Justin to shut up


JUSTIN WANTS TO SHUT YOU UP IF YOU ARE NOT WOKE


blinded and gaggedThe woke infection has spread like a disease throughout the federal government and its agencies led by the King of Woke, Justin Trudeau. How to make it even worse? Censor anyone who disagrees with its ideology, of course. There are three censorship laws of the Liberals that do just that. The one feature that is present in all three bills is that their administration is based on complaints made by someone. This is a common aspect of totalitarian regimes, where residents are expected to spy and report on one another if their loyalty is suspect.


Bill C-16, also known as the transgender bill, makes it a hate crime for anyone to question or object to the concept that surgery and hormone treatment can change a person's gender or if it is required that gender-specific pronouns cannot be used if someone does not believe in the science of two sexes. Sex has been redefined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to include gender expression. "Gender expression is how a person publicly expresses or presents their gender. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A Jordan Petersonperson's chosen name and pronoun are also common ways to express gender". This extends the possible "victims" of "hate" and "discrimination" to include anyone who wants to be another sex by dressup and make-believe.


One notable casualty is Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, a registered psychologist who was once a professor at the University of Toronto, who was sanctioned by the College of Psychologists of Ontario for saying that the "transing" of minors is a crime against humanity and a moral crime of the butchers of the medical community and those that promote such procedures. "I really had no idea that a horde of surgeons would arise to mutilate and sterilize children, often autistic, gay or otherwise 'marginalized' (in the appalling parlance of the so-called progressive left)," he has stated. Complaints were made against him by people who didn't like his views and who were never treated by him or even knew anyone who was his client. The Supreme Court of Ontario and Canada upheld the ability of his professional association, who echoed the ideology of the bill, to force him into a re-education process. This is reminiscent of the brainwashing in the Chinese re-education camps for dissidents and ethnic minorities.


trust don't worryThen there is Bill C-59, which in addition to some tax measures, has included amendments to the Competition Act that is supposed to prevent "greenwashing", claims made by companies that provide false information regarding how environmentally sound their products are or make unsubstantiated claims about the steps they are taking to protect the environment or reduce their carbon emissions. This was included in the bill by NDP MP Charlie Angus, a longtime environmental activist.


Sounds good in theory, but one of the guiding principles of woke is the creation of victims. In this case the victims are anyone who finds fault with environmental information provided by citizens, advocates, organizations, or businesses and who make a complaint against them with the Competition Tribunal. The penalties that can be charged against corporations is greater of $10 million for the first offence and $15 million for the second or three times the value of the benefit derived from the deceptive conduct, or, if that amount cannot be reasonably determined, 3% of worldwide gross revenues. An individual can be fined the greater of $750,000 for the first offence, or $1 million for subsequent offences, or three times the value of the benefit derived from the deceptive conduct. The onus is on the person or firm that committed the violation to prove their innocence, rather than the "innocent unless proven guilty" standard of the justice system.


Starting in June 2025 private parties, including any person, group or organization, can make a claim for loss or damages they believe that they suffer from the misconduct. This allows eco-activist "victims" to harass the oil and gas industry with frivolous accusations and get a monetary reward for imaginary damages at no cost or risk to themselves.


Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Energy and Minerals Minister Brian Jean and Environment and Protected Areas Minister Rebecca Schulz released a joint statement in response to the bill. "Ironically, this kind of absurd authoritarian censorship will only work to stifle many billions in investments in emissions reducing technologies, the very technologies the world needs to reduce emissions while avoiding energy poverty for billions around the world," the statement reads in part.protection from reality


Rebecca Schulz, attacked the bill, referred to it as an "undemocratic gag order", and said "Supported by the federal Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Liberals, the bill will clear the way for environmental activists to sue oil and gas companies over 'misleading environmental benefits'. Any company not willing to risk millions of dollars in fines and legal fees will be forced to stay silent. And that is exactly the outcome that the fanatic Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault and the federal Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois alliance wants to happen".


With the possibility of expensive legal fees defending themselves, several blue chip companies including oilsands companies and organizations, have removed all information on climate pledges and environmental commitments from their websites due to the uncertainty of the effects of the legislation. Natural gas producers have to discontinue their ads that point out the benefits of natural gas over other types of energy and encourage more natural gas projects.


Read more about the Liberals war on the oil and gas industry here kingofwoke.ca/Carbon and the fanatic kingofwoke.ca/Steven Guilbeault.


choking by censorship It isn't just restricted to the oil and gas industry. Any business in any industry can become a target including banking, mining, forestry, manufacturing, plastics, transportation, farming and the nuclear industry. And it's not just advertising that can put a company at risk. So too could information on websites, posts on social media, investor presentations, sustainability reports and project submissions. There is a requirement coming from the accounting profession for Canadian companies to report on sustainability in their financial reporting which will create substantial risks for them. The requirements come from international reporting standards which do not account for the unique Canadian circumstances created by Bill C-59.


Another legislation that hasn't been passed yet is bill C-63, an "Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act" and "An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts". It is meant to protect online users from dangerous content, including images of sexual abuse of children, intimate images shared without consent, and material that can be used to bully a child or encourage them to commit self-harm.


Nobody can argue that this isn't a worthwhile goal, but as usual with Justin Trudeau's mission to save the world, there are censorship parts of the bill that go far beyond its original intention. It would make communication of hate speech by anyone on the Internet (or other means of telecommunication) subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's complaints mechanism. It also creates a new kind of offence for the commission of any other Criminal Code offence while motivated by hatred.


unconverted by censorshipThe definition of "hate", as evidenced by complaints made to Human Rights Commissions across the country, can be widely expanded to include any opinion, comment, or even fact that someone is offended by that they see online and want to use to play the victim. This can include criticism of the government and its woke policies, like much of the information on this website. Complaints can result in costly legal bills and up to $50,000 in fines. Offenders could be made to pay up to $20,000 to complainants, resulting in a monetary incentive for them at no cost or risk.


tell on your offensive postCompanies with online platforms would be expected to reduce exposure to harmful content by "continuously assessing risks, developing mitigation strategies and providing tools for users to flag harmful content". Platforms would also be required to publish "digital safety plans to outline measures to reduce the risk of exposing users to harmful content and track their effectiveness". Companies would also have to share data with researchers.


There will be a Digital Safety Commission, Digital Safety Office and a Digital Safety Ombudsperson, where users and victims could take their concerns and complaints. The Parliamentary Budget Office has estimated that the new bureaucracy will cost $200 million and employ 300 people. Critics have questioned the need for this, saying it can be handled under the Criminal Code and Human Rights Commissions. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre promised to repeal this legislation if it becomes law.