Let’s face it: we do not need another $200 million bureaucratic agency to regulate speech in this country. There are already ample laws in place to address online harm. The public policy behind the Online Harms Act is fundamentally flawed. We should not be empowering people to approach authorities to arrest others simply due to differing opinions on a variety of subjects.
Protect children? Of course! Use the law we already have in place and pursue the perpetrators with abandon but not this make shift exercise in mind control as this bill represents.
This Orwellian proposal must be quashed now. The experts advocating for this legislation may not fully understand the potentially disastrous consequences of its implementation. If we thought bureaucratic rule during the COVID-19 pandemic was bad, imagine the ramifications of establishing a new Digital Safety Commission of Canada. Picture officers knocking on your door in the middle of the night over some offhand comment you made.
This marks a dark milestone in Canadian legislative history.Under the guise of “tolerance,” “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion,” our government seems to be setting the stage for a society of informants. Anonymous critics would wield the power of the state to denounce anyone they perceive as holding an “incorrect” opinion. In the name of child protection, advocates are pushing for the passage of this terrible legislation, which cannot simply be amended piecemeal; it is part of a much larger scheme.What drives a government, in its desperate final throes, to push such controversial legislation? What dark motivations compel them to impose this upon the Canadian public in its late hour?
Many advocates who oppose freedom of speech are urging immediate action before the government is voted out of office. This legislation may be the last gasp of a government that will be remembered as one of the most destructive and wasteful to ever hold power in Canada.Are we witnessing the frantic struggle of a regime intent on molding Canada into a dysfunctional society?
Take note of those who have departed from this government’s ranks — figures like Jody Wilson-Raybould @Puglaas , and Celina Caesar-Chavannes @iamcelinacc Then consider others who though not in this government but are or were from the party that this government claims to represent such as Dan McTeague @GasPriceWizard , and Stephen LeDrew @StephenLeDrew .
What kind of legacy are we leaving for our grandchildren? Naturally, we want to protect our children, but the government’s argument for child safety is a façade designed to enforce speech control. To control speech is to control thought, and this regime is determined to dominate our very thoughts, shaming anyone who dares to hold dissenting views from its entrenched far-left ideology.We are fast approaching an authoritarian state without boundaries. Alarmingly, we risk reaching a point where, as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn warns, we are awoken in the dead of night by state officers declaring our arrest based on an anonymous tip asserting that we hold improper opinions.
Dramatic? Perhaps. But it is not improbable.
Reflect on Solzhenitsyn’s description of arrest and allow his words to resonate:
“Arrest! Need it be said that it is a breaking point in your life, a bolt of lightning which has scored a direct hit on you? That it is an unassimilable spiritual earthquake not every person can cope with, as a result of which people often slip into insanity?”
He articulates how the universe of those arrested shatters with the hissing words, “You are under arrest.” Such an event is jarring; it shifts one’s reality, casting the present into the past.Solzhenitsyn’s haunting depictions of the arrest process highlight the sense of helplessness and terror experienced by victims. In stark clarity, he illustrates the disruptive violence of the state’s power — a reminder of history’s darker chapters.
The state’s unwarranted power has far-reaching implications, affecting not just the arrested but also their families and communities.As we contemplate the implications of the proposed Digital Safety Commission, it is imperative for us as a society to recognize the warnings from the past. Solzhenitsyn’s reflections serve as a critical reminder that the erosion of free speech can lead to devastating consequences, not only for individuals but for society as a whole.
History teaches us the dangers of silence in the face of oppressive legislation. It is crucial to resist any attempts to silence differing opinions, lest we find ourselves living in the chilling reality that Solzhenitsyn depicted, where the state’s influence extends into the most intimate aspects of our lives, paralyzing our ability to express free thought.
We must stand united against the establishment of a Digital Safety Commission that threatens our freedoms. The fabric of our democratic society must not be sacrificed under the pretense of protection. Let us ensure that we leave a legacy of freedom of expression for future generations. Let’s not be hoodwinked with the bureaucratic doubletalk.
As Ronald Reagan noted, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
It is time we stare down this primal scream of a dying regime.
Madness indeed and it must be stopped. For more information see: https://firstfreedoms.ca/stopbillc63/
BE SURE TO KEEP TRACK OF BILL C-63’S PROGRESS – https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-63
