Private Member’s Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws In Canada For Hate Speech?

Bill C-261 is a piece of legislation that will allow individual members of the public to get Court orders against other people. This can be done if they have “reasonable grounds for fearing” that someone is, or will engage in hate speech, promote hate or violence, or commit an offence that is motivated by hate.

Hate motivated crimes are already illegal, and subject to serious consequences. That being said, this Bill would permit people to seek Court orders based on what someone might do. There’s no requirement that an offense have already been committed.

And what is “hate propaganda” for these purposes? It’s unclear. Would saying that men are men and that women are women qualify?

To address the obvious: yes, this is a Private Member’s Bill. They rarely become law.

However, it’s worth covering as it gives an insight into the kinds of activities our elected officials are talking about. Moreover, the content of a Private Bill may one day be slipped into a larger Bill, receiving little to no scrutiny.

Appearances
(2) The provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.

Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.

Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Here’s where the enforcement comes in. If the person refuses to enter into the recognizance (court order) that person can be incarcerated for a year.

It’s unclear what threshold would be required for the Judge to conclude that someone has a reasonable fear. This comes across as being entirely subjective.

Conditions in recognizance
Start of inserted block
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that
.
(a) require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
.
(b) require the defendant to return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
.
(c) require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
.
(d) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
.
(e) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.‍3(2)‍(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
.
(f) prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.

Without having been charged or convicted of any offence, a Judge has the power to impose:
(a) electronic monitoring
(b) house arrest or a curfew
(c) an alcohol prohibition
(d) demands to provide samples for testing
(e) no contact orders, or orders to stay away from places

And it doesn’t stop there.

Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.

Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.

Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.

A Judge can also order that a person be prohibited from possessing any weapons, and be ordered to surrender any that they do have. Again, a person doesn’t have to be criminally charged for any of this to take place.

Interestingly, the Judge would be required to provide an explanation if there is no provision to prohibit that person from owning or using firearms or other weapons.

The language here is quite similar to Bill C-21, which would allow private citizens to have guns removed if a Judge viewed someone as a threat. There was a lot wrong with that Bill, but C-261 would water down the requirement so that the target didn’t even have to be a threat.

There is the safeguard that the Attorney General has to approve such an application. But that raises the question of to what degree this process will be open to political interference. Worse, the vague wording on what qualifies leaves a lot open to interpretation.

While this particular piece may not go anywhere, it’s entirely possible that the content will be stuffed into another Bill at some point in the future. Vigilance is needed.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-261/first-reading
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-21/first-reading
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/bill-c-21-reintroduced-legislation-to-whittle-away-gun-rights/

Bill C-75: Removing Prohibition On “Misinformation” From Criminal Code (Reminder)

Bill C-75 has been covered a few times before. There was the watering down of penalties for terrorism offences, child sex offences, and the NGOs who were pushing this degeneracy. That said, this piece of work isn’t finished revealing all of its dirty secrets.

Supposedly, this was in response to a 1992 Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Seems pretty strange to deal with it nearly 30 years later.

At the time of this Bill, Jody Wilson-Raybould was the Minister of Justice. Absurdly, she hailed as a “hero” for standing up to Trudeau on SNC Lavalin, despite advancing all kinds of horrible legislation he was responsible for. Seems that her entire profile didn’t matter.

But thanks to a provision slipped into that Bill, it will no longer be a criminal offence to knowingly spread lies with the intent of causing harm or mischief. While this “appears” to be a win for free speech advocates, the timing is suspicious, considering what would come in 2020.

This is what Section 181 of the criminal code used to say. It has since been repealed, and taken off the books, at least for the time being.

Spreading false news
181 Every one who wilfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 177

While Bill C-75 did go through Parliamentary study, it doesn’t appear as if this single line was examined at all. Perhaps people were more concerned with reduced penalties for terrorists.

This is not the only time this sort of thing has been buried in larger Bills. Another recent example was pulling Government oversight with the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, Quarantine Act. This was done by embedding it into a budget.

Of course, in early 2020, Ottawa proposed its own version of “misinformation” laws. Thankfully, those seem to have gone nowhere.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/42-1/c-75
(2) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/jody-wilson-raybould(89494)
(4) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/cuol-mgnl/c-39.html
(5) https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-25.html#h-118691
(6) http://www.criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/List_of_Criminal_Code_Amendments_
(7) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=10210275
(8) https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/904/index.do?

Kulvinder Gill’s Other Frivolous Multi-Million Dollar Lawsuit

Regular readers of this site will likely remember a $12.75 million lawsuit brought in late 2020 by Kulvinder Gill and Ashvinder Lamba. They attempted to bankrupt and destroy 23 people and media outlets, largely over mean words on Twitter. Thankfully, sanity prevailed, and the case was dismissed as a SLAPP, or a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. (Ruling here).

Yes, Twitter is a cesspool, but this was ridiculous.

As it turns out, however, this isn’t the only time Gill has tried something like this. In March 2021, she filed a $7 million lawsuit against Amir Attaran and the University of Ottawa, over much the same things.

Note: although the court search shows $5 million as the total, a read through the Statement of Claim makes it clear that it’s actually $7 million being sought.

To avoid confusion, these are the 2 lawsuits:
Case #1: Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al (dismissed as SLAPP)
Case #2: Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa (open, but dormant)

The first case was for $12.75 million, and the second for another $7 million. It takes a serious ego trip to think that words on Twitter are worth around $20 million.

Now, what were the specific defamatory statements for the second case?

This idiot is a doctor in Ontario. Sort of a female version of Dr. Scott Atlas.

Looks like the flying monkeys are out today for Dr. Gill.
Research shows the Russian military intelligence (the GRU) are behind the anti-science COVID conspiracy social media.
So with love from Canada.

No joke. Those are the statements provided from Attaran. In terms of raw content, this is far, FAR weaker than the last case, which was thrown out.

Think this is worth $7 million?

This apparently came from Attaran, who is a faculty member at the University of Ottawa. So, by extension, the school itself must be on the hook as well. Yeah, that’s not an abuse of the legal system in any way.

The big case with Gill and Lamba suing 23 parties was thrown out as a SLAPP, and never made it to trial. Here’s a brief quote from the Courts of Justice Act of Ontario, explaining the rationale behind having this option for certain types of cases.

Prevention of Proceedings that Limit Freedom of Expression on Matters of Public Interest (Gag Proceedings)
.
Dismissal of proceeding that limits debate
.
Purposes
.
137.1 (1) The purposes of this section and sections 137.2 to 137.5 are,
.
(a) to encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest;
(b) to promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest;
(c) to discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and
(d) to reduce the risk that participation by the public in debates on matters of public interest will be hampered by fear of legal action.

It should be noted that there’s no qualification as to what opinions are allowed in the public arena. Provided the statements relate to topics of a public interest, virtually anything can be given protections. It’s also a very low burden to qualify as being “of a public concern”.

Here’s a simplified explanation of SLAPP:

(1) Defendants file a motion, and they must meet the “threshold burden”. This is to convince a Judge that it relates to matters of public interest.

(2) Afterwards, the burden shifts to the Plaintiffs, who must meet 3 tests in order to keep the case alive. If even one branch is failed, the lawsuit is dismissed. They must demonstrate that:

(a) There is substantial merit to the case;
(b) There are no reasonable defenses available; and
(c) There is greater interest in reputation than protecting the expression, even if the case does meet the minimum requirements for defamation

SLAPP legislation is meant to prevent people from using the Courts as a weapon to forcibly silence discussion on public interest issues. Simple name calling or insults don’t qualify. In the previous case, the Plaintiffs couldn’t even meet a single part of that test.

This case with Attaran and the University of Ottawa would almost certainly be tossed for the same reasons. The Court won’t take a Twitter spat seriously for the purposes of handing out millions of dollars.

That being said, it appears that there are no real efforts underway to force that case to trial. Nothing has been filed since the Notice of Intent back in June 2021. The case has been dormant for over a year. It’s unclear what the purpose of filing it was, since there wasn’t even any publicity concerning it.

It’s also worth pointing out that “full indemnity” is the default result of a successful SLAPP motion. What this means is that if the case is dismissed, the Defendants are entitled to 100% of their costs. According to sources from the last case, it cost about $1.3 million to defend 23 Defendants. It’s unclear how much it would cost Attaran and the University of Ottawa to do the same thing.

This is just a hunch, but the University of Ottawa probably has insurance to cover such things. What a great use of student fees.

One more thing: this upcoming case with Attaran won’t go anywhere in the foreseeable future as Gill likely doesn’t have representation at this point. Court searching also showed that Gill and Lamba are taking action against their lawyers from the last case. The amount is $5,672.66, presumably what they are out of pocket already, or at least a portion of it.

Gill and Lamba are likely also outraged at being abandoned during their appeal of the February 2022 ruling. But it all fairness, it never had a chance. And when it’s eventually dismissed, it will just add to the costs from the Trial Court.

Granted, Gill and Lamba appear to have gotten horrible legal advice for the 2 lawsuits (Lamba was only involved in the first). Still, reasonable and well educated people shouldn’t be doing such things, so it’s difficult to have much sympathy for them.

Strange, even the “alternative” media doesn’t cover these things.

Now, this is just an opinion, but people who act this way probably shouldn’t be in positions of power or influence. If some means words is enough to cause someone to attempt to destroy or bankrupt another, then they don’t have the temperament or self control needed.

In other news: members of the public can SEARCH FOR FREE in Ontario as to the updates on such cases. British Columbia has COURT SEARCH ONLINE, but that’s behind a paywall. Instead of taking the word of people who have incentives to drive fundraising — or some reporter on the internet — go check the cases for yourselves.

Ontario Superior Court, Civil Branch
330 University – Toronto
330 University Ave.
Toronto ON M5G 1R7

Court file numbers provided

Civil – Superior Court of Justice
tel. 416-327-5440 (front desk)

CSD.SCJRecords(at)ontario.ca (records department)

An ambitious person showing initiative can also verify what’s been happening with various cases by contacting the court directly, or by visiting. There are many options.

  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Her Majesty the Queen, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-00629810-0000. Filed October 2019. No movement since pleadings closed in March 2020.
  • Vaccine Choice Canada (VCC), et. Al. (and others) v. Justin Trudeau, et.al. (and others) Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00643451-0000. Filed July 2020. Single Notice of Intent filed September 2020. No movement at all since.
  • Gill & Lamba v. MacIver et al. Ontario Superior Court #CV-20-00652918-0000. Filed November 2020. Dismissed as a SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation. Appealed, but status unknown.
  • Gill v. Attaran & University of Ottawa, Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00658784-0000. Filed March 2021. A Notice of Intent to Defend (not an actual Statement of Defense) was filed in July 2021. No movement since then
  • Sgt. Julie Evans, et al v. AG of Ontario, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661200-000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • M.A. and L.A., et al vs. Eileen De Villa, et al Ontario Superior Court #CV-21-00661284-0000. Filed April 2021. No movement since Notice of Application filed.
  • Action4Canada, et al vs. Dr. Bonnie Henry, Justin Trudeau, Premier Horgan, et al British Columbia Superior Court # VLC-S-S-217586. Filed August 2021. Awaiting decision for Application to Strike given the exceptionally poor quality drafting of the Statement of Claim

Not too encouraging, is it?

Good thing there are people who will put in the effort to bring the real truth out to the public. Virtually no media outlets do that.

(1) Gill-Attaran Statement Of Claim
(2) Gill Attaran Affidavit Of Service
(3) Gill-Attaran Notice Of Intent

(4) https://canucklaw.ca/kulvinder-gills-frivolous-and-vexatious/
(5) https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2022/2022onsc1279/2022onsc1279.html
(6) https://www.ontario.ca/page/search-court-cases-online
(7) https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do

Canadian Media: Qualifying Digital News Subscriptions List

We’ve previously addressed how “approved” media outlets effectively get a tax subsidy with digital subscriptions. In short, they are able to somewhat discount the price because readers can send their receipts to the Canada Revenue Agency for a 15% discount.

Now, this only covers 15% of up to $500/year. This means that it could amount to $75 in the following tax season. Who’s eligible to offer this?

It’s also a bit sickening to see “conservative” commentators who pretend to be against bailouts, but who see nothing wrong working for outlets that receive them. Guess resigning from such a job on principle is too much to ask.

Now, let’s take a look at which “media” organizations are able to give discounted subscriptions, off the backs of taxpayers. It’s quite the long list.

ORGANIZATION TYPE PUBLICATION DATE
3030106 Nova Scotia Limited allNovaScotia.com allNovaScotia
allNewfoundlandLabrador.com
allNewBrunswick
January 1, 2020
4437594 Canada Inc. Digital The Low Down to Hull & Back News January 1, 2020
Addington Publications Limited Print and Full Online Access Guysborough Journal January 1, 2020
Addington Publications Limited Online Only Access Guysborough Journal January 1, 2020
AllNewBrunswick.com Online News Service Ltd. allNewBrunswick.com allNewBrunswick
allNovaScotia
allNewfoundlandLabrador.com
January 1, 2020
AllNewfoundlandLabrador.com Online News Service Ltd. allNewfoundlandlabrador.com allNewfoundlandLabrador.com
allNovaScotia
allNewBrunswick
January 1, 2020
AllSaskatchewan.com Online News Service Ltd. Digital subscription allSaskatchewan.com July 15, 2021
Alta Newspaper Group Limited Partnership Premium Lethbridge Herald January 1, 2020
Alta Newspaper Group Limited Partnership Digital e-Edition Lethbridge Herald January 1, 2020
Alta Newspaper Group Limited Partnership Digital e-Edition Medicine Hat News January 1, 2020
Alta Newspaper Group Limited Partnership Digital ePaper The Taber Times January 1, 2020
Baby Media Mogul Inc. Daily Newsletter Subscription Queen’s Park Today January 1, 2020
Baby Media Mogul Inc. Daily Newsletter Subscription British Columbia Today January 1, 2020
Baby Media Mogul Inc. Daily Newsletter Subscription Alberta Today January 1, 2020
Brunswick News Inc. Digital subscription Telegraph Journal January 1, 2020
Brunswick News Inc. Digital plus Print Subscription Telegraph Journal January 1, 2020
Coopérative Nationale de L’information Indépendante, coop de solidarité L’essentiel numérique Le Soleil, Le Nouvelliste, Le Droit, Le Quotidien, La Tribune et La Voix de l’Est. January 1, 2021
Coopérative Nationale de L’information Indépendante, coop de solidarité Le numérique tout compris Le Soleil, Le Nouvelliste, Le Droit, Le Quotidien, La Tribune et La Voix de l’Est. January 1, 2021
Coopérative Nationale de L’information Indépendante, coop de solidarité Le numérique et papier tout compris Le Soleil, Le Nouvelliste, Le Droit, Le Quotidien, La Tribune et La Voix de l’Est. January 1, 2021
FolioJumpline Publishing Inc. Digital Prince Albert Daily Herald January 1, 2020
FolioJumpline Publishing Inc. Digital Digital plus print in city January 1, 2020
FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership All Access Digital Winnipeg Free Press January 1, 2020
FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership Read Now Pay Later Winnipeg Free Press January 1, 2020
FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership All Access Digital Brandon Sun January 1, 2020
FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership Read Now Pay Later Brandon Sun January 1, 2020
FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership All Access Digital The Carillon January 1, 2020
Halifax Examiner Inc. HalifaxExaminer.ca Halifax Examiner January 1, 2020
Hill Times Publishing Inc. Digital Hill Times January 1, 2020
Hill Times Publishing Inc. Print & Digital Hill Times January 1, 2020
Icimédias inc. Numérique Le Canada January 1, 2020
Icimédias inc. Papier + Numérique Le Canada January 1, 2020
Island Press Limited Unlimited digital access The Eastern Graphic
West Prince Graphic
Island Farmer
Atlantic Post Calls
June 22, 2021
Island Press Limited Print + Digital The Eastern Graphic
West Prince Graphic
Island Farmer
Atlantic Post Calls
June 22, 2021
Island Press Limited Print + Digital Combo The Eastern Graphic November 29, 2021
Island Press Limited Print + Digital Combo The West Prince Graphic November 29, 2021
Island Press Limited Print + Digital Combo Island Farmer November 29, 2021
Island Press Limited Print + Digital Combo Atlantic Post Calls November 29, 2021
Kelowna Daily Courier Newspaper Limited Partnership Print Subscriber Free Access Daily Courier January 1, 2020
Kelowna Daily Courier Newspaper Limited Partnership Print Subscriber Free Access Penticton Herald January 1, 2020
Kelowna Daily Courier Newspaper Limited Partnership Total Digital Daily Courier January 1, 2020
Kelowna Daily Courier Newspaper Limited Partnership Total Digital Penticton Herald January 1, 2020
Les Éditions de l’Acadie Nouvelle (1984) Ltée Abonnement Numérique Acadie Nouvelle January 1, 2020
Les Éditions de l’Acadie Nouvelle (1984) Ltée Abonnement Tout compris Acadie Nouvelle January 1, 2020
Manitoulin Publishing Company Limited Digital subscription The Manitoulin Expositor January 1, 2020
MédiaQMI Inc. Offre Tout Inclus Combo Papier et Édition Électronique Journal de Montréal January 1, 2020
MédiaQMI Inc. Édition Électronique 7 jours sur 7 Journal de Montréal January 1, 2020
MédiaQMI Inc. Offre Tout Inclus Combo Papier et Édition Électronique Journal de Québec January 1, 2020
MédiaQMI Inc. Édition Électronique 7 jours sur 7 Journal de Québec January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper Hamilton Spectator January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper Hamilton Spectator January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper Waterloo Region Record January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper Waterloo Region Record January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper Peterborough Examiner January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper Peterborough Examiner January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper St. Catharines Standard January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper St. Catharines Standard January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper Niagara Falls Review January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper Niagara Falls Review January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Digital access + ePaper Welland Tribune January 1, 2020
Metroland Media Group Ltd. Home delivery including digital access + ePaper Welland Tribune January 1, 2020
Mishmash Media Inc Numérique et Papier L’actualité January 1, 2020
Mishmash Media Inc Numérique L’actualité January 1, 2020
Observer Media Group Inc. Digital Access Canada’s National Observer January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access National Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery National Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery National Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Calgary Herald January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Calgary Herald January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Calgary Herald January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Calgary Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Calgary Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Calgary Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Edmonton Journal January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Edmonton Journal January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Edmonton Journal January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Edmonton Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Edmonton Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Edmonton Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access The Province (Vancouver) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery The Province (Vancouver) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery The Province (Vancouver) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access The Vancouver Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery The Vancouver Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery The Vancouver Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Winnipeg Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Winnipeg Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Winnipeg Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access London Free Press January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery London Free Press January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery London Free Press January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Ottawa Citizen January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Ottawa Citizen January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Ottawa Citizen January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Ottawa Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Ottawa Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Ottawa Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Toronto Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Toronto Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Toronto Sun January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Windsor Star January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Windsor Star January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Windsor Star January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Montreal Gazette January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Montreal Gazette January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Montreal Gazette January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Regina Leader-Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Regina Leader-Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Regina Leader-Post January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online Access Saskatoon Star Phoenix January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Weekend Home Delivery Saskatoon Star Phoenix January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. Online plus Daily Home Delivery Saskatoon Star Phoenix January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper Daily Herald-Tribune January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Intelligencer (Belleville) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Expositor (Brantford) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Recorder & Times (Brockville) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Chatham Daily News January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper Standard Freeholder (Cornwall) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Kingston Whig-Standard January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper North Bay Nugget January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Observer (Sarnia) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Sault Star (Sault Ste. Marie) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper Simcoe Reformer January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper St. Thomas Times-Journal January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Beacon Herald (Stratford) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Sudbury Star January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper The Daily Press (Timmins) January 1, 2020
Postmedia Network Inc. E-Paper Sentinel-Review (Woodstock) January 1, 2020
Presse-Ouest Ltée. Numérique la-liberte.ca La Liberté January 1, 2020
Presse-Ouest Ltée. Numérique et Papier la-liberte.ca La Liberté January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access The Telegram January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access The Telegram January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access The Guardian January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access The Guardian January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access The Cape Breton Post January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access The Cape Breton Post January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access Tri-County Vanguard January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access Tri-County Vanguard January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access Truro News January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access Truro News January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access New Glasgow News January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access New Glasgow News January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access Valley Journal Advertiser January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access Valley Journal Advertiser January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access Annapolis Valley Register January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access Annapolis Valley Register January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Unlimited Digital Access Journal Pioneer January 1, 2020
Saltwire Network Inc. Print + Unlimited Digital Access Journal Pioneer January 1, 2020
TC Publication Limited Partnership Print and E-edition Times Colonist January 1, 2020
TC Publication Limited Partnership E-edition Times Colonist January 1, 2020
The Catholic Register Digital Edition The Catholic Register January 1, 2020
The Catholic Register Print and Digital The Catholic Register January 1, 2020
The Globe and Mail Inc. Digital Access The Globe and Mail January 1, 2020
The Globe and Mail Inc. Home Delivery plus Digital Access The Globe and Mail January 1, 2020
The Globe and Mail Inc. Globe2Go The Globe and Mail January 1, 2020
The Halifax Herald Limited Unlimited Digital Access The Chronicle Herald January 1, 2020
The Halifax Herald Limited Print + Unlimited Digital Access The Chronicle Herald January 1, 2020
The Logic Inc. The Logic Annual Subscription The Logic January 1, 2020
The Logic Inc. The Logic All-Access Subscription The Logic January 1, 2020
Thunder Bay Chronicle Limited Partnership Digital e-version The Chronicle Journal January 1, 2020
Thunder Bay Chronicle Limited Partnership Print subscriber free online account The Chronicle Journal January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited Print + ePaper + Digital access The Toronto Star January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited ePaper + Digital Access The Toronto Star January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited The Star Digital Access The Toronto Star January 1, 2020
Toronto Star Newspaper Limited The Star ePaper The Toronto Star January 1, 2020

While there are 165 listings (thus far) for this tax credit, many are of the same outlet offering different formats. It’s also obvious that many are owned by the same conglomerates, such as Post Media.

There are, of course, other subsidies available. Independent media — that doesn’t receive handouts — is virtually nonexistent, at least for large and medium companies. Even groups that claim to be truly independent can withhold important information.

Now, the question everyone needs to ask: will these outlets be too critical of Government policy, or investigate too deeply? After all, it’s not wise to bite the hand that feeds you.

(1) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/about-your-tax-return/tax-return/completing-a-tax-return/deductions-credits-expenses/deductions-credits-expenses/digital-news-subscription/list-qualifying-digital-news-subscriptions.html#wb-auto-4
(3) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/programs/about-canada-revenue-agency-cra/federal-government-budgets/budget-2019-investing-middle-class/canadian-journalism/refundable-labour-tax-credit.html
(4) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/periodical-fund/aid-publishers/application-guidelines.html
(5) https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/periodical-fund/special-measures-journalism/application-guidelines.html

Holocaust Denial Now Punishable By Prison Time In Canada

It’s something that has been discussed in this country for years: the proposal of making Holocaust denial a criminal offence.

It was buried in Bill C-19, Division 21, Section 332. This wasn’t a stand alone Bill, but rather, slipped into a budget. Most likely, very few people know about it.

332 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
Willful promotion of antisemitism
(2.‍1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully 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.

(2) Subsections 319(4) to (6) of the Act are replaced by the following:
Defences — subsection (2.‍1)
(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.

Forfeiture
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) or section 318, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to subsection (1), (2) or (2.‍1) or section 318.

Consent
(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) or (2.‍1) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

(3) Subsection 319(7) of the Act is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:
Holocaust means the planned and deliberate state-sponsored persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945; (Holocauste)

Would “Conservatives” oppose this on free speech grounds? Would they fight for the principle that even controversial speech must be protected? Will they object to it being slipped into a budget? Not exactly.

Kevin Waugh, a “Conservative”, introduced Bill C-250, a Private Member’s Bill, that would do basically the same thing. Interestingly, Waugh’s lacked some safeguards that Bill C-19 had, such as remedies to prevent prosecution.

It’s unclear why this was introduced twice in the House of Commons. Perhaps Waugh’s Private Bill was a backup plan in case Schedule 21 got removed from the budget.

Both versions have the provision that consent from the Attorney General is required for a prosecution. While this may be seen as a check, it opens the possibility of politically selected cases.

Where’s Pierre Poilievre on this free speech issue? Where’s Maxime Bernier?

Remember the flack Iqra Khalid caught for M-103? That was a Motion simply to “study” Islamophobia, and she has heckled for a long time afterwards. She never proposed putting anyone in prison.

For what it’s worth, Senator Paula Simons was willing to speak out on this. However, she’s very much in the minority when it comes to addressing the subject.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bills
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-19
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-19/third-reading
(4) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(5) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(8) https://twitter.com/Paulatics/status/1537078472820006915
(9) https://sencanada.ca/en/senators/simons-paula/interventions/581135/47#hID
(10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iNiV2uAsQg&feature=youtu.be

Unpopular Opinion: If You “DO” Vote, You Don’t Have The Right To Complain

It’s a widely repeated mantra among many that “If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain”. The logic seems to be that citizens aren’t allowed to criticize the state of affairs unless they cast a ballot for someone. Apparently, taking a principled stance in not supporting anyone is grounds to limit the ability to comment.

However, many of these same irate voters will express frustration and disillusionment with their choices within 6 months to 3 years. That said, it won’t stop people from endorsing the same people again and again. After all, the alternative is worse, right?

While this would certainly apply to Ontario — which has an election in June — the same principles are valid at all levels of Government.

This raises the interesting question: should people who voted for a dishonest and mediocre candidate have the right to complain afterwards?

Certainly, there will be claims that the voters had no idea that so-and-so would be so deceitful. Is that true though? Would a reasonable amount of due diligence have led to the conclusion that certain people can’t be trusted? Given that we are now in the internet era, it’s easier than ever to do background checks on the people running for office.

In fairness, the average person had no idea about this “pandemic” hoax that would be launched a few years ago. Still, this is a problem that goes much further back.

Take a look through any social media site. People will say they are voting for a person, not because they like or trust them, but because the alternative is worse. A great number also struggle to give any coherent reason as to why they are doing it. Using Ford as a specific example, Twitter is filled with people pledging to vote for the man who destroyed their Province — because Horwath and Del Duca would be much worse.

As lame a “journalist” as Brian Lilley is, he unfortunately sums up the right-wing quite well in Ontario, and Canada more broadly. Mindless sheep vote en masse for someone they KNOW will continue to wreck society. Ford brought in mask mandates, vaccine passports, issued stay-at-home orders, shut down entire sectors of business, ruined school for children, etc…. and he may very well get RE-ELECTED.

In the 2021 Federal election, millions voted for the Conservative Party of Canada. This came in spite of them being subsidized by Trudeau, and running on a PRO-vaccine passport agenda.

Support isn’t limited to real parties either. One would think that a “party” that doesn’t elect its leader, have a constitution, or vote on policies would be a cause for concern. After all, it’s been 4 years. Sadly, some simply cannot be reasoned with.

Take the U.K. as another example: Boris Johnson claimed (when running to replace Theresa May) that he would slash immigration to the “tens of thousands”. However, all it takes is a quick search to know that he supported amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegals, while acting as Mayor of London.

In reality, it’s quite easy to check out candidates who are running for office. This is especially true if they’ve had a career in politics. Very few actually do it though.

Back to the premise of the article: if someone has no interest in performing any due diligence on the people who want to run their municipalities, provinces, or country, do they have the right to complain? Moreover, when the politician they helped install breaks all promises, are the voters not complicit in helping them?

If you vote for someone — while ignoring all of the warning signs — you are an accomplice to whatever destructive policies they may enact. As such, you don’t have the right to complain.

Here’s another unpopular opinion: universal voting is a bad idea. If someone can’t be bothered to do their homework on what they’re voting for, it’s detrimental to allow them access.

Update: As mentioned below, some countries, like Australia, make voting mandatory. With that in mind, it wouldn’t be fair to treat that the same way, if force is applied. The article was designed with Canada in mind, which doesn’t have such requirements.

%d bloggers like this: