Canada Turns into Tyranny

Canada’s parliament is currently discussing a law introduced by the “progressive” Trudeau administration to curtail speech harmful to minors and so-called hate speech. The proposed bill C-63 titled “Online Harms Act” can be accessed here, with an explanation by Canadian government of February 26, 2024, provided here. On March 12, 2024, Tech Policy Press published a thorough analysis of this proposed law, which is worth reading. For some reason, all this remained somewhat beneath the radar of the U.S. media, but burst into the open only today, with a flurry of articles (copied and re-copied) published by a number of outlets, for example:

• https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/03/24/editorial-progressive-canada-a-model-for-aggressive-state-censorship/amp/
• https://news.yahoo.com/editorial-views-nations-press-144100315.html
• https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-online-harms
• https://www.timescall.com/2024/03/23/views-from-the-nations-press-79/
• https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-blame-canada-3018266/
• https://niccolo.substack.com/p/saturday-commentary-and-review-159

Not everything about this bill is bad, but viewed from a revisionist perspective, it has enough in it to make your blood curdle. I give the highlights here:

Definition of Hate Speech

The Canadian government writes about this in its “backgrounder” article:

“As part of the proposed amendments, ‘hate speech’ would be defined based on Supreme Court of Canada decisions. The Bill defines ‘hate speech’ as the content of a communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted where a record suspension has been ordered.

In order to constitute a discriminatory practice, the hate speech would need to be communicated where it is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group on any of these prohibited grounds. The provisions would focus on both the content of the speech and its likely consequences—as online threats too often turn into real-world harm.

Speech would not fall within the definition of hate speech solely because it expresses dislike or disdain, or it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends. This distinction is intended to reflect the extreme nature of hate speech captured by the amendments.”

So, if I were to say that I find all those utterly detestable who think that they – and only they – are chosen by God, but all the rest of us are just chopped liver, and that people with such chosenite attitudes have a screw lose that needs fixing, would I commit a crime under that new law? There is a lot to find objectively detestable about certain aspects of certain religions and ideologies, and consequently also about the adherents of those religions and ideologies, making them act objectively detestably.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot define hate in any reliable form, just as you cannot define love. Emotions defy attempts at describing them accurately and rationally. That’s the nature of feelings. Any law trying to stand on definitions of feelings is bound to be built on quicksand. It’s a dangerous and slippery slope toward arbitrariness, when laws meant to suppress hate speech end up suppressing speech the Powers that Be hate (be they the government, powerful NGOs, mass-media and social-media giants, the military-industrial complex, the deep state, etc.).

Regulating the expression of feelings by criminal law is a bad idea. You can neither prohibit hate nor demand love. What a government can do is intervene if anyone advocates, promotes or justifies the violation of anyone’s civil rights or rights to self-determination. But that requires more than just the expression of detestation or vilification. Here is what children have been told for centuries when confronted with bullying, name-calling “hate speech” by their peers: “Sticks and stones can break your bones, but names will never hurt you.” Hence, no matter how much people express their detestation, vilifyingly or not, as long as they don’t call for people to pick up sticks and stones to hurt someone, there should be no intervention of law and law enforcement.

Let me explain why I think advocating, promoting or justifying the violation of anyone’s civil rights or rights to self-determination is a red line that should not be crossed. First, it is a line that can be defined – in contrast to the term of “hate”. Next, those who advocate that other people should lose their civil rights can hardly argue that their own rights should be protected. You can’t have the cake and eat it too.

Let me give two examples of unacceptable advocacy for the violation of other peoples’ civil rights. Shortly after 9/11, U.S. Congress discussed whether to legalize torture in the fight against terrorism, those who argued for the legalization of torture clearly advocated for, and promoted, the violation of the civil rights of others. It was also an act of clear, imminent and present danger, because nothing is more dangerous for an entire nation, if not the world, when the parliament of the world’s (back then only) superpower discusses legalizing the torture of any person in the world as they damn well please. It is one thing when some racists in a white crowd upset about some alleged “black” crime scream “lynch those n1993rs.” That may lead to the torture and killing of a few individuals. But when a nation’s parliament discusses turning lynch practices into law that could be applied to thousands or even millions, we have a problem of a much larger magnitude. If rubber stamped by a country’s highest court, there is no remedy against such a tyrannical government short of insurrection and revolution. Remember, in 1933, the German parliament discussed suspending civil rights in their struggle against civil-war-like conditions. The proposal found a majority, and before you knew it, concentration camps and “protective custody” came to life. The rest is history. The National Socialists’ concept of “protective custody” (Schutzhaft in German) allowed the German police to incarcerate people without them having committed a crime, just because they were allegedly likely to commit a crime in the future, or somehow pose a threat. This was designed to protect the German society from these alleged potential future offenders, hence the name “protective custody.”

There is no greater danger to all our liberties and civil rights than a parliament discussing taking them away from us! If they try, resistance becomes obligatory!

Punishment for Hate Speech

The Canadian government writes in its “backgrounder” article:

“The Criminal Code contains four hate propaganda offences. To better reflect the dangers caused by those who spread hate propaganda and to denounce these acts more appropriately according to their degree of harm, the maximum punishments for all four offences would be increased.

Advocating or promoting genocide against an identifiable group would be increased to a maximum of life imprisonment and the other three hate propaganda offences would be increased to a maximum of five years imprisonment when prosecuted as indictable offences.”

Section 319 of the Canadian criminal code currently reads as follows:

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of antisemitism

(2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

[…]

(3.1) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.1)

(a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.

Therefore, the new proposed law would increase the maximum prison term from two to five years. Note that the law expressly states that Holocaust revisionists cannot be punished, if they “establish that the statements communicated were true.” This stands in contrast to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, where truth is no defense, as Ernst Zündel had to find out in the late 1990s. However, we need to consider that a jury which has to decide whether a defendant managed to “establish that the statements communicated were true,” consists of citizens whose historical knowledge is fairly limited, but who have all been socialized in a life-long atmosphere of one-sided propaganda, combined with a fanatical societal intolerance toward dissidents on this topic. But at least on paper, Canadian have a fighting chance of proving they are correct, hence getting acquitted, in contrast to similar European laws, which do not grant defendants the right to prove that they are right, or even outlaw and punish such a defense strategy, as is the case in Germany.

But why do historical controversies have to be decided by court rulings in the first place? No court of law should ever be allowed to render any decision as to what version of history is “true” and which one is “untrue.” Courts, and particularly juries consisting mainly of historical ignoramuses, are ill-equipped, if not to say incompetent, to decide matters of historiography or any other academic field (except jurisprudence, if the judges have the last say on this rather than than jury). Therefore, the entire idea of prescribing the writing of history by penal law is absurd. No country would ever consider prescribing the laws and research results of physics or geology by penal law. Why, then, are they trying to do this with history?

Preventive Custody for Likely Offenders

In the Canadian government’s “backgrounder” article, we read furthermore:

“Changes to the Criminal Code would allow any person who reasonably fears that someone will commit a hate propaganda offence or hate crime to seek a court-ordered peace bond to be imposed on that person.

The peace bond would allow a judge to impose conditions on an individual where there are reasonable grounds to fear that they will commit a hate propaganda offence or hate crime, such as where there are reasonable grounds to fear that someone will wilfully or intentionally promote hatred against an identifiable group. As this is a preventative measure to protect all people in Canada, there would not be the need for evidence that an offence has actually been committed.”

There you have it: protective custody for revisionists who can’t keep their trap shut. The maximum term is one year, which is progress compared to the National-Socialist system, which had no definitive time limits. That’s probably why they call this Canadian government “progressive.” However, as soon as revisionist victims of such protective custody open their mouth again, back into protective custody they go. It’s the “perfect” tool to stifle any debate off the beaten track. While Germany still has the institution of “protective custody” to this day, it can be applied only to serious felons who committed severe or repeated cases of homicide, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault and similar grave felonies. In theory, such convicts can be kept indefinitely in prison even after fully serving their court-imposed prison term. But that concept cannot be applied to “opinion offenses,” as they are called in Germany.

In perfect Orwellian speak, Canada calls protective-custody decisions “peace bonds”, as they are to ensure peace for the Canadian society at the expense of the suspected future offender. When it comes to suppressing dissent, it’s aiming at the peace of the graveyard.

Today we are told that rising up in arms against Hitler was perfectly alright, for one thing because his regime made it “legal” to lock up persons in “protective custody” without them having committed any offense, let alone given any trial, simply because they had a track record of being peaceful dissents disagreeing with the German government with opinions or attitudes that the Third-Reich authorities considered unacceptable.

Canada needs to watch out to make sure they don’t go down that very same path.

In order to make it crystal clear what my own and CODOH’s attitude to tyrannical governments is, let me close this article with a quote from the epitome of peaceful resistance and civil disobedience, Mahatma Gandhi:

“So long as the superstition that men should obey unjust laws exists, so long will their slavery exist.”

Shriman Narayan (ed.), The Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol. 4, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad 1969, p. 174.