Zionism – Canuck Law

May 5, 2025May 5, 2025

Bill C-63 (Online Harms Act) Revisited: A More Nuanced View On It

Last year, this site covered Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. Critics denounced it immediately as a draconian attack on free speech and free expression. There are certainly reasons to be concerned.

***Now, before someone starts posting in the comments that it died with when Parliament was dissolved, I know. But the point is, a similar version can always be brought back. Considering that hearings already taken place, it’s worth looking at what happened.

Bill C-63 was eventually split into 2 different sections: (a) child exploitation and abuse; and (b) the more “free speech” elements of it. Who knows what will happen in the next iteration.

In December 2024, the House of Commons held their hearings on the legislation. A total of 22 different witnesses testified, with a range of different ideas.

Despite all of the warning signs surrounding Bill C-63, there are some provisions that most people can actually get on board with. As always, readers are encouraged to check for themselves.

Filed Submissions From Humane Canada

Animal sexual abuse (bestiality) is illegal under section 160 of the Criminal Code, which recognizes that child sexual assault and animal sexual assault are linked crimes, however there is no legislation that prohibits possessing or sharing online content that features animal sexual abuse. Closing this “bestiality loophole” would fulfill the initial promises of Bill C-84 in 2019 to strengthen protections for children, other vulnerable individuals, and animals. Animals are often used as part of the child sexual abuse grooming process. A 2018 report by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection analyzing case law found that 82% of bestiality cases in Canada have involved the sexual abuse of a child.

Considering the upward trend in police-reported child sexual exploitation where most offences include a cyber component, with 79% of incidents of child pornography and 20% of sexual violations against children recorded as cybercrimes by police, we urge the government to explicitly include animal sexual abuse images and videos, as well as material that depicts harming or killing an animal, in their definition of content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor and harmful content.

Proposed Amendments
Include the explicit mention of animal sexual abuse images and content under the definition of ‘content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor’ and animal harms under the definition of ‘harmful content’, using similar wording to the United Kingdom’s recently passed Online Safety Act:

In their filings, Humane Canada asked that Bill C-63 be amended to include content aimed at harming animals. This would be worded in a similar way to laws prohibited such content involving children.

Filed Submissions From International Justice Mission

We agree with and uphold MP Virani’s decision to split the Bill, prioritizing Section 1 and 4 to address online child sexual exploitation and abuse. Bill C-63 is a critical and long-awaited piece of legislation that will help ensure children, both in Canada and abroad, are protected offline and online, and that penalties for in-person and online offenders of child sexual abuse and exploitation are aligned.

IJM commends the Honourable Arif Virani, Minister of Justice, for the years of detailed policy work and public consultation to create this bill. The Online Harms Act has the potential to strengthen the responsibility of technology companies to prevent child sexual abuse (CSA) and exploitation from happening on their platforms and to prevent the spread of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) online. If passed, Bill C-63 will position Canada as one of the leading countries in preventing online sexual exploitation of children, alongside its Five Eyes peers, Australia and the United Kingdom.

International Justice Mission included several recommendations for Bill C-63.

1. Ensure livestreaming child sexual abuse is specifically included in the legislation.
2. Take a preventive and safety by design approach.
3. Take into account victim and survivor voice when developing regulations.
4. Include offender deterrence in addition to protecting Canadian children.
5. Include private messaging and video-chat platforms and features.

There’s nothing in their filing that’s objectionable. People can agree that content that abuses children should be removed from the internet.

The testimony from the witnesses (over 3 days) is freely available.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc met with MP Mona Fortier in early 2025 to discuss:

“…access to justice, criminal justice, and social policy issues related to online child sexual abuse and online violence against children and possible legislative or policy initiatives that could reduce victimization and/or improve victim recovery.”

The group also met with Michelle Rempel-Garner and Craig Oldham.

Foreign Groups At The Heart Of Censorship Laws

While there were commendable aspects to Bill C-63, or at least the first parts, the latter ones raise real questions about the stifling of free speech. Interestingly, the most powerful groups behind it aren’t actually Canadian. They represent foreign lobbies.

Part of the problem is that terms are so poorly defined — and probably on purpose — that they can be selectively applied, depending on the politics involved. This is not good at all.

1. Centre For Israel And Jewish Affairs (CIJA)

CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, has lobbied the Canadian Parliament over 2,000 times since the year 2000. They’ve been pushing for censorship and a variety of hate speech laws (antisemitism) the entire time.

CIJA also arranges for Canadian politicians to go abroad for free trips to Israel each year. This is similar to how AIPAC functions in the United States. This is not limited to Liberals or Conservatives, but seems to involve all parties.

The group also gets funding from the “conservative” administration in Ontario.

2. B’Nai Brith National Organization Of Canada

B’nai Brith describes its activities as such: “The Organization’s purpose is to relieve poverty, prevent discrimination and antisemitism, improve the moral and ethical development of the community, provide assistance to victims of human rights abuses, relieve conditions associated with the elderly.” Bill C-63 is specifically listed.

3. National Council Of Canadian Muslims (NCCM)

NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, has been similarly involved in pushing for censorship and hate speech laws in the name of Islamophobia. This isn’t limited to one group or ideology. And like their Jewish counterparts, NCCM also gets large tax subsidies.

4. Canadian Medical Association (CMA)

The Canadian Medical Association takes this view:

Support the passage of Bill C-63, an Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to address the escalation of online harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence targeting physicians, other health workers, and anyone seeking health care treatment, including measures to strengthen the Criminal Code of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Keep in mind, the CMA supported lockdowns and vaccine passports in recent years. It’s quite understandable that large segments of society don’t trust them.

It’s also worth mentioning that a number of non-ideological groups are concerned with Bill C-63. This is likely because it will impact their businesses.

American Chamber of Commerce
Google (which owns YouTube)
Rumble
X (formerly Twitter)
Facebook
Pinterest
LinkedIn

To be clear, there is a genuine public interest in removing content that involves abuse of children or animals. No decent person would argue otherwise.

However, the rest of the Bill seems designed to crack down on free speech and certain political views. And it appears to be driven primarily be foreign interest groups. We’ll have to see what happens next.

Unfortunately, even legislation that’s (reasonably) well written can cause problems. While politicians vote on the bills themselves, the details are typically implemented by regulation. This means that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats will be making important decisions.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=13035098
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13487005/br-external/HumaneCanada-e.pdf
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Brief/BR13531934/br-external/InternationalJusticeMission-e.pdf
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632025
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=631668
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=632024
(7) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=937469
(8) https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/publications/Pages/SponsoredTravel-DeplParraines.aspx
(9) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=378700&regId=964738
(10) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=358918&regId=946132&blnk=1
(11) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=372582&regId=951907

November 27, 2024November 28, 2024

Free Speech In Canada Apparently Worth Just $16,000 (Haverbeck V. Waugh)

A week ago, Ursula Haverbeck died. She was the 96 year old German woman who had gone to prison for publicly denying the Holocaust. While the major media coverage about her is overwhelmingly negative, she chose to stand for her beliefs. It’s really rare to see something like that these days.

Kevin Waugh, a “Conservative” Member of Parliament in Canada, introduced Bill C-250 back in 2022. This would put people in prison for up to 2 years for Holocaust denial. Far from being condemned, his actions were publicly lauded.

Leah Gazan, of the New Democratic Party, introduced Bill C-413 in October 2024. It was heavily modeled on Bill C-250, and would imprison people for up to 2 years for Residential School “denialism”.

At all levels of government in this country, politicians work to strip away freedom of speech under the guise of “fighting hatred”. This cuts across party lines, and isn’t limited to just a few. It also seems that outside influences appear to be guiding these efforts.

According to records from Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Waugh, and his wife, Ann, received a trip in 2018 worth $16,244.42 to Israel. This kind of travel is promoted as “fostering professional/cultural understanding, and meeting counterparts”.

Yes, this was just $16,000. The breakdown is as follows:

Transportation: $7,503.50
Accommodation: $2,928.84
Other: $5,812.09

This was sponsored by CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. It’s essentially the Canadian equivalent of AIPAC. Previously, the Canada-Israel Committee organized such annual trips, and their roster is full of prominent names. Believe it or not, this sort of thing isn’t illegal at all. In fact, it appears that Members of Parliament from all parties take part in it. By comparison, Trudeau ended up getting fined for his vacation with Aga Khan.

Waugh met with CIJA on February 15th, 2022. He had introduced Bill C-250 just days earlier, on February 9th. He’d probably deny the connection, but this is extremely unlikely to be any sort of coincidence. The Bill was ultimately abandoned when the substance was embedded into a Budget Bill.

Waugh takes a free trip to Israel in 2018. A few years later, he does the bidding of CIJA to introduce criminal penalties to Holocaust denial. Coincidence?

While it’s certainly true that Canadian politicians accept paid travel to other countries, none appear to even come close to the scale that occurs with Israel.

Germany lost a woman who was willing to go to prison for her beliefs. By contrast, Canadian politicians are implementing similar laws here in return for a free vacation. These people are nothing alike.

Yves-François Blanchet (Bill C-367) and Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Bill C-373) of the Bloc Québécois get honourable mentions for their work in eroding religious freedoms.

Maxime “The U.N. needs to shut up” Bernier has been completely silent on these issues, despite reinventing himself as a populist and free speech champion in 2018.

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	DeBellefeuille, Claude	BQ	2007	$8,661.12
2	Dykstra, Rick	CPC	2007	$8,602.30 (USD)
3	Godin, Yvon	NDP	2007	$4,094.83 (USD)
4	Pearson, Glen	LPC	2007	$8,728.18
5	Savage, Michael	LPC	2007	$5,612.54
6	Simard, Raymond	LPC	2007	$8,188.00 (USD)
7	Smith, Joy	CPC	2007	$8,661.12
8	Stoffer, Peter	NDP	2007	$8,728.18
9	Sweet, David	CPC	2007	$7,374.72 (USD)
10	Van Kesteren, Dave	CPC	2007	$8,728.18
11	Warkentin, Chris	CPC	2007	$7,973.54

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Allison, Dean	CPC	2008	$9,411.00
2	Bennett, Carolyn	LPC	2008	$7,961.00
3	Breitkreuz, Garry	CPC	2008	$7,963.00
4	Brunelle, Paule	BQ	2008	$7,961.00
5	Crête, Paul	BQ	2008	$10,944.00
6	Dhaliwal, Sukh	LPC	2008	$8,758
7	Duceppe, Gilles	BQ	2008	$17,577.56
8	Goodyear, Gary	CPC	2008	$10,944.00
9	Guimond, Michel	BQ	2008	$8,728.18
10	Ignatieff, Michael	LPC	2008	$8,602.30
11	Kramp, Daryl	CPC	2008	$9,446.00
12	Lunney, James	CPC	2008	$7,961.00
13	Martin, Pat	LPC	2008	$7,961.00
14	McCallum, John	LPC	2008	$10,944.00
15	Ménard, Serge	BQ	2008	$7,971.00
16	Mulcair, Thomas	NDP	2008	$7,963.00
17	Nash, Peggy	NDP	2008	$9,411.00
18	Neville, Anita	LPC	2008	$7,961.00
19	Redman, Karen	LPC	2008	$11,785
20	Roy, Jean-Yves	BQ	2008	$7.961.00
21	Silva, Mario	LPC	2008	$7,992.33
22	Sweet, David	CPC	2008	$7,961.00
23	Wasylycia-Leis, Judy	NDP	2008	$7,961.00

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Brown, Gord	CPC	2009	$6,440.00
2	Cannan, Ron	CPC	2009	$9,446.00
3	Coderre, Denis	LPC	2009	$10,239.22
4	Cotler, Irwin	LPC	2009	$1,439.30
5	Dechert, Bob	CPC	2009	$3,983.00
6	Desnoyers, Luc	BQ	2009	$5,520.00
7	Devolin, Barry	CPC	2009	$9,446.00
8	Garneau, Mar	LPC	2009	$7,843.00
9	Glover, Shelly	CPC	2009	$7,843.66
10	Hoback, Randy	CPC	2009	$7,493.62
11	Hoeppner, Candice	CPC	2009	$7,843.00
12	Holland, Mark	LPC	2009	$9,446.00
13	Laforest, Jean-Yves	BQ	2009	$9,086.22
14	Lemieux, Pierre	CPC	2009	$7,493.62
15	Marston, Wayne	NDP	2009	$7,493.62
16	Mendes, Alexandra	LPC	2009	$7,253.64
17	Oliphant, Robert	LPC	2009	$10,602.00
18	Rae, Bob	LPC	2009	$3,804.80
19	Uppal, Tim	CPC	2009	$7,843.00

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Block, Kelly	CPC	2010	$8,451.30
2	Del Mastro, Dean	CPC	2010	$7,956.22
3	Duncan, John	CPC	2010	$6,435.34
4	Fast, Ed	CPC	2010	$9,006.68
5	Laforest, Jean-Yves	BQ	2010	$9,086.22
6	Paillé, Daniel	BQ	2010	$7,904.51
7	Rathgeber, Brent	CPC	2010	$9,078.16
8	Saxton, Andrew	CPC	2010	$8,684.01
9	Simms, Scott	LPC	2010	$8,770.68
10	Thibeault, Glenn	NDP	2010	$8,906.68
11	Watson, Jeff	CPC	2010	$9,586.18

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Adler, Mark	CPC	2011	$5,920.31
2	Bezan, James	CPC	2011	$10,781.52
3	Brison, Scott	LPC	2011	$8,820.48
4	Cotler, Irwin	LPC	2011	$5,700.00
5	Cuzner, Rodger	LPC	2011	$9,397.33
6	Foote, Judy	LPC	2011	$5,030.08
7	LeBlanc, Dominic	LPC	2011	$14,680.00
8	Miller, Larry	CPC	2011	$10,525.04
9	Murray, Joyce	LPC	2011	$8,580.00
10	Ravignat, Mathieu	NDP	2011	$7,281.39
11	Shipley, Bev	CPC	2011	$5,370.04

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Ambler, Stella	CPC	2012	$10,238.84
2	Blanchette-Lamothe, Lysane	NDP	2012	$9,209.84
3	Caron, Guy	NDP	2012	$8,226.84
4	Chisholm, Robert	NDP	2012	$10,016.28
5	Cleary, Ryan	NDP	2012	$6,030.00
6	Davies, Don	NDP	2012	$10,677.68
7	James, Roxanne	CPC	2012	$7,059.14
8	Lapointe, François	NDP	2012	$11,740.46
9	Larose, Jean-François	NDP	2012	$9,031.84
10	Lunney, James	CPC	2012	$3,992
11	Nicholls, Jamie	NDP	2012	$7,808.28
12	Papillon, Annick	NDP	2012	$9,031.84
13	Rafferty, John	NDP	2012	$10,161.68
14	Trottier, Bernard	CPC	2012	$9,856.28
15	Williamson, John	CPC	2012	$9,961.96
16	Young, Terence	CPC	2012	$10,389.22

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Aspin, Jay	CPC	2013	$11,165.60
2	Bateman, Joyce	CPC	2013	$7,915.48
3	Bruinooge, Rod	CPC	2013	$9,937.98
4	Clarke, Rob	CPC	2013	$11,165.60
5	Easter, Wayne	LPC	2013	$9,786.96
6	Lamoureux, Kevin	LPC	2013	$10,053.40
7	Lunney, James	CPC	2013	$5,032.71
8	Menegakis, Costas	CPC	2013	$10,490.70
9	Michaud, Élaine	NDP	2013	$8,185.48
10	Scott, Craig	NDP	2013	$10,892.92
11	Young, Wai	CPC	2013	$12,683.80

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Bélanger, Mauril	LPC	2014	$9,537.50
2	Bennett, Carolyn	LPC	2014	$3,981.61
3	Byrne, Gerry	LPC	2014	$12,580.74
4	Falk, Ted	CPC	2014	$12,450.71
5	Hoback, Randy	CPC	2014	$5,092.21
6	Jones, Yvonne	LPC	2014	$11,935
7	Morin, Isabelle	NDP	2014	$9,782.96
8	Opitz, Ted	CPC	2014	$5,026.24
9	Sandhu, Jasbir	NDP	2014	$14,679.57
10	Sweet, David	CPC	2014	$4,915.36
11	Wilks, David	CPC	2014	$8,608.12

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Lunney, James	INDEPENDENT	2015	$3,285.89

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Albas, Dan	CPC	2016	$12,750
2	Blaney, Steven	CPC	2016	$5,616.78
3	Di Iorio, Nicola	LPC	2016	$6,930.36
4	Dubé, Matthew	NDP	2016	$12,342.24
5	Fillmore, Andy	LPC	2016	$10,294.97
6	Fuhr, Stephen	LPC	2016	$11,207.65
7	Garrison, Randall	NDP	2016	$7,800.22
8	Genuis, Garnett	CPC	2016	$12,650.80
9	Gladu, Marilyn	CPC	2016	$9,394.06
10	Godin, Joël	CPC	2016	$11,929.56
11	Grewal, Ra	LPC	2016	$9,391.15
12	Lefebvre, Paul	LPC	2016	$10,236.50
13	Levitt, Michael	LPC	2016	$9,393.35
14	Longfield, Lloyd	LPC	2016	$11,379.11
15	Mendicino, Marco	LPC	2016	$6,714.00
16	O’Regan, Seamus	LPC	2016	$11,186.79
17	Raitt, Lisa	CPC	2016	$8,643.72
18	Rankin, Murray	NDP	2016	$9,495.06
19	Rayes, Alain	CPC	2016	$10,705.65
20	Rempel, Michelle	CPC	2016	$6,296.13
21	Richards, Blake	CPC	2016	$7,880.54
22	Rioux, Jean	LPC	2016	$11,137.02
23	Ruimy, Dan	LPC	2016	$6,841.14
24	Sorbara, Francesco	LPC	2016	$10,350

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Brosseau, Ruth Ellen	NDP	2017	$11,705.62
2	Calkins, Blaine	CPC	2017	$11,492.23
3	Dhillon, Anju	LPC	2017	$9,550.21
4	Hardcastle, Cheryl	NPD	2017	$9,522.18
5	Harder, Rachael	CPC	2017	$7,410.21
6	Maloney, James	LPC	2017	$14,116.86
7	McCauley, Kelly	CPC	2017	$12,724/81
8	Nuttall, Alexander	CPC	2017	$10,423.31
9	O’Connell, Jennifer	LPC	2017	$11,375.14
10	Romanado, Sherry	LPC	2017	$11,840.21
11	Rusnak, Don	LPC	2017	$14,013.00
12	Sarai, Randeep	LPC	2017	$11,806.43
13	Schulte, Deborah	LPC	2017	$15,238.90
14	Zimmer, Bob	CPC	2017	$12,437.04

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Amos, William	LPC	2018	$11,245.24
2	Brosseau, Ruth Ellen	NDP	2018	$2977.22
3	Fergus, Greg	LPC	2018	$8,696.85
4	Kusie, Stephanie	CPC	2018	$13,390.91
5	McLeod, Cathy	CPC	2018	$7,721.70
6	Ng, Mary	LPC	2018	$7,355.84
7	Oliver, John	LPC	2018	$7,197.11
8	O’Toole, Erin	CPC	2018	$7,884,47
9	Schmale, Jamie	CPC	2018	$7,286.99
10	Sikand, Gagan	LPC	2018	$7,150.00
11	Stubbs, Shannon	CPC	2018	$14,212.93
12	Sweet, David	CPC	2018	$1,116.22
13	Vandal, Dan	LPC	2018	$9,282.93
14	Waugh, Kevin	CPC	2018	$16,244.42

Palestinian Authority and the Canadian Palestinian Foundation of Quebec

(2018) Brosseau, Ruth Ellen
(2018) Boulerice, Alexandre
(2018) Caron, Guy
(2018) Casey, Bill
(2018) Chen, Shaun
(2018) Davies, Don
(2018) Genuis, Garnett
(2018) Johns, Gord
(2018) Mathyssen, Irene
(2018) McDonald, Ken
(2018) Ouellette, Robert-Falcon
(2018) Stetski, Wayne
(2018) Tabbara, Marwan
(2018) Tan, Geng

International Democratic Union (IDU)

(2018) Tony Clement

Foreign Affairs Department, The Knesset, Jerusalem

(2018) Sweet, David

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Lapointe, Linda	LPC	2019	$13,552.80

March Of Dimes

(2019) Barlow, John
(2019) Damoff, Pam
(2019) May, Bryan

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Aldag, John	LPC	2022	$16,695.62
2	Barrett, Michael	CPC	2022	$16,209.30
3	Dancho, Raquel	CPC	2022	$13,313.79
4	Duncan, Eric	CPC	2022	$10,528.25
5	Jeneroux, Matt	CPC	2022	$11,453.80
6	Kelly, Pat	CPC	2022	$10,760.73
7	Lattanzio, Patricia	LPC	2022	$16,903.70

NUMBER	NAME	PARTY	YEAR	VALUE
1	Aitchison, Scott	CPC	2023	$13,994.14
2	Berthold, Luc	CPC	2023	$10,227.60
3	Blanchette-Joncas, Maxime	BQ	2023	$7,524.88
4	Blois, Kody	LPC	2023	$23,930.48
5	Bradford, Valerie	LPC	2023	$14,007.89
6	Chambers, Adam	CPC	2023	$18,950.85
7	Champoux, Martin	BQ	2023	$18,246.85
8	Chahal, Harnirjodh (George)	LPC	2023	$23,744.00
9	Chen, Shaun	LPC	2023	$11,563.58
10	Findlay, Kerry-Lynne	CPC	2023	$23,883.00
11	Fortin, Rhéal	BQ	2023	$18,846.85
12	Goodridge, Laila	CPC	2023	$18,446.20
13	Hallan, Jasraj Singh	CPC	2023	$23,017.04
14	Hepfner, Lisa	LPC	2023	$18,644.15
15	Housefather, Anthony	LPC	2023	$10,866.91
16	Kramp-Neuman, Shelby	CPC	2023	$11,728.58
17	Lapointe, Viviane	LPC	2023	$7,636.23
18	Martel, Richard	CPC	2023	$10,894.04
19	Paul-Hus, Pierre	CPC	2023	$17,233.40
20	Rempel Garner, Michelle	CPC	2023	$12,252.48
21	Scheer, Andrew	CPC	2023	$18,446.20
22	Schiefke, Peter	LPC	2023	$11,316.78

KEVIN WAUGH, CPC MP:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(5) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(6) https://archive.ph/fCnNn

November 11, 2024November 11, 2024

Antisemitism Hearings Continue At Canadian Parliament

The House of Commons has resumed hearings into the concerns of the Jewish community in Canada, and to bring forward ideas on what to do about it. To date, there are 23 witnesses scheduled to testify, and 78 briefs filed with Parliament. The hearings began in May 2024.

Officially, the hearings are referred to as: “Antisemitism and Additional Measures that Could be Taken to Address the Valid Fears that are Being Expressed by Canada’s Jewish Community”.

It’s unclear what, if anything, will come as a result. Free speech absolutists will notice the general trend of recommending solutions that involve some form of “re-education” or punishment.

Interestingly, both the Jewish and Islamic lobbies support the implementation of Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act. The vague wording of the text would make it a powerful weapon.

One can’t but notice that the inconsistency of the attitudes of the participants. It seems while free expression is to take a back seat here, it wouldn’t be in similar circumstances. Let’s look at one example, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA.

CIJA On Jewish “Identity”: Free Speech Must Be Curbed

When it comes to protecting the well being of Jews in Canada, nothing is off the table. Aggressive efforts must be made, even if it limits free speech and free association.

Enforce existing anti-hate laws and provide training to courts, police, government employees and the legal system in antisemitism and hate crimes.
Incorporate the IHRA definition of antisemitism into all government training on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.
Ban Vancouver-based group Samidoun for its direct and open ties to terror groups.
Have both Ottawa and the provinces introduce safe access (bubble) legislation around synagogues, Jewish community buildings, and centres of Jewish life.
Pass the Online Harms Act.
Introduce the new Anti-Racism Strategy and ensure no government funding goes to those promoting and platforming hate.
Ban the display of symbols of listed terror organizations.
List the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.
Improve the collection and reporting of hate crime data, including how the information is shared with threatened communities.
The Government of Canada should direct the provinces to act clearly to prevent antisemitism in schools, both on university campuses and in K-12.

These are the points introduced by CIJA for these hearings. However, it’s interesting to note that these efforts are not encouraged for all groups. Far from it.

CIJA On Palestinian “Identity”: Free Speech Must Be Protected

Despite the seemingly heavy handed approach favoured to combat antisemitism, it seems a different path is desirable regarding Palestinians.

Ottawa, ON – November 8, 2024 – In response to the announcement made by the Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia about the Prime Minister’s support of “Anti-Palestinian Racism” (APR), the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) expressed serious concerns regarding the concept that risks undermining protections for Jewish Canadians and could misuse human rights laws to advance political narratives that silence Jewish voices.

CIJA has engaged directly with the federal government on this issue, calling on the Prime Minister to reject APR and ensure that Canadian policy protects the free expression of all communities without infringing upon Jewish identity or silencing voices within Canada’s Jewish community. CIJA’s engagement has also included correspondence and meetings with key government representatives to advocate for consistent, inclusive, human rights protections.

The concerns are entirely different when it comes to recognizing Palestinians as a race or ethnicity. CIJA summarizes them concisely.

It lacks debate
It is inconsistent with established definitions and redundant under the Charter
It risks sidetracking creation of Islamophobia guides
It challenges freedom of expression
It contravenes Established Government Policies
It is inconsistent with Canadian Foreign Policy
It imposes divisive environment
It silences victims of antisemitism
It silences discussions of terrorism
It invalidates anti-BDS legislation and policy

Recently, CIJA published a paper called: “Ten major concerns with the concept of Anti-Palestinian Racism (APR)”. The main theme is that it undermines legitimate expression, Government policies and is divisive.

It seems more likely that “Anti-Palestinian racism” is opposed as a concept to make it more difficult to declare what Israel does to them as a genocide.

Bernier On Genocide Of Palestinians: U.N. Needs To Shut Up

Maxime Bernier was Foreign Affairs Minister from 2007 until 2008. This is one of the most prestigious positions there is in politics. One would think that he’d have many ideas as to where a future Government could go if he were in power.

However, when running to be the head of the Conservative Party of Canada 2016/2017, his ambitions for foreign policy were very light. He had vague statements about trade and economic growth, but this is his only definitive one:

I won’t aim to please the foreign affairs establishment and the United Nations — a dysfunctional organisation which for years has disproportionately focused its activities on condemning Israel. Instead, I will ensure our country’s foreign policy will be refocused on the security and prosperity of Canadians.

Bernier is no dummy. He knows exactly why the U.N. has been condemning Israel, and the resolutions are very easy to look up. However, he prefers to deflect by referring to the U.N. as “dysfunctional”.

Strange, isn’t it? Bernier was “Mr. Freedom” when it came to Canadians having their rights taken away in 2020 and 2021. But he shilled for a foreign power that did (and still does) worse to its neighbours.

In fairness, few politicians (anywhere) in the West are willing to call out Israeli occupation of Palestinians. A cynic may wonder if all those free vacations had anything to do with it.

Anyhow, this is Parliament is up to these days — hearing witnesses advocate for measures on behalf of a tiny minority — and all because of events on the other side of the world.

(1) https://www.ourcommons.ca/committees/en/JUST/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=12632914
(2) https://www.cija.ca/government_support_of_anti_palestinian_racism_risks_undermining_canadian_jewish_rights
(3) https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cija/pages/4068/attachments/original/1719952377/2024-06-20_APR_Need_to_know.pdf?1719952377
(4) http://www.maximebernier.com/foreign_policy_must_focus_on_the_security_and_prosperity_of_canadians_not_pleasing_the_dysfunctional_united_nations
(5) Wayback Machine Archive Of Bernier

October 3, 2024October 3, 2024

Private Member’s Bill C-413: Jail Time For Residential School “Denialism”

Leah Gazan, New Democrat M.P. for Winnipeg Centre, has made good on an earlier promise. Bill C-413 has now had First Reading in Parliament. If passed, it would ban “Residential School Denialism”, and people could face prison time for doing so.

In case people still think voting matters — for some reason — let’s differentiate between “left wing” politics and “right wing” politics in Canada. Hopefully, this clears things up.

Left Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Residential School Denialism”

Gazan, who is Jewish, touts the “Never Again” motto as a rationale for bringing in this Bill.

Interestingly, she rails against war crimes committed in the Middle East, by Israel. However, she seems to support the same kind of censorship laws that Zionists do regarding the Holocaust. This appears to involve some mental gymnastics, especially given her enthusiasm for abortion.

Anyhow, this is what she recently contributed:

Criminal Code
1 (1) Section 319 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subsection (2.‍1):
Willful promotion of hatred — Indigenous peoples

(2.‍2) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying the Indian residential school system in Canada or by misrepresenting facts relating to it
(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 (2.‍2)
(3.‍2) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2.‍2)
(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 hatred toward Indigenous peoples.

Forfeiture
(4) If a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), (2), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) 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 His 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), (2.‍1) or (2.‍2) or section 318.

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

If the text of Bill C-413 looks familiar, it should. It’s identical to Bill C-250. That was introduced in 2022 by “Conservative” Kevin Waugh to criminalize Holocaust denial. More on that later.

Both this Bill, and the one criminalizing Holocaust denial contain a provision that requires consent from the Attorney General to proceed. While this may be viewed as a safety mechanism, it can also mean that politically motivated cases would be filed only.

The Bill allows for the seizure and forfeiture of “anything in relation to the offence”, which presumably refers to computers and cell phones.

Right Wing Politics: Jail Time For “Holocaust Denial”

The text of Bill C-413 is modelled on Bill C-250, which was started by Kevin Waugh. However, the contents of that Bill were eventually incorporated into a budget, so this became irrelevant. As a result, people who “publicly deny the Holocaust” can now be locked up for 2 years.

This wasn’t just Waugh going rogue. The “Conservative” Party of Canada bragged about this being brought in, at least initially. Although the article was scrubbed, an archive of it is still available.

Things didn’t stop there. Yves-François Blanchet and Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, both part of the Bloc Québécois, introduced Bills C-367 and C-373, respectively. These identical pieces of legislation were aimed at removing the “religious exemption” defence of Holocaust denial.

Back in July 2018, Kevin Waugh took a taxpayer funded trip to Israel. He billed $16,200 for this. It’s apparently commonplace to bring Members of Parliament (and spouses) each year to “foster cultural understanding”. To be fair, it seems to be commonplace that MPs are travelling to other countries at taxpayer expense.

Waugh, Blanchet and Brunelle-Duceppe were all lobbied by CIJA prior to their respective Bills being introduced. This is the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, the Canadian equivalent of AIPAC.

This is the left v.s. right political framework in Canada. There doesn’t seem to be any principled protection or dedication to free speech. Instead, special rules are brought in, depending on the political leanings of the people involved.

Time after time, we are seeing hate speech laws being brought for the protection of a specific group. But, will we ever see any legislation that prohibits the “willful promotion of hatred” against whites? Don’t count on it.

GAZAN’S BILL C-413:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-413
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/leah-gazan(87121)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-413/first-reading

WAUGH’S BILL C-250:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-250
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/kevin-waugh(89084)
(3) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=521753
(4) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=111&regId=917368&blnk=1
(5) https://www.conservative.ca/mp-waugh-introduces-legislation-to-prohibit-holocaust-denial/
(6) https://archive.ph/fCnNn

BLANCHET’S BILL C-367:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-367
(2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/yves-francois-blanchet(104669)
(3) https://www.parl.ca/diplomacy/en/groups/cail
(4) https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/IIA/constitution/8385503
(5) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-367/first-reading
(6) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=584234

BRUNELLE-DUCEPPE’S BILL C-373:
(1) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/overview
(2) https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-373
(3) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/alexis-brunelle-duceppe(104786)
(4) https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-373/first-reading
(5) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/cmmLgPblcVw?comlogId=592585

Private Member Bills In Current Session:
(1) Bill C-206: Decriminalizing Self Maiming To Avoid Military Service
(2) Bill C-207: Creating The “Right” To Affordable Housing
(3) Bill C-219: Creating Environmental Bill Of Rights
(4) Bill C-226: Creating A Strategy For Environmental Racism/Justice
(5) Bill C-229: Banning Symbols Of Hate, Without Defining Them
(6) Bill C-235: Building Of A Green Economy In The Prairies
(7) Bill C-245: Entrenching Climate Change Into Canada Infrastructure Bank
(8) Bill C-250: Imposing Prison Time For Holocaust Denial
(9) Bill C-261: Red Flag Laws For “Hate Speech”
(10.1) Bill C-293: Domestic Implementation Of Int’l Pandemic Treaty
(10.2) Bill C-293: Concerns Raised In Hearings Over Food Supplies
(11) Bill C-312: Development Of National Renewable Energy Strategy
(12) Bill C-315: Amending CPPIB Act Over “Human, Labour, Environmental Rights”
(13) Bill C-367: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism
(14) Bill C-373: Removing Religious Exemptions Protecting Against Antisemitism 2.0
(15) Bill C-388: Fast Tracking Weapons, Energy, Gas To Ukraine
(16) Bill C-390: Expanding Euthanasia Into PROVINCIAL Frameworks
(17) Bills C-398/C-399: Homeless Encampments, Immigration “Equity”
(18) Bill S-215: Protecting Financial Stability Of Post-Secondary Institutions
(19) Bill S-243: Climate Related Finance Act, Banking Acts
(20) Bill S-248: Removing Final Consent For Euthanasia
(21) Bill S-257: Protecting Political Belief Or Activity As Human Rights
(22) Bill S-275: Adding “Sustainable And Equitable Prosperity” To Bank Of Canada Act

April 7, 2020December 22, 2023

Canada Already Endorsed IHRA Definition, Making It A Hate Crime To Criticise Jews

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Ontario’s Bill 168, IHRA definition.
CLICK HERE, for previous piece on UN digital cooperation.
CLICK HERE, for piece on Richard Lee and UN internet governance.

CLICK HERE, for Canada’s anti-racism strategy.
http://archive.is/MuIex
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s anti-racism report.
ARS-Report-EN-2019-2022
CLICK HERE, for the Digital Charter.
Digital Charter PDF

CLICK HERE, for the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

2. Context For This Article

About the last piece (Ontario’s Bill 168) which would label criticism of Jews as hate speech, things are actually much worse. Things have been that way since May 2019. See this publication from the Federal Government.

To get this out of the way: I don’t know if this endorsement has any legal effect, and can be the basis for charging someone criminally or with hate crimes. Nonetheless, it is pretty chilling that any government which values freedom would entertain the idea of curtailing free speech to appease the never ending demands of this group.

We hear so often that something is “symbolic”, or not to worry because it’s “non-binding”. What then is the point of enacting or endorsing something with no real effect?

Iqra Khalid continues to be mocked (and rightfully so) for introducing M-103, the so-called blasphemy motion. This would ban Islamophobia, but without actually defining it. Yet, the Israeli lobby successfully advocates to have criticism of Jews banned as anti-Semitism — and the media says nothing. The double standard is obvious.

It’s hard to tell how much of this “anti-racism” strategy is throwing money around and virtue signalling, and how much will actually result in concrete action.

3. Anti-Racism Strategy Is Giant Slush Fund

In reading through the posted strategy, we come across the following figures. Note, there doesn’t seem to be any sign for how the spending of this money will be accountable to the public.

$40B for national housing strategy
$319M for Indigenous housing
$671M for criminal legal aid
$141.7M for youth in conflict with the law
$19M for black youths
$9M for Indigenous post secondary schooling
$20M/year for “sector initiatives”
$21M for foreign credential recognition
$900M more for workplace developments
$705M for social finance fund
$50M for Indigenous Growth Fund
$12.1M (for now) for poverty reduction
$25M/year union training and innovation
$46M (5 years) for skilled trades awareness
$38M for pathways to education
$400M/year for Aboriginal employment
$50M skills and partnership fund
$25M/year literacy training
$90M/year youth employment strategies
$12M/year for refugee and immigrant legal aid
$45M/year for postsecondary support
$40M/year on reserve income assistance
$10M/year for Indigenous urban programming
$5M/year to help Indigenous be self sufficient
$8M/year for family violence prevention
$10M/year for sports in Indigenous communities
$4M for arts and culture
$1.4M for arts training fund
$4M for cultural spaces fund
$11M/year for multiculturalism program
$5M/year for court challenges
$13M/year reintegrate Aboriginal offenders
$54M/year in crime prevention
$10M/year for violence prevention
$0.5M/year for cultural competency training
$0.3M/year for youth leadership
$1.2M/year for inclusivity statistics

Plenty of pork being thrown around in the 2019 anti-racism strategy. But don’t worry, everyone except whites will be able to have a victim complex.

4. IHRA Definition Adopted

Under the section of “TERMINOLOGY”, the document lists a bunch of different terms, including anti-Semitism. It comes directly from the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism. (It is footnote #2).

Antisemitism
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

And at the bottom of the page, it specifically lists the IHRA working definition as the source.

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance “Working Definition of Antisemitism”. For further information, visit: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism.

5. IHRA Definition Of Anti-Semitism

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:
.
Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
.
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Don’t worry. While this sounds pretty vague, it is about to get much, MUCH more detailed in what exactly counts as anti-Semitism.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
.
Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
.
Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Just reading the definition provided, it has to be asked: what DOESN’T make the list? What ISN’T anti-Semitism according to these people?

When it refers to anti-Semitic acts as criminal, is that in indication that criminalization of “anti-Semitism” is where they intend to go with this?

6. Jewish Media Celebrates Adoption Of IHRA Def.

The Canadian Jewish News covered the story.

The Center for Israel & Jewish Affairs covered it.

The Jerusalem Post covered it.

The Times of Israel covered it. Also note: Shimon Fogel is the President and CEO of CIJA, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

This is of course, just a sample of what is out there. But the point is that the Israeli and Jewish presses are on top of this story (which actually happened in the Spring of 2019). Mainstream media has chosen not to cover it, but mock Muslims for THEIR efforts to limit free speech.

7. Online Censorship Coming?

From the anti-racism report issued, the topic on online policing of “hate”, whatever that may be, is addressed.

Through our engagement with communities and people with lived experiences, we heard that Black Canadians, Muslims and Jewish communities are some of the groups who experience hate crimes disproportionately. There are also growing national and international concerns around the spread of online hate speech. We have even seen its impacts here at home when six lives were lost and many others injured during a horrific shooting at a mosque in Quebec City.

Interestingly, no mention of the rampant, anti-White racism that exists in today’s society. Whites are the only racial group that it is legal to discriminate against. But do go on.

Online platforms have increasingly become a tool to incite, publish and promote terrorism, violence and hatred. The March 2019 terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand was a harrowing reminder that we need to take coordinated action to prevent social media and other online platforms from being used in these ways. That is why Canada joined the Christchurch Call to Action – a global pledge to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online. Through the Christchurch Call, governments and online services provider are making voluntary, collective commitments to combat online hate.

On some level it seems harmless enough. But how exactly do we make sure that these new powers won’t be abused to silence those who simply express unpopular opinions?

On a related note, internet regulation has long been proposed by the United Nations, and by a former Liberal candidate, long before the digital charter.

8. What Is The Actual Effect?

I don’t know. It’s unclear whether this is just pandering and symbolic, or whether there will be some real teeth in the measure. We won’t know until someone is fined or charged under it, and fights back.

April 6, 2020May 4, 2022