Ezra Levant and John Carpe warn Canada’s Bill C-63—backed by Trudeau’s expanded "Minister of State for Online Harms" title—is a $10B+ threat to free speech, creating three federal censorship agencies with pre-crime powers like house arrest and forced speech removal. Critics face $50K fines from anonymous complaints, even without proven harm, while platforms risk 8% revenue penalties. Rebel News, already targeted by Trudeau, could collapse under enforcement, turning dissent into a life-imprisonable "hate crime" for subjective views like gender identity critiques. The bill’s passage signals a global censorship precedent, demanding urgent legal and public resistance. [Automatically generated summary]
Today I'm going to give you sort of my more considered thoughts, keep it shorter.
We're going to interview John Carpe, the boss of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
I think this is going to be the battle of the year for us.
And whether we want it or not, frankly, I think Trudeau has built this law in part to take us on.
But before I get to today's show, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
It's $8 a month.
You get the video version of this show.
The $8 a month, I think it's worth it.
You get a ton of great stuff.
But actually, there's another reason I think it's worth it.
It's because we don't get any money from government.
So we need that $8 a month to pay our bills.
You know, $8 might not sound like a lot of money to you, but you put it together with thousands of other people paying $8.
We can run a whole freedom-oriented company here.
So I think that's a reason to do it too.
Please go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Pre-Crime Anti-Hate Laws00:15:24
Tonight, I'm still in shock at the details of Trudeau's new censorship bill.
Here's my thoughts after 48 hours.
It's February 28th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
Hey, I don't know if you saw the show last night or the full two and a half hour live stream I did in the middle of the day.
It was good, but it was plotting.
I was going through slowly learning along with you.
I had not read the full thing before, so I was sort of going slow and I was going in chronological order, just sort of page by page.
What I want to do now, instead of doing a two and a half hour version, I want to see if I can get it down to 15 minutes.
Not just 15 minutes to summarize it, but my thoughts on the whole thing a couple days in.
I think the first thing is what this bill is not about.
It's not actually about child pornography.
That's been banned by the criminal code for decades.
It's not about revenge pornography where you filmed a partner and now you're estranged and they're an ex and you upload it to the internet in vengeance.
That happens these days.
That's being criminalized for 10 years.
Stephen Harper passed an amendment to the criminal code in 2014.
Five years in prison if you do that.
This law is not about getting social media companies to put a block button to ban, to allow you to ban people who harass you.
All of these things, child pornography, revenge porn, social media safety, that's already in effect.
If you feel yourself saying, yeah, that's a good idea, we should ban that or we should regulate that.
Okay, good.
We're doing that already.
That is not what this law is about.
It's a distraction, a misdirection, an illusion, a trick.
When Trudeau rolled out family members who had child abuse issues, he was actually using them.
He was re-abusing them by making them human shields, cannon fodder, to distract from his real goal.
It's not just the child pornography.
This bill talks about banning incitement of violence, banning incitement to terrorism.
I think you probably know those are already against the law.
We toughened up our anti-terrorism laws after 9-11, and inciting violence has been a crime even before Canada was born.
No, this is really about censorship.
It's obvious.
This bill creates not one, not two, but three new offices and agencies dedicated to censoring the internet, each one of which has their own office, their own staff, their own budget, their own CEO.
Plus, in addition to those three new agencies, it beefs up the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
To show you how important the censorship is, the Justice Minister has a new title.
Justice Minister, Attorney General, and Minister of State for Online Harms.
As I said yesterday, there are hundreds of laws in Canada.
The Criminal Code has hundreds of sections.
The only one that is now part of the Justice Minister's new title is this censorship bill.
Censorship is the heart of it.
The most shocking detail is a new standalone hate crime offense punishable by life in prison.
I didn't know the liberals believed in life in prison.
They certainly don't believe in it for murderers or rapists or terrorists, but for hating the wrong people, life in prison.
Something equally shocking to me is the pre-crime nature, where a judge can preemptively punish someone, arrest someone, put them under house arrest if they fear they will in the future commit a hate crime.
Put them in house arrest, put an ankle bracelet on them, make them undergo regular drug and urine tests, seize their lawful firearms, ban them from talking to any particular person, ban them from going to any particular place, and if they resist these, going straight to prison for not complying, all before they've done a thing.
There's other shocking things, like a requirement that social media companies like Facebook or Twitter take down offensive posts within 24 hours or face huge fines, which means that they will have no time to investigate or to hear the other side or to properly look into it.
They'll simply take everything down when someone complains.
I think one of the most personal aspects of this is the renovation of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
You may know that that's the provision that I campaigned on repealing when Stephen Harper was the prime minister.
Based on my own experience, publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, we lobbied the Canadian government and Parliament passed a law repealing the hate speech section to those putting it back in.
And this time it's even worse.
He rewards complainants with $20,000 payments.
That is, if you complain against rebel news, you can get up to $20,000 from us and cause us to have to pay $50,000 to the government.
You could complain for every single article we post because we tweet and use other social media for all of our journalism.
Literally, every single news story could attract a complaint to the Human Rights Commission for hate because it's a moneymaker now.
This will create and fund an army of professional internet complainers.
I should say that hate speech to complain to the Human Rights Commission now specifically includes criticizing gender identity or gender expression.
You might not even know what those words mean.
They're so newfangled.
Gender identity is when you look like a fella, but you just say, man, I feel like a woman.
You can have a beard.
You can have your twig and berries.
But as long as you identify as a woman, you're a woman, and you can go into a change room or a bathroom or a rape shelter.
Every one of those things has happened in Canada.
You can go into a women's prison.
Gender expression is when you shave your beard and put on makeup.
If you criticize either of these practices, you could be prosecuted for a hate crime under this bill.
What's even more terrifying, and this is something new, this was not the case when I was prosecuted in human rights court, complainants can now keep their identity secret, even from the accused.
So a complaint could come in about a broadcast we do here.
Who complained?
Was it a competitor?
Was it someone we wrote a critical article about?
Was it someone in the Liberal Party?
Was it an ex-employee or a personal friend who turned sour?
Those are all relevant facts when you're accused in a real court.
So you can say, oh, I know this guy.
He's just mad because of that.
Or I know that guy.
He's full of it because of this.
You don't know who's coming at you now.
The ability to look your accuser in the eye is removed in this bizarre law.
I used to think, I used to think my first reading of the bill, I thought this is a war on Elon Musk because he's taken over Twitter and made it for freedom of speech.
It is, but it's also a war on every big tech company.
I think Justin Trudeau looks at those companies and says, well, I want you to censor more for me.
But really, he looks at them and he sees money.
In fact, one of the most shocking parts of this bill is a proposal that 8% of a social media company's global revenues be a fine, an 8% fine of their entire world revenue.
What?
So by the way, I Googled it yesterday, and I think Facebook had revenues of about $140 billion U.S. last year.
So 8%, you've got a 10 billion U.S. amount that the government of Canada thinks they'll just take from Facebook.
We'll see how that goes down.
But of course, Trudeau thinks he can spend money better than anyone can spend their own money.
There's something else that is terrifying, the power to get into the internal records and the computer files of any of these social media companies, not to do some police work, but to do advocacy and education.
But I don't think it's in the end really about hunting Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg.
I think in the end it's about hunting you.
If you have written a Facebook post or a Twitter post five years ago, 10 years ago, even one that you've forgotten about, the law specifically says if there is an offensive publication online that's still online and you could delete it, you have the power to delete it, and you don't, you're liable for it.
Literally everything and anything you have ever written online can be used against you.
You can be prosecuted for it.
A $20,000 punishment if a complaint comes at you, plus a $50,000 fine.
To fight that would probably cost you $20,000 in legal costs.
This is going to be rushed through Parliament, of course.
Jagmeet Singh and Justin Trudeau has just renewed their vows in their coalition.
So what's the public reaction mean?
So far, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms have all said this is very troubling.
But there's people who will profit by it.
Bernie Farber is one such name.
He was the chair of the so-called anti-hate network that gets millions of dollars from American sources as well as the Trudeau government.
Farber is a misinformation expert.
Here he is claiming that a pamphlet in Florida, an anti-Semitic pamphlet in Florida, was actually being distributed in Canada.
He used the exact photograph of when it was shot in Florida.
The guy's a liar, but he makes money out of whipping up hate.
So of course he loves this.
He's going to get rich off this.
I saw Stephen Camp, the former hate speech officer at the Edmonton Police Service, who now works for the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, paid for by taxpayers.
So what I'm saying is all the race hucksters, the anti-hate hucksters who grift for a living off of this, they love it because they no longer have to apply for grants to get their money.
They can just file complaints for cash.
Let me quote to you from an access to information request that we did with the government about this Canadian anti-hate network and how they get funded to file complaints.
Take a look at this.
This is that group that Bernie Farber was associated with.
This is the hunter-killer group that likes to smear conservatives.
This is from their grant application to the government.
We got this through an access to information, of course.
Look at this.
We continue to file professional and lawyer-reviewed criminal complaints that provide evidence of criminal activity by members and supporters of hate-promoting groups.
However, since applying for the grant, we have been disappointed to find that engaging law enforcement in this way is not particularly fruitful.
Now, while we still file those complaints, we put less of an emphasis there and pursue other legal avenues in cases of criminality too, e.g. lawyer-drafted complaints to social media platforms.
I have no problem with the language in the agreement in regards to law enforcement as in version one.
However, if you have no objections, I have omitted references to law enforcement in Section 1 and Section 3.
Anyway, I won't continue on, but you can see that this is a letter from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network to the government of Canada saying, we need money, and we will take your taxpayers' dollars, and we will use this to file legal complaints and lawsuits against Trudeau's enemies.
That's how they operated until now.
But now they're going to be given the legal right to live off of us and off of you and anyone they complain against.
I think it's going to be how they kill rebel news, by the way.
Every single news report we do will be hit with a complaint for up to $70,000 per incident, $20,000 to the complainant, $50,000 to the feds.
It's sort of like what they're doing to Trump, endless nuisance suits.
Just batter us repeatedly, distract us, waste our time and energy.
So what are we going to do about it?
Number one, spread the word to Canadians, make videos about it, write news stories, send out emails, raise the alarm globally, let the world know, especially our American friends who care about freedom of speech, what's going on in their next-door neighbor.
We have a petition so we can show the government how wrong it is.
Stop the censorship.ca.
If we can get hundreds of thousands of names, show the government how serious this is.
And I want to prepare for litigation now.
What do I mean by that?
This is not law yet.
It was just introduced this week.
Hasn't been voted on yet.
Hasn't been gone through the Senate yet.
Hasn't been proclaimed yet.
The Human Rights Tribunal hasn't been staffed up yet.
These three anti-hate censorship offices haven't been hired yet.
It's probably going to take months, maybe even until 2025.
So we do have some time.
But you know the instant that the power switches are flicked on, I can't imagine Rebel News wouldn't be sued the very first day they're alive.
Not for the life in prison stuff, but for the $70,000 battering ram every day, every day.
That's how they're going to come for us.
And the moment this law is live, we will go to court if we have standing, if we have to see the final version of the law.
Are they coming for us?
Are they complaining against us?
Are they investigating us?
The moment we can, I want to be ready.
I want to do our legal research now.
I want to prepare the litigation now.
So the first time this law is used, we pull the trigger and we go after it.
I want the facts to be solid and I want the lawyers to be great.
I want the best arguments.
I don't want the first test case to be with a crummy lawyer or a crummy fact pattern.
We're starting now.
Rebel News really has no choice here.
We have no choice in the matter.
Don't you think, don't you agree with me that of every news agency, of every contrary voice in this country that would be targeted by this bill, Rebel News would be at the top of the list.
But don't you also think that if anyone can fight back, it's going to be us.
And by us, I mean we and you.
Go to stopthecensorship.ca.
Stay with me.
John Carpe is next.
Well, yesterday, if you joined my live stream, you'll realize there's a lot to talk about here.
Defining Social Media Power00:07:08
There's a lot of camouflage, a lot of distraction.
The example I gave yesterday was the promise to ban revenge porn, as in you had an intimate photo of a loved one and you're estranged and you publish it as vengeance.
Yeah, it's a good idea to ban that, which is why Parliament banned it in 2014.
The reason that's included in this bill is a distraction, a camouflage from what's really going on.
Child pornography has been illegal since pornography was illegal and the law is updated routinely.
The idea of having a block button on Twitter and Facebook is such a good idea that those companies have been doing it for years.
All of those parts of the bill are misdirection to get you talking about those things we all agree on already that just already happen to be law.
So that if you disagree with the other parts, you'll be told that you don't care about children.
It was really gross to me to see Arifarani, the justice minister, flanked by moms of children who basically said, how dare you question this?
He's using them as human cannon fodder, as human shields to hide what he's really up to.
What he's really up to is the greatest infringement in civil liberties that I have seen for any democracy in the world, let alone for Canada.
And I've seen censorship bills in Germany, in the Netherlands, in Ireland, in the United Kingdom, in Australia, in New Zealand.
I've never seen anything like this.
And joining me now to talk about it is our friend John Carpe, the boss of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
John, great to see you again.
Good to see you, Ezra.
John, it took me two and a half hours to go through the bill.
It's about 100 pages long.
There's so many poison pills in it for our democracy, so many shocking things.
If I had to ask you what the worst part of it is, I know you couldn't answer me with one example, but tell me what the most worrisome parts of this bill are to you and the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms.
At the top of the list, or close to the top of the list, is the power it gives to the federal cabinet to pass new laws known as regulations, which have the force of law, where they get to define what is a social media provider.
And so without consulting parliament, without transparency, cabinet meetings are held in secret.
The cabinet can secretly talk about, plan, and then declare into being new regulations that could define a social media provider or a social media service could be something like a church or a nonprofit or a citizens' advocacy group or independent media like the Rebel and True North and Epoch Times and so on.
You could be deemed by the federal cabinet to be a social media service.
And so we could have federal bureaucrats looking at the content of the email newsletter that the church sends out to its members and supporters.
That is frightening.
They can decide that.
They get to finalize the definition of harm.
There's this wide latitude.
If this bill is passed, federal cabinet can turn this into an Orwellian nightmare without any democratic accountability whatsoever, unless and until there's an election and a change of government.
But the power of regulation is frightening because it takes the legislative authority of parliament and transfers it to the prime minister's office effectively.
You know, isn't that incredible?
I went on for two and a half hours yesterday.
I didn't even think of that risk.
I mean, I sort of thought, okay, social media provider, I know what that is, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, but says who?
No, and if the bill said social media provider means Facebook, TikTok, Twitter, X, whatever, okay, it would still be a terrible piece of legislation for so many reasons, but at least we would have certainty on that front.
But they could decide that the Rebel News is a social media service, you know, because you're sending out emails and posting YouTube videos.
Nothing stops the federal government from declaring a church, a nonprofit, a charity, an independent media to be covered by this.
The other frightening thing is you've got...
Let me stop you for one second.
Hold that thought.
Don't lose that thought.
Don't lose it.
Because I want to add a clause to what you just said there.
If we are deemed to be a social media company, then that gives them all sorts of invasive powers to come in and root around in our material.
I did cover that part.
I just thought, okay, they want to snoop around Elon Musk's business.
They want to look through his files and do education and advocacy.
I did think about that yesterday, but I only thought of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg as the target.
Deeming us a social media service lets bureaucrats come into our office and have access to our computers.
I didn't understand the threat until you just said that.
I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I wanted to say what happens if we're deemed a social media network, because I never contemplated that until you put the fear into me.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt your flow.
You were about to make a second point before I interrupted you.
I just noticed it because the bill says expressly that the federal cabinet gets to define what is a social media service.
They get to define that.
It's not defined by the law that is passed by parliament.
If it was defined as being limited to Facebook and Twitter, again, it would be terrible legislation, but we wouldn't have to worry about that.
But now we do.
Are they going to go after charities and say we want to look into your electronic records and we want to monitor and control what you're putting into your email newsletter that you're sending out to your donors and supporters?
In conjunction with that, we're going to hire a vast new army of bureaucrats that will have the power to shut down.
These regulations also empower the federal cabinet to create penalties and to specify what kind of content is allowed or not allowed.
We've already got a situation.
I've been thinking about this chant.
I'm sure you've heard it and many of the viewers of the Rebel have heard it.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
Now, in Estonia and Germany and Czech Republic, the authorities have declared that to be criminal speech.
Somebody was charged with it in the Netherlands and then ultimately acquitted by the Dutch Supreme Court saying it was not criminal speech.
We had a man in Calgary charged with saying that.
Charges were stayed.
But do we really want the government parsing political slogans, however offensive they might be?
Because this is the real risk.
They're increasing the penalty for advocating genocide.
So let's advocate the killing of a people group, presumably based on ethnicity or religion or otherwise.
Chilling Effect on Speech00:10:16
Maximum penalty is five years.
I think that's enough of a deterrent.
It's already dangerous considering how the government could use its power to define advocacy for genocide.
But no, that's not good enough.
That penalty for advocating for genocide, just words alone, you could go to prison for life for that.
I think that five years maximum penalty is more than adequate as a deterrent.
And by the way, there's this new standalone hate speech crime that they're proposing that doesn't just cover that example.
There's a list of prohibited characteristics that you're not allowed to offend, or they're phrases to foment hatred towards.
And in that list, there's the ones that we're used to, race, religion, sex, national origin, things like that.
But there's sexual orientation and there's two new ones, gender identity and gender expression.
And what do those words even mean?
Gender identity is you say, well, I don't care what you say.
I feel like a woman.
I feel like a girl.
Sure, I have a beard and I still have my twig and berries, but I identify as a woman.
So I'm going into the girls' change room now and I'm going to swim against the girls.
That's gender identity.
Gender expression is, okay, I shaved my beard, I put on makeup, and I'm pretending to be a girl.
If you run afoul of those two banned characteristics, you could be liable for a hate crime.
I mean, listen, we don't have the details here yet, but that standalone hate crime is life in prison.
It's not just, I mean, and think about what a controversy transgenderism, transgenderism is in the country.
Anyone who dares to challenge it can be charged with a hate crime.
Am I wrong on that, John?
You're the guy who's been looking at this through a legal lens.
Is it true that if you criticize transgenderism and someone complains, you could either be hit with a criminal prosecution, you could be hit with a recognizance order where you're put under house arrest, you could be prosecuted before the Human Rights Tribunal and subject to $20,000 in compensation and a $50,000 fine.
If you fight against transgenderism in a way that the government doesn't like, you could be fined or even jailed or put under house arrest.
Did I get that right?
You got it right.
And this gets back to the duplication because the gender identity and gender expression have already been added to the criminal code of Canada.
So the willful promotion of hatred against a group on the basis of gender identity or gender expression is already a criminal code offense as things stand right now.
So potentially, if you were a vociferous critic and maybe you didn't choose your words wisely and you came out with a sledgehammer, maybe you used an atomic bomb to kill a fly, if you go over the top on criticizing this transgender ideology and the activism, you could be facing criminal charges.
But you would have the defense of truth.
You would have the defense of discussing a topic in the public interest.
You would have other defenses available.
The other duplicative thing, and this is really interesting, the criminal code already empowers judges to impose a more severe penalty if the judge who has reviewed the facts and has looked into it.
If the judge is sentencing somebody to a crime of sentencing somebody for murder or assault or vandalism or any other crime, if the judge determines that that crime was motivated by hatred, the judge already has the authority to impose a stronger sentence.
Now, I'll give you an example.
If there's a bunch of idiot thugs who very mindlessly put a bunch of graffiti on the wall, on the outside wall of a synagogue, but they don't really care where they're doing it.
I mean, they're just using any old wall, they're guilty of vandalism, property destruction, which is a criminal code offense.
However, if they're painting swastikas and slogans like death to the Jews on the synagogue wall, they could get a more severe punishment because that would be a hate crime.
So the judges already have the authority that if a crime, property damage, murder, assault, whatever, if a crime is motivated by hate, the judge can impose a more severe sentence.
That's already on the books.
And this gets back to this grandstanding of, you know, oh, well, now we need a standalone hate crime.
No, it's one thing to have a stiffer penalty where there is evidence that the crime was motivated by hate, but you have to actually be found guilty of the underlying crime.
And then you can get a higher penalty.
But a standalone hate crime is it's just Orwellian.
Yeah.
I want to ask you about the thing that I'm actually worried about from a practical point of view here at Rebel News.
You talked about the slippery definition of social media, and I had frankly never thought of that before.
The criminal code provisions, I think that they'll probably go after egregious cases.
I think a lot of them will be stayed.
I think for the first few years, police and prosecutors, while they figure it out, they'll probably overcharge and then maybe abandon certain cases.
I'm not worried in an extremely acute way about the criminal side for me and Rebel News.
What I am absolutely worried about is the Canadian Human Rights Act changes, which I don't know if you remember, but about a dozen years ago, Stephen Harper repealed the hate speech provision in part based on the experience that myself and Mark Stein went through being prosecuted for human rights offenses for hate speech.
In my case, it was for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.
Those are back now, but there's a wrinkle.
Anyone who files a complaint under the Human Rights Act, and so you don't need to be a policeman, you don't need to be a prosecutor, just any person.
You don't even have to be a Canadian citizen.
Any person can file a complaint and for, you know, let's say we did an article criticizing a transgender swimmer in a girl's change room.
If that can foment hatred against a trans person, I don't know, could be, I suppose.
Well, then we have to pay the complainant $20,000, up to $20,000, and we have to pay the government up to $50,000.
So it's a $70,000 hit per incident.
But the create, so first of all, you're stimulating a whole cottage industry of complainers.
You're basically saying you don't have to just shout into the wind or heckle on Twitter.
You can make money off this.
You can file a complaint every day.
And if even only one in 10 of your complaints comes true, you've got yourself a six-figure living.
But here's the insane part, John, and it's so scary to me.
And I don't think this has got enough attention.
You can make these complaints in secret.
Your identity can be withheld from the person you're complaining against.
And if you find it out anyways, he can be hit with a court order not to tell anyone who you are.
So you can have secret grudges by rivals, by competitors, by spurned exes, by professional activists, by rival political parties.
You can be hit with hundreds, why not thousands of nuisance complaints.
You'll never know who they are.
You'll have to pay each one of them up to 20 grand if you lose.
That's how they're going to kill rebel news, in my view.
Not through a state prosecution for a crime.
I don't think they'd win, but by unleashing a thousand woke complainers just to bury us under paperwork.
I think that's the future here.
Well, I agree with you, unfortunately.
I wish I could disagree.
Under if this bill passes, an atheist in Vancouver can file a human rights complaint against a Christian lady in Halifax who makes derogatory comments about a mosque in Toronto, even if the members of the mosque in Toronto are not offended by what she said.
So it's all traditionally in law, both on the criminal side and the civil side, you have a victim or you have a plaintiff who has suffered damage.
You need standing.
You need a reason to go to court.
It's not for busybodies.
There's a phrase in law, an officious intermeddler.
You can't be a meddler.
You can't be a busybody.
You don't get to go to court just because you want to pick a fight with someone.
You need standing.
This bill lets anyone complain about anyone and stay secret.
Well, the chilling effect on, I'm sure you've covered this to a great deal, but the chilling effect is horrendous.
Many Canadians, including you and I and many others, will just continue to speak the way that we always have.
We will state our opinions.
But a lot of people are going to suffer from this chilling effect because right now, let's say that you made some very vociferous, very aggressive, and even unfair criticisms against Islam.
And you cited certain passages of the Quran and you said, you know, you said that the Quran was advocating murder, whatever.
So you make all these anti-Islamic comments.
You're probably not, you're not that likely to get criminally prosecuted.
In fact, there's a defense there of expressing an opinion based on a sincere belief on a religious text.
But with the human rights thing, it's a totally different ballgame because the prosecutor only needs to prove on the balance of probability.
You don't need a victim who suffered harm.
It can be an anonymous busybody.
And, you know, as you wrote so eloquently in your book, Shakedown, a number of years ago, which I enjoyed reading, when you go to a lawyer, he's probably going to tell you, you know what, don't bother spending $50,000 on a legal defense.
Just write the $5,000 check, issue an apology, and get on with your life.
Challenging Nuisance Actions00:03:14
That is a chilling effect.
And so people are, a lot of people are just not going to speak freely.
And that's how freedom of expression dies a slow, quiet death.
Yeah.
Self-censorship.
We could talk about this four hours.
I mean, I went on for two and a half hours yesterday and Marty joined us, Marty, from your shop at the JCCF.
I think that the liberal government is deadly serious about this.
This is their third internet regulation bill in a year, C11, C18.
Now this one, C63.
The Justice Minister actually had his title changed.
I don't know if you caught that, John.
He's now the Justice Minister, Attorney General, and Minister of State for Online Harms.
It's literally added to his title.
There's hundreds of laws on the book, hundreds of sections of the criminal code.
The only one that's in his job title is Online Harms.
This is the most important bill in their minds.
It's one of three censorship laws.
They've obviously cut a deal with the NDP.
They're going to fast track through Parliament.
This is their last gasp, their Hail Mary pass.
And it's the Battle of Armageddon.
This is the final battle, I think, John.
And I think rebel news, whether we want to or not, it's going to be the point he ends with that spear because I just, I can't imagine we wouldn't be hit with these provisions, one of the first people in the country.
I just think that they think of us when they think of who they target.
Maybe that's a little bit of narcissism on my part to think we're more important than we are.
But we've been hit with so many of these nuisance actions before.
Trudeau personally attacks us.
His cabinet personally attacks us.
We are looming large on their radar screen.
I cannot imagine a future where they don't come at us.
I just don't think that would ever happen.
We will be thrust into this fight.
And so we should prepare for it now.
Last word to you, John.
Well, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
So Canadians need to roll up their sleeves, contact their federal MP, especially if you're, and we are, I am strictly nonpartisan, but just from a political tactics and strategy viewpoint, particularly if your member of parliament is liberal or NDP and is planning to vote in favor of this, that's all the more reason to contact them because MPs do take into account the number of emails and phone calls that they are getting.
So people need to be active and actively involved in the democratic process.
And ultimately, at the end of the day, it's we as citizens assuming our responsibilities as citizens to be fully engaged in the democratic process.
That's going to win the war for freedom and justice and truth.
John, keep up the fight out there.
We're glad you're on this file.
Great talking with you, Ezra.
All right, you too.
There you have it, John Carpe, the boss of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom.
Stay with us.
more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me.
James Friesen said this needs to be challenged in court immediately if it passes.
Regulating Feelings00:02:25
Yeah, as I said a little bit earlier in the show, you can't sue yet because it's not in force yet.
Even once it's proclaimed as law, they have to set up those three hunter-killer censorship agencies.
It will probably be months, maybe even a year.
But we want to get ready now.
Hobbes says, surely Trudeau's vilification of the truckers and unvaccinated has caused hatred towards them by some.
I wonder if he will hold himself to his own party standards.
Well, that's the thing.
It's like La Vrenti Berria said in the Soviet Union.
Show me the man, I'll find you the crime.
Everyone is guilty of this law.
Everyone in the country is.
You've never felt the feeling of hate in your heart?
If so, you're not a normal human.
Every human feels love and hate, contempt and respect, happiness and sorrow.
That's part of a full personality.
Being a grown-up, we don't act out.
We don't like a two-year-old might smash things if he's full of anger.
When you're 22 or 52, hopefully you're more restrained and more constructive and social, you know, you're sociable and you're a good part of society.
But this is about regulating feelings.
Every single person has some hate in their heart.
We're not saints.
We're sinners.
And what this does is it criminalizes a feeling, not a real damage.
Like if someone stabs you or steals from you or smashes you, that's a real damage.
And you've suffered a real loss.
But if someone has a feeling in their heart towards you, how is that a crime?
Well, this law makes it a crime.
CS says Canada's MAID program clearly violates one of those provisions.
It is amazing how the importance of mental health is stressed here, yet ignored when it comes to the pronoun gang and their confused sexuality.
You know, I don't know how closely the MAID issue is linked to the censorship issue.
I just don't, I'm not seeing that very clearly right now.
But I think this touches on pretty much anyone who's contrarians.
Pierre Polyev was pretty close to the mark when he said hate speech is just speech that Trudeau hates.
And that gets back to that love Renty Barry.
You know who I'm talking about, the secret policemen under Stalin.
This law gives them the power to arrest anyone and theoretically, God forbid, put them in jail for life because every single human being is guilty of having some hate in their heart.
And this law says that is enough to put you away.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.