C-63, "the most totalitarian bill in the West," in the words of Jordan Peterson, hangs like a sword of Damocles over the heads —and the freedom of speech—of Canadians. Although it has barely passed its first reading in the House of Commons, Peterson himself, several conservative legislators and numerous experts affirm that Justin Trudeau's Government remains committed to pushing through a bill that contemplates life imprisonment for incitement to hatred and penalties for crimes that have not yet been committed under the guise of protecting children.
I spoke to one of Canada's few remaining sane legal authorities about it recently: https://t.co/goZUMS33I7
It's a taste of things to come sir@elonmusk
— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) May 7, 2024
Trudeau's liberticidal drift
The concern about the liberticidal and woke drift of the Executive, of which the C-63 is the culmination, has caused the emergence of numerous spaces for debate and analysis trying to explain to the citizens what is behind this new poisoned candy wrapped in good intentions prepared by Trudeau. Peterson met with two renowned experts on his podcast to broadly dismantle what the law contains, denouncing that it is a "weaponization of human rights." One of the points that stood out was precisely that "Totalitarianism begins with the language of compassion", something in which the left is a specialist.
One of Peterson's guests, Dr. Bruce Pardy, professor of Law at Queen's University in Kingston (Ontario), stressed that "the coverage" used by Canada to justify this rule is perfect, since "no one in their right mind" could refuse to legislate to protect minors from online harm. However, what lies behind it, according to Pardy, is "an attack on the very idea of freedom of expression."
Anything said in the past could land you in prison today
The talk was published on YouTube last April 22, however, the prestigious psychologist reposted it again on X to respond to the owner of the social network, Elon Musk. The South African tycoon echoed news about the dangerous Canadian bill, pointing out another of its thorniest aspects: "Whatever you’ve said in the past can now be weaponized against you by today’s draconian standards." Something that historian and expert on totalitarian regimes Maise Blaive denounced on the same platform.
This sounds insane if accurate!@CommunityNotes, please check https://t.co/RB1Ea0upTk
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 7, 2024
Trudeau takes Canada into "dystopian territory"
For Blaise, "the Canadian law proposal is outright mad" and, by being retroactive, "it goes against all our Western legal tradition, according to which you can be punished only if you infringed a law that was valid at the time when you committed a crime." Something that will mean that the only way to be safe is to carefully delete any publication that could be offensive to someone. However, even this does not guarantee that someone is 100% safe, since anyone can be convicted if a court considers it likely that they will commit a crime:
Although, that won’t protect you from another clause in the bill – and this is where it trips over into as yet unimagined dystopian territory. If the courts believe you are likely to commit a ‘hate crime’ or disseminate ‘hate propaganda’ (not defined), you can be placed under house arrest and your ability to communicate with others restricted. That is, a court can force you to wear an ankle bracelet, prevent you using any of your communication devices and then instruct you not to leave the house. If the court believes there’s a risk you may get drunk or high and start tweeting under the influence – although how is unclear, given you can’t use your phone or a PC – it can order you to submit regular urine samples to the authorities. Anyone who refuses to comply with these diktats can be sent to prison.
"Silencing those who disagree with us"
Furthermore, Blaise denounces that this is a norm that will end up turning against all citizens, regardless of their political affiliation, due to its repression of free speech. Furthermore, the historian regrets that she leaves the defense of freedom of expression in the hands of the right and the extreme right:
By externalizing the defense of free speech to the right and extreme right and by endorsing repression, the liberal left is playing a very dangerous game here. For those of us who are NOT on the right and extreme right, this is rather disheartening... The left is actually shooting itself in the foot and will come back whining, 'amazed' that ordinary people are so 'ungrateful.' Indeed it seems to have forgotten that the rule of law implies to solve disagreements in the voting booth rather than by silencing those who disagree with us. How can it hope to get the support of the public for this insanity?
