral theology – and, as they discovered to their discomfort, contrary to the traditional morality of other religions as well – and sought through various measures to coerce Christian churches into changing their moral theology to align with progressive values.

So no, we should not believe Mr. Miller that the removal of the religious defence will not lead to a wave of litigation and even criminal charges against churches unwilling to change their orthodox moral theology or to muzzle themselves.

Instead of doing what the Liberals and the Bloc are planning on doing, I propose that the government do the right thing instead.  It should strike Section 319 from the Criminal Code in its entirety and abandon its plans on reintroducing legislation similar to the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the bill repealing which had gone into effect the year after it received royal assent and the year before the Liberals resumed government.  It is the right thing to do because “hate speech” legislation is by its very nature, fundamentally bad law.  (6) 

Since morality informs law, we will also need to repeal the contemporary new morality that encourages people to take offence over every perceived slight to their identity, real or self-chosen, and reinstate the traditional morality that merely encourages people not to give offence.  This will be more difficult to do because it cannot be accomplished simply by passing or repealing a bill, but it is here at the cultural level rather than at the political and legislative, that the real battle must be waged.

 (1)   https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ full-transcript-douglas-murray-in-conversation-with-roger-scruton/

(2)   Today, due to decades of speculative fiction and the current state of AI development, “technocratic”, probably suggests to most people the idea of machines taking over.  That is not how I am using it here.  I am referring to the fact that the professional managers – government bureaucrats and HR types in the corporate world – considered as a class, are distinguished by the use of language that is “technical” in the sense employed by Michael Oakeshott in the title essay of his Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (London: Methuen, 1962) in which he distinguishes “technical” from “traditional” knowledge.

(3)   https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-bloc-hate-speech-laws-religious-exemptions

(4)   https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/religion-is-no-excuse-for-hate-carneys-newest-minister-says-of-proposed-removal-of-hate-speech-defence

(5)   https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-mp-reciting-hateful-bible-verses-about-homosexuality-in-public-should-be-illegal/

(6)    Earlier this week, paleo-libertarian editor Lew Rockwell published an article entitled “Why Banning Hate Speech is Evil.” I agree with the premise entirely although I would employ a different line of reasoning to argue for it.  Bans on “hate speech” are attempts to legislate what is in the human heart.  The civil government that attempts to do this, however, exceeds its own jurisdiction and intrudes into that which belongs to God alone.  This is the root of the evil the ancients called tyranny and that is often called totalitarianism in our own day. https://www.lewrockwell.com/ 2025/12/lew-rockwell/why-banning-hate-speech-is-evil.  — Gerry T. Neal

                                                             Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Wednesday, December 3, 2025

Taking Offence and Denying Defence

The late Sir Roger Scruton had much to say about the difference between “giving offence” and “taking offence.”  In an interview with Douglas Murray for The Spectator about a half a year before his death, for example, he said:

Remember though, that there’s this great distinction between giving offence and taking offence and we’re living in a culture where people become experts in taking offence even when it hasn’t been given.  And that’s what is taught in gender studies. It teaches young women to take offence at every remark a man might make or even his being there, you know. It’s a wonderful theatrical thing to take offence but it doesn’t lead to any lasting relationships. (1)

The importance of this distinction has to do with more than just gender.  Every form of “identity politics” majors in taking offence.  Identity politics is informed and underlain by the contemporary “morality” that has supplanted traditional moralities, including both the older traditional morality informed by classical ethics and Christian moral theology and the more recent morality of classical liberalism, in the civilization formerly known as Christendom in the post-World War II era.  This is one of the key distinguishing feature between the contemporary “morality” and traditional moralities.  Traditional morality taught you to moderate your speech and behaviour so as to avoid giving offence.  Contemporary morality teaches you to take offence and to moderate your speech and behaviour so as to minimize the likelihood of others taking offence.

The distinction is quite simple.  Allow me to illustrate.  If I were to go up to you and say something to the effect of “You dirty rotten so-and-so, you are ugly and stupid, a bum and a loser, and the biggest jerk who ever lived.  Now listen to me you miserable punk, you dress like a clown and smell like a skunk, your mother is a whore and your father is a drunk” then I would be giving offence.  If, on the other hand, I were to say to you “I listened to your lecture on this-or-that historical event and I don’t like your take on what happened because I think it portrays such-and-such a group in a poor light, bolstering unfair stereotypes, and although I am not a member of that group per se, I am deeply offended by your micro-aggression and think you need to be cancelled” or some such blithering nonsense, I would be taking offence.

Ordinarily, when someone gives offence the offence is intentional, he is deliberately trying to hurt the feelings of the person to whom he is speaking.  To the person who takes offence, however, the intentions of the person from whom he takes offence are irrelevant. 

With regards to the importance of intent it is worth observing that the cultural shift from the traditional morality of avoiding giving offence to the contemporary morality of taking offence, occurred simultaneously with the rise of technocratic managers in both government and private business. (2) Traditionally, in the Westminster system, the laws by which we are governed are subject to King-in-Parliament acting through legislation.  While the form remains in Canada, in the post-World War II era, the Prime Minister and Cabinet have increasingly by-passed the constraints the traditional system placed on their ability to impose new rules on Canadians, by relying more-and-more on civil service agencies acting through regulation instead.  The counterpart to this in the private sector is the increased control of middle level managers operating through Human Resource departments.

The reason this is worth pointing out here is because the traditional Westminster system of legislating by King-in-Parliament was closely allied with the Common Law tradition which includes the principle with regards to criminal culpability that actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (a guilty act does not make guilty unless the mind is guilty), that is to say, there needs to be criminal intent for there to be criminal culpability.  HR departments, by contrast, seldom if ever regard intent as an essential component of any of the myriad of made-up offences in the rule books through which they micromanage their employees.  While the parallel is not perfect it is notable.

The other factor that distinguishes giving offence from taking offence is objectivity.  If you give offence to someone by, for example, calling him a horse’s patoot, the offence is objective because it is reasonable to assume that anyone called this would be offended by it.  When someone takes offence that has not been given, however, the offence is largely if not entirely, subjective.  In Biblical hermeneutics, we distinguish between exegesis and eisegesis.  In both of these words the basic verb means to guide or to lead.  Exegesis adds the prefix for “out” and means to bring out of the text the meaning that is already there in it.  This, of course, is the approved hermeneutical method.  The other one, eisegesis, substitutes the prefix for “in” and means to read into the text the meaning you wish to find there.   Taking offence that has not been given is similar to eisegesis in this regards.

In this, as in so many other areas, contemporary morality is a poor substitute for traditional morality.  Morality informs law and when an inferior morality replaces a superior morality the result will be the introduction and multiplication of bad laws. 

The news media recently learned that the Liberal government led by Prime Minister Blofeld has come to an agreement with the Lower Canadian separatists. (3)   The separatists agreed to support the Liberal Bill C-9, a proposed series of amendments to the section of the Criminal Code pertaining to “hate.”  Over the past couple of years, Canadians have become increasingly disturbed and disgusted at a particular type of “protest” that has been popping up all over our country and the wider civilization.  Ostensibly about the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Middle East, these protests openly embrace not merely the cause of the Palestinians but the organization Hamas, glorify its worst actions, and are filled with violent, revolutionary, rhetoric directed not only against Israel but against our country and Western Civilization as a whole.  Bill C-9 is the Liberals’ proposed “solution” to this problem.  It is typical of the “solutions” put forward by politicians, especially Liberals, to problems that are largely of their own creation, in that it creates new statutory offences and laws where the already existing laws are more than sufficient to handle the situation if they would only be followed and enforced.  Bill C-9 would make preventing access to a place of worship or community centre by means of intimidation – which already violates more than one law – into a distinct “hate” offence.  It would also criminalize the public display of certain symbols.  To gain the support of the separatists, the Liberals agreed to include a further amendment in the bill that would remove the existing provision in Section 319 of the Criminal Code that exempts speech that expresses what the speaker holds in “good faith” based on “a belief in a religious text” from criminal culpability.

To do this would be to make a bad law worse.  What I said about bill C-9’s making of new statutory offences in the previous paragraph applies to all laws about “hate speech.”  Anything prohibited by “hate speech” laws that warrants being prohibited by law was already prohibited by law before there were any “hate” laws.  The most defensible limitation on speech in “hate speech” legislation is the prohibition of incitement.  Incitement is the urging or encouraging of others to commit a criminal act.  If the other person(s) actually commit the criminal act, the person who did the inciting shares in their responsibility and therefore criminal culpability for the act.  It is reasonable, therefore, that criminal incitement be prohibited by law, at least if the incitement is acted on.  Criminal incitement, however, was already against the law before “hate speech” laws were thought up. All “hate speech” laws did was single out a specific type of incitement, as if telling people to commit a crime against person X was much worse than telling people to commit the same crime against person Y, if when telling them to commit the crime against person X, you give the person’s race, sex, religion, whatever, as part of the reason. 

Worse, they expanded the prohibited speech beyond actual incitement.  Actual incitement is explicit.  It involves someone saying, in so many words, that such-and-such a criminal act should be committed.  The concept of “hate speech”, however, treats as the equivalent of actual incitement, speech that portrays groups that supporters of “hate speech” laws think should be protected in such a negative light that someone might be inspired to act criminally against that group.   It is interesting, isn’t it, how the progressive supporters of these kind of laws think that in the case of groups to which they think the law should extend special protection, negative portrayals will inspire people to commit crimes who were not already inclined to do so, whereas in the case of groups they do not think should be specially protected by the law – Christians, rather than Jews or Muslims, whites rather than any other race, men rather than women, heterosexuals rather than homosexuals, actual men and women rather than transsexuals – the non-stop stream of negative rhetoric on the part of progressives themselves, usually far more full of expressions of hate in the literal sense of the word than that which they seek to ban, will have no such effect.  Basically, “hate speech” laws in effect protect groups that progressives feel are entitled to special protection from having their feelings hurt.  Here, the thinking of the contemporary morality with regards to taking offence finds its legal manifestation.

The old laws against actual incitement were justifiable limitations on freedom of speech because they were not there to prevent the circulation of ideas but rather to prevent the encouraging of criminal acts.  “Hate speech” laws are not similarly justifiable.  Narrowing the range of ideas that can be circulated is precisely what those who introduce such legislation have in mind.  Moreover, good laws are few in number, clear and easy to understand, protect people and their property from objective, quantifiable, harm and not from subjective hurt feelings and extend this protection to everyone in the realm and not just to certain groups that progressive political parties think need special protection.  “Hate speech” laws do not meet any of those qualifications but are rather the opposite.  They are the textbook example of bad laws.

After the news was leaked about the deal between the Grits and the Bloc, the apologists for removing the exemption came crawling out of the woodworks.  Unsurprisingly, foremost among them was Marc Miller, (4) whom Blofeld just named Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, replacing Steven Guilbeault who resigned from Cabinet last weekend over Blofeld’s pipeline deal with Alberta.  It was difficult, prior to last weekend, to imagine that replacing eco-extremist Guilbeault could be anything but an improvement, but lo and behold, Blofeld managed the unthinkable.  Miller, a childhood friend of Captain Airhead, belongs to the former prime minister’s innermost circle.  If Blofeld really wants to move his party and the government he leads away from the blighted legacy of his predecessor, replacing one Trudeau-insider with another is not the way to go about it.  To the point at hand, however, Miller has been shooting his mouth off for months about how he considers certain Biblical texts “hateful” and wants to see the religious text exemption for “hate speech” eliminated. (5) 

In a meeting of the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, of which he was at the time the chair, just prior to All Hallows, Miller said “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans — there’s other passages — there’s clear hatred towards, for example, homosexuals.”  This is a nonsensical statement.  The Bible identifies many different acts as sins.  This is not ordinarily interpreted as “hatred”, clear or otherwise, towards those who commit such acts, the late Fred Phelps notwithstanding.  When the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not commit adultery”, which act carried the penalty of death under the Mosaic Law, do we understand this to be hatred against adulterers? When the Ten Commandments say “thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”, do we interpret this to be hatred against perjurers?    If identifying someone’s behaviour as sinful is expressing “hatred” against that person, then the Bible could be interpreted as expressing hatred against all mankind when it says “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”  That it would be absurd to interpret it this way, however, is generally understood because the text, St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, goes immediately on to say “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”  Far from an expression of hatred towards those who sin, the Scriptures are a message of God’s redeeming love to sinners.  The thought contained in the verse from St. Paul just quoted is also expressed in what is undoubtedly the best-known verse in the Bible “For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.’

When his words were immediately understood by several commentators, members of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and provincial ministers as calling for these Scriptural texts, their being read as Scripture lessons in church, and preached on from the pulpit, to be criminalized, Mr. Miller took offence.  All he intended, he maintained, was to say that these texts should not be allowed as defences, in cases of public incitement.  This is how he is now defending the proposed removal of the religious exemption from Section 319.  Note, however, the sleight-of-hand that is at play.  He hopes that those whose suspicions he wishes to allay will understand the public incitement, to which he says sincere belief in these Scriptural texts should not be a defence, to mean someone telling other people that they should commit some kind of violent crime.  If, however, interpreting these Scriptural texts in accordance with traditional Christian orthodoxy as identifying same-sex sexual activity as sinful is itself regarded as an expression of hate, then removing the religious exemption from Section 319 would have precisely the effect that Miller’s opponents say it would have, of opening the door for criminal prosecutions of Christian ministers who faithfully preach on these portions of Scripture.

All one has to do is look at the track record of the Liberal Party since Miller’s lifelong intimate friend Captain Airhead took over as leader in 2013 to realize that Miller should not be trusted to mean merely that the religious defence should be removed from cases of actual, explicit, incitement to violent crime.  One of the first things that Captain Airhead did upon becoming Liberal leader was to ban anyone who held the orthodox Christian view of abortion from running for a seat in the House as a member of the Liberal party.  During Captain Airhead’s premiership, the Liberal government made a lot of noise about combatting Islamophobia and anti-Semitism at the same time that a wave of arson and other vandalism directed against Christian churches was underway.  Arguably, the Liberal government itself had a hand in inciting that wave.   One of Miller’s Liberal colleagues, John-Paul Danko described the factual reporting of the over 120 churches so attacked as a “conspiracy theory.”  Repeatedly, over the course of the Airhead premiership, the Liberal government promoted as “Canadian values” ideas that were contrary to orthodox Christian moral theology – and, as they discovered to their discomfort, contrary to the traditional morality of other religions as well – and sought through various measures to coerce Christian churches into changing their moral theology to align with progressive values.

So no, we should not believe Mr. Miller that the removal of the religious defence will not lead to a wave of litigation and even criminal charges against churches unwilling to change their orthodox moral theology or to muzzle themselves.

Instead of doing what the Liberals and the Bloc are planning on doing, I propose that the government do the right thing instead.  It should strike Section 319 from the Criminal Code in its entirety and abandon its plans on reintroducing legislation similar to the notorious Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the bill repealing which had gone into effect the year after it received royal assent and the year before the Liberals resumed government.  It is the right thing to do because “hate speech” legislation is by its very nature, fundamentally bad law.  (6) 

Since morality informs law, we will also need to repeal the contemporary new morality that encourages people to take offence over every perceived slight to their identity, real or self-chosen, and reinstate the traditional morality that merely encourages people not to give offence.  This will be more difficult to do because it cannot be accomplished simply by passing or repealing a bill, but it is here at the cultural level rather than at the political and legislative, that the real battle must be waged.

 (1)   https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ full-transcript-douglas-murray-in-conversation-with-roger-scruton/

(2)   Today, due to decades of speculative fiction and the current state of AI development, “technocratic”, probably suggests to most people the idea of machines taking over.  That is not how I am using it here.  I am referring to the fact that the professional managers – government bureaucrats and HR types in the corporate world – considered as a class, are distinguished by the use of language that is “technical” in the sense employed by Michael Oakeshott in the title essay of his Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (London: Methuen, 1962) in which he distinguishes “technical” from “traditional” knowledge.

(3)   https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-bloc-hate-speech-laws-religious-exemptions

(4)   https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/religion-is-no-excuse-for-hate-carneys-newest-minister-says-of-proposed-removal-of-hate-speech-defence

(5)   https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-mp-reciting-hateful-bible-verses-about-homosexuality-in-public-should-be-illegal/

(6)    Earlier this week, paleo-libertarian editor Lew Rockwell published an article entitled “Why Banning Hate Speech is Evil.” I agree with the premise entirely although I would employ a different line of reasoning to argue for it.  Bans on “hate speech” are attempts to legislate what is in the human heart.  The civil government that attempts to do this, however, exceeds its own jurisdiction and intrudes into that which belongs to God alone.  This is the root of the evil the ancients called tyranny and that is often called totalitarianism in our own day. https://www.lewrockwell.com/ 2025/12/lew-rockwell/why-banning-hate-speech-is-evil.  — Gerry T. Neal

Bernier slams Truth and Reconciliation Day, calls residential school ‘genocide’ narrative a ‘hoax’

Posted on by

Bernier slams Truth and Reconciliation Day, calls residential school ‘genocide’ narrative a ‘hoax’

Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, condemned the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, stressing that ‘no bodies were found’ at residential schools.

Featured ImageMaxime BernierEJ Nickerson/Shutterstock

Thu Oct 2, 2025 – 10:41 am EDT

L

(LifeSiteNews) — People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier has condemned the residential school “genocide” narrative as a “hoax” on Truth and Reconciliation Day.

On September 30, as Canada observed the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Bernier pointed out the absurdity of celebrating a holiday based on the residential school “genocide” narrative, which has since been proven false.

“On this ‘National Day for Truth and Reconciliation,’ let’s remember that no bodies were found, that the residential schools ‘genocide’ is a hoax, and that reconciliation requires an end to the bs, the victim mentality, the fake white guilt, and the grifting based on it,” he posted on X.

Many Canadians commented under his post, thanking Bernier for his post and voicing their support of abandoning the holiday.

In 2021, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau installed September 30 as the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, making it a federal statutory holiday. At the time, the Liberal-funded mainstream media began promoting inflammatory and dubious claims that hundreds of children were buried and disregarded by Catholic priests and nuns who ran once-mandatory residential schools.

Canada’s Residential School system was a structure of boarding schools funded by the Canadian government and run by both the Catholic Church and other churches that were open from the late 19th century until the last school closed in 1996.

While some children did tragically die at the boarding schools, evidence revealed that many of the children passed away as a result of unsanitary conditions due to underfunding by the federal government, not the Catholic Church.

Now, four years later, there have been no mass graves discovered at residential schools. However, following claims blaming the deaths on the Catholic clergy who ran the schools, over 100 churches have been burned or vandalized across Canada in seeming retribution.

Since then, the Canadian government has quietly backtracked on its claims, refusing to publicly acknowledge its mistake.

Furthermore, as LifeSiteNews previously reported, internal emails revealed that federal workers questioned the residential school narrative as early as 2023 despite gaslighting Canadians who were suspicious of the media’s claims.

State of the Dominion – 2025

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

State of the Dominion – 2025

Seven years ago I entitled my annual essay for our country’s birthday “State of the Dominion – 2018.”  This was during the premiership of Captain Airhead, towards the end of his first term, and I noted that we were in the midst of a third “revolution within the form.”  The first had taken place in the early twentieth century in the premiership of William Lyon Mackenzie King and the second from the mid-1960s to 1982 in the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau.  Captain Airhead is finally out of office, although the Liberal Party – the party that each of these men had led – remains in power, under the new leadership of Blofeld.  So it is time to revisit the matter of the state of the Dominion.

The first thing to be observed is that as we emerge from the Airhead premiership Canada is in a far less worse condition than we could have anticipated going into that premiership after the 2015 Dominion Election.  This does not mean that we are emerging unscathed, far from it. 

On the social/moral front alone, the progressive agenda has been horribly advanced.  In 2023 a bill banning “conversion therapy” passed Parliament with unanimous support.  While the expression “conversion therapy” tends to conjure up the image of something similar to the Ludovico Technique from A Clockwork Orange, the bill banning it was worded so broadly that it essentially forbids the offering of counseling to anyone seeking help in conforming their “sexual orientation” and/or “gender identity” to the reality of their biological sex.  Meanwhile, the progressive forces that demanded this ban have insisted that the opposite sort of conversion therapy be provided at the taxpayers’ expense to minors without their parents’ consent.  The opposite sort of conversion therapy is hormone therapy and surgery intended to conform biological sex, at least in appearance, to “gender identity.”

Nor is this the worst example of the advancement of the progressive social/moral agenda in the Airhead years.  That dishonour goes to the aggressive promotion of the culture of death by Captain Airhead.  There was little he could do in the way of making abortion more available in Canada since the status quo going into his premiership was the absence of any legal restrictions due to the failure of Parliament to pass any after the Morgentaler ruling in 1988 struck down the previous laws on the matter.  He could and did waste tax dollars on promoting abortion outside of Canada.  It was the euthanasia side of the culture of death, however, that will be remembered as the darkest part of his legacy.  Captain Airhead became prime minister later in the year that the Supreme Court struck down the Criminal Code’s prohibition against euthanasia and in the first year of his premiership a bill that outright legalized it passed Parliament.  In the near-decade since, further legislation, policy decisions and court rulings have expanded the assisted suicide program dubbed MAID (Medical Assistance in Dying) and like abortion, marketed by those in favour of it as a “health care” choice, extending it far beyond the terminally ill.  In 2021 they got Parliament to pass a bill making it much easier to obtain approval for MAID and extending it to those whom sane people would say are most in need of being protected from it, that is, the mentally ill, although this provision was delayed from coming into effect until the year after next.  In the meantime government agencies that process requests for financial aid from, most notably, military veterans, have recommended MAID as an alternative.

So no, Canada did not emerge from the Airhead era unscathed, and wounds on other fronts than the social/moral could be provided to further illustrate this.  My point, however, is that Captain Airhead did not do all the damage it looked like he was about to do at the beginning of his premiership.  This was not for lack of intent or trying on his part.  It is partly due to the fact that he and his entire circle of associates were grossly incompetent, an affliction not shared by previous revolutionaries such as his own father or William Lyon Mackenzie King.  It is partly due to the fact that the Canada which the Fathers of Confederation bequeathed to us with her ancient Imperial/Commonwealth heritage of parliamentary monarchy and Common Law rights and freedoms, while weakened by these Liberal “revolutions within the form” was still resilient enough to prevent Captain Airhead from doing his worst.  It is partly due to the fact that most Canadians have simply not succumbed to the brain rot that in its most recent form has been dubbed “wokeness” to the extent that Captain Airhead and the progressive commentariat all assumed they had.

The first of these three factors needs nothing in the way of further commentary.   

The second factor may be disputed by neoconservatives (people who call themselves conservatives even though they wish to replace our constitution, traditions, and heritage with those of the United States or something more closely resembling them) who over the last several years have chosen to express their frustration with the Airhead Liberals by taking it out on the country with the claim that “Canada is broken” but these are wrong.  The Fathers of Confederation built a far more resilient country than could be ultimately broken by the likes of Captain Airhead.  I attribute the neoconservative error in about equal parts to their misguided preference for the American system and to the sort of infantile thinking that sees every court ruling, election, or other such public occurrence that does not go one’s way as showing the entire system to be damaged beyond repair, which sort of thinking is by no means limited to neoconservatives.

Of all Captain Airhead’s bad acts, the worst was when he invoked the Emergencies Act in 2022 to crush the Freedom Convoy Protest.  Unlike the types of protests he routinely supported, the Freedom Convey did not involve the destruction or defacement of property, public or private, violence, or riotous behaviour in general but was a true peaceful demonstration.  The trucker-protestors converged on Ottawa, parked in the neighbourhood around the government buildings, and basically threw a long, loud, party in the streets.  The protest was entirely justified.  It was in response to the Liberal government’s having introduced new restrictions by removing the exemption to vaccine mandates for cross-border truckers at the time when restrictions were generally being rolled back, showing the government’s determination to milk the absurd bat flu paranoia for as long as they could at the expense of the rights, freedoms, and livelihoods of Canadians.  There was no call for bringing out the biggest weapon the government had at its disposal against the protestors, the brutality with which the government broke up the protest was the sort of thing one would expect from the Chinese or North Korean regimes, and the ongoing legal persecution of the protest organizers is disgusting, to say the least.  Nevertheless, it could have been a lot worse, and all the evidence indicates that Airhead and his cronies intended to go much further.  They were forced to rescind the Emergencies Act, however, because the Senate was about to vote against confirming their having invoked it, which would have made their position much more difficult going into the mandatory inquiry that followed.  As for the inquiry itself, while Justice Rouleau’s finding that the government had met the threshold required for invoking the Act was absurd, Captain Airhead failed in his efforts to turn the inquiry into a trial of the protesters’ actions rather than his own, and when the Federal Court ruled on the same question a year later, they found against the government.

That is what the system working looks like.  It could have and should have worked better.  Ultimately, however, it worked.

That Canadians do not share Captain Airhead’s “woke” views to the extent he always assumed is a large part of the reason why he is no longer prime minister and why the Liberal Party under Blofeld has taken several steps back from aggressive promotion of the “woke” agenda..  Whether this will be permanent or is only temporary while the forces of progressive insanity regroup remains to be seen, but for now at least, the Liberal government is focusing on matters that appeal to a wider base among Canadians than the far left fringe.  That something like this would happen sooner or later was inevitable because an ideological agenda based on maximizing every type of diversity except diversity of thought is unsustainable.  Towards the end of the Airhead premiership, the left’s efforts to maximize diversity in the realm of sex and gender were undermined by its simultaneous efforts to maximize diversity in the realm of culture and race.  That this would happen was entirely predictable because the only way to maximize diversity of culture and race in a Western society is by increasing the number of people whose culture has not been so transformed by Modern liberalism as to make it supportive of maximizing sex/gender diversity.  Eventually the foreseeable clash occurred and a sizeable portion of Canadians realized that Captain Airhead was pushing diversity too far in both of these areas.

For the immediately foreseeable future, it is likely that immigration levels will remain higher than they ought to be but will cease to resemble overt efforts to make Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints into a reality.  Promotion of the alphabet soup agenda will probably continue but it will be much lower key than under Captain Airhead.  That this is the case is evident in the fact that the abuse of the sign of God’s covenant with Noah was a lot less conspicuous last month than in the “month formerly known as June” in previous years.  The same will be more or less true in other areas where Captain Airhead pushed his agenda far beyond what the general public was willing to support him in.

In conclusion, while Canada should be in a much better condition than she actually is, she is far better off after a decade of Captain Airhead than could possibly have been anticipated. 

Happy Dominion Day! — Gerry T. Neal

God Save the King!

Posted by Gerry T. Neal at 12:30 AM

Whatcott’s “Hate ” Crime Update & Commentary of Liberal Leadership Debate

Posted on by

Whatcott hate crime update and commentary on Liberal Leadership Debate

Bill Whatcott poses with two Toronto Police Officers at the notorious 2016 Toronto Homosexual unGodly Pride parade while passing out 3000 “Zombie Safe Sex” packages containing life saving medical information on the downsides of homosexual sex and the good news that Christ died for sodomites so thy can indeed change for the better. Note the “Zombie Safe Sex” package in Bill Whatcott’s right hand.
Bill Whatcott in the 2014 Vacouver Homosexual Pride Parade disguised as the “Gay High Priest of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” poses with a police officer who was looking for him after the Vancouver Pride Parade organizers put out an alert on their loud speakers that someone was distributing “controversial” flyers denouncing the homosexual lifestyle and presenting the life saving Gospel on the parade route.

“I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. ” 1 Corinthians 9:22

Dear Friends,

I must admit I was appalled by the performance of our potential next Prime Ministers at the Liberal leadership debate. Here is a clip of our former Foreign Affairs Minister and after that Deputy Prime Minister, until she had her falling out with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Chrystia Freeland is calling our closest ally the United States a “predator” and is seriously calling for a military alliance with a handful of countries in Europe and Asia to potentially join us in some sort of security partnership against the United States. Freeland actually refers to the small nuclear arsenals of France and UK as a potential tool to deter the US from invading Canada.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0GYhB-dOz3A%3Ffeature%3Doembed

Chrystia did make some noise about making Canada’s armed forces more capable to fight the Yanks too.

But damn, the Americans in a stroke of tactical genius will launch their invasion of Canada on Toronto’s “Gay Pride Day.” The Yanks know the wiser than wise Liberal Prime Minister whoever he/she/they/it happens to be, will order the Canadian Armed Forces to go march in Toronto’s homosexual shame parade as is their habit every year. The entire army (see picture above from an earlier pride parade) is stuck in a sea of naked dudes on Church St in downtown Toronto, so it is safe for American tanks roll across our otherwise undefended border. A frantic Chrystia (who might be Prime Minister this coming Toronto Pride) will call France’s Macron and ask him as a favour for Canada to launch a nuke at Washington. But Macron, the clever guy, informs her he is busy having a wine, and will then need a nap and in any event he can’t reach his nuclear commander at the moment. Not a shot is fired and Canada will become (Trump’s words) the “Beautiful, Cherished, 51st State.”

To be honest, with delusional and self destructive leadership like the above running the country, I am actually open to the idea of Alberta leaving Canada and joining the United States.

Liberal anti-energy and radical environmental policies, not Trump, are responsible for 2 million Canadians needing food banks last year and for $670 billion in investment leaving the country over the past 8 years. Liberal cabinet decisions banning tankers off our west coast, banning pipelines to the Pacific, banning pipelines to the Atlantic, preventing multiple LNG and oil sands projects from being built; these decisions are the reason why we have inadequate infrastructure to trade or ship energy, or any other product, to markets other than the USA and why we are dependant on the United States and highly vulnerable to tariffs. Trump did not tell us to do this to ourselves.

Anti-Trump protesters at Capital Hill in Washington. They are a daily fixture since President Trump took office. They rail against Trump and scream he is a fascist, but they are free to go home afterwards absolutely free from police harassment, job retaliation, etc….I note it’s Trudeau and Ford who terminated employees involved in the Freedom Convoy, Both Biden and Trudeau used police force against protesters. Trudeau froze bank accounts, and in Biden’s case he sent hundreds of January 6 protesters (yes mostly non-violent protesters, not insurrectionists) to prison in some cases for years.

Over the years I have talked to at least 5 or so American lawyers about my hate crime prosecution. Every single one of them told me I would never have faced criminal charges in the United States for my Gospel stunt. The USA is more free and prosperous than Canada.

The above are pictures of various homosexuals in the Toronto Homosexual Shame Parade. The police and Canadian Armed Forces marches in this sea of debauchery every year. Even though this behaviour is illegal no arrests ever happen, and all three levels of government (City of Toronto, Province of Ontario, Government of Canada) continue to fund this parade.

“But your iniquities have made a separation
    between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden His face from you
    so that He does not hear.” Isaiah 59:2

I took this picture myself in 2016. It should be a criminal offense in my view to expose children to this parade. However, it is me who is facing criminal hate crime charges for speaking out against this parade, rather than these homosexuals for engaging in public nudity and public sex acts at the parade.

I received word from my lawyer that my trial dates have been changed from March 2-13, 2026 to May 25-June 5, 2026. This change in dates was requested by my lawyer so Dan Stein, a highly competent lawyer with constitutional expertise, can come on board and assist with my case.

I have 5 days of hearings coming up in June 23-27, 2025. This is regarding my request for a jury trial, which the Crown is opposing, though I am facing an indictable offense (In USA indictables are called felonies).

I also have 5 days of hearings in October 27-31, 2025 to argue over whether the Crown Prosecutor should be allowed to admit previous Gospel flyers distributed by me, and human rights tribunal decisions against me, into this current case in an effort to make the case I am a life long hate criminal.

For those who wish to help with my living and travel expenses related to my multiple court dates requiring me to travel to Toronto, you can donate here: https://www.lifefunder.com/whatcott

In Christ’s Service,

Bill Whatcott

“By this we know love, that He laid down His life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.“ 1 John 3:16-18

Posted on by
image.png

Penticton 4 Freedom Important Announcements

In this email:

1.     Okanagan Convoy January 25 – celebrating the historic 2022 Freedom Convoy to Ottawa.

2.     Stop Trudeau’s plot to buy time. Check out the poster below to see how.

———————o0o————————-

It’s time again to celebrate the world-wide history making Freedom Convoy in Ottawa three years ago, with our own

OKANAGAN CONVOY – JANUARY 25, 2025

image0 (5).jpeg

Convoy meet-up details for Keremeos, Cawston, Olalla & nearby communities:

–         The convoy leaves Princeton at 5:30 a.m.

Meet at the corner of Hwy 3 and the Bypass at 6 a.m. and connect with the convoy there.

———————–o0o——————–

Stop Trudeau’s Plot to Buy Time

image.png

Every Call Makes a Big Difference!

———————–o0o——————–

More News Next Week – Watch For It in your Inbox!

Meanwhile, check out the Wins of the Week attachment.

One attachment • Scanned by Gmail

Bill C-63 — Internet Censorship is Dead With Proroguing of Parliament

Posted on by

Jamie Sarkonak: Good riddance to all the Liberal bills that Trudeau just culled

The purgatory prime minister has put Canada in a precarious position, but at least no more of his bad ideas can be churned out of Parliament

Get the latest from Jamie Sarkonak straight to your inbox

Author of the article:

Jamie Sarkonak

Published Jan 07, 2025  •  Last updated 1 day ago  •  4 minute read

257 Comments

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks during a news conference at Rideau Cottage in Ottawa, Canada on January 6, 2025. Trudeau announced his resignation, saying he will leave office as soon as the ruling Liberal party chooses a new leader.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks during a news conference at Rideau Cottage in Ottawa, Canada on January 6, 2025. Trudeau announced his resignation, saying he will leave office as soon as the ruling Liberal party chooses a new leader. Photo by DAVE CHAN/AFP via Getty Images

By proroguing Parliament on Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may have just sabotaged the fate of our relationship with the United States. But this, at very least, came with a happy side-effect: he also sabotaged the progressive legislative agenda that’s overtaken both houses of government.

In other words, a whole bunch of bad bills just died. Good riddance.

The online harms (censorship) bill? Dead.

The Liberals were already backing off Bill C-63, having announced in early December that the hulking piece of legislation would be split in two in hopes of making at least parts of it into law. Now, the whole thing is off the table. It’s mostly good news: the draft online harms law would have subjected social media companies operating in Canada to a new government bureaucracy in the name of “safety.” Moreover, it would have introduced the vague crime of “hate crime” and tasked the Canadian Human Rights Commission with regulating comments online.

Now, this also means the death of the parts of C-63 that worked to crack down on child sexual abuse online, but even that had its flaws.

Also dead is that bill that would have made thousands of people around the world eligible for Canadian citizenship.

Bill C-71, if you remember, would give the children of Canadians born abroad citizenship through descent, as long as the parents can establish a “substantial connection” to Canada. The guardrail wouldn’t be a secure one, since some judges don’t believe that there are any citizens who lack a connection to the country.

Platformed

This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)

The bill’s proponents marketed it as a remedy to a rare problem that sometimes afflicts Canadian families who live abroad, such as military families. However, in trying to solve their problems, the bill would have made it much easier for citizenship to be obtained by the grandchildren of birth tourists (people who travel to Canada to give birth, which secures Canadian citizenship for their child).

Lesser-known Senate bills of grave consequence are in the grave, too, including a bill that would have allowed every minority group to establish its own healing lodges (that is, low-security incarceration facilities for prisoners).

Bill S-230 would have required a lot worse, too. If passed, the law would require the Correctional Service of Canada to approve all requests by prisoners to transfer to their respective healing lodges, unless a court were to decide that such a transfer was “not to be in the interests of justice.”

Introduced by the same senator jockeying for identity-based healing lodges, was Bill S-233, which is also now dead. It would have required the government to create a Universal Basic Income framework that would cover anyone in Canada over the age of 17 — even non-Canadians like temporary foreign workers, permanent residents and asylum seekers. Though it was more a concept of a plan and didn’t set out any dollar figures, the bill would have opened the door to even more unproductive spending.

And finally, the Senate bill that would have commandeered Canadian banks to regulate the climate impact of its clients has met its timely end as well.

The draconian Bill S-243, which was midway through the Senate, would have allowed the federal financial regulator to mandate banks to increase the amount of capital clients need to finance loans related to the fossil fuel industry. The bill would have also mandated that corporate directors in the finance industry uphold the federal government’s climate commitments, violating the public-private boundary that free countries are supposed to respect.

“The bill would effectively discourage — in some cases probably even block — financing of pipeline operators, natural gas distributors and fuel companies,” wrote Financial Post columnist Joe Oliver in 2023.

Though these troubling Senate bills weren’t introduced by the Liberals, they might as well have been. Their sponsors are members of the Independent Senators Group, which is the heir to the Liberal senate caucus, and their work certainly aligns with the Liberal government’s agenda.

Article content

Also dead is the capital gains inclusion rate hike, which, for the Liberals to even get on the order paper as a bill, required a successful notice of means and ways motion. Though, this one’s still twitching: the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is still applying the new rules that were announced by the Liberals, and is thus asking people to prepare to pay them in their next filing. This isn’t a radical new change on the CRA’s part, however: convention (backed by law) holds that tax changes are applied as they’re announced, under the assumption the legislation will pass. If legislation ends up not passing (which is looking to be the case here), taxpayers can expect a refund instead.

Not all bills before Parliament will die, unfortunately.

Private members’ bills that start in the House of Commons are immune to prorogation, according to House rules. That means that the jurisdiction-defying school food program bill (which comes with all sorts of cultural restraints), Bill C-322, will live to see another session.

As will C-332, which would criminalize “coercive control” — that is, behaviour that makes a person’s spouse or partner that makes the other person feel unsafe. The latter is an honourable goal, but the way it’s drafted is so broad that it risks capturing relationships that, though toxic, aren’t dangerous.

Realistically, though, private progressive bills that don’t offer much benefit probably don’t have much to look forward to in the new session. With new governments come new priorities …

It’s a relief that the age of messy Liberal legislation is coming to a close. The purgatory prime minister will cause us a lot of problems in the coming weeks — but sloppy new laws cranked out of Parliament won’t be one of them.

FREEDOM NEWS IN THE OKANAGAN: DRUTHERS IN KELOWN, AUGUST 5; FREEDOM RALLIES IN KAMLOOPS, KELOWNA, OK FALLS, OLIVER, AUGUST 3; DAVID LINDSAY IN COURT, TRUDEAU ASSAULTS KEEAN BEXTE http://cafe.nfshost.com/?p=9814

Posted on by

“It Ain’t Over”

Freedom activists are critical thinkers!

Our society is so dumbed down and indoctrinated that anyone who is a critical thinker is labeled as a Conspiracy Theorist

Did you know: The term ‘conspiracy theorist’ was first coined and used by the CIA to ridicule anyone who opposed the gov’t narrative?

————————————–

————————————–

Kelowna Courts

Falsified assault charge

Kelowna Courthouse

R v David Lindsay s. 266 Criminal Code Assault

Next Provincial Court Hearing Date:

August 9, 2024

2:00 p.m.

Kelowna Courthouse 1355 Water St.

Thank you for all your support and belief for freedom!!

Remember the Freedom Principle:

An attack against one is an attack against all.

An attack against all, is an attack against one.

Next Supreme Court Appeal Hearing Date:

September 9, 2024 — 10:00 a.m.

Notice of Conviction Appeal Hearing

This hearing date was set on Monday, July 22. It was once again set over to Sept. 9 to set the agenda for the hearing of the appeal from the conviction and sentence of J. Heinrichs.

————————————–

Extra, Extra Read All About it!

https://twitter.com/chriswill451/status/1816858135635915191?s=46&t=1ZWkWwp7PorYs1vArlDpmA
Conservative journalist defends vacation interview with Justin Trudeau

In a disturbing trend in Canada, Government officials are starting to assault innocent Canadians and, frequently, then charging these innocent people. It started with Interior Health official Greg Smith, Paladin Security official Jason Davis and Taj Smith, all assaulting myself, David Lindsay by using their upper torso to physically block me from my right of access into the building. Subsequently, the Crown authorized charges to be laid against me of assault.

In order to do this, Greg Smith falsified a complaint to the RCMP that I had caused a disturbance in the IH building. Fortunately, we have entire video recording to show that Smith lied to the police.

This then, was followed by an RCMP officer assaulting Rebel News reporter David Menzies by intentionally bumping into him on a public sidewalk while he was asking questions to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, then charging Mr. Menzies with assault.

Now Prime Minister Trudeau has recently assaulted The Counter Signal reporter Keean Bexte on a Tofino shoreline.

Thank you to Chris for compiling the video involving myself in Kelowna at Interior Health and the Trudeau video into an X (formerly Twitter) compilation to show these events, that has now gone viral to show the stupidity of the charges against me. Trudeau, without provocation or right, repeatedly and physically assaults Bexte by pushing him with two hands, and then with one hand, significantly stronger than my mere attempt to enter into a building. I was merely trying to enter a building and these guards unlawfully blocked me, Trudeau intentionally attacked Bexte.

You’ll remember the SNC Lavalin affair where Trudeau was caught red-handed interfering with the independence of the Attorney General Judy Raybould? Will he now interfere with the AG of BC to stop the AG from prosecuting him for assault?

Time will tell but make no mistake, this is an unprovoked criminal assault, if one applies s. 265 of the Criminal Code as broadly as they applied it to me. The Crown David Grabavac was seeking two years in jail (he then lowered to 9-12 months), a 10 year weapons ban, three years probation and a DNA sample be provided. We won’t know what is ordered in sentencing until Aug. 9, however make no mistake, my attempt to enter a building I had a right by invitation to enter, was not an assault, where Trudeau’s clear unprovoked and intentional use of force strong enough to push Bexte back at one point, does constitute an assault.

This video has now been seen by almost 20 000 people in a matter of days. Please continue to forward far and wide to show the discrepancy where the governments continue to charge innocent people who advocate for freedom, and protect criminal government officials from their real criminal activities.

————————————–

City of Kelowna v David Lindsay et al

Petition to Stop Rallies

Week of September 3, 2024 10:00 a.m.

1355 Water St.

Kelowna Courthouse

for hearing on my SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) application to strike the City’s Petition against us. (See the B.C. Protection of Public Participation Act)

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/19003

We had one day before the Hon. Justice Hardwick. The remaining two days were canceled apparently due to the judge either being ill or otherwise not available to appear.

There has now been a further three days set aside during the week of Sept. 3, 2024 for the continuation of this hearing. I will be notified on the Friday, Aug. 30, 2024 of what days this will be. Considering that Monday, Sept. 2 is Labour Day, it appears we will be heard starting Tuesday or Wednesday of that week.

Our documents in this case are located on our website at:

David

All City of Kelowna documents and pleadings are now placed on our website for public viewing: https://clearbc.org/city-of-kelowna/

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.jccf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Digital-ID-Surveillance-and-the-Value-of-Privacy_Justice-Centre-for-Constitutional-Freedoms.pdf

Please remember other innocent people who have stood up for our rights and freedoms against our tyrannical governments during COVID-19 and to the present, who are now in the midst of their ongoing, oppressive trials:

Tamara Lich

Chris Barber

The Coutts prisoners: Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert

Pat King

and many other real victims.

NOTE: Jury deliberations are set to commence on Wed this week at Coutts, after the Judge reads about 70 pages of instructions to the jury.


Ask yourself, why are 70+ pages of instructions required for a jury to only consider the facts? I have seen similar instructions in the past and it is amazing how anyone can be found innocent by a jury after a judge reads these instructions, which on one hand tell the jury how important their functions are and that they are only to try the facts, and then by the time the instructions are read to them, leave them with almost no doubt that the judge believes that the prisoners are guilty.

————————————–

————————————–

Empower Hour

Every Wednesday Action4Canada hosts the Empower Hour, an online zoom meeting open to everyone. We have a special guest each week, who will educate, inform and answer your burning questions. Also, watch the Weekly Updates HERE.

To be kept informed of these webinars sign up for our Email Updates so as to receive advance notification along with details on how to pre-register for each Empower Hour webinar.

Weekly News Updates:

Pierre Attallah – Attempts by the City of Winnipeg for 15 minutes city

David Lindsay – Legal updates including sentencing and relationship to recent Trudeau assault against reporter, Keean Bexte

July 31, 2024

Sign on starts at: 4.30pm PST/7.30 pm EST

Pre-Register Now for this Webinar


Join us! Share this page and link with your friends and social media!

Know Your Rights: 

Guidelines for Peaceful Protesting/Gathering/Rallies and/or Attending Events (eg. Council Meetings, School Boards, Handing out Flyers)

Know Your Rights Guidelines

Check out A4C for some of the most successful actions and strategies available to us!

And a big thank you to Tanya for all her hard work and dedication and support for the Christian principles that founded our nation!

Home

————————————–

Home

Arrives in Kelowna!!

Monday, August 5, 2024

Stuart Park Across from City Hall 2:00 – 4:00 p.m.

1083 Sunset Dr. 6:00-9:00 p.m. Lounge Area – Please bring a chair if you can as we may not have enough.

REMINDER

New Credit Card Fees & Lack of Privacy

It is starting – Use cash as much as possible – use credit cards or digital only if there is no other alternative.

The Bank of Canada is admittedly planning for digital currency. It claims that it will not replace cash – BUT – and here is the caveat, it will continue to use cash “notes for as long as Canadians want them.”

In other words, if you don’t use cash, you will lose it. Reading between the lines, it is clear that the Gov’t will simply issue press releases and polls showing most Canadians don’t use and/or don’t want cash, and then the Bank of Canada will claim it has to eliminate cash because few people are using it or want it, and it is, ironically, too costly to maintain printing the notes and coins.

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/digitaldollar/#what-digital-canadian

Bill Still, the US Patriot and author of the incredible documentary, The Money Masters, outlines the results of recent polls showing that 86% of Canadians fear the digital dollar!!! Wow.

87% of Canadians have heard or are aware of the Bank of Canada’s CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency), and 82% are strongly opposed to it!!

https://www.thestillreport.com/post/bank-of-canada-survey-86-fear-digital-dollar-the-still-report-episode-4280

More on this issue in the next newsletter!

Companies will not use digital currency if we are not using digital currency!

It will cost them too much in lost business.

Here is two awesome posters that you can distribute to all businesses to put on their entrance doors, advocating for the use of cash. Print on 8 1/2 x 11 glossy hard stock for best results.

For Business owners:

The dangers of digital gov’t ID and currencies are here… you need to use cash as much as possible. As recognized by Freedom Rising, there are many inherent dangers of using digital currency. What do you do, not if, but when:

The internet is down

There is a power outage

The card reader malfunctions

Your phone battery dies or doesn’t work for other reasons

WE SUGGEST YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING AS WELL:

Your phone is stolen

Your passwords are co-opted

Your credit/debit card strip is damaged – needs replacing

There are errors in relation to the quantum of $$ on your card

Gov’t limits your purchases/CRA liens the balance on your card

AND MANY OTHER DANGERS

CLEAR has promoted the non-use of digital currencies and credit/debit cards as much as possible, for years.

Suggested Solution:

Withdraw money on Saturday/Sunday from the bank or bank machine, and then leave your money at home if you are scared to carry it with you, and just carry the amounts of cash for each day’s purchases for the week.

NO MORE CARDS!!!! NO EXCUSES!

USE CASH $$$$$$$$$

Do you want to be the next person to be “unbanked” because of your political beliefs????

 Get these cards below at the CLEAR booth to give out everytime you use cash – or print your own to hand out!

Make Business sized cards to hand out at all your cash purchases!

————————————–

Kindness of the week

While in a store recently, a woman attempted to pay by credit card. Her card would not work and she had no cash on her to pay for $80 worth of groceries the teller already rang through. As she was going to leave without her groceries, a kind woman between us, offered to pay her bill, albeit also using her credit card. This kind woman allowed the woman in front of us to leave with her groceries, and simply said to the woman whose credit card did not work, to show similar kindness to others in the future.

I had a brief discussion with this kind woman who paid the bill, and also reminded her of the importance of using cash, including privacy and ensuring that this sort of result did not happen. She fortunately said that she frequently does use cash but wasn’t able to on this particular day

.

I gave her a big hug as this kind woman began to leave with her own groceries. Blessings to this kind woman who paid the $80 bill and allowed the other customer to have her groceries.

If you see or hear of any acts of Kindness that we can give credit to people for, please send me your story to: clear2012@pm.me

————————————–

CLEARBITS:

Only three areas of Canada (BC, NWT and Yukon) recorded record high temperatures in the past 24 years. Almost all other records were set many decades ago. More evidence of climate boiling myth!

—————

Here are 10 examples of corporate greed and profits over everything and everyone else, including examples of planned obsolescence.

https://revealedeye.substack.com/p/top-10-corporate-scam

—————

Alberta Premier Smith is promising to make an amendment to the Alberta Bill of Rights this fall, to protect people from medical coercion and their right to accept or refuse medical treatment without prejudice. As usual, it will all come down to the wording of these amendments.

https://www.rebelnews.com/premier_smith_no_medical_coercion_fall_legislation

—————

In further attacks against our culture, the University of Waterloo is being taken to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario by a man claiming denials of employment because of the University’s stated policy was that the job position was “open only to qualified individuals who self-identify as women, transgender, gender-fluid, or n0on-binary, or Two -spirit.”

https://www.rebelnews.com/university_of_waterloo_discriminating_against_straight_white_males_in_federally_funded_job_posting

—————

BC’s Provincial Health Officer, Bonnie (The Commie) Henry, and Health Minister Adrian Dix, announced recently that they are rescinding the initial COVID-19 order of Bonnie Henry that denied employment status to thousands of doctors and nurses who refused to be vaccinated against their free will (read: criminally assaulted.) BC was the last jurisdiction in North America to so do. But this doesn’t end the matter.

Do these workers retain their seniority? Do they get their original jobs and benefits back, or are they regulated to cleaning hospital toilets? Dix is on record saying that these unemployed workers should apply to fill available positions. Does this mean they lose their original jobs they worked for decades to get? And what of all their knowledge and experience? Is this lost while they must now do other jobs or clean toilets?

It is no coincidence that this is happening just months prior to the upcoming election.


Dix further stated that these health care workers must provide their immune status for various pathogens, including the non-isolated, COVID-19 virus. In other words, these terminated workers must now give up their medical privacy status in order to work.

Further, how is this done? Blood samples, ie: invasion of one’s bodily integrity? This is just a polite way of saying, again, forced criminal assaults upon people in order to work.


Bonnie Henry further claims that this situation could change in the future if there are new outbreaks or new viruses. Meaning, again, no accountability for these government officials and no employment guarantees for the future if these courageous people refuse to be assaulted in order to work.

https://www.rebelnews.com/bc_finally_drops_its_tyrannical_covid_jab_mandate_for_healthcare_workers
https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/498784/B-C-drops-COVID-19-vaccine-mandate-for-healthcare-workers#498784

Thank you, Tanya, for this link to the recent video of nurse Corinne Mori. I urge everyone to listen to the incredible details she provides not only in relation to this recent order, but in relation to the activities of the unions as well!

—————

In a sign of things to come, Denmark has become the first country in the world to tax cow farts, to ostensibly counter global warming.

We should be taxing all the s____ coming out of the mouths of politicians to pay off our national and provincial debts first.

Denmark becomes the first country to tax cow farts

—————

In the ongoing expose of corruption in relation to the COVID-19 vaccines, the European Commission Court of Justice has just ruled that the European Union wrongfully withheld critical details regarding its billion-Euro contracts with Pfizer. This was a result of a lawfuit demanded full disclosure of these contracts.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, was caught lying to the public about the number of vaccines and costs, in her private texts to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla.

Now we need to get this similar information on our Provincial and Canadian Governments, and hold these officials accountable.

https://www.newstarget.com/2024-07-24-european-court-of-justice-rules-against-pfizer.html

—————

The recent Olympics in Paris have brought this sports contest to a new low. Organizers have permitted an opening ceremony exclusively on the topics of anti-Christianity and mocking the Christian faith. Here is but one disgusting sample:

Fortunately, thousands protested in the streets of Paris the following days. Here is but one sample of the filth in this opening event.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/387067877822853

If we had acted similarly towards these special gov’t funded interest groups, I’m sure charges would have been laid and/or other legal actions taken. Why not against these people?

————————————–

Sunday Paper Deliveries

Next delivery day:

Summer Holidays

(Weather Permitting)

————————————–

A bit about David

Due to time constraints right now, I will try and complete Part II asap.

Thanks for your patience.

Freedom Rallies

“It ain’t over till it’s over”

Next Kelowna Rallies:

Saturday,

August 3, 2024

Stuart Park

Join us for important announcements on the local, legal scene, and informative speakers!

August 3, 2024 12:00 noon

Vernon Freedom Rally

12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. @ Polson Park

Join Darren for the Largest rally in the North Okanagan, and growing weekly!

North Okanagan Shuswap Freedom Radio

http://s1.voscast.com:11464/stream

—————

August 3, 2024 12:00 noon

O.K. Falls Freedom Rally

11:30 a.m.

Across from Esso Station

—————

August 3, 2024 12:00 noon

Oliver Freedom Rally

12:00 p.m.

Town Hall

—————

August 3, 2024 12:00 noon

Kamloops Freedom Gathering

Valleyview Centennial Park

One Small Step Towards Restoring Sanity

Posted on by

Throne, Altar, Liberty

The Canadian Red Ensign

The Canadian Red Ensign

Friday, February 9, 2024

One Small Step Towards Restoring Sanity

We are almost a quarter of a century into the third millennium Anno Domini.  In that period the alphabet soup – LGBTTQAEIOUandsometimesY – gang has grown accustomed to getting whatever it demands, no matter how ludicrous, absurd, or even downright insane, the demand happens to be.   This is true in general across the civilization formerly known as Christendom but nowhere more so than here in the Dominion of Canada.   It has been especially true here for the last nine years since Captain Airhead became the creepiest little low-life sleazebag ever to disgrace the office of the first minister of His Majesty’s government in Ottawa.   Captain Airhead has aggressively promoted the craziest, most fringe, and least defensible elements of the alphabet soup agenda as if they were commonsensical, had the weight of universally recognized moral truth behind them, and could be opposed only by knuckle-dragging moral reprobates.  If knuckle-dragging moral reprobation is what is required to oppose such things then Captain Airhead ought to be leading the opposition.   He was never able to add two and two together and come up with four, however.   Just look at his budgets.  

One consequence of Captain Airhead’s alphabet soup policies has been a sharp decline in average intelligence in the country.   We might call this the Trudeau Effect.   It is the opposite of the Flynn Effect, the psychometric phenomenon named after James Flynn by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein in The Bell Curve (1994) that was the reason standardized IQ tests needed to be revised, updated, and recalibrated periodically to prevent the average from running significantly over 100.   The Trudeau Effect is when, due to constant government-backed gas-lighting and bullying, intelligence so declines that people no longer understand the difference between what is true in reality and what someone mistakenly thinks or imagines to be true.   Before Captain Airhead we could say in response to those pushing the trans part of the alphabet soup agenda that we don’t accept that the person who thinks he is a chicken actually is a chicken, we don’t accept that the person who thinks he is Napoleon Bonaparte actually is who he thinks he is, and neither should we accept that the boy who thinks he is a girl is a girl or that the girl who thinks she is a boy is a boy.   Today, not only do fewer and fewer people understand this, the aggressive promotion of the trans agenda has brought us to the point where there is now a demand that we regard people who think they are something other than people as being what they think or say they are.

This is why it has been rather encouraging over the last year or so to see a growing push back against this insanity.    Most recently, Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta, announced a new set of policies and upcoming legislation for her province that would restrict the genital and breast mutilation sickeningly called by such deranged euphemisms as gender-reassignment surgery or gender-affirming care to those who have reached the age of majority, ban puberty-blockers for those under the age of 16, require that parents be notified and give their consent when pervert teachers try to brainwash their kids into thinking they are the opposite sex/gender, require parental consent for sex education and that all sex ed curricula be approved by the minister of education, and prevent the sort of situation that Ray Stevens has hilariously lampooned in his new song “Since Bubba Changed His Name to Charlene”.   In other words, policies and legislation that anyone who isn’t a total idiot, insane, under the influence of an evil spirit or a substance that turns one’s mind to goo or both, evil on a megalomaniacal scale, or some combination of these, could and would support.   Needless to say, both Captain Airhead and Jimmy Dhaliwal, the supervillain who somehow broke out of the cartoon universe and into our own and having been denied entry to India due to his connections to the extremists who want to break that country up opted to become the leader of the socialist party here, have been having conniptions over this.

Most news media commentators have joined the whacko politicians like Airhead and Dhaliwal in howling in outrage over what could be best described as the very, bare bones, minimum of a sensible provincial policy towards alphabet soup gender politics.   This will not come as a shock to many, I suspect.    Canadian newspapers have acted as if their role was to propagate the ideas of and bolster support for the Liberal Party since at least the time when John Wesley Defoe edited the Winnipeg Free Press.   Arguably it goes back even further to when George Brown edited the Toronto Globe, the predecessor of today’s Globe and Mail.   That the new technological means of mass communication seemed designed to project a distorted view of reality that served the interests of some ideological vision of progress rather than of truth was a critique made by such varied observers as the American Richard M. Weaver, the French Jacques Ellul, and the Canadian Marshall McLuhan.  It was radio, television, and the motion picture industry that these men had in mind.   The second revolution in mass communications technology that gave us the internet, smartphones, social media, and streaming services has since eclipsed the first.    It has not rectified the problem those astute social critics and technosceptics saw in the earlier mass communications media any more than Captain Airhead’s bailout of the struggling Canadian newspapers solved the problem of their heavy bias towards the Liberal Party but rather, in both instances, the problem was exponentially magnified.

John Ibbitson wrote a piece that argued that Smith’s policies were endangering all teenagers in Alberta.   Naturally, the Globe and Mail had the poor taste to publish it.   The obvious reality is that no teenagers – or anybody else for that matter – are endangered by Smith’s policies.    Max Fawcett, the lead columnist for Canada’s National Observer, attempted to argue that Smith, who has long been identified with the libertarian wing of Canadian conservatism, has betrayed her ideology.   As Pierre Poilievre, the current leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, the Conservative Party, pointed out, however, when he – finally – took a stand in favour what Smith was doing, prohibiting people from making irreversible, life-altering, decisions while they are children means protecting their right to make adult choices as adults.  That is hardly something that could be described as irreconcilably out of sync with libertarian ideals  As an indicator of just how cuckoo most of the media reporting on this has been, Ibbitson’s and Fawcett’s are among the saner of the anti-Smith pieces that have appeared.

Poilievre also predicted that Captain Airhead will eventually have to back down on this issue.   I certainly hope that he is right about that and that soon we will have the pleasure of watching Captain Airhead eat his own words.   In the meantime, it is good to see that a rational, sane, pushback against the alphabet soup madness has finally begun.   Let us hope and pray that it continues and spreads. — Gerry T. Neal

Trudeau Called ‘Most Dangerous Man In Political History’ for Plan to Regulate Online News

Posted on by

Trudeau Called ‘Most Dangerous Man In Political History’ for Plan to Regulate Online News by Leanne Lawrence, Lifesite News – February 7, 2020

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trudeau-called-most-dangerous-man-in-canadian-political-history-for-plan-to-regulate-online-news Warnings continue to multiply over the “insane” and “invasive” report that recommends Canada’s Liberal government register and regulate internet media content providers. A number of commentators in and

outside Canada denounced the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review (BTLR) panel’s

report released last week as a “breathtaking” and unprecedented plan to regulate the internet.

The government-assembled panel of broadcasting experts chaired by Janet Yale was tasked with advising the Liberals on overhauling the country’s allegedly outdated broadcasting laws. Its report recommended a massive expansion of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) as the renamed Canadian Communications Commission.

“A key recommendation was to extend licences currently granted to radio and television stations to all media content, along with a much stricter compliance regime,” noted the National Post’s John Ivison. Indeed, so strict is this proposed scheme that two former CRTC members are among the report’s fiercest critics.

Former CRTC vice-chair of telecommunications Peter Menzies wrote in the Globe and Mail that in a “breathtaking expansion of scope and bureaucratic hubris” and “a series of invasive and unjustifiable recommendations,” the panel “advocated for a sweeping series of interventions that would make all online media – from online sites such as Rabble to Rebel News and in any language – subject to government regulation.”

That was echoed by former CRTC commissioner Timothy Denton, who in a Financial Post op-ed wrote that the report advocates “an unprecedented power grab for the federal government and the CRTC” aimed “at nothing less than a statist counter-revolution against the internet.”

That was echoed by well-known Canadian pundit and political commentator Andrew Coyne.

The report is “breathtaking — a regulatory power grab without precedent, either in Canada or the democratic world,” noted Coyne in the Globe and Mail.

“Nobody elsewhere else is proposing anything like it, and for good reason: because it’s insane.”

But what the Liberal government will do remains a critical question after Heritage Minister Steven Guilbault caused a firestorm by first appearing to endorse the idea of government licenses for internet news sites, then reversing his position the next day. On Sunday, Guilbault told CTV News: “If you’re a distributor of content in Canada… we would ask that they have a licence, yes.” On Monday, both the minister and the prime minister insisted the Liberals won’t license internet news or regulate internet news.

But that’s not exactly reassuring given the report recommends that “companies delivering media content by means of the internet would be required to register with the new Canadian Communications Commission,” and that it makes “no mention here of any exemptions for news organizations,” noted Ivison.

And while the report’s “implications for press freedom are obvious – so obvious, that one would expect the whole newspaper industry to rise up as one and reject it,” it also contains an offer of “goodies” for that beleaguered sector, Coyne observed.

Indeed, even as critics allege the Trudeau government’s $595 million “media bail-out” announced in its last budget compromises Canada’s legacy media, the report outlines more ways “the government could help news outlets” losing out to digital competitors, the Globe and Mail reported.

It recommends that online media content providers must register with the CRTC and pay into a fund to support select Canadian news organizations, it reported.

Newspapers “would be eligible for subsidies paid for out of the taxes on aggregators and sharers, who would also be obliged to link” to those Canadian news sites the CRTC deems “accurate, trusted and reliable,” Coyne explained.

“Are we really going to bite the hand that feeds us, now or in the future?” he added.

Liberals and their beneficiaries believe they are “saving quality journalism,” noted Ivison, “while everyone else thinks it’s a transparent bribe.”

That’s echoed by Jack Fonseca, director of political operations at Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s national pro-life, pro-family lobbying group. The Liberal “bailout of the privately-owned mainstream media was a bribe to ensure that major media outlets will become dependent on the government, and therefore not report anything critical about Trudeau, or else,” he told LifeSiteNews.

It’s similar to the Liberal government’s “new rules to muzzle so-called Third Party Advertisers at election time, including simple information posted on Canadian websites,” he said. Fonseca maintains those rules were “designed to de-platform all small-c conservative voices which might be critical of Liberal policies, including that of Campaign Life Coalition. We actually had to shut down our pro-life Voters’ Guide for months during the election, and then massively restrict access to it.”

Canadians should regard the recent controversial broadcasting report in the context of what they know about the Liberals, and particularly the prime minister, who in May 2014 expressed his admiration for China’s “basic dictatorship,” he pointed out.

“We need to take Trudeau at his word, and not just laugh at him as if he’s some kind of joke. He was deadly serious. A basic dictatorship is what he admires. And it seems fairly clear that’s where he’s trying to steer the country, with a clear plan in his own mind,” Fonseca said.

The possibility that the Liberals could “create a ‘media registry’ and start licensing internet and social media-based news outlets is the latest in a string of warning signs that Justin Trudeau is the most dangerous man in Canadian political history,” he added.

Moreover, if the Liberals move ahead with this plan, it’s reasonable to assume “websites like LifeSiteNews would be forced to shut down because the Liberal government would refuse to give them a license,” warned Fonseca.

“In short, Liberals will have total control of the internet and the power to block all dissenting voices.”

Contact information:

The Honourable Steven Guilbeault – Minister of Canadian Heritage
15 Eddy Street, 12th Floor
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0M5
Telephone: 819-997-7788
Email: hon.steven.guilbeault@canada.ca

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner
Shadow minister for industry and economic development
Suite 115, 70 Country Hills Landing NW
Calgary, AB T3K 2L2
Telephone: 403-216-7777
Email: Michelle.Rempel@parl.gc.ca

Justin Trudeau – Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca 
https://pm.gc.ca/en/connect/contact

Related:

‘Terrifying’: US watchdog denounces Trudeau govt’s push to control Canada’s free press https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/terrifying-us-watchdog-denounces-trudeau-govts-push-to-control-canadas-free-press

Trudeau govt backpedals on licensing of news websites after outcry https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/trudeau-govt-backpedals-on-licensing-of-news-websites-after-outcry

Canadian govt. offers huge tax breaks to ‘trusted’ news organizations 11 months prior to election https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-govt.-offers-huge-tax-breaks-to-trusted-news-organizations-11-mont