The inherently fascistic nature of contemporary progressive ideology is no secret. Its antipathy for basic individual rights has long been apparent, from its opposition to due process rights for the accused on campus, to the virulent misandry, to the anti-white racism, to the antisemitism, to cancel culture on campus and off, and to the open attacks on free speech by the Biden Administration.
Government and that ideology form an unholy alliance based on shared interests. For the woke, there is but one true religion, all else being heresy and in need of cancelation. For that, government is happy to oblige. Governments always look for ways in which to ramp up their power, an urge that’s especially visible in this era of the Internet and social media. To that end, from time immemorial, they’ve sought (often successfully) to control the flow of information and to exercise power over the range of what is and isn’t acceptable to be said and heard. But social media is fast and fluid and therefore always a step in front of the would-be arbiters of Right Speak. So, for the first time in history, government’s ability to control the facts and parameters of public discourse is threatened.
Here in the U.S., many of us have noticed the danger of that alliance and begun to resist. The Supreme Court slapped down Colorado’s attempt to deny Trump a place on the presidential ballot, two federal courts intervened in the Biden Administration’s attacks on free speech on social media platforms, the latest Title IX rules may meet a similar fate in the lawsuits already on file, the police are being re-funded, big donors are standing up to woke ideology on campus, alternative news sites have cropped up to counter progressive ideas, whole nations have stopped the “gender affirming care” of children, etc. In short, the rollback of progressive ideology and its embrace by political and other power in this country is underway.
Not so in Canada where Big Brother flaunts his power. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has trotted out a bill – the Online Harms Act, aka, bill C-63 – that, if passed intact, would make Cold War East Germany look like a bastion of freedom and light. Back in February, Trudeau claimed the bill would be all about the safety of children, which, to many of us portended governmental overreach.
But ‘overreach’ doesn’t get close to describing the actual bill whose true extent is almost beyond words. Even in this era of woke outrages, C-63 is hard to believe. It’s blatantly destructive of a free society or indeed any that’s worth living in.
The bill is about “hate speech,” using the concept to bootstrap even minor indiscretions into major felonies. In Canada, hate speech is already punishable. But this bill hugely ups the ante.
Consider:
- Any offense, no matter how minor, if motivated by hate, can result in imprisonment for life;
- The bill offers major financial rewards for Canadians to inform on each other; anyone convicted of hate speech could be forced to pay up to $50,000C, of which $20k would go to the informant and the rest to the government;
- Cases would be decided, not by a judge but by an administrative panel;
- The standard of proof would be less stringent than “beyond a reasonable doubt” and there will be no rules of evidence governing hearings;
- Social media platforms would be required to take down all speech deemed hateful within 24 hours of publication;
- Failure to do so would result in the forfeiture of up to 6% of the platform’s “global revenue.” (Yes, you read that right.)
- Despite the prohibition against ex post facto laws, Canadians could be punished by up to a year in prison or home detention for utterances made even years or decades before the law’s passage, requiring them to take down all statements made at any time in the past if they could possibly be considered hateful now;
- The law would punish speech not yet uttered if an administrative panel considers it likely that the accused will, at any point in the future, utter hate speech;
- The law provides no punishment for false accusations and all accusations are made anonymously;
- Despite its name, the Online Harms Act isn’t just about online speech, but includes any speech conveyed via “any other means of telecommunication.” That would seem to include any words spoken on the telephone or on television at any time.
In short, if passed, this bill would turn Canadians against Canadians and the RCMP into the Stassi, make the basic rights of free speech and expression things of the past, enormously increase the power of government and that of social media behemoths, take a bite out of due process and ensure the government profits financially from the whole sorry affair.
And for what? To protect kids? The bill isn’t aimed at children, it’s aimed at everyone. And of course imprisoning Mom and Dad for indiscrete words hardly protects little Andy or Jenny who find themselves in foster care. Plus, who’s ever demonstrated that such speech harms children? Anyone? Ever?
Let us be entirely clear – children are just the cover story. Like so many of Trudeau’s policies, the purpose of this bill is the enhancement of governmental power at the expense of individual liberty, personal autonomy, free expression, etc. It tears off what remains of the mask of the truth about wokeism. For years, colleges have canceled students and faculty based on the notion that words are violence; now Trudeau seeks to bring the state’s police power to bear against the same non-enemy and expand the threat beyond students to everyone in the country.
Canadians who value what remains of their liberty will, starting now, diligently search every speech, video, tweet and text by Justin Trudeau and every member of Parliament, publicize them widely and announce their intention to, should C-63 pass, immediately bring complaints against the offenders, demand their incarceration and claim the $20,000C bounty.
When governmental power is used against those who govern, perhaps they’ll be more circumspect about expanding that power. Until then, never forget the coincidence of fascism and progressivism.
Hate speech rules have metastasized into severe limits on free speech, and have been used to punish perfectly ordinary views. Under college rules against racism and hate speech, students and campus newspapers have been charged with violations for expressing commonplace views about racial subjects. Students have been accused of racism, hate speech, and racial harassment for criticizing affirmative action. They have been accused of racial harassment for discussing the alleged racism of the criminal justice system. Such charges occurred even though such views, like opposition to affirmative action, are constitutionally-protected speech.
This article originally appeared at The Word of Damocles.
