Introduction to the Criticism

Trudeau and his dystopian “Online Harms” bill is being lambasted by the whole world as it continues to threaten Canadians’ free speech.

Prominent voices like Margaret Atwood, Elon Musk and Professor Jordan Peterson have joined common sense conservatives in decrying the bill’s totalitarian overreach, calling it Orwellian in nature.

And they are completely right when this bill serves only to shield the regime from criticism, and not protect citizens. Its boundaries blur facts with Trudeau’s feelings, empowering faceless bureaucrats to criminalize dissenters for wrongthink with sentences up to life in prison.

Canadians have never bowed to tyrants and won’t surrender to Trudeau’s oppressive vision. And with Conservative leaders like Pierre Poilievre rallying opposition to Trudeau’s plot for speech control, hope remains for all of Canada.

Trudeau Faces Backlash From Musk and Atwood

Our dear corrupt and incompetent Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s proposed Online Harms Bill continues to face intense and righteous backlash for its purpose of severely limiting free speech among Canadians.

The criticism comes not only from conservatives, who continue to do their hardest to fight this egregious bill, but also from high-profile figures like author and poet Margaret Atwood and CEO of X formerly known as “twitter”, Elon Musk.

This dystopian bill aims to stamp out so-called “hate speech” online through exorbitant fines and lengthy jail sentences. However, its purposely vague and obscure definitions leave the door wide open for any government overreach especially on individuals criticizing the establishment.

Atwood, known for writing cautionary tales of oppressive governments like her novel “The Handmaid’s Tale”, called out the bill’s dangerous and harmful implications.

She compared it to the arbitrary “Lettres de Cachet” that allowed French monarchs to imprison people without solid reason or due process.

Atwood also invoked George Orwell’s concept of the “thoughtcrime” from 1984, where simply having dissenting or opposing opinions was considered illegal.

And she is absolutely right that this legislation mirrors the totalitarian tactics of fictional authoritarian regimes, where in our reality the Liberals are making use of their power to enforce arbitrary rules and silence the increasingly critical common sense masses.

Allowing people to be punished for beliefs not yet put into action should on paper be antithetical to what liberals like to call a liberal democracy, but everyone who is not brainwashed with the woke virus could tell from the beginning how the Liberals were always the real dictators.

Arif Arani, Minister of Justice in Canada and huge advocator for the Online Harms bill, wasted no time to jump on Atwood’s post and respond by snarkily stating how the bill is actually intended to save kids and apply real world laws to the online world to decrease the level of hate online. He is obviously omitting a lot of the glaringly horrible boundaries that this bill proposes, But did he really think people would get behind his freedom speech silencing slippery slope bill because he invoked the safety of kids alongside it?

Elon Musk also weighed in on the mess, accurately labeling the prospect of years-long jail terms for hate speech as “insane.”

Musk has built his brand as an advocate for free speech. He vocally opposed Twitter’s excessive censorship before purchasing the platform. His condemnation of Trudeau’s bill is consistent with his criticism of government overreach stifling online expression, which is the issue that Liberals are dancing around to begin with.

Trudeau and his Liberal government describe the bill as protecting vulnerable groups from hate. However, its expanded definition of “hate speech” is dangerously ambiguous. It empowers judges to impose heavy restrictions like electronic monitoring based on very low standards of proof.

If passed, this legislation would severely weaken due process, more than it already is, while granting more authority to an ideologically malignant government.

The Trudeau administration has consistently demonstrated intolerance for dissenting views. Its reliance on emergency powers to quash peaceful anti-mandate protests back in 2022 was widely panned as an affront to civil liberties.

This “Online Harms” bill represents an escalation of the Liberals’ authoritarian tactics. It threatens core values of free thought and open inquiry.

Going far beyond its intended purpose and under its rules, merely expressing an unpopular opinion could be grounds for severe punishment and up to life in prison.

And it can happen to anyone for any purpose due to its boundaries being blurry, as it describes a conviction being valid according to the judge if they find the victim fearing for their lives on “reasonable grounds”.

This is different and weaker than the standard of “Beyond a reasonable doubt” that we are all familiar and used to.

So, a person’s reputation and livelihood could be destroyed based on flimsy accusations of subjective wrongthink.

Trudeau and The Liberals Vs. Jordan Peterson

Among the most prominent critics of the bill is Jordan Peterson, the Canadian psychology professor and bestselling author.

Peterson warns that under the dystopian mechanisms in the Online Harms bill, the Liberals will have free reign for a “Full Frontal Assault on Hate Speech”.

While the bill purports to make the internet safer, Peterson argues differently, as he thinks it would empower an intrusive censorship-heavy bureaucracy at the expense of core Canadian freedoms.

He condemns the legislation in the strongest terms, calling it a descent into “totalitarian” control of speech and thought.

Peterson’s refusal to be muzzled has made him a target before.

In 2017, he publicly objected to federal Bill C-16 which added gender identity and expression to categories protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Despite harsh criticism, Peterson continued articulating his reasoned objections. He remained unwilling to be coerced into using prescribed pronouns which he considers compelled speech.

Peterson has faced hurtful and severe accusations for challenging such orthodoxies before bodies meant to enforce them.

The Ontario College of Psychologists ordered him to undergo reeducation counseling after an anonymous complainant took issue with Peterson’s 2019 book. This despite Peterson never being accused of harming any clients.

The complaint addressed no specific behavior, but centered on Peterson’s ideas alone.

The licensing body threatened his ability to practice psychology based on purely ideological grounds. It deemed aspects of his book insufficiently aligned with prevailing values.

This is the essence of the “Online Harms” bill. It would institutionalize such extrajudicial persecution of thought crimes nationwide. An anonymous denunciation could bring the prosecutorial weight of the Canadian federal government down on someone like Peterson.

Other outspoken intellectuals would likely share Peterson’s fate under this law. Figures who have ever questioned today’s shifting properties could be retroactively judged as probable hate criminals.

Their lifetime’s work would be overwritten based on selective excerpts divorced from context.

And this malevolent policy with its unfounded punishments are what your average free thinker would likely face down the road if he or she ever dares to question the Trudeau approved status quo.

Trudeau is Your Enemy Not Your Friend

Trudeau is not looking to safeguard kids and marginalized communities suffering invisible hate. He is looking to silence you and everyone you care about or think their thoughts are worth a damn, because you are not giving Trudeau any favors or painting him in a better picture.

He will stop at nothing to curb your freedom of speech, unless it benefits him and his Liberal cronies.

In the case of preferable speech, you are not imprisoned and shamed, instead you will be awarded millions of dollars in bonuses, even if your business is failing like the CBC.

After announcing 600 layoffs in December, Catherine Tait, CEO of CBC, refused to rule out a generous $15 million bonus from Justin Trudeau for over 1,000 CBC executives.

Why does a public broadcaster need so many executives? And how can bonuses be justified when CBC is losing audiences and was crying broke last year after laying off hundreds of workers?

It’s because their speech was preferable to the governing Liberal establishment, so they were rewarded for nice behavior and being good dogs for their Liberal masters.

While they enjoy the fruits of every hard working Candian’s labor, Canadians are forced to fall and obey under an Orwellian law that will imprison you and rip you of all your dignity for having the wrong mind.

Common Sense Conservatism recognizes the folly in the process, with leaders like Pierre Poilievre coming out against the bill early on as he sounded the alarms over the vagueness of the definitions.

He then went on and highlighted the hypocrisy in Trudeau and his corrupt goons being arbiters of what is acceptable or what is crossing the line when Trudeau has been the subject of many controversies including the infamous “black face” incident.

This hill is worth dying on to preserve Canadians’ birthright of free thought and speech. Though the struggle is daunting, conservatives must unite with concerned voices across the spectrum. Fundamental principles are at stake.

Failure to stop the Online Harms Bill’s passage would be a tragic loss for Canadian democracy and culture.