Ezra Levant warns Bill C-36, introduced June 24 by Justin Trudeau’s Liberals, is Canada’s most extreme censorship law, criminalizing "detestation" or "vilification" and reviving pre-crime court orders—like Minority Report—with up to $70K fines or 12 months in jail. Targeting vague emotional triggers, it risks silencing conservatives while ignoring groups like Black Lives Matter, with retroactive enforcement and $250K contracts for activist networks. Even without a majority, Trudeau’s allies may push it through, forcing self-censorship under "woke" political pressure, reshaping free speech into a dystopian tool. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I take you through Bill C36, which is the second liberal censorship law.
It was just sprung on us yesterday.
I finally read through it.
It brings back censorship of the internet, which is frankly expected, but it does something completely unexpected.
It creates a kind of thought crime pre-crime that I've never seen before in any democracy in the world.
I'll take you through it.
It's actually quite terrifying.
We've got a petition to sign too, by the way.
That'll be in today's show.
Before we get to that, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
Just go to RebelNews.com, click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of this podcast.
Plus shows by Sheila Gunreed and David Menzies and Andrew Chapados.
All right.
Here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau has introduced the worst censorship law of any Western democracy.
It's June 24th and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here and you won't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is the government will walk a house just because it's my bloody right to do so.
Yesterday the Trudeau Liberals introduced their second censorship bill called C-36.
It's not to be confused with their first censorship bill, C-10.
It helps to look at these things in a logical order.
C10, their censorship bill that just passed the House of Commons, allows the Liberal government to take over the internet in Canada.
It puts things under government jurisdiction.
It lets the government regulate websites like RebelNews.com in the same manner they've always regulated big TV broadcasters and radio stations.
So Trudeau is now the boss of YouTube in Canada.
He's the boss of Facebook.
But this next bill that was just introduced yesterday, it had to wait until the first one was through the House of Commons because they didn't want anyone to see the next step in their plan until the first step was already taken.
Bill C-36 is called an act to amend the criminal code and Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another act.
Hate propaganda, hate crimes, and hate speech.
Okay, well, hate propaganda is already in our criminal code.
Did you know that?
I don't think it should be.
I don't think hate propaganda should be a crime.
I don't like hate propaganda.
I don't like people calling for genocide or things like that.
But I just don't think having terrible ideas in itself is a crime.
Section 318 of our criminal code makes it a crime to advocate for genocide.
Section 319 makes it a crime to incite hatred.
I think it should be a crime to incite violence.
But hatred is a feeling.
It's a human emotion.
I think it's just bizarre to make emotions, even bad emotions, into crimes.
It's actions we want to criminalize.
Actions that hurt people, not what you think or feel.
My point is those are, for better or for worse, already in our criminal law.
But this new bill goes much, much further.
I have read this bill through twice now, and I have to say, this is the worst law I have ever seen in a Western democracy.
And by the way, I'm going to ask you to go to stopc36.com and sign our petition against it.
And I'll tell you what we'll do with that later.
This law, C-36, legislates cancel culture in the worst way.
I'll take you through it.
Normally, I would just summarize the law, but I think it's important that you see the details for yourself.
It's been about 24 hours, and I actually haven't seen much media treatment of certain parts of this bill at all, which is odd.
It's not a very long bill.
It's 26 pages in total, but six of those pages are blank or just sort of title pages.
And half of it is the French version.
So there's only about 10 pages of reading involved.
It's not that long.
So how did the media miss the worst part of it?
Here, let's just go through it.
Remember, the central purpose of this bill, as you can see from its title, is to ban hate.
So obviously they have to define hate, and they say hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain.
I think it's really weird to pass criminal laws about emotions.
I think it's an attempt to play God, to tell people how they're supposed to feel and supposed to think.
You can't command someone to feel a certain way.
You can't pass a law commanding love or banning hate.
And the audacity to think that you can, that arrogance, I'm guessing that will actually create more hate.
Hate comes from an underlying sense of a grievance, whether that grievance is justified or not.
You may have a very good reason to feel hate, or you might have a terrible reason.
It might be based on bigotry or fear.
But unless that underlying grievance issue is dealt with, the government coming along and simply saying to stop feel, to stop you from feeling a certain way, it's not going to convince you to stop feeling a certain way.
Probably make it worse.
So you hear that first part, detestation and vilification, and that is stronger than dislike or disdain.
All right.
But then they say this, for greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred for the purposes of this action solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends.
What?
So if you humiliate someone, hurt them, and offend them, that doesn't necessarily mean you've committed hate.
So it's stronger than dislike or disdain, but maybe not humiliation.
Can you imagine entire trials being held about this?
I'll tell you what that word salad really means.
I think it's designed to be vague on purpose so that it means whatever the government wants it to mean at any given moment.
Justin Trudeau, I'm sorry to say it, he's full of hatred for people he doesn't like, i.e. his political opponents.
Trudeau constantly calls his opponents racist and sexist and homophobic.
So does the rest of his cabinet.
They even call their enemies Nazis sometimes.
But by having such vague and subjective definitions in the law, they can guarantee that they will only prosecute their enemy's hatred, never their own hatred.
Trudeau's full of hate, but he'll never be prosecuted under this.
Or put another way, we're all guilty of hate.
We just have to know who the government's going to choose to prosecute.
Every single human hates something and loves something and is sad about something.
It's part of our humanity.
It's part of our healthy, normal personalities.
Part of being a good person is learning how to control your darker emotions, hatred, sorrow, jealousy, etc., and to express them positively and to work on them.
I think some of the best people among us take their darker feelings and transform them into something constructive, whether it's just energy for hard work or even art or positive political change.
I think hatred, a sense of injustice or hurt at an underlying grievance, is a major motivation for people to fix the world, to fix that underlying grievance, wouldn't you?
The best people take something they hate and are inspired to fix it.
So I think we're all guilty of these thought crimes, these emotion crimes.
We just are.
So now it comes down to who will be prosecuted since we're all guilty.
This is cancel culture turned into law.
Now here's the part of the bill everyone expected.
Eight years ago, Stephen Harper and the conservatives repealed the censorship provision in the Human Rights Act.
It's being replaced with very similar language.
I'll just read it to you.
Communication of hate speech.
It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
It's a lot of words there.
So that's what I was charged with 15 years ago when I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.
Publishing something likely to, that is maybe it will, maybe it won't, foment detestation or vilification.
Back then they used the word hate, same things, I think.
But who knows if something will foment hate?
I mean, that's so subjective.
When you watch that old movie Schindler's List, you know the one about the Holocaust, maybe you come away with, what's that phrase?
Detesting or vilifying Germans.
I mean, it's also subjective, and it's also future tense, likely to foment bad feelings.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't.
But these days, with a professional class of official offense takers, of people who are perpetually upset with things, perpetually mad, perpetually aggrieved, we're really giving the most thin-skinned person in the room the ability to decide what's legal or not.
But look at this innovation.
This wasn't here in the law when Harper repealed that.
For the purposes of subsection one, a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.
So if you wrote something dumb on Twitter or Facebook five or ten years ago and it's still up there, you're still guilty of that hate crime today.
Unlike every other kind of law you can think of, there's no statute limitations.
For most lawsuits, you have two years to go to court.
Not for internet thought crimes.
If you published something, I don't know, way back in the day on MySpace or Friendster, decades ago when you were a teenager, you're still breaking the law today.
That's what this law says.
But look at this.
This is officially crazy.
Complaints about hate speech can now be made in secret.
And these secret complainants can get up to 20 grand in cash from their target for making a complaint.
Let me read it.
Non-disclosure of identity.
The commission may deal with a complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice described in Section 13 without disclosing to the person against whom the complaint was filed or to any other person the identity of the alleged victim,
the individual or group of individuals who has filed the complaint or any individual who has given evidence or assisted the commission in any way in dealing with the complaint if the commission considers there is a real and substantial risk that any of those individuals will be subjected to threats, intimidation, or discrimination.
And remember, they describe discrimination as hard feelings.
So just secret courts now.
Secret witnesses, secret complaints made by secret complainants.
So who keeps filing complaints against you?
Is it your ex-wife or your ex-husband?
Is it a disgruntled former employee?
Maybe a business partner you had a falling out with?
Someone with a grudge?
Is it a vexatious litigant?
Someone like Richard Warman or Yaniv who just kept filing complaint after complaint as a malicious hobby?
Or is it one of the many lobby groups funded by the liberal government who actually go around and stir up trouble and file complaints against conservatives and other enemies of the left?
We showed you how a disgraced group with the ironic name Canadian Anti-Hate Network signed a contract for a quarter million dollars with the Liberal government specifically to hunt conservatives on the internet and file complaints about them.
Secret complaints about you.
So much for your ancient right of being able to face your accuser.
The law also gives these kangaroo courts the power to order the media not to reveal the identity of the complainers either.
One of the reasons our justice system is public is so that there can be no hidden agendas.
But here, not only is there no disincentive to nasty, woke professional complainers, but there are actually rewards too.
Unlike in a real court, you don't even have to pay for a lawyer with your own money.
Trudeau will take care of all that for you, but you will get a huge 20 grand windfall if you win.
Here's what you can get if you complain that someone said something hateful about you on the internet.
In order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures in consultation with the commission on the general purposes of the measures to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring.
Remember, they're talking about just hate speech, right?
They're not actually talking about crimes like stabbing someone or robbing something.
They're talking about emotion crimes.
You said something that caused another person to have hard feelings about a third person.
How do you stop that from recurring?
Are you going to jail someone?
Are you going to literally duct tape their mouths?
Actually, yeah, they have jailed people in the past.
The very first case of hate speech decades ago under the Human Rights Commission, they sent someone to jail.
The very first target, he was a 70-year-old man, some cranky guy who wouldn't unplug his telephone answering machine.
This was back before voicemail.
This was like in the 90s.
He had an old answering machine that had like an outgoing tape and an incoming tape.
He put racist messages on his telephone answering machine.
He wouldn't delete them.
So they threw him in jail.
Defendant's Rights in Recognition00:09:38
That's what they're going to do.
So what else?
Well, in order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice.
So $20,000 for being the subject of a mean tweet, eh?
And you never have to reveal your identity to complain.
Where's the cash?
I mean, sign me up.
I'm kidding.
I'm the subject of hate every day from liberals.
But you see, that's the good kind of hate to hate conservatives.
I'll never get to put my enemies on trial in a secret court with a 20 grand payoff to me.
But I bet you I'll be targeted by this court, don't you think?
20 grand to the secret complainer, plus pay another 50 grand to Trudeau.
Let me read.
In order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the receiver general.
So it's worse than it even was before Harper repealed the law.
The penalties are much higher.
The complainant gets to keep his identity secret.
Warman and Yeneve will love that.
So it's as bad as everyone thought.
But that's not really what this law is about.
That's the distraction.
That's what the media is focused on.
This law has something much, much worse than it, much, much darker.
It's the reason I say this is the worst law I have ever seen in a democracy ever.
This law would give anyone the power to go to a provincial court and ask a judge to condemn any other Canadian and punish him in advance for a hate crime, an emotion crime he has not yet committed.
Let me say that again.
This bill lets you go to court and ask a judge to sentence someone for a crime you think he might commit, but he hasn't done it yet.
It's straight out of Tom Cruise's movie, Minority Report.
They haven't done anything yet.
You're just afraid they will.
But really, they're the ones who ought to be afraid of you because you're going to destroy their lives now just by saying they've triggered you.
Read this part, which doesn't just amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.
This amends the criminal code.
This creates a new crime, a pre-crime, or as they call it, fear of hate propaganda offense or hate crime.
So not only are feelings crimes banned in Canada, you can't have certain feelings in Canada, but if someone has hatred in their heart, that's a crime.
But if you fear that someone may have hatred in their heart, you can prosecute them in court.
I'm not even kidding, but I wish I were.
Let me read it to you in full.
Section 810121 of the criminal code will be amended to read, a person may, with the Attorney General's consent, lay in information before a provincial court judge.
If the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit A, an offense under Section 318 or 319, those are the feelings crimes I read to you before.
B, an offense under subsection 430, that's mischief under the criminal code.
Or C, an offense motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, national, or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender, identity, or expression, or any other similar factor.
So no making fun of those transgender athletes at the Olympics, guys, or you'll wind up in jail.
So let's recap.
If someone out there who you don't like has not broken the law yet, they haven't done anything to you yet, but you're afraid they might, you have fear that they might, you can go to court and strike first.
If you're some leftist who is afraid of conservatives, go to court, and if a judge says your fear is reasonable, he'll lock up the person you're afraid of.
Even if that person hasn't done anything, doesn't do anything, won't ever do anything.
You can get an order against them.
See for yourself.
Let me quote.
If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence that used, that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behavior for a period of not more than 12 months.
So not, the judge isn't determining whether or not that guy is going to commit a crime.
That's not what's on trial.
It's whether or not your fear is reasonable.
You can go to court and say, Your Honor, I'm really, really afraid.
And the judge says, well, is that true?
Is that a reasonable fear?
And if you're afraid of someone, if you can convince a court you're afraid of something, if you can convince a court that it was fair that you were triggered, you can cancel someone in real life.
If that person doesn't comply, he goes straight to jail.
The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.
So if you really hate someone and the left is full of hate, say you're an angry Black Lives Matter leftist, full of hate.
Say you're a hateful environmental extremist, someone Trudeau considers part of his coalition, maybe his, I don't know, minister Stephen Gilbo, who's actually so full of hate he became a criminal.
You just go to a judge and say, I'm really afraid of that white guy or that oil man or that conservative.
I'm really afraid of Rex Murphy.
I'm really afraid of Conrad.
I'm really afraid of Ezra Levana or Rebel News.
I'm afraid of Maxime Bernier or Derek Sloan or even Aaron O'Toole.
I'm really afraid of them, Your Honor.
No, they haven't done anything yet.
No, they haven't committed any crime.
No, but I'm afraid that they hate me and I want you, judge, to strike first against them.
And a judge now can.
And here's what a judge can do to the official enemies list, because you know this will only be implemented against the enemies of the state.
I rarely meet anyone more hate-filled than a woke college leftist.
But they will never be charged.
They'll be the ones doing the complaining.
I mean, all the cancel culture on campus, that's terrible.
But what's the worst that can happen?
You embarrass someone, all right?
You get them kicked out of university, or you get them fired.
I mean, that's not great.
But look at the weaponization of cancel culture that Trudeau just proposed in Bill C-36.
This is the list of things in Bill C-36 that the government can do if they think you might in the future commit one of these emotion crimes.
So if you're convicted of a pre-crime, these are the conditions and recognizance they can order you to do.
The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that A, require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device if the attorney general makes that request, because you know that hateful feelings can be tracked on a GPS.
B, require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times.
So that's a curfew, because you know that hateful feelings come out at night.
C, require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with the medical prescription of alcohol or any other intoxicating substance.
Seriously, you can get your enemy banned from drinking if you say you're really afraid of them.
D, require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer.
So you have to give a sample, including a blood sample, I presume, on demand because you're such a hater, we need a sample of your blood.
And this, to prohibit the defendant from communicating directly or indirectly with any person identified in the recognizance or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.
So you can be banned from talking to friends or family or political colleagues or employees or whomever.
Literally, because some political activist claims he's afraid of you, he can get the government to ban you from talking to anyone or going anywhere.
Have you even heard of this before?
Have you ever heard of this anywhere?
Obviously, they'll seize your otherwise lawful guns.
The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable in the interests of the defendant's safety or that of any other person to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, or ammunition.
What is all this?
Is that an anti-hate law?
No, it isn't.
It will not reduce hate.
I think it will increase hate.
It will certainly not convince anyone that their opinions are wrong, let alone that their emotions are wrong.
But I'm pretty sure it will cause hurt feelings.
It'll cause hard feelings.
It'll cause feelings of grievance, which are the source of so much hate.
Pushing Political Censorship00:11:57
But you know, I think that's actually what Trudeau wants.
That's part of the political strategy behind cancel culture and wokeness and extreme critical race theory and all this racial and gender identity these days.
It's to pit us against each other perpetually, to divide us, to plant strife, not harmony.
I actually think Canada works pretty well.
I think it's a pretty harmonious place.
I live in Toronto, a majority minority city.
I think there are problems in Toronto, but I really don't think there are systemic barriers for minorities to get ahead in business or politics or sports or entertainment or policing or in law.
I just don't see it.
I see an attempt by the Liberal Party to mimic the racial identity politics of the U.S., even though we don't have their same history of slavery and Jim Crow laws.
We just don't.
We're where the Underground Railroad went to.
I see an attempt to force people into thinking of themselves as anything but Canadians.
I think Trudeau is trying to destroy our Canadian identity, including our Canadian history and icons.
I see a lot of hate in Trudeau, honestly.
A hate for our country's history, including a hatred for our founder, Sir John A. McDonnell himself.
I think Trudeau hates his opponents, obviously.
He hates his critics.
He hates Alberta.
To be honest, he hates anyone who tells him no.
We know who he loves, though.
We know who he admires.
There's a level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dye.
Yeah, it shows.
Trudeau's always loved tyrannies.
He loved Castro.
He loves China, just like his dad, Pierre Trudeau, loved the Soviet Union.
This bill, C-36, it's not a law that any democracy could have.
It criminalizes feelings.
It admits that it does.
It allows secret trials and secret informants.
It's a censorship law, but more than any of that, this law allows Trudeau's attack dogs, including his paid race hustlers like the Canadian Anti-Hate Network and hucksters like Yeneve or anyone with a grudge or a grievance to milk the system, to secretly seek vengeance against their enemies and to team up with Trudeau to destroy what little political opposition remains in this country.
This is the worst bill I've ever seen.
And I'm 100% certain it's going to become law if we don't stop it.
I'm sure it'll get the unanimous support of the NDP, the bloc, and 90% of the media and the lawyers in this country.
We'll do our best to stop it, though.
In the weeks ahead, I'll outline my plans.
I'd like you to start by signing our petition at stopc36.com.
At that link, we'll have the entire law.
You can read it for yourself.
This fight began yesterday.
It's going to be many months.
They'll probably have to reintroduce the law in the fall.
So it's not a done deal yet.
It's a terrible law, but I give you my word, we'll do our best here to fight it.
Stay with us for more.
Well, for months we've been talking about Stephen Gilboa's bill, called Bill C-10.
A lot of other people in the mainstream media have been talking about it too.
It would put the internet under the regulation of the government regulator called the CRTC.
And it would regulate things like YouTube broadcasts, including from us.
Now, it would politicize the internet.
It would put it under the thumb of the government.
And rightfully, a lot of people are concerned.
But there's companion legislation that Stephen Gilbo and other liberal cabinet ministers have been threatening, for which C10 just sets the table, sets the regulatory framework that allows the government to do other things later.
So when C10 says the government is going to tell the tech companies they have to show certain amount of Canadiana or they must show this or can't show that, that's just the enabling law that will then get fleshed out later,
including by this bizarre and outrageous bill tabled just yesterday by Trudeau's justice minister from Montreal named Lameti, the one brought in to be more compliant to Trudeau's wishes than the previous justice minister, Jody Wilson-Raybold.
Bill C-36 is bringing back internet censorship that is the heart of the bill.
C-10 regulates the internet.
C-36 says what the regulation is for, to crack down on what the liberals call hate speech, which I like to say is really speech that they hate.
But there's other terrifying things in it too.
Joining us now to talk about it is our friend Spencer Fernando, who joins us ViceCAP.
Great to see you again, Spencer.
Good to see you.
You know what?
For eight years, Canada has not had this censorship provision of the Human Rights Act.
It was taken out in the late years of Stephen Harper's administration in response to some abusive prosecutions, including against me.
Why do you think the political motivation is there?
Do you think there's a demand by Canadians to have this censorship back?
Or do you think it's the Liberal Party's own agenda to silence voices like, I don't know, ours, or maybe even yours?
Well, I think there's a demand on the far left, certainly, for that.
I don't think the average Canadian is saying they want this.
But again, the Liberals, I think they see it as a politically opportune moment.
Unfortunately, because of what happened in the tragedy in London, Ontario, I think they see that as something they can twist politically and use that as a supposed justification for bringing this in.
But of course, it's just justifying, in their thinking, what they wanted to do all along.
As you say, with C10, they lay the framework for this.
And then with C36, they're going even further.
So I think they see it both as a way to control people, to kind of chill free speech and shut down their opponents, but also to put the Conservatives in a tough situation.
I think you could see, I mean, they don't expect it's going to be passed quickly, right?
I mean, the Parliament, the session's ending.
But I think what they see is they see an opportunity to go and campaign against the Conservatives and say, oh, well, how come you guys don't oppose hate speech, right?
I mean, that's the kind of simple narrative they want to push with an election coming up.
So I think it's a big part of it is politics, of course.
Yeah, I think you're right.
I mean, C10 did get through the House of Commons.
I'm not sure if it'll make it through the Senate.
I don't haven't been following closely enough.
I can imagine the liberals, if they want it passed, they'll get it passed.
C-36, that's the new one.
No chance of it getting passed.
I think they just want it there because they want the country to be talking about that because they think it's a big winner.
When he rolled it out yesterday, David Lehmeti specifically made mention of that London family that was killed, the Afsol family that were hit by the speeding truck on the road.
Now, I haven't seen the latest on that, but as far as I know, we don't have evidence yet, maybe it'll come, that the driver of that car, who was a young man who had psychological problems, who was estranged from his own family, who had incidences of aberrant behavior before him, I don't think we have evidence yet, correct me if I'm wrong, Spencer, that he was motivated by some online hatred or something like that.
Despite that lack of evidence, David LeMeni made specific reference to that killing in his pitch for this internet censorship.
I think they're trying to blame everything bad on their internet enemies so they can silence their internet enemies.
I think you're spot on with that.
Yeah, I mean, it's the fear narrative, right?
It's, okay, if we don't silence these people, then more people are going to die.
That's the message that they want to push.
But of course, you notice how they respond to different tragedies, right?
I mean, the shooting in Toronto.
You had, I think, you know, a few children who were shot there.
Somehow, that doesn't become an issue for all of society to change and a chance for all of us to reflect and learn and grow and, oh, Canada's totally wrong and our history is terrible.
So it's interesting how certain things are exploited and certain things are not, right?
It's not the actual factual basis of what took place, but it's the narrative that politicians think they can spin it with.
So I think with C-36, of course, you're going to see them.
They're going to use whatever justification they think will work politically for them and they're going to try to put their opponents on the defensive.
So I think we'll see how much willpower and strength the conservatives have to push back against that because they're going to be attacked by the liberals pretty harshly.
And we'll see if they have the toughness to push back on that.
You know, I remember when this section of the Human Rights Act was repealed by Harper in 2013, there was a lone liberal MP named Scott Sims, who actually used to be a journalist before, who voted to repeal it.
I believe he's still an MP.
I wonder what he'll do now.
I wonder if he'll show that courage to stand for free speech now.
I wonder if any MPs other than the conservative will.
And also, wouldn't surprise me, Spencer, if one or two conservatives, the woker conservatives, said, what a great chance for me to show I'm ahead of the curve, for me to win kudos from the fancy people.
I'm going to come out in favor of this anti-hate bill just so people don't think I'm a hater.
I think things have moved so much in the last decade that not only will Scott Sims and all the block and all the NDP be for censorship too, I think you might even see some conservative MPs say, well, it's not that bad.
And one day we'll win government and we'll want to censor the internet too.
I don't know.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic.
But I think our politicians are worse than ever.
Yeah, I mean, it's been concerning a few statements lately from some conservative MPs that seem like they're kind of buckling psychologically under the pressure from the woke crowd or, you know, the neocoms or neocommunists, as you could call them, because that's really what a lot of this is, right?
It's, you know, kind of, you know, people who are communists, but they're dressing it up as being woke now, just a better name for it.
But I think some conservatives are starting to buckle psychologically.
You know, they don't have the strength to push back, or it's just political.
You know, they think, oh, we'll win some votes by being woke.
Of course, if you're a conservative, you're never going to be even close to woke enough for the woke crowd.
I mean, the whole strategy is to constantly shift the goalpost farther to the left.
So, if you move to where they are now, well, they'll move again so that you have to keep chasing them, right?
But I think, yeah, you could be right.
We may see some of them vote for this or propose something similar just so they don't get attacked as being hateful.
And unfortunately, they really seem to struggle to push back with opposite narratives to those things.
Yeah.
I'm worried about a little poison pill.
Poison pill is the wrong word because that implies it'll kill it.
I think it's the real, it's a stowaway in this bill that I haven't seen discussed.
Actually, I haven't even seen it discussed anywhere yet.
Maybe I haven't read all the coverage.
But let me read a little bit from Bill C36.
That's the bill, the one to bring back the hate crimes provision, the censorship provision.
I think a lot of Canadians are familiar with that because that was what was repealed eight years ago.
Predicting Crime?00:02:46
But look at this.
Spencer, did you ever see that movie with Tom Cruise called Minority Report, where you had these three psychics and they would predict the Department of Pre-Crime, and they would imagine it, and then they would send the police to arrest someone right before they committed the crime.
And they never quite committed the crime, the people they hunted down, but they were about to.
And it was a very exciting movie.
And in many cases, the people were like just about to pull the trigger.
But the whole title, The Minority Report, suggests that sometimes the psychics, there were three of them, would disagree with each other.
It would be like two against one.
And one of the psychics would say, no, no, no, there's nothing wrong there.
It was a great movie, a sci-fi movie, one of those dystopian future movies.
Well, let me read to you from this bill, because this is straight out of Tom Cruise's minority report.
It's called Fear of Hate Propaganda, Offense, or Hate Crime.
And this is going to be new in law if this bill passes.
A person may, with the Attorney General's consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit an offense under this section or that section, or an offense motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on race, et cetera, or any similar factor.
So you go to court and say, Judge, I'm afraid of that guy because I think he's really biased and I think he's going to do something, commit an offense, a hate offense.
Can you order him?
And then there's this huge list of things a judge can do: put an electronic monitoring device on his ankle, require him to have a curfew in his house, require him not to have drugs or alcohol, require him to give a DNA sample, require it, prohibit him from communicating directly or indirectly with any person identified,
give up his firearms, etc.
So the person in question has not committed any crime yet.
But if you go to a judge and say, Judge, I really, really think he's going to do something, he can have an ankle monitor, he can have a curfew, he can be told not to talk to other people.
I've never seen a law like this anywhere other than science fiction, Spencer.
Quite Disturbing Laws00:09:46
Yeah, it's quite disturbing.
And, you know, you wouldn't see politicians want that applied to themselves.
You know, Judge, I'm very afraid that this politician's about to commit a corruption offense.
Maybe you can go detain them, you know, until we figure out what's happening, right?
They wouldn't want that happening.
So it's quite disturbing.
But, you know, it's this is all about, and it's not just about the power the government will use, right?
It's about how that power will be perceived by the public.
And I think that's really their real goal.
It's not simply to just arrest a bunch of people, but it's to scare people, right?
It's to have someone think, oh, maybe I won't share my opinions, right?
Even if it's not offensive at all, or it's not dangerous, right?
Yeah.
Oh, maybe I won't share my opinion.
I'm not sure what the law is.
It sounds kind of scary.
I hear the government can throw people in jail or to just do something terrible to them if they say the wrong thing.
And that's really what they're looking for, right?
They want people to censor themselves in their own minds.
And then the government can say, oh, we're still free.
You're free to speak your mind, but everyone will just be terrified, right?
So I think that's really the motive behind a lot of this.
Yeah.
You know, I read every Section 13 case that was ever prosecuted in Canada.
There weren't that many.
There was only a couple dozen.
This was before the law was repealed eight years ago.
And there were no cases of extremists like a radical Muslim preaching the jihad.
We know that there are hundreds of Canadians who went to fight with ISIS.
No one like that has ever been charged under the hate speech complaint.
There are other radical groups in Canada who may be fighting some old war from some other place.
No one like that has ever been charged.
It was almost uniformly lower class, blue-collar, low-education white guys who said something offensive about immigrants.
In almost every case, that's what it was.
And I'm not saying that that's lovable speech, that's wonderful speech, these are wonderful people.
I'm just pointing out in our country, there's a lot of strong feelings, hard feelings, detestation, whatever.
But the only people who were ever prosecuted under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act were poor working-class white guys.
And the reason I point that out is because it was an obvious political choice in every instance.
And so if you have this massive catch-all law that you can punish anyone who you think hates you, and in this crazy case I just mentioned, get the courts to actually put an ankle bracelet on your enemies.
Who do you think that's going to be used against?
Because it's such a wishy-washy rule.
It could theoretically be used against anyone and everyone.
I think it's going to be used by the woke left against their enemies.
Some of the worst hate I've ever seen is from the woke left.
Some of the most racist things I've ever heard have come from Black Lives Matter types.
But I don't think they will ever be prosecuted, let alone have a minority report pre-crime ankle put on them.
What do you think?
Yeah, well, I mean, it was interesting.
There was, I think, an Angus Reid poll that came out a few days ago, and they asked people about, you know, issues of diversity and all that stuff in Canada and views on different groups, how racist is to the country, you know.
And it's interesting, you know, Jagmee Singh got a lot of attention for saying how racist Canada supposedly is, but the majority of people disagreed with him.
You know, you didn't see that covered too much.
But they asked people, and they broke it down by race into Caucasian, Indigenous, and then visible minority.
And they asked people, do you think some races are superior to others?
Right.
And the vast majority of people, of course, said they don't think so.
But the highest proportion of people who said that they felt some races were superior happened to be visible minorities, right?
And so, you know, as you say, the kind of people who were, you know, punished under Section 13 is, you know, there's kind of this perception, politically correct perception, that somehow only white people can be racist.
When, of course, that's absurd, right?
I mean, the most racist countries in the world right now, it's not North America, it's not in Europe, right?
So that's something interesting to note.
And so, but you're not going to see that applied, right?
You know, if someone, you know, visible minority says something racist, very rarely do you ever see that even become political news.
It gets wished away.
Or most absurdly, you see people say, if a brown person says something racist, it's, oh, let's internalize white supremacy.
Somehow it's always white supremacy is blamed for whatever anyone says, which ironically is quite racist itself because it denies agency to people of color as if they couldn't have any opinions if a white supremacist didn't put it in their mind or something or manipulate them.
But yeah, I mean, it's totally political.
I mean, and the problem with how vague it's worded is: okay, well, detestation against an identifiable group.
Well, I mean, so if a politician demonizes conservatives, then are you saying that they're inviting violence and detestation against conservatives?
So they should be punished.
I mean, you know, there's a reason we have laws that are about actual, you know, taking action or threats, right?
You threaten to kill or hurt someone from any group, then that's a crime, right?
Because it's a threat of violence.
And that's already in the criminal code.
So the idea that we need new laws is we don't need them, obviously.
Yeah.
You know, I mean, emotions are a naturally occurring thing.
I mean, you can't just ban a feeling, and hate and love are feelings.
Let me just read one last thing, and I appreciate you staying so long, but let me just throw this at you.
They try and define hate, but also not too much hate.
Here, let me read to you.
So they say that hatred means the emotion.
So they're talking about an emotion.
They're just admitting they're regulating emotions.
Hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain.
And then they say, for greater certainty, the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred for the purposes of this section solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends.
Hang on.
So I thought you just said it was more than dislike or disdain.
Now you're saying if it humiliates and hurts someone, that's not necessarily hate.
This is the dumbest word game I've ever seen.
This is not real law.
Like I know what an assault is.
I know what a murder is.
I know what a robbery is.
Those are pretty, you know, did he steal the money from the bank or not?
There's not wiggle room there.
This is nothing but word games and political wiggle room.
This is the criminalization of this is turning cancel culture into a crime.
This is legislating cancel culture with all its stupid vagueness.
What do you think?
Yeah, well, I mean, imagine if people start to try to exploit that loophole then.
Okay, so I give a speech.
These are the list of racial groups that I disdain.
Now, let me be very clear.
I do not detest or hate these groups, but I disdain them.
I disdain these people from these countries.
I totally disdain them.
I don't hate them, but I disdain everyone.
And I want to hurt countries.
And I want to hurt them and discredit them.
But don't ever accuse me of hating them because I don't.
Oh, maybe that's almost what people should do.
Maybe you almost need to make a joke of laws like this so people see how absurd it is.
But again, you know, that's why they keep it vague, right?
They want to be able to, you know, catch whoever they want, whenever they want, and let their own people go, right?
Yeah, you're so right.
Wow.
I really, I mean, I've only been looking at this for a few hours now, but I got to tell you, I cannot think of any law.
I mean, I don't know all the laws in the world, but I just have never heard of something like this in the free world.
I mean, I'd have to check.
Germany has some quirky laws about Nazism left over from the trauma of what that country became and what it did.
But even in Germany, I don't know if even, like, I don't, I just don't think there's a place in the free world that does this.
Well, just look at the, you know, sorry to interrupt, but look at the contrast in the states, right?
They just ruled, I think it was eight to one in the U.S. Supreme Court, that a high school couldn't punish somebody, couldn't punish a cheerleader who had, you know, ripped into the school, I think, on a TikTok or Snapchat post because they said, well, look, she didn't say it at school.
You know, you have no regulation or control over that, so you can't punish her for it.
So you've got the United States protecting the right of teenagers to say terrible things about their school.
Whereas in Canada, we're saying, yeah, we're going to put a bunch of vague laws that can, you know, we can throw ankle bracelets on you and arrest you for things or punish you for things you haven't even done.
So it's quite a disturbing contrast for Steve.
Well, I tell you, this is just a bill.
It's not a law yet.
It won't actually work its way through parliament before the summer break.
The summer break is upon us.
It'll probably be reintroduced in the fall.
I'm terrified if Trudeau has a majority that this will sail through.
But frankly, even if he didn't have a majority, I'm sure that the bloc and the NDP would join with it.
I really am worried, Spencer, because this is further than anything we've ever seen before.
And it has real teeth, not just fines.
There's fines in there for 50 grand, punishments of 20 grand.
So you might get $70,000 for a bad tweet.
That could crush someone.
But the jail term, the 12-month jail term, the ankle bracelet, the curfew-I've never seen anything like that before.
And believe me, I'm hunting for these things.
I've never seen it like this.
Spencer, you're one of the good guys.
I know you'll keep fighting for freedom.
Boy, I wish they were 100 of you.
Yeah, I mean, it's a disturbing time, but we have to keep pushing back.
Worried About Extremes00:01:58
I mean, we really don't have a choice, right?
If we give in, then they'll just do even worse things.
So thanks for coming on the show.
Thanks for fighting the fight.
I'm sure most of our viewers are already very familiar.
But folks, if you're not, please visit spencerfernando.com.
And I think you'll find an outstanding source of commentary.
But also, as I'd like to point out, Spencer's one of the quickest guys out there.
If there's breaking news, you'll probably read it on his site first.
Great to see you, my friend.
All righty, take care.
All right, there you have it, Spencer Fernando.
Stay with us.
More ahead.
Well, welcome back on my show last night.
Andrew Patriot writes, World Health Organization equals China.
Yeah, well, it's one of the five UM commissions that they control.
Darrow writes, this was released as an emergency measure only.
This thing has not been studied long enough and thoroughly enough to take the gamble on a child's well-being, especially when children that do contract COVID-19 will recover with little to no deaths.
Yeah, that's what I don't understand.
I mean, if this thing were like Ebola or leprosy, that just had such a terrible mortality rate, I'd say it's worth the risk.
You got to try something.
You got to go full experimental.
But we're more than a year into this thing.
We realize it has a very low mortality rate for kids, whereas these vaccines are what's risky and not tried.
I think we have to go to the normal FDA rules for approving vaccines.
I'm not anti-vax by nature.
It's just rushing a new genetic therapy vaccine for a disease that we now know doesn't really hurt kids.
Why are we doing that other than to benefit the pharmaceutical companies?
That's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.