Rebel news has revealed documents indicating unethical behavior by liberals, which comes at a strange time especially as we now understand who supports and opposes the online harm bill. This revelation that the Trudeau government is secretly financing left-wing groups to harass its political opponents exposes the depths of corruption in Ottawa. Using taxpayer dollars to fund censorship and vendettas against conservatives is an abuse of power that demands condemnation.
Trudeau aims to weaponize Canada’s legal system into a tool for muzzling dissent. His proposed online harms bill takes this attempted censorship even further. These efforts, while may seem noble at first, do not represent the growing sentiment on the street where people are fed up. The cost of living and medicine are up, and now they want to regulate even our opinions.There is no danger from opinions on social media, an opinion does not carry a baton into a crowd, it’s just an opinion.
New documents revealed that Trudeau’s government has been financing lobby groups hundred thousand of dollars to file lawsuits against the government opposition.
It exposes the depths of corruption and deception Trudeau is willing to go to punish dissenting voices and consolidate power. Using taxpayer dollars to bankroll frivolous legal complaints and censorship demands against conservatives is a gross abuse of state resources for partisan gain.
Trudeau is essentially weaponizing Canada’s legal and regulatory systems to carry out personal vendettas at public expense.The fact that the Canadian Anti-Hate Network wanted to keep its government payments hidden exposes their own lack of transparency. This group has already faced backlash for making false allegations against a pro-life organization and Rebel News. Yet Trudeau keeps funneling them public funds to wage lawfare against his designated enemies.
Trudeau’s online harms bill takes this attempted muzzling of opponents to the next level. By allowing complainants to extract up to $20,000 directly from each target, Trudeau aims to financially ruin those who dare criticize his government. This will have a profoundly chilling effect on free expression.
Conservatives and other dissenters now face the prospect of being buried under an avalanche of frivolous human rights complaints sponsored by the state. Each complaint will carry an extortionate price tag, even if completely bogus. The message is clear – if you challenge Trudeau, expect to be bled dry by endless litigation.
This is a terrifying glimpse of the totalitarian society Trudeau wishes to construct – one where an all-powerful state crushes dissent by bankrolling mob harassment of its critics. All freedom-loving Canadians must loudly condemn these tyrannical tactics and demand protections for conscience rights before it’s too late. Trudeau’s personal persecution of opponents using public money and the legal system must not stand.
Trudeau’s insidious efforts to weaponize the legal system against critics don’t end with financing harassment lawsuits. His proposed online harm legislation represents an even more direct assault on free speech and open discourse in Canada.
This proposed Online Harms Act is an attack on free expression that should alarm all supporters of civil liberties in Canada. Under the guise of curbing harmful content, it grants unchecked censorship powers to unelected bureaucrats and encourages a flood of frivolous complaints to silence dissent.The ability for any complainant to potentially extract $20,000 from their target creates a perverse incentive for people to weaponize human rights complaints to financially punish ideological opponents. This is practically an invitation for bad faith actors to abuse the system and chill open discourse through legal intimidation. Basing findings on the vague “balance of probabilities” standard will lead to the most subjective and arbitrary determinations of what constitutes prohibited speech. Canadians will inevitably self-censor out of fear of crossing unclear lines, suppressing public debate on sensitive issues.
The power to impose prior restraints is also ripe for abuse, essentially allowing judges to preemptively restrict the speech of anyone they deem may commit hypothetical future violations. This flies in the face of the presumption of innocence and the principle that censorship should be the last resort, not the first. Moreover, the burden placed on social media platforms to avoid government penalties will turn private companies into de facto speech police. They will be forced to aggressively take down lawful content, undermining digital rights and freedoms.
In effect, this bill resurrects the drastic censorship mechanisms of the repealed Section 13 provision while enhancing government control over online expression. It threatens to create a chilling climate of self-censorship where only state-sanctioned opinions can be aired safely. All Canadians who value living in a diverse, open society where dissenting views can be expressed freely must vocally denounce this proposed legislation. Its passage would strike a major blow against democratic principles and constitutional rights. Urgent action is needed to defend freedom of speech from this unprecedented assault led by Justin Trudeau.
The Trudeau government should take a targeted approach to addressing legitimate online harms rather than bundling excessive censorship powers into a sweeping bill. A prudent solution is to separate measures protecting vulnerable groups from the more problematic speech provisions. Specifically, restrictions aimed at shielding children from abuse and prohibiting non-consensual intimate imagery have broad public support. These components, if carefully drafted, can likely secure parliamentary approval on their own merits.
Packaging them with vague bans on ill-defined “hate speech”, mandatory platform censorship, and prior restraints on future crimes sets up the bill to fail. It needlessly jeopardizes consensus protections for children by weighing them down with authoritarian restrictions on lawful speech.
This tactical approach affords the best chance for quick action on the shared goals of child safety and consent-based protections. Other democracies like Australia have passed such targeted laws without stirring widespread opposition. In contrast, the current inclusive bill’s unconstitutional powers and punishments will foster resistance. Its likelihood of being upheld in court is dubious at best.
Canadians deserve an open debate on the merits of each component, not an all-or-nothing proposition. A sincere government would recognise the viability of pursuing consensus child/revenge protections first, while taking time to refine the more complex free expression elements. Trying to ram through everything together seems more about political posturing than crafting workable solutions
