Ezra Levant warns Canada’s Online Harms Act (Bill C-63)—funded with tens of millions annually and backed by Trudeau’s government—could criminalize dissent, including conservative criticism, via life imprisonment for hate speech and $20K payouts from secret complaints. Meta and TikTok may resist compliance due to $10B+ fines under USMCA conflicts, while judges gain power to impose preemptive restrictions like ankle monitors for "future hate offenses." Levant calls it the most severe censorship law in Canadian history, comparing its risks to Minority Report-style policing, and vows legal battles against its unconstitutional reach. [Automatically generated summary]
I did almost a three-hour live stream this afternoon going through the new, quote, online harms act that Justin Trudeau has introduced.
It's the largest and worst censorship law ever in Canada, and maybe anywhere in a democracy.
I've never seen anything so bad.
It actually has life sentences for hate speech.
I'm not even making that up.
I wish I were.
I'll take you through it.
But first, I'd like to invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
I'm going to take you through section by section.
I want you to see with your own eyes.
I'm not making this up.
Go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe.
It's $8 a month.
And, you know, that's how we stay strong because we don't get any money from Trudeau and his shows.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Justin Trudeau announces a new censorship bill, the worst ever seen in the free world.
I hit you not.
It will end our freedom of speech and much of our democracy.
It's February 27th, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you censorious thug.
Hey, maybe you think it's an exaggeration what I'm about to say.
I don't think it is.
I've just read Bill C-63.
That's Justin Trudeau's new proposed Online Harms Act.
It's basically the largest and deepest censorship law ever introduced, not just in Canada, but I think anywhere in the free world.
It would destroy freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and it'll destroy our rule of law as well.
It makes it a life imprisonment crime to engage in hate speech, life in jail.
It allows judges to put you in house arrest with an ankle bracelet, tell you who you can or can't talk to, just on suspicion that you might commit a hate offense.
One of the things that terrifies me is there's a provision in there that people can complain to the Human Rights Commission in secret, keep their identity secret even from you, keep the provision of their evidence a secret from you, and they can win $20,000 from you, and you have to pay $50,000 to the government too.
This will be the starter pistol for a thousand hucksters and hustlers to file frivolous complaints against any conservative to enrich themselves and punish Trudeau's enemies.
I don't think I've ever seen anything like this in Canada.
I'd like to think it will be stopped.
But of course, Jagmeet Singh has signed a deal with Justin Trudeau to support whatever he does.
That's my preamble.
I'd like to share with you the highlights now of the three-hour video.
And if you have the stomach for it, if you have the patience for it, I would encourage you to watch the whole two and a half hour video, which is almost three hours, where I go through it line by line.
And if that's not the most terrifying law you've ever seen, well then let me know what is.
I think that this law destroys civil liberties more even than the Emergencies Act did in Canada.
By the way, the Emergencies Act didn't come with life in jail, prison sentences.
I think it's a destruction of civil liberties worse than anything I think that has ever happened in Canada.
And I hope that it won't come to pass.
I fear that it will.
And I promise that if it does, Rebel News will fight it to the death because that is how this will end.
Either we kill the bill or the bill kills us.
By the way, we've got a petition at stopthecensorship.ca.
Feel free to sign that as well.
Without further ado, here are the excerpts of my extended live stream earlier today.
We're going to go through this.
When I say it's 100 pages long, it is, but remember, half of it's in French, so that reduces it to 50 pages.
Some of it's technical language we don't need to read, and some of it I've already covered.
So I think we're really just going to look at 30 pages together.
Can you bear with me?
Now, I think our team is going to cut this up into little videos so people don't have to watch the whole massive thing.
But what I'm trying to do here today is give you a deeper look at this law than you're going to get on the CBC or any pro-Trudeau media.
I want to show you what's actually scary here, and so you can see it with your own eyes.
So let's get right into it.
Bill C-63, an act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and an act respecting mandatory reporting of internet child pornography.
Okay, again, you can see what they're really doing here.
They're bundling their hate speech provisions with a child pornography provision just to distract you.
So whenever you criticize, they'll pivot to, are you against banning child pornography?
No, actually, we believe in banning child pornography.
It's already in the criminal code.
If you want to give police more resources, that's a good idea.
And if you want to have special policies for Facebook, I think that's a good idea too.
But that is not the center of this law.
Let's get cracking.
Summary, part one of this enactment enacts the Online Harms Act.
The act, among other things, A, establishes the Digital Safety Commission of Canada, whose mandate is to administer and enforce that act, to ensure that operators of social media services, in respect of which the act applies, are transparent and accountable.
B, creates the position of a digital safety ombudsperson, whose mandate is to provide support to users of social media and to advocate for the public interest in relation to online safety.
That's a clever way of saying a censor.
C, it establishes the Digital Safety Office.
So they got three new offices, three new bureaucracies, millions of dollars, a dozen commissioners, 100 staff, tens of millions in budgets.
That's what it takes to silence a country, and Trudeau's willing to do it.
D, imposes on the operators of social media services in respect of which that act applies a duty to act responsibly in respect of the services that they operate, including by implementing measures that are adequate to mitigate the risk that users will be exposed to harmful content.
Two, a duty to protect children.
Three, a duty to make content that sexually victimizes a child or re-victimizes a survivor inaccessible.
Four, a duty to keep records.
E, authorizes the Digital Safety Commission to accredit certain persons that conduct research or engage in education advocacy or awareness activities that are related to that act for the purposes of enabling those persons to have access to inventories of electronic data and to electronic data of the operators of social media services in respect of which the act applies.
I don't know exactly what that means.
We'll get into it later.
But basically, they want to snoop around inside Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter.
I wonder what they're looking for.
Provides that persons in Canada may make a complaint to the Digital Safety Commission.
Authorizes governor and council to make regulations.
All right, let's skip down a little bit further.
Part two, amends the criminal code.
This is the scary stuff.
A, create a hate crime offense of committing an offense under that act or any other act of parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors.
Create a recognizance.
That means like a restraining order.
To keep the peace relating to hate propaganda and hate crimes offenses.
That's what I alluded to earlier, a pre-crime.
C, define hatred for the purposes of new offense.
Amending Hate Speech Laws00:04:34
I can tell you what hatred means.
It means hard feelings.
It means to despise something.
Everyone knows what hatred means.
It's a feeling.
But that's what they're doing.
There used to be hate crimes.
Now they're just throwing away the crime part.
Now hate in itself is a crime.
Hate is not a crime.
You have it in your heart.
And if you are the only person in the world who has banished every trace of hatred from your heart, then you are a saint.
But even saints would say that they have hatred in their heart that they wrestle with.
This is Trudeau criminalizing feelings.
Let's keep on going.
Define hatred, increase the maximum sentences for hate propaganda to life in prison.
You don't get life in prison for terrorism in Canada.
You get $10.5 million in a public apology from Justin Trudeau.
Just ask Omar Carter.
Part three amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide that it is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the internet.
Now stop right there.
I know what a discriminatory practice is, and so do you.
If you go into a restaurant and are told you're Jewish, you can't come in.
Or you're black, you have to sit in the back, or whatever crazy thing you can dream up.
I don't even think that happens one in a million to Canadians.
I mean, theoretically, I'm not saying it didn't happen in the past.
I live in Toronto, which is a majority minority city.
Any landlord that refused to rent a home to a visible minority, I think you'd be out of business pretty quickly in this town.
That's just an example of a kind of discrimination that may have been more prominent 60 years ago.
It's just not there now.
That's discrimination.
Discrimination is if you're not hired because of your race or if you're fired because of your race.
I say again that it's hard to imagine that happening in our completely integrated, ethnically diverse economy.
I'm not saying it never happens, but it's sort of rare.
But if it does happen, that's discrimination.
Discrimination literally means to choose between things.
He's got a discriminating palate, means he knows what tastes, you know, he knows the difference between fine wine and crummy wine.
He's got very discriminating tastes.
It's actually a compliment when you phrase it that way.
When you use that to describe something in real life, discrimination in the workplace and in the marketplace, you're doing the opposite.
You're saying he's discriminating based on invalid reasons like race or religion.
We do allow some discrimination, of course.
For example, in women's changing rooms, only women can go there.
There's certain youth prices.
Kids pay less at a movie theater than adults do.
So that's discrimination that we allow.
Although, of course, they're now calling sex discrimination in bathrooms.
They're calling that a hate crime.
But my point is, they're now saying that merely expressing a point of view on the internet is discrimination.
How is that discrimination?
You're not banning someone from riding a bus.
You're not banning someone from renting an apartment.
You're not firing someone from work.
All of those things are discriminatory actions against someone based on a prohibited ground.
How is an internet comment discrimination?
Well, when Justin Trudeau says it is, it is, because that's the whole purpose of this law.
Part four amends the reporting of internet child pornography.
I'm fine with that.
That is not the purpose of this law.
All right, so let's skip down to the table of provisions.
Another way of saying a table of contents.
We're going to skip through this quickly.
Online Harms Act, interpretation.
So you can see it's got a table of contents.
We're just going to skip through this because it's just the table of contents.
So we're going to scroll all the way down until we get to the beginning of the bill.
And you can see, yeah, there it is.
And that's the title of the act.
I won't read that again.
The Online Harms Act is enacted as follows.
Definitions.
Let's spend a little bit of time on definitions.
The following definitions apply in this act.
Child means a person who is under 18.
So that's relevant when they talk about bullying.
We'll get to that a little bit later.
Commission is the Digital Safety Commission.
Defining Detestation and Vilification00:03:17
Content that foments hatred.
This is very interesting to me.
Means 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.
Let me translate.
So they're saying hatred means if you detest something.
That's just sort of a thesaurus.
Hatred and I hate something, I detest something.
Sort of the same thing.
Vilify is to say, is a little more than hate.
It's to say you're awful.
I don't just hate you.
I think you're evil.
That's vilification and detestation a little bit different.
But content that foments hatred, that's such an important concept because like when I was charged with hate speech for publishing the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, I didn't actually do anything.
I didn't express hatred towards anyone.
They didn't say I did.
What they said I did is by publishing something, quote, likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.
So they said that by publishing those Danish cartoons of Mohammed, and why don't we throw them up on the screen while I'm talking, by publishing those Danish cartoons of Mohammed in a news article, I was likely to cause person A to hate person B. Didn't happen.
They had no evidence of it happening.
No one said it happened.
No one was harmed.
It didn't happen.
It might possibly in the future happen, likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.
But it's not an actual harm.
Not even a fake harm of you hurt my feelings.
I was prosecuted for 900 days.
You can go to Wikipedia and you'll find it there.
I think they still have it.
They may have taken it down now.
Just go to Danish cartoons wiki and you should be able to find it.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was taken down.
15 years ago, you were allowed to see that online.
Yeah, there it is.
Just click that.
Yeah, they won't let you see a large copy of it.
Just show that on the screen for a second.
Yeah, thank you.
So this was the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.
You can see some of them are very mild.
Two of them are a little bit edgy.
One looks like a turban is a bomb.
That's in the top.
And one is two women in a burqa and a guy with a sword.
But the other ones are pretty friendly.
That top left one there, it's the cartoonist drawing Mohammed.
The middle left on the top one looks like a stylized Olympic logo or something.
The one on the right, Mohammed looks sort of friendly.
That one on the left middle there, it says, stop, stop, we've run out of virgins, a commentary on suicide bombers.
You can see one that looks like a guy in the desert with a donkey.
You know, it's sort of like an illustrated Bible.
The one on the bottom left there, that boy is named Mohammed, and he's basically saying something like, I'm Mohammed, I'm a kid here in Denmark or something.
Content That Incites Violence00:04:20
So that's it.
These cartoons caused huge boycotts, riots around the world, hundreds of people killed in riots about these cartoons, people who have not even seen the cartoons.
We did a news story about it.
Simply doing a news story about that news event was deemed likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.
That is now criminalized.
Content that foments hatred, or might foment, it's likely to foment, show the law again, is likely to foment just detestation.
Do you see that?
Likely to highlight that on the screen.
Likely to.
So it didn't happen yet.
Might not happen.
If it happens, no one was stabbed, no one was punched, they just had hard feelings.
That's now a crime.
That's what content that foments hatred means.
You didn't have to hurt anyone.
You didn't have to damage anyone.
No one had to show that they lost a dollar or lost a friend or had anything bad happen to them.
It's just that they could have.
It was likely to expose me to what?
To hard feelings.
That's now a crime.
Let's keep trucking.
Content that incites violence.
Well, that's already against the criminal code.
This is a distraction.
Inciting violence is against the criminal code.
It has been ever since we've had a criminal code.
Let's keep going.
Content that incites violence, extremism, or terrorism.
Keep scrolling down.
That's against the law right now.
That's not new.
That's just in there to distract you.
Content that induces a child to harm themselves.
Well, this is interesting because remember, we just read the definition of a child, anyone under 18.
So what does this mean?
Content that advocates self-arm harm.
Does that include cutting off, God forbid, your breasts as a girl or your penis if you're a boy?
That's what they're talking about with the transgender surgery.
Child was defined as anyone under 18.
And this says content that induces a child to harm themselves mean content that advocates self-harm, disordered eating, or dying by suicide, or that counsels a person to commit or engage in any of these acts.
I would put it to you that it's self-harm to chop up children in the transgender, gender-affirming surgery.
Is that a crime?
Yeah, I don't think so.
I think Trudeau will use this as LaVranti Aberrias says.
This will be applied against whoever the government wants to.
Content that sexually victimizes a child or re-victimizes a survivor.
Obviously, everyone agrees with this.
Much of this is already in the law.
And if we need to update the law, so be it.
But that's not the purpose of this law.
That's not the new offices.
That's not the new hunter-killer commissioners.
That's not the $20,000 bounty for having your feelings hurt.
This is the window dressing that they want you to focus on.
Content used to bully a child.
Again, a child could be 17 and a half years old means content or an aggregate of content that, given the context in which it's communicated, could cause serious harm to a child's physical or mental health.
What does that mean?
What does the word bully mean?
I mean, I suppose we know it when we see it.
To criminalize bullying for someone who's 17 years and 10 months old, basically an adult.
You can criminalize communicated content if it could cause serious harm to a person's mental health.
This is threatening to criminalize social interactions that might include just harsh banter, hazing in a friendly way, theoretically even harsh criticism from a family member or from a teacher or anything.
I mean, the word bully is so vague.
In fact, I don't think the word bully itself, in fact, the word bully itself is not actually defined in this law.
Banning Revenge Porn00:03:14
And I think that's why.
Okay, let's keep going here.
Harmful content means intimate content communicated without consent.
Again, that's revenge porn.
We agree that that should be banned.
I think it already is, at least in some jurisdictions.
We've already gone through this list already.
Indigenous people, intimate content communicated without consent.
We've already gone through that.
The minister, obviously the Minister of Canadian Heritage here.
Hey, I'm going to stop for one second.
I'm going to throw to a video.
Do you have those Stephen Gilbo videos handy?
Like I say, this bill was just released by Arif Varani, the Minister of Justice and Online Harms.
But this bill was drafted when Stephen Gilbo was the heritage minister.
And he sort of did the rounds talking about it.
He talked about things like how can you stop certain websites.
He answered a few questions.
And I'm just waiting for, we're calling up the video here.
I've shown these to you before if you've watched my show.
What's the real purpose here?
Well, do you have the criticize politicians clip?
And then the nuclear one is the second clip.
So the first one is criticize politicians.
We're just calling it up, folks.
I want to prove, before I go further, I want to show you one of the worst people in the Canadian cabinet, Stephen Gilbeau.
When he was drafting this bill, and he was talking to a friendly government-subsidized journalist at a liberal think tank, I think it was called Canada 2020.
He was asked, yeah, that's the clip there.
He was asked, what's the purpose of this?
Why are you doing this?
Here, go ahead and play the clip.
We've seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families.
That's his rationale.
People are mean to politicians.
So the hate and the fomenting hate, you heard him.
It's because we've had too many people hating politicians, including him.
But what happens if a website just won't stop?
Like, what do you do?
Well, he has an answer.
Go full North Korea.
He calls that the nuclear option.
Here, do you have that clip handy?
Take a look.
Envision having blocking orders.
I mean, that's that.
Maybe.
It's not, you know, it would likely be a last resolve, last resolve nuclear bomb in a toolbox of mechanism for a regulator.
There you have it.
Now, I understand we have a freedom-oriented lawyer from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms who will be joining our call.
So, Olivia, as soon as Marty is ready, let me know.
But I'm going to keep going until then.
Nuclear Option Blocking Orders00:02:34
Because we're still in the definitions part here, and it's already 2.11 Eastern.
Office means the Digital Safety Office of Canada.
Ombudsperson means the digital safety ombudsperson.
Operator means a person that operates a regulated service.
I'm going to keep going.
Social media service means a website or application that is accessible in Canada, the primary purpose of which is to facilitate interprovincial or international online communication amongst users.
Let's just keep going.
I'm going to skip some of these definitions because they're, oh, I'm going to focus on the definition that the next one there.
For greater certainty, content that foments hatred.
Because this is what Stephen Gilbo was talking about there.
Causing another person to have hard feelings.
That is not a crime.
You're allowed to have hard feelings.
In fact, it's in tyrannical regimes where you're not allowed to have hard feelings.
Another thing that Stalin did is he would make note of whoever stopped clapping first.
When he would give a speech, there would almost be this contest to see how long you could clap because no one wanted to be the first to stop clapping.
What's my point of giving that anecdote to you?
Is in a free society, you're allowed to hate your politicians.
You're allowed to have hard feelings.
You're allowed to detest whoever you like.
And hopefully you will find a positive outlet, campaign, run for office, write a letter to the editor, get involved and actually fix a problem in life.
It's only in authoritarian regimes where you're not allowed to feel those feelings.
But of course, you cannot stop someone from feeling some way.
You can just force them to fake it, which is what they did in the Soviet Union.
So here's the definition.
For greater certainty, and for the purposes of the definition, content that foments hatred, content does not express detestation or vilification solely because it expresses disdain or dislike or discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends.
Well, what does that mean?
Because they already defined it as it causes detestation or vilification.
They're saying just because you dislike something or hurt or humiliate or offend.
You know what that is?
That's a contradiction, which is how they're going to excuse their liberal friends and how they're going to accuse their conservative critics.
So I showed you the front page of the Toronto Star.
Clearly fomenting hatred.
I mean, I think that was pretty obviously its purpose.
That was certainly its effect.
Regulating Online Harm00:15:12
And by the way, you don't have to have a mensrea.
You don't have to have a guilty mind to be convicted of any of this.
It's just could it?
Could it cause someone to have hard feelings?
You don't even have to have intent in your heart.
So if you are conservative and you foment hatred, you're guilty.
If you are liberal and you foment hatred, well, not solely just because you express disdain, dislike, or discredit, humiliate, hurt, or offend.
That contradiction is so essential in the law.
That's how they're going to go after conservative critics, but spare the haters on the street.
Every day in this country, we see pro-Hamas protests calling for genocide, condemning the Jews, actually engaging in real crimes, not just hate crimes.
They will never be prosecuted under this law.
Do you think Arif Virani, who is an Ismaili Muslim himself, so he's fairly liberal?
I'm not going to pretend he's an Islamist.
He's not.
But he's clearly in the pro-Hamas liberal caucus, along with Melanie Jolie, Omar Al-Gabra, Ahmed Hassan, and Justin Trudeau.
Do you think Arif Virani is going to prosecute some of these pro-Hamas extremists on the street?
Well, he hasn't so far, and he's had some legal tools to do so.
So he absolutely will not.
Let's keep going.
They have some more definitions regarding sexual matters.
Again, that is not the main purpose of this law.
Let's skip ahead down to 6-1, which is exclusion of private messaging feature.
The duties imposed under this act do not apply in respect of any private messaging feature of the regulated service.
So it doesn't apply to your direct messages.
So I guess there's that.
So I'm going to scroll down a bit because we've already covered some of this stuff when we looked at the government flyer.
So I'm going to skip ahead to page nine, where it talks about the Digital Safety Commission of Canada, establishment and mandate.
The mandate, the Commission's mandate, is to promote online safety and contribute to the reduction of harms caused to persons in Canada as a result of harmful online content.
And in particular, they talk about child pornography.
Obviously, there's no one in the world who could disagree with that.
But like I say, that's not the main purpose of this bill.
Let's skip ahead to section 12.
The commission consists of three to five full-time members to be appointed by the governor and council.
That's a fancy way of saying cabinet.
The governor and council may remove a member for cause.
Five-year terms, section 13, five-year terms.
Section 14, they'll be paid a certain amount.
They'll get benefits.
And look at section 16.
They don't have to be a Canadian citizen.
You can just be a permanent resident here.
So you can censor, you can be Trudeau's officer of censorship, and you don't have to be a Canadian citizen.
Section 17, a member must devote the whole of their time to the performance of the functions.
And then they have a chairperson and a vice chairperson, and they talk about committees.
I'm going to skip over that because that's all administrative matter that's not substantive.
Section 25 talks about powers they can delegate.
Section 27, let's pick it up there.
When making regulations and issuing guidelines, codes of conduct, and other documents, the Commission must take into account freedom of expression.
Really?
Every single thing they do is infringing on freedom of expression.
You don't add laws and punishments and life sentences and fines and offices and inspections.
Literally every single word, every single comment, every single jot and tittle in this is an infringement of freedom of expression.
I think you know who might save us in the end?
It's the big tech companies who probably have some claim against Canada for an unfair trade practice.
Ironically, I think we'll probably get more help from Facebook, YouTube, Google, and even the Chinese own TikTok to stop this than we will from any Canadian source.
Equality rights, privacy rights, the needs and perspectives of Indigenous people of Canada, and any other factor that the Commission considers relevant.
Really?
Any other factor at all, eh?
Anything.
So they can literally use anything they think relevant when they go about their censorship.
All right, good to know.
Now, here's the next one, the Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada.
Go ahead and show this on the screen.
Appointment of mandate to hold office for five years to support users of regulated services and advocate for the public interest with respect to systemic issues related to online safety.
Oh, I hear the word systemic issues, and I hear systemic racism immediately.
So they're going to be the DIE, the diversity, inclusion, and inequity, cultural Marxism injected straight into the veins of the social media companies.
By the way, they're all completely woke except for Twitter.
You could call this the anti-Twitter law.
And I'll skim through remuneration, benefits.
They just talk about all the money this person's going to get, the powers and duties.
Just read that, Section 37.
In fulfilling their mandate, the ombudsperson may gather information with respect to issues related to online safety, including with respect to harmful content, such as by obtaining the perspective of users of regulated services and victims of harmful content.
So it's basically going to be a therapy session where people put their grievances together and complain to a government official.
Yeah, what could come from that other than censorship?
Highlight issues related to online safety, including by making publicly available any information gathered under paragraph A.
So basically, they're going to be an advocate, a stalking horse, an accuser.
C, direct users to resources, including those provided for under this act, that may address their concerns regarding harmful content.
That's the get-rich-quick scheme of filing $20,000 jackpots with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
That's really what this is.
This person will take any complainant and help them craft a complaint to go after Rebel News, True North, National Post, Toronto Sun.
That's what this is about.
Digital Safety Office of Canada.
This is the third agency.
Trudeau does not have three agencies tackling inflation.
Trudeau does not have three agencies tackling taxes, cost of living, cost of housing.
Doesn't have three agencies dealing with our decrepit military that doesn't have equipment.
But censorship is something he'll have not one, not two, but three agencies for.
So important to him, he will literally rename the Justice Minister the Minister of Justice and Online Harms.
Chief Executive Officer, again, chief executive, that sounds pretty fancy.
That's going to be a quarter million dollar job right there.
As with the others, he's got a term of service and he's got payments and human resources.
He may employ any employees that are necessary to conduct the work of the office.
I'm on section 52 here.
May delegate powers.
Like, they're setting up new agencies here, new commissions, new boards, hiring lawyers, hiring political friends.
There's no way this is going to cost less than $100 million a year.
Part four, duties of operators of regulated services.
So these are, I went through this in the brochure.
These are the duties that they demand Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other social media accounts have.
An operator, that would be like Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg, has a duty to act responsibly in respect of a regulated service.
Well, of course, you didn't need to put that in a law.
That's in the common law.
You have a duty to the public.
You have a duty to your customers.
You have a contractual duty.
You have a common law duty.
You have statutory duties.
You did not need a law to say that.
That is already the case.
The operator of a regulated service must implement the measures that are adequate to mitigate the risk that users of the service will be exposed to harmful content on the service.
They already do.
They do so because they have that common law duty and because they want to have a safe place.
But their definition of a safe place is not the same one that Justin Trudeau has.
That's the purpose of this law, is to change the terms of service for the social media companies in a way, I mean, they're already woken up.
They're not woken up for Trudeau.
And the crimes are what Trudeau is adding.
Section 55.2.
In order to determine whether the measures implemented by the operator are adequate to mitigate the risk that users of the regulated service will be exposed to harmful content on the service, the commissioner must take into account the following factors.
The effectiveness of the measures in mitigating the risk, the size of the service, including the number of users, the technical and financial capacity of the operator, whether the measures are designed or implemented in a manner that is discriminatory on the basis of a prohibited ground in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and any factor provided for by regulations.
So they're now going to tell Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter how to run their companies.
I don't know.
It'll be interesting to see if they comply or if, like Facebook, they say, you know what?
We love you, Canada, but you enjoy the great firewall of China that Trudeau's brought over there.
We're just going to stay out of this.
I wonder if those companies will allow themselves to be used like this.
There was actually a clip, do you have that clip of when Varani was asked, I think it was the last clip you showed me, Olivia, when he was asked if he had any feedback from the companies?
And I don't think he's actually spoken to him about this.
Do you have that clip?
Here, let's take a listen to that.
He didn't bother to consult with them.
What could go wrong?
Now that the legislation is out, have you heard anything from social media platforms, especially after we saw a meta-pull out of Canadian news with their opposition to CAT?
So I've not heard directly in terms of a sort of a formal response from the platforms.
What I can say to Canadians is that the idea is not to chase platforms out of Canada.
We want platforms operating in Canada, but we want them operating at a baseline standard of safety.
I find it troubling that we've got more rules that relate to the Lego in my kids' basement than we do for the most difficult and dangerous toy that is in every Canadian's home right now, which is the smartphone or the screen that their children are in front of.
We need to establish baseline standards to protect the safety of Canadian children and to protect vulnerable people from hatred.
That is what we're doing with this legislation, which I think is fundamental for military justice.
Every word of that is a lie, of course.
Frankly, I don't know what laws there would be about Lego in your living room.
I can't even think of what one of them would be.
I think that's just such a whoever came up with that talking point, maybe that's that new PR whiz the Liberals have hired.
There are hundreds of laws that would apply to Facebook, YouTube, et cetera, including the entire criminal code.
Just because it's the internet doesn't mean it's immune from the same laws that apply to the telephone, to the fax machine, to handwritten notes.
You can rob a bank by saying, give me your money, by writing a note, give me your money, by sending an email, give me your money.
I suppose you could rob a bank with a podcast, theoretically.
Robbing a bank is illegal no matter the format you use.
And laws against child pornography are made more complicated by the technology in terms of their policing.
But the laws are the same.
Now, by the way, I support increased child pornography laws, but you see how that was his emphasis there instead of the hate speech stuff.
When he said he didn't talk to these foreign companies at all, I'm just getting deja vu all over again because Facebook said we're going to pull out if you make us pay $100 million to Trudeau's friends.
And they didn't think Facebook was serious and Facebook was.
You cannot get a news story about Canada on Facebook, which is a terrible setback to every single Canadian news outlet, except for the CBC, which doesn't need traffic.
They just care about one viewer, Justin Trudeau.
But every other media company in Canada has suffered a decline in viewership because Facebook was a source of viewers.
So they just devastated the news industry.
It'll be fascinating to see what happens here.
I'm going to take it.
I see a couple of rumble rants coming in.
I'm going to read a few of them.
Aurora Benu says, Hey, Ezra, have a wonderful day.
What about domestic disputes?
I don't think that that applies to this legislation.
I haven't seen any of it.
I mean, unless you're tweeting about a spouse, but I think that that would be, I don't think it would be covered by this law.
Nana Awake says, So, murders walk free in Trudeau's Canada, but you disagree with Trudeau or hurt his feelings.
You're locked up for life.
Welcome to enforcement of my idiocy in China.
That's what this, I thought when I first heard life in prison, I thought someone was joking, but no, it's right in there.
Candy 3, $5.
Amanda Todd's mom is on the news stating that this could have saved her daughter.
What part of the bill applies to this?
There are portions of this bill that have to do with revenge, porn, and child pornography.
I'm not familiar with the case of Amanda Todd.
Some of those things have been prosecuted at the provincial level.
And by the way, I'm completely open to that.
I don't know a lot about that area of law.
That's not what this bill is about.
This bill is about fomenting feelings of hate.
This bill is about lifetime life sentences for hate.
And hate is a human emotion.
They added the terrorism stuff, which is already illegal.
They added the child pornography stuff, which is already illegal.
I think they could improve on it.
They added that to distract.
Candy 3: I want to know how they see it applies to her.
I don't trust what they say, which is why I ask here: how are they twisting it or outright lying?
Well, we've been going through things.
I'm just going to, and I'm sorry, I'm not an expert in the case of Amanda Todd.
15-year-old Canadian student and victim of cyberbullying who hanged herself at home.
You know what?
I do remember this case now.
And there was also a case, if I'm not mistaken, in Atlantic, Canada, somewhere.
I'm sorry the name didn't ring a bell immediately to me.
I can't answer that right now, but so far, you know, I believe that revenge porn should be made illegal.
You don't need a 100-page bill and setting up three new censorship offices to make revenge porn illegal.
You need one line in the criminal code.
This is not about that.
That's the distraction.
I think we should do that.
I'm not up to speed with what the criminal code provisions are on revenge porn.
I'm sorry, it's not something I've looked into.
But that's not what this law is about.
I'm going to Google it right now.
I'm Googling revenge porn, Canadian criminal code.
I hope that this search doesn't yield the results I don't want.
Oh, good.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy00:04:51
The first result was non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
That's the first hit I got.
I'm glad I didn't get a porn result.
Cyberbullying and non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
I'm reading a government Canada page.
I don't want to go deep into it right now.
Here, you know what?
Yeah, you found it.
Can you pump that up?
I know we've got Marnie on deck, but I just want to answer your question properly.
And I'm so glad you asked it, and I'm so glad I took the time to look in Olivia.
You found it at the same time I did.
Can you put that on the screen?
So, this is the law right now.
We are looking at the criminal code of Canada as it stands now.
So, let's read this.
By the way, great question.
Thank you very much.
And we found the answer.
Let me read it.
This section is called Publication of an Intimate Image Without Consent.
Let's read it together.
Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available, or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to the conduct is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or be even an offense punishable on summary conviction.
And then they define intimate image, including in the person is nude, exposing his or her genitals, et cetera.
At the time of the recording, there were circumstances that gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the person depicted retains a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the offense is committed.
And then there's more details there, but my point is that this law looks like it was passed in 2014.
If I'm reading the notes here, that's another way of saying I think this law has been on the books for 10 years.
And the case you asked me about, Amanda Todd, was in, I think it was 2012.
So I think that this amendment to the criminal code probably came about in reaction to the Amanda Todd case.
And I think there was another case similarly.
Do you see my point?
And I'm not very familiar with that area law.
I just read it with you together.
But do you see my point?
I said that the child pornography and the revenge porn aspects here are a distraction.
And because of your excellent rumble comment, I just Googled it with Olivia and we demonstrated that that has actually been against the law, five years in prison, and that's been the state of the law since 2014, if I'm reading that provision correctly.
It has been, revenge porn has been illegal in Canada for 10 years, and there may have even been ways to prosecute it before then, but at least for 10 years, it's been in the criminal code.
And the liberals are claiming this bill is about revenge porn today.
It is not.
This bill today is about censorship, using revenge porn, using child porn as the excuse.
Do you see what I'm saying?
It's already against the law to incite violence.
Of course, you knew that.
It's already against the law to incite terrorism.
Of course, you knew that.
You knew that.
You know that.
Are you going to be tricked and deceived by Arifarani when he says, no, no, no, no, we've got to stop revenge porn?
Yeah, I agree with you, buddy.
And the time machine, we can go back to 2014 and vote for it again if you want, but you are just a liar if you're saying that's what this bill is about.
All right, I'm so glad that we took that rumble rant and looked into it.
I'm just simply not familiar with that section of the criminal code, but now I am.
And what was that section?
Was that 162?
Section 162.1.
Just for you to remember, if anyone ever asks you about that, you can say section 162.1 of the criminal code.
It's being illegal.
Revenge porn is being illegal in Canada, punishable by up to five years in prison.
It's been illegal for 10 years.
Don't let Trudeau trick you.
All right, without further ado, I want to bring in Marty Moore, one of my friends from the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, who's been waiting patiently as I did a little bit of Googling about the criminal code.
And I'm so glad I did.
Marty, great to see you.
Welcome to the live stream.
Thanks, Ezra.
Great to be with you.
Likewise, give our viewers a little bit of a biography.
Where are you joining us today from?
And you are a staffer with the Justice Center, am I right?
Well, thank you, Ezra.
I'm joining you from Calgary.
I've been working with the Justice Center for about 10 years, and I currently lead a team of lawyers actually across the country who are funded by the Justice Center to defend constitutional freedoms.
In fact, with a bill like this, it's hard to know when it will ever end with the kind of ideas that you see being propagated in this bill, which are so illiberal.
Interestingly, being brought forward by the former Liberal Party, if you might say.
I'm not sure what to call it now.
Well, I went through a 17-page media handout that the government gave yesterday, and I'm sort of marching my way through the bill.
I'm only at page 17, so I'm taking my time.
Maybe I presume that you've read it.
Instead of us going through it, you know, section by section, maybe you can tell me what concerns you the most, sort of skip ahead to the bad parts, so to speak.
What do you think is the worst part of this?
Or there's probably several of them.
You know, Ezra, to pick a worst part, I think one of the worst parts we can find is the amendment to the criminal code that they are wanting to put forward to allow for people, anyone with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, to bring an information forward to say not that you have committed a crime, a speech crime, but that you may commit a crime, that they have reasonable grounds to believe that you will commit a crime.
And what kind of crimes are we talking about?
We're talking about crimes such as inciting hatred or the most recent amendments to the criminal code that have passed, you know, downplaying the Holocaust.
And in order for them to come to court and say, you haven't committed this, but we think that you will commit this crime, a provincial court can then order you on the basis of someone else's belief, has to be reasonable, but that's in the eyes of a court to find.
They can order you to undertake a recognizance.
And that is a court order that you promise to do a bunch of different things.
And under this new piece of legislation, it's not just a normal kind of undertaking.
You know, we're going to keep the peace.
It's we can put an ankle monitor on you.
We can issue a curfew that keeps you in your house.
We can order that you submit your bodily fluids for the registry.
We can.
Pause right there.
I want to call that up on the screen.
Olivia, can you, in the PDF document, type in the word recognizance?
And it's the seventh or the sixth, it's one of the first hits there.
Scroll ahead to where it says conditions in recognizance.
Because Marty's talking about, you click ahead to the next one.
You know how you can go to the next one and find.
And then the next one.
And then, yeah.
So the provincial court may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter the recognizance.
And then Marty, I'm just going to rattle through the recognizance.
I'll go straight back to you.
I just want to show on the screen that you mentioned it.
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 wearing an electronic monitoring device, return to and remain at their place of residence.
So house arrest, abstain from the consumption of drugs of alcohol, provide for the purposes of analysis a sample of bodily substance.
Provide a sample on regular intervals.
Abstain from communicating directly or indirectly with any person or refrain from going to any place.
Firearms.
Ban from firearms.
Surrender anything.
I've never seen such a draconian.
Is this the provision you're talking about?
I haven't gotten this far ahead, but I did.
I mean, I was familiar with this with the earlier version of this bill.
Is that what you're talking about, Marty?
This is what I'm talking about, Ezra.
Like this is so bizarrely draconian.
And again, you do not find these kinds of conditions for even serious crimes.
You find these kind of conditions being imposed on someone who has been, there's evidence against them for committing actual terrorism.
And what we are talking about here, Ezra, we're not talking about someone actually having committed offense.
No, if you go up to section sub three under adjudication, we're talking about a provincial court judge finding that an informant has reasonable grounds for the fear that you will do something that violates the speech provisions of the criminal code.
And just to remind you of how broad our criminal code speech provisions are getting, and they're going to get broader under this bill if it passes, we're talking about provisions such as, and it lists it there, 319 sub 2 of the criminal code.
And what is 319 sub 2 of the 2.1 of the criminal code says?
It says, everyone who, by communicating statements other than in private conversation, willfully promotes anti-Semitism, of course, we're all against that, by condoning, denying, or downplaying the Holocaust.
So what we are saying is that if this law passes, if someone is concerned that someone else might be, might in the future downplay the Holocaust, well, then they can take that concern.
And if that concern is found to have reasonable grounds, the judge in that case can issue an order that you submit to the recognizance with all of these conditions, or if you don't submit to an recognizance, that you go to jail for a year.
That's what we're talking about here, Ezra.
You know what?
And the section right before that, there's section 319.2, and then 319.2.1.
You know, it's very interesting what they're doing here.
I think I know what they're doing, Marty.
There's a left-wing Jewish, or there's left-wing Jewish organizations in Canada who for years have supported human rights censorship, even though it's greatly backfired against the community.
I think this is their way of sort of buying off some of the official Jews who are more censorship-oriented, saying, look, yeah, we're going to smash a lot of things here.
We're going to smash a lot of civil liberties, but we're going to let you smash your enemies here.
This will be used against Jews too.
I mean, earlier, Marty, I talked about how I published the Danish cartoons of Muhammad.
I was prosecuted for three years for that.
And the Jewish community actually expressed support for these kinds of censorship provisions 50 years ago when they were drafted.
But that kind of minority report preemptive censorship you refer to, whether it's against Jews or Muslims or Christians or anybody, is a shocking departure from how we operate in Canada.
We don't believe in a pre-crime.
We don't believe in prior restraint.
Oh, Your Honor, he hasn't said anything yet, but I just know he's going to.
He hasn't done anything yet, Your Honor, but boy, I feel it in my bones.
And look at him.
He's the kind of guy who might say something wrong.
And so while I myself, of course, don't like Holocaust denial, I also know one thing, Marty.
If someone doesn't believe that the Holocaust happened, throwing them in jail is not going to change their mind.
It's actually probably going to confirm for them that you're trying to cover up the truth.
If someone denies the Holocaust, I think the first thing you've got to say is, well, why did we bring this person to Canada, hundreds of thousands of people to Canada who deny the Holocaust?
The second, more practical thing is to try and persuade them otherwise.
But simply threatening them with prosecution is not going to change their mind.
Absolutely.
And of course, this applies to more than just simply Holocaust denial or downplaying the Holocaust as this statement reads.
It applies to the broader category of all of the hate offenses, you know, the promotion of hatred.
And again, we're not talking about actually adjudicating whether or not based on a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, someone has in fact advocated for genocide or willfully promoted hatred.
We're just talking about whether someone can convince a provincial court judge, any provincial court judge in Canada, that you have a reasonable ground for fear that someone will, for example, advocate genocide or promote genocide.
Well, we can certainly see how that could cut both ways in the heated conversation that we have.
These terms are commonplace across the country, whether it's Jewish or Palestinian or any debate.
Well, and by the way, let me pull up section 319.
Olivia, I just sent you the link in the live stream Slack channel.
Section 319, I've always been against this section in the criminal code.
Section 319 is called public incitement of hatred.
And section 319 2.1 is about the Holocaust, and we've been talking about that.
But that's just one detail.
Look at how 319 starts.
319.1.
Everyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offense, liable to imprisonment of a term not exceeding two years.
And then section 319.2, everyone who by communicating statements other than in a private conversation willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty and has two years.
So you were referring to 319.2.1, which specifically talks about the Holocaust.
But 3.91 and 3.92 talk about any ground.
And let me remind our viewers, that's not just age, race, gender.
That's now gender identity.
That's now gender expression.
That's transgenderism.
So if you have expressed anything that is likely to expose a person to foments, you know, to feelings, you're guilty of a crime.
And now, as you point out, Marty, you don't even have to do it yet.
So for example, the Rebel News talks about public controversies, including extreme cases of transgender activism, where big men play sports against women and even girls.
And I can see some transgender activists going before a judge and saying, Your Honor, they haven't broken the law yet, but boy, they're getting close.
I need you to put David Menzies under house arrest.
I need you to put Ezra Lehman under house arrest.
I need you to put an ankle monitor on them.
I need you to ban them from communicating with certain people.
They haven't done anything yet, but we need that ordered, Your Honor.
And that's the power that this judge have.
Am I correct, Marty?
I'm relying on you to correct me because I'm sort of working my way through this legislation in real time.
Absolutely.
Ezra, we are reeling, I think, our whole legal team that we're looking at this right now.
This is some of the worst drafted legislation.
And when you don't have the ability to look at this legislation, all of a sudden say, ah, no, no, no, Ezra, we're going too far.
We're past.
No, I have not seen any check on this yet.
Like there's having read this and reading it again here, we're talking about real imprisonment or, you know, agree to all these conditions of people just because someone else is judged by a provincial court judge to have a reasonable fear that they might cross the line into some level of hatred.
And we know that the definition of hatred is a squishy definition to start with.
It's one of the most difficult legal concepts to explain because it's also very much in the eye of the beholder, in the eye of the hearer or the ear of the hearer, I guess I should be saying here.
And now, if you have a reasonable fear that someone's going to speak hatred in some form, you are going straight to jail, as they say, or you're going to agree to all of these conditions at the discretion, again, respectfully, but of a provincial court judge, simply based on whether there is a reasonable grounds for the fear.
And so again, this is just one provision, one absolutely draconian provision, but only one provision.
of concern in this piece of legislation.
So I want to quickly show you some of those criminal code provisions that Marty referred to.
And I'm not going to go through in detail, but I just want to show them to you.
If you can put those on the screen there.
Like this is just a small excerpt.
It's called Sexual Offenses, Part 5.
Offenses, you know, every person commits an offense who makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or has in their possession an obscene thing, and then they define it, sell it, expose it.
Sexual Offenses in the Digital Age00:08:45
It goes on and on.
There's section after section.
In section 163.11, they define child pornography.
They talk about making, distributing, possessing, accessing child pornography, aggravating factors.
This has been in the law for decades.
In fact, you can see some of these provisions predate the internet.
Many of these provisions go back generations.
Child pornography, of course, was a scourge even before the internet.
The internet has vastly expanded the scope of it.
But the law has kept up.
The law has been updated and adjusted.
I see certain provisions in the version on the screen here were adjusted in 1993.
Some were adjusted in 2018.
This is constantly updated to keep up with the times, both the technological times.
It's a 2015 update.
The criminal code is amended all the time.
And I'm not saying it shouldn't be amended more.
I'm not saying there aren't more improvements that can be done.
But to pretend that without the law, the online harms bill, child pornography or revenge porn or inciting terrorism would not be happening is a lie.
Understand the reason they're lying to you because they're trying to make you say, no, there's some good parts to it.
The good parts to it are already in law.
Banning of revenge porn, I showed it to you.
10 years ago, the law was passed.
Five years in prison.
Ariferenni didn't do that.
It was actually done under the Harper government.
Okay, so I'm going to speed through this, just talking about the power to issue regulations and guidelines.
Tools to block users, Section 58.
The operator of a regulated service must make available to users who have an account or otherwise registered tools that enable those users to block other users.
Does anyone not know that exists?
Like I said before, if you don't have the blocking function on your social media app, you're not actually allowed to sell it on the app store.
This is an example of a law drafted by people who either know nothing about social media.
I have an idea.
I have an idea.
A block button.
The liberals very well know about block buttons because they've been trying to block rebel news and we've been taking the court to fight that.
But they either don't know anything about social media, which is possible, or more likely, they know that this is already the case, but they're trying to distract from the true essence of this bill.
Tools and processes to flag harmful content.
The operator of a regulated service must implement tools and processes to enable a user to easily flag the operator content that's harmful, et cetera, et cetera.
That is ubiquitous in social media.
Like I say, it's already in the law.
Sorry, I don't know if it's in the law.
It's already in practice.
So this law is redundant, unnecessary, other than it's to camouflage their true intent.
Let's scooch down a little bit.
Section 60, multiple instances of automated communication by computer program.
It's basically saying ban spam.
I can assure you that stopping spam is an enormous priority for social media companies.
I think it's one of the main things that Elon Musk has railed against since buying the app is how to stop spam bots.
And he's come up with that ideas like making accounts pay a few dollars or whatever.
Do you think you need to tell Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram that spam is a problem?
They're going full tilt on it.
Does the government have better solutions than them?
I doubt it.
But again, this is some of what the Online Harms Act is really about.
Section 61.
The operator of a regulated service must make a resource person available to users of the service to hear users' concerns.
Every single app does that.
I mean, they don't have someone on a telephone, but they have automated systems.
Contact information accessible.
The operator must ensure that the resource person is easily identifiable and the resource person's contact info is easily accessible.
Obviously, not a phone number, but how is that not what they do right now?
And even if it was, this is not the essence of the law.
Section 73.
The Commission may on request and in accordance with the criteria set out in the regulations accredit a person other than an individual for the purpose of giving that person access to the inventories of electronic data that are included in the digital safety plans.
The person's primary purpose is to conduct research or engage in education, advocacy, or awareness activities.
And the person conducts research that is or engages in education, advocacy, or awareness activities.
Now, I don't know what this means in reality.
I don't know what they're trying to pull here.
But I think what they're saying is they want the ability to root around in Elon Musk's internal records.
I think what they want to do is they want to poke around inside Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and take a good look around just out of curiosity, maybe out of competitive interest.
I don't know.
We don't really know what this is.
What does it mean when their purpose is education, advocacy, and awareness activities?
So you're going to poke around in the inside of a company, in their private stuff, in the name of advocacy, advocating what on behalf of whom, towards what end.
I think it's a disaster, and I'm guessing that companies will rightfully refuse it if it's for those purposes.
Every operator commits an offense.
So this is, I'm just going to spend a little bit of time here.
This is basically the penalties for Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, et cetera.
If they don't follow the law, here's what could happen to them.
Every operator commits an offense that contravenes an order of the commission, that obstructs or hinders the commission or an inspector, that makes a false or misleading statement.
And every operator that commits an offense under subsection one on conviction on indictment to a fine of not more than 8% of the operator's gross global revenue or $25 million, whichever is greater.
So if Facebook commits an offense here, the Trudeau government is going to take either 8% of Facebook's revenue or $25 million, whichever is greater.
Facebook revenue 2023, what do you think it was?
$134 billion.
$134 billion times 8% is $10 billion.
What do you think the Facebook, YouTube, Google, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok are going to say when they read that?
They're going to say, well, we won't break the rules.
We're not going to break the law.
We're lawful companies.
I mean, that's what Facebook said.
Facebook was faced with C-18, which said you have to give $100 million to Judo's friends in the media if you link to their work.
So Facebook said, well, we're not lawbreakers.
So we just won't link to their work.
So we're in full compliance because the law doesn't apply to us now.
We don't link to Canadian news.
So good luck with all that.
So Facebook is not breaking the law.
They're just not participating in a business activity that puts them at $100 million cost.
So I just did the math on Facebook's global, and that's, by the way, that's $10 billion U.S. dollars.
It's about $13 billion Canadian.
Do you think that it's worth the risk for Facebook to operate in Canada at all?
If there's a law that says they could be fined $10 billion U.S. for an offense, I don't think Facebook has made $10 billion in Canada in the last decade.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe they have.
I don't know.
Maybe this is an opening offer, but I think that you're going to see a U.S. MCA, U.S. Mexico-Canada-America Free Trade Agreement complaint out of this.
Section 121, persons other than an operator.
If you can contravene the law, you could be, you know, there's fines there.
If an individual, $50,000 fines, like just enormous fines, but no prison.
Criminalizing Politics00:15:56
We're very, very glad Section 124 says you won't go to prison for lying to the Commission, but we can put you in prison for life, as we talked about for hate speech.
So this is the most terrifying part of the law.
So what this is, is this law called the Online Harms Act will amend other laws.
It'll amend the Human Rights Act.
We'll talk about that a little bit later, but it'll also amend the criminal code.
And it's creating a new hate crime right here.
Everyone who commits an offense under this act or any other act of parliament, if the commissioner of the offense is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age,
mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, and then slow right down here, or gender identity or expression is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for life.
Let me say that again.
If the government thinks you hate someone based on their gender identity or expression.
So for example, if there is a grown man in a changing room with girls because his gender identity is, well, no, I'm a trans woman.
And if you react to that person in any manner that shows hatred, which is defined as detestation or vilification, get ready to go to prison for as long as Paul Bernardo.
That's shocking.
Do you see that?
Sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
Get ready to go to jail for life.
The next one is even more terrifying.
Fear of hate propaganda offense.
A person may, with the Attorney General's consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge.
This is what we were talking about with Marty.
If the person, on reasonable grounds, that another person, if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit an offense.
So this is the pre-crime.
This is the time machine future crime.
This is the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report.
I'm just going to read this one more time slowly because it's so shocking.
I want you to get it.
This section is called fear of hate propaganda, not hate propaganda.
That's obviously allowed.
Go to jail for life or whatever.
But if you're just afraid that someone might in the future possibly, well, that's a crime too for them.
Fear of hate propaganda offense.
A person may, with the Attorney General's consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge.
If the person fears on reasonable grounds, then another person will commit an offense that we've described, about hate speech about transgenderism or minority or whatever.
You can get a court order against someone just because you're afraid of them.
They haven't done anything to you yet, but you think they might.
Subsection 3, if the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced, that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behavior for a period of not more than 12 months.
Next section.
However, the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offense.
The judge may order that the defendant enter into recognizance for a period of not more than two years.
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 in the recognizance.
So let me summarize.
Someone's afraid that you might, you haven't done anything yet.
Someone's afraid that you might.
The judge says, you're under house arrest.
You've got to wear an ankle bracelet.
No more alcohol for you.
You're not allowed to go to these five places.
And if you don't do that, straight to jail.
Can I get the Parks and Rec straight to jail clip?
I mean, remember that, anyway watch Parks and Rec?
I didn't watch a lot of it, but there's this funny scene where Fred Armison plays some little dictator from some Latin American country does such a great job.
And this is not a laughing matter, but we're going to take a second to laugh at it.
Go ahead and play that clip.
Holding coffee!
This is outrageous.
Where are the armed men who come in to take the protesters away?
Where are they?
This kind of behavior is never tolerating in Barakua.
You shout like that, they put you in jail right away.
No trial, no nothing.
Journalists, we have a special jail for journalists.
You're stealing, write to jail.
You're playing music too loud, write to jail right away.
You're driving too fast?
Jail.
Slow, jail.
You're charging too high prices for squares, glasses.
You write to jail.
You undercook fish, believe it or not, jail.
You overcook chicken, also jail.
Undercoverco.
You make an appointment with a dentist and you don't show up, believe it or not, jail right away.
We have the best patients in the world because of jail.
That's funny because it was a joke when that was filmed probably 10 years ago.
But it's not funny now because that's what happens in Canada.
Did you say something mean about someone whose gender identity or gender expression you disagree with?
Because maybe they were in a girl's changing room?
Straight to jail.
Undercooked fish, overcooked chicken, straight to jail, undercooked, overcooked.
That's very funny because we have to laugh.
Now this is the part I'm really scared about.
Orders regarding discriminatory practices.
A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.1, may be the subject of a complaint, and anyone found to be engaging or have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be subject to an order.
And as I read to you earlier, they include an internet posting as a discriminatory act.
It's not.
A discriminatory act is when you choose amongst things based on some characteristics.
So discrimination is you're allowed to come into this restaurant, you're not.
You're allowed to book a ticket on this airline, you're not, based on race or religion or whatever.
We do allow certain discriminations.
If you're a child of tender years, you're not allowed to buy a ticket because you're too young.
We obviously have certain discrimination, but unlawful discrimination is what I've just described.
Giving your opinion on the internet is not discrimination.
How is that discrimination?
You haven't altered someone's life other than through an idea.
You haven't taken any action.
That is now covered by the Human Rights Act.
So look at this next section here.
13.1.
This is what Stephen Harper's government repealed.
They're bringing it back.
It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the internet or any other means of communication in a context in which the hate speech is, again, future crime, likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
So you didn't actually interfere with anyone's life.
You didn't ban them from a building.
You didn't deny them service at a restaurant.
You didn't refuse to bake a cake.
You just posted something on the internet.
And if that could cause him or her to have hard feelings towards the transgender man going into the girl's changing room, you're guilty.
Subsection 2, for the purposes of subsection 1, a person communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech so long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.
So everything you've ever written or said historically can now get you convicted.
Exception, this section does not apply in respect of private communication.
Definition of hate speech.
We've already read this earlier.
Content that expresses detestation or vilification on a basis of prohibited grounds.
And I've already told you that includes gender, identity, gender expression.
I'm just scrolling through this stuff.
Now, one of the most important things in our legal system is, in fact, it's a charter, right?
It's the ability to face your accuser, to face the charges, to know who's prosecuting you.
We don't have secret trials in Canada.
We have certain parts that are subject to publication bans to protect the identity of children or if there's some national security reasons, but there are no secret trials in Canada.
It's not like the Star Chamber secret trials centuries ago in the UK.
But look at this section here: non-disclosure of identity.
This is absolutely insane.
The Human Rights 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 identity or group of individuals that has filed the complaint, or any individual who's given evidence or assisted the Commission in any way in dealing with the complaint.
If the Commission considers that there is a real and substantial risk that any of those individuals will be subjected to threats, intimidation, or discrimination, what does that even mean?
Well, I'll tell you what it's going to mean.
So you will receive notice one day that you are being prosecuted.
You won't know who filed the complaint.
You won't know who gave evidence against you.
You don't know who has helped the Commission prosecute you.
You won't have any of that information.
You won't know if it's a disgruntled ex-employee.
You won't know if it's a for-profit company who's decided to make complaints for cash.
You won't know if it's an extremist activist.
You won't know if it's the Liberal Party of Canada trying to embarrass their opponents.
The Commission may order a person who, in the course of the Commission's dealing with a complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice described in this section, has learned the identity of the alleged victim, the individual or group of individuals that filed the complaint, or any individual who's given evidence or assisted the Commission, not to disclose the identity.
So if you find out or if anyone finds out who's hunting you, you can be ordered to keep that a secret.
This is not a Canadian law.
There's no law like this anywhere in Canada.
We have certain official secrets laws.
We have certain laws protecting the identity of children.
But this protects hunter-killer race hucksters like the kind that swarm the Trudeau liberals.
Every for-profit complainer of fortune, every victimologist, every race huckster, gender huckster, transgender huckster, they will now be able to file dozens, hundreds, thousands of complaints against their enemies in secret.
And if you find out who they are, you'll be subject to a publication ban and don't you dare say who it is.
There is established a tribunal to be known as a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal consisting, subject to subsection 6, of a maximum of 20 members, including a chairperson.
So Justin Trudeau is going to appoint 20 activists, friends, allies, liberal patronage donors to this human rights tribunal.
They don't have to be judges.
In fact, they're not judges.
And they will rule on these cases of secret complaints against you in secret courts with secret evidence from secret sources.
It's not Canadian.
Now, what happens if you're convicted?
Scroll ahead to 53.1.
If at the conclusion of an inquiry, the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice described in Section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice in order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures,
in order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim Identified in the communication that constituted discriminatory practice in order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the receiver general.
So a fine.
So you have to pay the race huckster $20,000, and you have to pay the government $50,000 based on whatever Trudeau's appointees say.
Oh, and of course, Section 53.2, a member or panel conducting inquiry may award costs.
So you have to pay $20,000 to the huckster, $50,000 to the government, and you have to pay for the costs of this star chamber prosecution.
That could be a $100 grand hit.
Oh, and you'll never be able to find out who came for you.
That's shocking to me.
Let's keep going.
I'm going to skip ahead the child pornography part because, like I say, that's been on the books for years.
And I think, frankly, that Trudeau is abusing the victims of pornography and revenge porn by making them his sort of human shields here by saying, oh, look at that woman whose daughter killed herself because of revenge porn.
Revenge porn has been illegal in Canada for 10 years, five-year fine, but we're going to trot her out today so that if you dare oppose these censorship provisions, we'll call you a racist or whatever they do.
You know what?
I'm scrolled through and I'm pretty much actually through the heart of it.
There's just technical amendments and technical provisions, making sure particular words are in the Human Rights Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and the Criminal Code.
So that actually is the end of it.
What we have here is a monstrosity of a law.
It's over 100 pages, the version I went through.
The summary I went through was 17 pages.
But I think that probably 90 of those 100 pages were a distraction.
They were a placebo.
They were a camouflage.
They were a just look over there.
It was a misdirection, as they'd say.
It was about the things that people actually want fixed.
And by that, I mean for Trudeau to enforce the existing laws we have on the books.
We have a revenge porn law in the books, five years in jail.
Maybe that should be 10 years in jail.
Has there even been a single prosecution under that law where a suspect, a criminal was convicted and got the five years?
Like I, like, I don't, I'm guessing that that law has not been fully used.
I would be very surprised if a single person in Canada had already been prosecuted to the maximum extent and given a five-year jail term under that provision.
The Worst Law Misdirection00:07:18
So do you want to pump up that law?
Sure, you could, but how about enforce it?
The laws against revenge porn, the laws against child porn are on the books.
How about we enforce it?
The law against fomenting hate, Section 319 of the Criminal Code, which I do not like, it's already on the books.
It's not being enforced.
It's not being enforced against Trudeau's friends in the pro-Hamas movement.
You could say that some of Trudeau's MPs, his own MPs, have engaged in hate speech.
Certainly the Toronto Star in hate speech, fomenting hate against the unvaccinated.
No, this is not about those things.
This is not about child pornography or revenge porn.
This is about criminalizing politics.
It's very specifically about criminalizing transgenderism.
I read to you, it's not just race and sex anymore or religion.
It's gender expression and gender identity.
And to get you, to ensure that they get you, they're offering a $20,000 bounty to anyone who files a complaint against you, and they can do it in secret.
You'll never have a chance to cross-examine them.
You'll never have a chance to challenge them.
That is not a form of justice that anyone in Canada has ever heard of before.
That is not how it is.
I sent a copy of this bill to one of our favorite law firms who's been fighting free speech matters for us.
And I said how absolutely critical it is that we challenge this law at the first moment.
Now, I have to tell you the obvious answer, it's not a law yet.
It's a bill, which is a proposed law.
First reading, as they call it, means the bill is entered into Parliament.
And then there's debates, and then there's second reading, and bills like this typically have hearings and committees.
But with the new deal between Trudeau and the NDP, I think they're going to shorten the debate on this.
I think they're going to weed out any critics they don't want to hear from, and I think they're going to ram this through.
Then it's going to go to the Senate, which is dominated by the Liberal Party.
I think they'll probably push it through too.
And then it's enacted, and then it can be challenged.
Do you doubt that Rebel News will probably be the first people charged under the law?
I bet we will.
Not just charged once, but probably charged every single day.
Probably every single news story we publish will be called an act of fomenting hatred.
Probably every single one.
And even if we were to win in this star chamber in front of Trudeau's hand-picked human rights tribunal members in a system where you can't know the accuser, can't see the facts against you.
Even if we were to win, the process is the punishment.
And it's not just one time.
Why wouldn't it be 100 times?
Why wouldn't it be 1,000 times?
Why wouldn't every single story we publish be prosecuted?
I think that Rebel News has to fight this.
It'll be interesting to see if others do.
Toronto Star does not need to fight this.
They will never be charged.
So I showed you that quirk where there's a section in it that says, just because you spread hate doesn't mean you spread hate.
It makes no sense in comparison with the rest of the law, other than it's what they're going to point to when someone complains about hatred in the CBC or hatred in the Liberal Party or hatred in the Toronto Star.
They're going to say, oh, well, you're allowed to hate if you're a good guy, like they are.
No, I think this will be the Kill Rebel bill.
It'll be interesting to see if there's any journalists in the country who are still dedicated to freedom of speech.
And not just that, but a legal process that's not this insane secret star chamber.
Like that, I've never heard of anything so insane in my life.
Even in mob trials, even where the mafia are being prosecuted, they have the right to see witnesses and challenge them and to see the source of evidence against them.
You don't think those witnesses feel intimidated, but even they are not hidden from scrutiny.
But if you're some transgender extremist in Canada, you can file a complaint against any critic and have your identity kept secret because you feel intimidated.
And you can actually go to your provincial court and say you feel scared and you can maybe get your opponent put under house arrest.
This is the worst law I've ever seen.
I remember when it was called, when it was introduced in part through Bill C-36 and in part through a proposal that Stephen Gilbo put out.
And I thought that can't be serious.
But remember, this is the final step.
Step one was C-11, which gave Trudeau control of the internet.
Step two was C-18, which let him loot the Internet companies to pay off his friends of the media.
And this is part three.
Censorship.
Destroying our legal systems, checks and balances, life sentences for hate, criminalizing the emotion of hate.
I think this is the worst law ever introduced by any government in Canadian history.
I'm trying to think.
I suppose the War Measures Act was pretty strict, and the Emergencies Act destroyed Liberty II.
And I'm guessing that there were some racist laws in the past.
I don't know how Japanese internment was done.
But that wasn't a life sentence, was it?
That wasn't good, but that wasn't prison for life.
That wasn't ankle bracelets, urine tests, blood tests, banning on who they could talk to.
I mean, that was absolutely an atrocious thing, done by a liberal government, of course, but it's nothing like what's contemplated here.
It'll be interesting to see in the days ahead what law professors say, what pundits have to say, what the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has to say.
They snooze, they slept straight through the pandemic and the lockdowns.
So I wonder if they'll be fine with this, because they're really a transgender extremist group themselves.
I wonder if they'll speak up about this or if they say, no, no, this is done just right.
It allows us to destroy conservative political enemies and protect ourselves.
We're fine with that.
It'll be interesting to see.
I promise you this.
Rebel News will fight this until we're put in jail.
That's a promise.
Well, that's the show for today.
Just monstrous.
I don't want to say I'm scared because that implies that I'm emotionally petrified or something.
I'm worried.
I'm concerned.
I'm motivated.
I feel like I'm informed.
I feel like I know what I have to do.
I have to politically and journalistically fight against this to try to change it in whatever way is possible before it's turned into law.
I don't know if it'll be permeable to any change because the liberals and the NDP are going to ram it through.
And then I think rebel news will instantly be targeted by it.
And I think we have to challenge it and its constitutionality with the absolute best lawyers we can muster and fight to the death.
I just think that's how it's going to go.
Help me out if you like.
Sign our petition at stopthecensorship.ca, and I'll keep you posted.