Hate speech is subjective, not an objective fact. And because of that, there really is no such thing as hate speech, as it is nothing more than an excuse for tyrants to silence people and censor phrases they don’t like. This is why our northernmost neighbors have decided to usher in laws that not only criminalize words they don’t like but also have penalties that can put someone in prison for life.

In other words, it is illegal to hate someone and that could land you in prison for the rest of your days.

According to The National Post:

The federal government tabled its long-awaited online harms bill on Monday which is already shaping up to become a delicate political battle over freedom of expression on the internet, while also aiming to provide more protections for children.

Bill C-63 aims to force social-media, user-uploaded adult content and live-streaming services to reduce exposure to online content deemed harmful, to strengthen the reporting of child pornography and to better address hate propaganda and provide recourse to victims of hate online.

This is what progressives do. They make up some ambiguous law and pretend that it is intended to protect children. But the thing is that the government can “strengthen the reporting of child pornography” without addressing “hate propaganda.” That is already illegal so they could have just raised the penalties to put anyone caught with that content in prison for life - which they should - but instead, they decided it is best to put people in prison for “hate.” This does not even make sense because the government is the number one producer of “hate propaganda.”

It also amends the Criminal Code to create a new standalone hate crime offence that would allow penalties up to life imprisonment to deter hateful conduct, as well as raise the maximum punishments for hate propaganda offences from five years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide.

Let’s get this straight, the life imprisonment penalty is meant to “raise the maximum punishments for hate propaganda” but not in regards to actual crimes against children. That seems a bit backward to me. If progressives want to pretend that they are making a bill to crack down on crimes against children, why would they not strengthen the penalty for those crimes?

Crimes against kids are the worst crimes known to man and should already include extra penalties, but that is not what these people are doing. Rather than putting people in jail for the rest of their lives for committing the worst acts against minors, progressives thought it was best to criminalize freedom of thought. Do they not realize that the two do not go hand-in-hand? Because I think they do.

Harmful content is defined in the legislation as content that incites violence, that foments hatred, that incites violent extremism or terrorism, is used to bully a child, that sexually victimizes a child, that induces a child to harm themselves, or intimate content communicated without consent.

How can you even prove in a court of law that content “foments hatred”? None of this makes sense and we can be certain this has nothing to do with protecting children because those crimes are already illegal. We can also be certain this has nothing to do with helping kids because we can almost guarantee that the posts that will be taken down are from doctors who claim that medically transitioning one's sex is harmful. Subsequently, some of the most harmful posts that are targeted to children will stay up.

The bill also creates a new Digital Safety Commission, which will be responsible for enforcing rules and holding online services accountable, as well as a separate Digital Safety Ombudsperson, which will support and advocate for users and make recommendations to social media services and the government.

Oh, great. More unelected bureaucrats running the show in the background.

The government wants you to live in fear of committing the crime of free speech. Speech can advocate violence, but it is not violent in itself. It is not a crime to hurt someone's feelings.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it is the job of elected officials to spare the threat of someone's ego getting hurt. But I guess that is what the Canadian Government believes is the most pressing issue today. And that my friend, is what we call "First World Issue."

"Canada is No Longer Part of the Free World!" - Trudeau Cancels Podcastswww.youtube.com