Bill C-36: Red Flag Laws In The Name Of Preemptively Combatting Hate Speech

Bill C-36 has been introduced into the House of Commons. It would be fair to describe portions of this as a “red flag” law. People can be subjected to Court restrictions simply based on the suspicion that they may engage in hate speech or hate propaganda.

Welcome to the Pre-Crime Unit, and the Minority Report

Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or subsection 319(1) or (2);
(b) an offence under subsection 430(4.‍1); or
(c) an offence motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor.
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.

Conditions in recognizance
(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.

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.

Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.

-A person can be ordered to appear before a Provincial Court
-A Judge can order a person to enter into a Recognizance for 12 months
-That Recognizance can last for 24 months if there is a prior conviction
-A person can be jailed for 12 months for refusing a Recognizance
-A person can be ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device
-A person can be subjected to a curfew
-A person can be ordered to abstain from alcohol
-A person can be subjected to drug/alcohol testing
-That drug/testing can be ordered at regular intervals
-A person can be subjected to a no contact order (of 3rd parties)
-A person can be prohibited from going to certain places
-A person may be subjected to other conditions

Keep in mind, all of these conditions can be imposed, simply because of the SUSPICION that a hate crime will be committed, or hate propaganda will be distributed.

Not only is the Canadian Criminal Code to be amended, but the Canadian Human Rights Code will be as well, to implement fines and cessation orders. There doesn’t seem to be real standard for what counts as hate speech.

Canadian Human Rights Act
Amendments to the Act
2013, c. 37, s. 1
12 Section 4 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is replaced by the following:
Orders regarding discriminatory practices
4 A discriminatory practice, as described in sections 5 to 14.‍1, may be the subject of a complaint under Part III and anyone found to be engaging or to have engaged in a discriminatory practice may be made subject to an order as provided for in section 53 or 53.‍1.
.
13 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 12:
Communication of hate speech
.
13 (1) It is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Continuous communication
.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person who communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech continues to do so for as long as the hate speech remains public and the person can remove or block access to it.

Complaint substantiated — section 13
53.‍1 If at the conclusion of an inquiry the member or panel conducting the inquiry finds that a complaint relating to a discriminatory practice described in section 13 is substantiated, the member or panel may make one or more of only the following orders against the person found to be engaging or to have engaged in the discriminatory practice:
(a) an order to cease the discriminatory practice and take measures, in consultation with the Commission on the general purposes of the measures, to redress the practice or to prevent the same or a similar practice from recurring;
(b) an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim personally identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, so long as that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech indicated in the complaint;
(c) an order to pay a penalty of not more than $50,000 to the Receiver General if the member or panel considers it appropriate having regard to the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice, the wilfulness or intent of the person who is engaging or has engaged in the discriminatory practice, any prior discriminatory practices that the person has engaged in and the person’s ability to pay the penalty.
Award of costs
53.‍2 A member or panel conducting an inquiry into a complaint filed on the basis of section 13 may award costs for abuse of process in relation to the inquiry.

According to the revisions in the Act, “hate speech” will be ongoing as long as the material is available publicly, and could be removed. A person can also be ordered to be $20,000 to each victim, and $50,000 to the panel itself.

Problem with all of this, “hate speech” is disturbingly vague. It could be applied subjectively, depending on the politics of the parties involved.

(1) https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&billId=11452710
(2) https://parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/bill/C-36/first-reading
(3) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-69.html#docCont
(4) https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-91.html#h-122977

1 Year Later, Media Silent On Christine Elliott’s Admission Deaths “With Covid” And Deaths “From Covid” Conflated

One year ago, Ontario Health Minister, Christine Elliott, was asked in a press conference about the death of a woman who died “from Covid”, as it was officially listed. The interesting thing was that she tested positive for the coronavirus, but that wasn’t acually the cause of her death. Nonetheless, it was formally written up as if it were.

The obvious conclusion one could draw from that was that Ontario (and other jurisdictions) were deliberately conflating the 2 in order to artificially drive up the death toll. In other words, this “pandemic” was being manufactured, at least in part. See this for more examples.

This video was pulled off a Facebook page in early June, which is now unavailable.

To my knowledge, there has never been any follow-up on this, by anyone in any “mainstream” outlet in Canada.

Elliott’s main qualification for being in Cabinet seems to be her being the widow of the late Jim Flaherty, former Ontario Finance Minister.

Another Ford Campaigner Now A Lobbyist, This Time For AstraZeneca; Rubicon Strategy

Back we go with the pharmaceutical lobbying in Ontario. This time, it’s AstraZeneca that is inappropriately using its political influence in order to peddle their drugs. Ever wonder why Ford insists on maintaining martial law until everyone is vaccinated? Look at who he’s been talking to.

The Ontario Lobbying Registry is open to the public. Anyone can search it, and for any reason. It’s particularly useful in determining who politicians have been talking to, on whose behalf, and on what subject matter. It really can be a gold mine if used properly.

As a war room operative she helped elect Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario. As a Chief of Staff in Premier Ford’s government, Sarah built an impressive network of peers, and successfully managed communications on a number of contentious files. If you need something at Queen’s Park, Sarah knows who to talk to and how to get it done.

Meet Sarah Letersky. She helped get Doug Ford elected into office in 2018, and became his Chief of Staff. Now, she works with Rubicon Strategy. One of her clients is AstraZeneca, who wants to sell their product here.

We have seen this pattern before with Pfizer and Emergent BioSolutions. It’s also been happening in British Columbia and Nova Scotia.

The other lobbyist, Patrick Harris, spent time working for Federal politicians, which is interesting. Given the crossover between Ontario and Ottawa, he likely has plenty of connections. And the rabbit hole goes deeper.

Jan O’Driscoll worked for Harper, then was a Chief of Staff for Ford, and contributed to his 2018 election. Kory Teneycke was Communications Director for Harper, and helped Ford get elected. Another honourable mention at Rubicon Strategy is Christine Simundson. She also claims credit for helping to make Ford Ontario Premier in June 2018. She claims to have gotten 17 Candidates elected to Parliament.

With years of experience leading tactical communications and tough policy files, Jan is a straight shooter that gets the job done. He’s held senior leadership roles in the private sector as well as with several federal cabinet ministers in Harper’s government. Most recently, Jan served as Chief of Staff in several key ministries in Premier Ford’s government where he drove transformational initiatives to get wins for the people of Ontario.

With two decades in public affairs, Kory has served as the Director of Communications to the Prime Minister of Canada, managed the cable news channel “Sun News”, and served as Executive Director of the Renewable Fuels Association. Kory was the manager of the 2018 campaign that saw Doug Ford become Premier of Ontario, and is now on a leave of absence to manage the 2022 campaign for the Ontario PC Party.

Christine’s experience in the legal profession coupled with her experience in marketing and promotions gives her an edge when it comes to grassroots activism. Before joining Rubicon, Christine was active in the Ontario PC Party War Room during the 2018 Provincial election. Christine’s guidance elected 17 of the PC MPPs in Peel Region, Halton, Toronto and Northern Ontario. Christine was the PC Party Organizer for Peel Region and played a senior role in organizing the PC Leadership race of 2018.

Fadi has invested a decade in politics. He’s worked across all three levels of government. He served as senior advisor to the Interim Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and has significant experience in public and stakeholder relations. He’s won campaigns and delivered results for Premiers, and top-level public policy leaders. Fadi doesn’t stop till the job is done and done well.

Of course, if Ford hadn’t been elected in 2018, Fadi El Masry may have been sent instead. He’s got plenty of ties to the Ontario Liberal Party, and would’ve used that.

Also, being a mouthpiece for political candidates doesn’t stop with Ontario. Two other Rubicon employees, Emrys Graefe and Cole Hogan, also claim to have been involved in making Jason Kenney the Premier of Alberta.

Spearheading digital for Doug Ford’s leadership campaign, Emrys managed the digital marketing that won the Ontario PCs a majority government in 2018 and then did the same for the UCP in Alberta, electing Jason Kenney as Premier. Having worked in politics for a decade, Emrys’ experience shows when it comes to leveraging public opinion to achieve specific outcomes.

Having played a leading role in the merging of Alberta’s Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties, Cole is a highly talented communications professional. Cole is responsible for some of the most innovative advertisements seen in Canadian politics and played a key role in electing Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario and Jason Kenney as Premier of Alberta.

It has to be asked: does being a “handler” for a political candidate stop once that person is elected? Or are there favours that need to be paid back. In all honesty, it appears that all politicians are just actors being spoon fed a script by interested parties.

If you didn’t have enough reason to NOT trust the Canadian news, consider that Don Newman (who claimed to be a journalist), is the Executive Vice President of Rubicon. Did he ever call out this sort of thing when he gave his nightly broadcast?

In fairness, lobbying or “public relations” is just part of what the group does. They are also involved in the defense industry. However, that will be for another time.

UPDATE TO ARTICLE

Shortly after publication, extra data was added to the Registry.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://rubiconstrategy.com/
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-letersky/
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-harris-69348726/

Meet Éric Lamoureux Of Public Affairs Advisors, Puppet-Master Of Francois Legault On SNC Lavalin

In February 2019, Quebec Premier Francois Legault called on the Federal Government to make a deal with SNC Lavalin in the ongoing criminal case. Presumably, that meant offering Lavalin a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, or DPA. This would allow them to continue bidding on Federal contracts immediately, and bypass the mandatory 10 year ban. Previously, Quebec had been pressuring Ottawa to change the law to allow for such legislation to be enacted.

The topic of corruption at SNC Lavalin has been addressed in this mini series. Take a read through for more background information.

Now, a question has to be asked: where did Legault get this idea? Who has been pulling his strings?

Éric Lamoureux
Managing Director, Montréal

Éric Lamoureux has been helping Canadian corporate and political leaders effectively manage complex public policy and reputational issues for more than a decade. In that time, he has been a political advisor to leading federal and municipal politicians, national associations, cultural groups, and both national and global corporations.

Based in Montréal, Éric draws on deep expertise in politics and public administration to help clients protect and promote their interests in Canada and Québec. As a specialist in issues management, regulatory affairs, stakeholder relations and media relations, Éric has achieved many notable successes on behalf of his clients, including: helping a global financial services company safeguard its market position in the face of regulatory change; mobilizing the support of a provincial government to pressure for changes to the federal Criminal Code on a client’s behalf; and encourage a major Canadian municipal government to reverse a decision to construct a public building beside a client facility.

As Managing Director based in Montréal, Éric leads all of the firm’s activities and operations in Québec, and works with clients on issues across Canada.

Meet Éric Lamoureux Of Public Affairs Advisors, PPA, a lobbying firm that operates out of Quebec and Ottawa. While he doesn’t name SNC Lavalin, perhaps to make it less obvious, who else could it be?

The implication is that Lamoureux and PPA lobbied the Quebec Government to pressure the Federal Government to change the law. This would have allowed Lavalin to escape the worst of potential criminal sanctions. If this isn’t illegal, at a minimum it’s incredibly sleazy.

It takes a special kind of stupid to announce corruption in your professional profile. Then again, in this atmosphere, it may just be a form of advertising.

According to his LinkedIn page, Lamoureux worked for the Liberals from 2003 to 2006. Keep in mind, this is the period that Jean Chretien was forced to resign (because of corruption allegations). Later, Paul Martin was voted out of office (because of corruption allegations). Afterwards, Lamoureux became the Chief of Staff for the Ottawa Mayor.

So why not just lobby Ottawa directly? Well, that was done as well, primarily by Bruce Hartley (a Chretien operative), and William Pristanski (a Mulroney operative). Check earlier pieces in the series. Lamoureux and PPA were just another level of pressure, trying to get Quebec to pile on with the Federal Liberals.

Now, it’s possible that Lamoureux is just puffing his chest, and he isn’t the mastermind. But then, why brag about something like this? It’s strange that his name doesn’t appear anywhere in the mainstream press about this “accomplishment”.

Looking through the index of advisors, it’s clear that these are political hacks (of different Parties), who come together to peddle influence for whoever happens to pay their bills.

Felix Wong is an Advisor in PAA’s Ottawa office with nearly a decade of political experience and a strong background in communications, public policy, issues management and stakeholder engagement.
.
Felix understands the government decision-making process, having worked in various roles on Parliament Hill, including as an advisor to several Cabinet Ministers. In addition, he served as Manager of National Outreach for the Conservative Party of Canada and has been a part of two national election campaign teams for the Conservatives. In these roles, he helped create a stakeholder outreach strategy to communicate policies to Canada’s diverse cultural communities.

Maryanne Sheehy is an Advisor in Ottawa providing strategic analysis, public policy, media, and stakeholder relations advice to clients.
.
Maryanne has an in-depth knowledge of government having worked in the Prime Minister’s Office in Ottawa for over five years where she served in a variety of roles including as an Advisor for stakeholder relations and outreach. She brings expertise in developing and implementing communications, stakeholder, and issues management strategies for key business and political decision makers. During her time on Parliament Hill, Maryanne also worked as an Advisor to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and was part of two national campaign teams for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Not to worry, this isn’t just a problem of Liberal cronyism. At least at few advisors at PPA has ties to the higher ups on the Conservative Party of Canada.

Latitia Scarr is a Senior Advisor & Client Director in Ottawa, where she brings extensive experience in policy, government relations and communications. Most recently, she worked for the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, managing advocacy and regulatory issues affecting trade.
.
Previous roles have included Caucus Services in the Liberal Research Bureau/Office of the Leader of the Opposition and Policy Manager at the Liberal Party of Canada National Office. These and other positions have given her wide-ranging knowledge on issues such as trade, agriculture and food, public safety, health, customs, innovation, Indigenous affairs, natural resources, among others, as well as of the public policy arena.

Bit of a side note: she also worked for the coalition for gun control. Now she works with so-called conservatives. How peculiar.

Dan Pfeffer is a Senior Advisor & Client Director in Ottawa, working with the firm’s clients at the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. Based in Ottawa, he holds a Ph.D. in political science and has researched and published on various aspects of public policy and government decision making. He also has taught in faculties of various universities including McGill and l’Université du Québec à Montréal.
.
Dan brings extensive knowledge of group mobilization and stakeholder engagement to his work on behalf of clients in the health, technology, financial services and telecommunications sectors. In addition to his academic work, he served as a key member of the campaign team that elected Anthony Housefather in the hotly contested federal riding of Mount Royal in 2015.

Pfeffer taught at McGill University. That is a strange coincidence (if it is one) that current Attorney General David Lametti is a Professor there, currently on leave. Lametti was brought in as the “fixer” after Jody Wilson-Raybould refused to grant SNC Lavalin their DPA.

Noah Niznick is a Senior Advisor & Client Director in Ottawa, where he works closely with clients in the financial services, natural resource and health care sectors. He joined the firm after serving for several years as the senior political advisor to the national caucus chair of Canada’s Official Opposition.
.
In that role, Noah established deep policy knowledge and strong relationships with elected officials, government advisors, as well as the many stakeholders engaged in public policy at the federal level. He has developed significant policy initiatives on a range of economic, consumer, and technology issues, working with a range of diverse interests. He also manages traditional and social media strategies, as well as issue-focused communications campaigns to reach targeted audiences.

Michael von Herff founded the firm in 2010 and works with clients to advance their public policy and regulatory agendas in Canada, the United States and Europe.
.
Over the past 25 years, Michael has helped clients protect and promote their interests with governments, media and stakeholders on the issues that matter most to their business. He has delivered success on a range of challenging assignments including: convincing a U.N. body to pass new regulations to accommodate the concerns of one of the world’s most important commodity groups; securing $100 million in new government support for a research fund in a previously ignored disease area; and, ensuring a major Canadian services company did not become a victim of policy change during a major overhaul of financial services regulations.

Other than political cronyism, what else are these people up to these days? Who’s writing the cheques now?

Seems that Public Affairs Advisors is now lobbying on behalf of Moderna. After all, Canadians need those interim authorized (not approved), mRNA vaccines to be distributed immediately. Seems that the PPA really will represent anybody. We’ll have to see what else comes their way.

(1) https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/quebec-premier-wants-ottawa-to-settle-with-snc-lavalin-so-firm-avoids-trial
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/corruption-reviews-snc-lavalin/
(3) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/eric-lamoureux/
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericlamoureux/
(5) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/our-advisors/
(6) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/felix-wong/
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/wongfelix88/
(8) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/maryanne-sheehy/
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryanne-sheehy/
(10) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/latitia-scarr/
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/latitia-scarr-59a31435/
(12) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/dan-pfeffer/
(13) https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-pfeffer-95a48319/
(14) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/noah-niznick/
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/noahniznick/
(16) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/michael-von-herff/
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-von-herff-2aab2411/
(18) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1620295865125
(19) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368615&regId=911693
(20) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/snc-lavalin-quebec-caq-1.5056385

TSCE #9(I): “Mr. Girl”, Pedo Defending Cuties Film Gets YouTube Channel Restored

Free speech and open discourse are generally extremely beneficial to society. However, the selective censoring of that on platforms like YouTube raise some serious questions. Here, YouTube and Twitter don’t seem to have an issue with disturbing content.

1. “Mr. Girl”, Max Karson, Defends Cuties

The first video is Max Karson (a.k.a. “Mr. Girl”) appearing on the Kill Stream with Ethan Ralph. Ralph frequently hosts discussion on topics like pornography, so this isn’t just a one-off. Karson then made his “Cuties” video the next day. While scrubbed from YouTube, it’s still on his site. Several people made great reviews of it, including Adonis Paul and Brittany Venti.

2. Most Likely Sincere, Not Trolling

The suggestion had been made several times that Karson was trolling, that this whole thing was an act either for attention, or to generate views. While that is possible, the tone and overall content comes across as someone who is serious about this content. While satire and comedy (even raunchy stuff) should be protected as free speech, this doesn’t look like that at all.

3. Karson’s YouTube Channel Gets Restored

Even though the Cuties video was taken from the YouTube channel, it is still available — in full — on the website, https://maxkarson.com/. There’s also a disgusting “apology” video posted. Additionally, Karson is still able to receive donations via Square Space and Patreon.

There wouldn’t be as much of an issue if there were uniform standards, either for or against free speech absolutism. However, there seem to be double standards, depending on the subject.

Again, if this was some strange version of satire or parody, what exactly is the punch line? How does this result in humour or comedy?

YouTube has no problems with removing content that contradicts the Covid-19 narrative. Guess we have to draw the line somewhere. Canuck Law is just one of many accounts who have been threatened with the loss of their channel over that.

Worth pointing out: Twitter is currently being sued for (allegedly) not removing illegal material involving minors on its website. That is still ongoing in Court.

4. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

TSCE #11(C): Bill C-6, Banning Conversion Therapy As Act Of “Tolerance”

The latest form of tolerance: prohibiting legitimate discussion, advertising, or efforts to help people deal with a serious illness. It seems to be vaguely worded on purpose. Should minors really be making decisions about life altering changes to their bodies?

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

Bill C-6 Introduced Into House Of Commons
December 1, 2020 Hearing Testimony
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/43/2/14
Canada Criminal Code: Corrupting Morals
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2021/3/22/garnett-genuis-6/

3. Vote On October 28, 2020

  • Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher)
  • Mr. Tom Kmiec(Calgary Shepard)
  • Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot)
  • Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
  • Mr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington)
  • Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock)
  • Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River)

Bill C-6 passed Second Reading in October 2020. Only 7 MPs, all Conservatives, voted against this Bill. The final tally was 305-7, and it wasn’t even close. Just think: 15 years ago, Conservatives were willing to vote to conserve marriage. Now, they cuck like Liberals.

4. Conversion Therapy Lumped In W/Child Porn

Warrant of seizure
.
164 (1) A judge may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of copies of a recording, a publication, a representation or any written material, if the judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is a voyeuristic recording;
(b) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an intimate image;
(c) the publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is obscene, within the meaning of subsection 163(8);
(d) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is child pornography as defined in section 163.1;
(e) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement of sexual services; or
(f) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement for conversion therapy.

Section 164:
Owner and maker may appear
(3) The owner and the maker of the matter seized under subsection (1), and alleged to be obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, may appear and be represented in the proceedings to oppose the making of an order for the forfeiture of the matter.
.
Order of forfeiture
(4) If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it may make an order declaring the matter forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the proceedings take place, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
.
Disposal of matter
(5) If the court is not satisfied that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it shall order that the matter be restored to the person from whom it was seized without delay after the time for final appeal has expired.

Some new sections will also be added entirely. Offering, coercing, forcing, and even advertising conversion therapy will now go against the criminal code.

Forced conversion therapy
320.‍102 Everyone who knowingly causes a person to undergo conversion therapy without the person’s consent is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Causing child to undergo conversion therapy
320.‍103 (1) Everyone who knowingly causes a person who is under the age of 18 years to undergo conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Mistake of age
(2) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the accused believed that the person was 18 years of age or older, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the person’s age.
.
Advertising conversion therapy
320.‍104 Everyone who knowingly promotes or advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Material benefit from conversion therapy
320.‍105 Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained or derived directly or indirectly from the provision of conversion therapy, is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

There is also a provision to make it a crime to go abroad to engage in conversion therapy.

Advertising material or services related to conversion therapy will now be treated much along the lines of child pornography or voyeuristic material. Advertising, promoting, or receiving material is also prohibited.

Interestingly, selling pornography (or other degenerate material) is fine if everyone is over 18 years old. In other words, financially benefiting from porn is okay. However, that doesn’t seem to apply at all to conversion therapy.

4. Clips From Parliamentary Hearings

A huge point to be made: sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. Also, the definition and wording is pretty bad. Perhaps these “exploratory” conversations can only be had with people who already agree. The potential for long term harm, including suicides, seems downplayed.

5. Conservatives Capitulate Once Again

So much for standing on principle. The only concern seems to be with the wording of the bill, not the overall intent. Guess we’ll have to see what ultimately happens, but it doesn’t look promising.