New Levels of Tyranny in Lawfare By Chris Knight (Florida)
Ezra Levant, Rebel News, has made a Tweet/X, stating that Canada is moving into new levels of woke Leftist tyranny, with a new law, C-63, which would permit anyone to take White conservatives to the Canadian inquisition (Whites cannot be discriminated against), the Human right Tribunal, basically for anything critical of the system they have put on the internet. These complaints, if successful, will yield a $ 20,000 fine to the complainant and $ 50,000 to the government, and there is no limit, tens of thousands of complaints could in principle be lodged, bankrupting anyone. Those lodging complaints are totally protected even if the complaint is completely fabricated!
This is so over-the-top that Gregory Hood has suggested, perhaps half serious, but maybe more so, that if Trump wins, the US once it cleans up its act on the home front, needs to liberate Canada. Food for thought. But would the people of the most woke country on Earth even remember the smell of true freedom this late in the game?
Jordan Peterson was put through the ringer by the Ontario College of Psychologists because a couple of cranks didn't like some of his tweets. But a new law (C-63) would allow literally anyone to take him to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for every tweet or YouTube video he publishes, not just in the future, but anything he's done historically that's still available online. Each complaint is free to file. It's not like a civil lawsuit where you have to hire a lawyer and pay a filing fee, etc. The government helps you if you need it. Each complaint can result in a.) a $20,000 fine payable to the complainant and b.) a $50,000 fine payable to the government. So it's the Trump treatment. Overwhelm the target with endless nuisance suits that take time and money to fight. Even if the complaints are dismissed, you're still at a loss. And if literally hundreds of complaints are filed against someone like Prof. Peterson, even if only 5% are upheld, that's economically devastating. As you can see by the screenshots below, the identity of the complainants, and anyone who gives evidence, can be kept a secret -- from the public, and even from the target himself. It could be the government, or someone paid by the government, filing complaints; it could be a political or academic rival; it could be a disgruntled neighbour! Complaints can be filed by literally anyone -- you don't need to have standing, you don't need to have been mentioned by Prof. Peterson. You just have to want to deploy the bureaucracy against him.
The certainty of this happening is 100% -- it already has been happening on a small scale. But this law has invited every grifter, grumbler and hater to take their quarrels from the YouTube comments section into the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. I mean, you could write a mean tweet about Prof. Peterson. Or you could just turn that tweet into a "hate speech" complaint, and force him to lawyer up and reply -- and possibly pay you $20,000 per complaint. Trudeau is obsessed by Trump. He's been watching how corrupted courts and bureaucrats have declared "lawfare" against him. This is the Canadian version of that, but instead of a few spectacular criminal prosecutions, this will unleash literally hundreds, likely thousands, of "small" attacks on Trudeau's enemies. But how many people, even at Prof. Peterson's level of success, could withstand a barrage of $70,000 human rights penalties? ($20,000 payable to the complainant, $50,000 payable to the government.) Learn more at http://StopTheCensorship.ca I use Prof. Peterson as an example because he's high profile, he's already been attacked by the College of Psychologists, and he absolutely will be swarmed. But this law is also targeted at "normal" people, for whom a single complaint would devastate their lives and knock them out of public life.
https://www.amren.com/blog/2024/03/the-x-files-invade-canada-edition/
"There is an uncomfortable debate about the point at which tyranny begets a right of rebellion. In these sensitive times, even broaching the question sounds like incitement. On the other hand, this country was founded on a rebellion to restore natural rights against a government that was a libertarian paradise compared to what we live under now.
I have always thought the critical line was free speech. If you can dissent and explain why policies must change, always use peaceful means. Though so-called "hate speech" laws in Europe are very worrying, there are still major nationalist movements.
But what can we make of this proposed law in Canada?
The full post is worth reading.
The same government that lowered penalties on violent criminals wants to criminalize speech, and impose life sentences for "hate crimes" or "advocating genocide." Naturally, Meta (Facebook) supports the bill.
The bill defines "content that promotes hatred" as "content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground."
Any speech "likely" to foment hatred, even past speech that is still up on the Internet, is a crime. If anyone claims to be a victim of what turns out to be "hate," he can get up to $20,000 — meaning endless claims. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ruled in November 2022 that white people cannot claim discrimination.
There is an obvious question: If you are living under a government that permits your group alone to be discriminated against and insulted, and you are not allowed to object without being fined or going to jail, are you free? What foreign rule would be worse? What are you supposed to do when even peacefully expressing your opinion can mean bankruptcy or a life sentence?
If President Donald Trump wins, we should support independence for Quebec and liberate Canada. We'll save one of the provinces for all the Indians (dot, not feather) there now."
Comments