Canada introduces blood-curdling new ‘thought police’ law that would make even Stalin blush…

Canada has fallen. It’s become the North Korea of the West, and it’s getting worse every single day. This new bill they’ve introduced is the cherry on their tyrannical sundae. It’s called the Online Harms Bill C-63, and it would make even Stalin blush. As a matter of fact, tyrannical dictator Kim Jong-Un would look at this bill and feel an instant rush of communist inadequacy. With this new bill, Justin Trudeau is fueling those online rumors that his real father is actually communist dirtbag Fidel Castro.

This new bill is supposedly aimed at safeguarding the masses from online “hate speech,” and it’s a dictator’s dream come true. Naturally, the left is hailing it as a beacon of democracy—a term they seem to misunderstand more and more. The real shocker in this bill is the alarming retroactive aspect. Essentially, whatever you’ve said in the past can now be weaponized against you by today’s draconian standards. Historian Dr. Muriel Blaive has weighed in on this draconian law, labeling it outright “mad.” She points out how it literally spits in the face of all Western legal traditions, especially the one about only being punished if you infringed on a law that was valid at the time of committing a crime.

Online Harms Bill C-63 excerpts

Part 1:... These new offices are made up almost entirely of Cabinet appointees and are given powers to receive and investigate complaints concerning harmful content, collect data, and develop more regulations.... The commission may act with the power of the federal court and may authorize any person to investigate compliance and non-compliance.,,,The maximum penalty for a violation is not more than 8% of the gross global revenue of the person that is believed to have committed the violation or $25 million, whichever is greater.

Part 2: Bill C-63 creates a new hate crime offence that will make any offence under the Criminal Code, or any Act of Parliament, an indictable offence and punishable to life in prison if the offence was motivated by hatred. A definition of ‘hatred’ is introduced in s. 319(7), which is defined to mean ‘the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.’ s. 319 (8) includes the clarification that the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred, for the purposes of this section, solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.....The bill also increases the punishments for offences in s. 319 (public incitement of hatred, wilful promotion of hatred, wilful promotion of antisemitism) from up to 2 years to not more than 5 years.

Alarmingly, a peace bond is created for ‘fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime.’ This will allow a person to seek a court-ordered peace bond if they reasonably fear that someone will commit a hate propaganda offence or hate crime against them in the future. If you’ve watched the movie “Minority Report” you know how scary this is.

Part 3: The bill reinstates Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which empowers officials at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to make subjective determinations as to what forms of expression constitute hate speech, and they may also decide on remedies including fines....with an accused facing fines of up to $50,000.

The legislation defines hate speech as content that is “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.” In other words, the content doesn’t necessarily have to directly express vilification; it only needs to be assessed as “likely to” vilify someone by a human rights tribunal. ...

Furthermore, its alarming that the bill enables individuals to anonymously file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against those they deem to be posting hate speech. If found guilty, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can impose fines of up to $70,000 and issue takedown orders for the content in question. Additionally, the tribunal is granted the authority to shield the identities of complainants and prohibit defendants from disclosing this information if uncovered.

- Rachael Thomas Member of Parliament for Lethbridge”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.