Under our Liberal government, an erasure of personal freedoms in Canada are continuing to gain momentum. It appears Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may be of the opinion that existing punitive legal measures for citizens are wholly inadequate.
Canadian Human Rights Act(1985):
3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.
Canadian Criminal Code, Section 319(1):
Under section 319(1), everyone who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment, or of a summary conviction offence.
Not good enough. A new House of Commons committee report suggests that Canada should immediately put in place a strategy to fight “ideologically-motivated violent extremism.”
“The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) considers IMVE to have four sub-categories—“xenophobic, gender-driven, anti-authority and other personal grievance-driven violence,” the report outlines.
Talk about creating a wide berth for legal interpretation. What shall it be that defines “anti-authority” behaviour? How about “any behaviour Justin Trudeau does not like.” Could criticism of government one day become a crime in Canada? It is in the countries admired by our prime minister.
The good news is the proposal has yet to transition to legislation. The bad news is that such an endeavour may constitute an encroachment of personal freedoms derived from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not that media, academia, courts, judges and lawyers should have a problem with it. It’s more grist for the legal industry mill. Not to mention that within the industry, it’s one step from vocational suicide to push-back on Liberal government policy.
Critical to opening a door for punishment of citizens at will is what the committee refers to as “Ideologically-Motivated Violent Extremism.”
The key to the civil rights infringement is contained in the word violent.
It is here where an slippery slope could open doors for punitive damages toward innocent Canadians. Will it be violence– or incitement of hatred under the Criminal Code— which seals the fate for dissidents opposed to government? For freedom-lovers, the pangs of “progressive” authoritarianism begin to boil. What is happening to our country? Don’t look to media to deliver an answer– nothing has, or will be forthcoming.
As the source article intimates, “what happened to the big push against radical Islamism, Sikh extremism or White Supremacists? What was it that made House of Commons MPs flip their lids and come out with such a mean-spirited, anti-Canadian report calling for the heads of anyone who disagrees with Monkey Boy in the PMO?”
CAP will take a crack at this one: the motivation comes from an incremental agenda of authoritarian seduction of society. Decades in the making, all systems are go as our citizenship lack a vehicle to fight back against the Liberal’s neo-totalitarian storm.
As far as our prime minister goes, Justin Trudeau must be harbouring one GIANT vendetta against our country. Does our PM hold omni-present hostility toward Canada and its people? Is the animus so extreme it leans toward pathological? CAP has difficulty envisioning how transition from democracy to dictatorship could exist without Justin Trudeau’s steering the woke ship.
“As Winston Churchill once said, “a state of society where men may not speak their minds cannot long endure.”
Thank goodness for that. At least it offers a glimmer of hope that Justin Trudeau’s neo-communist Canada may be short-lived. Then again, smart money shouldn’t bet on it.