Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Our Government Has Criminalized Emotions | Bill C9 Hatred Definition Under Bill C-9, hatred is legally defined as "an emotion of an intense and extreme nature that is clearly associated with vilification and detestation." Read that again. It's not what you say. It's not what you do. It's how...

16,006 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Ottawa’s Obsession with Censorship: The Liberals Want to Make Your Opinions Illegal “So this bill will affect what people can say and write on the internet?” asked MP Andrew Lawton. “It would be possible that someone could commit a hate crime on the internet. Certainly,” replied Justice Minister Sean Fraser. And there it is. Straight from the Justice Minister’s mouth, the Carney government is coming for your tweets. That exchange didn’t happen in a newsroom or a press conference. It happened inside Parliament, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Lawton pressed him, trying to get a simple answer. Could something that’s perfectly legal to say online today become illegal if Bill C-9 passes? Fraser dodged, mumbled about “context,” and then finally admitted what we all suspected: yes, absolutely. But don’t worry, he said, this will only target “the willful promotion of hatred.” That’s supposed to make you feel better. Except his government changed the definition of hatred. They quietly deleted the Supreme Court’s language about “an emotion of an intense and extreme nature,” a definition that’s stood for 35 years and replaced it with something mushy and subjective. Now it’s just “vilification or detestation stronger than dislike.” In other words, if you say something a Liberal finds distasteful, congratulations, you might be guilty of hate speech. Lawton even gave him a chance to clarify. He asked if this could lead to the same nightmare we’ve seen in the UK, police knocking on people’s doors over tweets. Fraser dismissed the comparison as “inaccurate,” as if Canada is somehow morally immune from government overreach. Right. Because every government that’s censored speech always starts by promising they’ll “never go too far.” Here’s what’s actually happening: the Liberals are building an internet police force, not for child predators or scammers, but for opinions. They call it compassion, inclusion, safety, all the usual buzzwords. But underneath the soft language is the hard truth: they want the power to criminalize dissent. This is what passes for justice reform in 2025. Not fixing bail. Not cleaning up the streets. Not jailing repeat violent offenders. No... their priority is making it “easier to lay charges” for what Canadians say. So, to recap: crime is out of control, the courts are backed up, and the Justice Minister’s big idea is to go after Facebook posts. That’s not justice — that’s control disguised as virtue.

Dan Knight

30,959 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

HOLY CR*P 🚨 The day Charlie Kirk was killed and everyone was focused on that, Gavin Newsom and California Democrats rammed through an online censorship bill PENALTIES - If you post something on social media anywhere online that the state of California deems to be hateful, there's a penalty for that reckless violation, a civil penalty of up to $500,000. - For an intentional, knowing or willful violation, a civil penalty of up to $1 million “SB 771, passing the Assembly on September 10th, 10 days ago. Then on September 16th, passing the Senate completely under our noses, which means right now, all that stands between complete statewide government censorship is Gavin Newsom's signature” “I exaggerating about how bad this bill is? No, I am not. Here is the actual bill. You can pull this up yourself on the state's website. The Bill's called SB 771. It's called Personal Rights Liability, Social Media Platforms. In Section 2, Title 23 of the Bill, it defines the penalties for breaking this new California law - If you post something on social media anywhere online that the state, the State of California deems to be hateful, there's a penalty for that reckless violation, a civil penalty of up to $500,000 - For an intentional, knowing or willful violation, a civil penalty of up to $1 million. That is the definition of the state controlling speech, folks. — What type of speech is California trying to police here? Well, let's read from the Bill. It says, "This bill protects against online harassment, particularly when directed at historically marginalized groups." “the State of California's actively passing UK style laws that will fine you for saying the wrong thing. Pretty wild. And this bill is completely done, folks. It's passed in the House, it's passed in the Senate. All that's left is Gavin Newsom signing it into law” This is all 100% true, he even clipped screenshots from the bill and put it into the video as proof

Wall Street Apes

3,340,451 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten