Latest / Radio Baloney - The Richie Baloney Show! / New DYSTOPIAN CENSORSHIP Bill From The Carney Liberals

Transcript

New DYSTOPIAN CENSORSHIP Bill From The Carney Liberals · Radio Baloney - The Richie Baloney Show!

• 0:01
  Speaker 1: Let's get to this new liberal hate bill, Bill C
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: nine in Canada. I think this is the appetizer for
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: the truly dystopian bill which is to come the resurrection
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: of Bill C sixty three. First off, I want to
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: go to the Canadian Constitution Foundation. Liberal hate crimes bill
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: raises free speech concerns. Surprise, surprise. So this bill is
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: not specifically for the Internet, but it does apply to
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: the Internet. And importantly it sets a nebulous definition for
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: the word hatred of course, so it can be used
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: arbitrarily against anybody who's not far left. And that will
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: set the stage for the next bill, the actual Online
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: Harms Act, which they are going to resurrect, which is
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: which will be just an absolute dystopian nightmare, including punishment
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: for things you've never done. That's right, pre crime. Anadian
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: Constitution Foundation is concerned that key aspects of the Carni
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: government's proposed hate crimes legislation would unduly infringe on freedom
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: of expression. Well, of course it will. It's that's it's
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: the Liberal government. Among other changes to the Criminal Code,
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: Bill C nine would establish a stand alone a stand
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: alone hate crime provision that would allow for up to
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: life in prison for committing an act motivated by hatred,
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: And already you're wondering to yourself, so, well, how are
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: they going to define that. I'm going to guess it's
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: going to be kind of arbitrarily applied. Would create new
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: intimidation and obstruction crimes related to buildings used for religious
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: worship or primarily by identifiable groups, and would establish a
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: new crime of wilfully promoting hatred by displaying certain symbols
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: such as terrorist flags or Nazi swastikas in a public space.
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: If you think that they're going to have any problem
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: with the Hamas flag, think again, because they're not. This
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: is going to be used in one direction, in one
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: direction only. They are not going to piss off their
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: new voters. The CCF Canadian Constitution Foundation has identified the
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: following concerns over breadth of hate symbol provisions. It could
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: chill legitimate speech in cases where it is unclear whether
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: a symbol is principally associated with a terrorist group or
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: resembles a symbol outlawed under the provision. Let us not
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: forget that the Trudeau government, in its absolute idiocy and
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: left wing pandering, made the Proud Boys a terrorist group.
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: It's a drinking club and they hadn't done anything. They're
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: not even a terrorist group in the States, right, So
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: anytime you start to think, well, maybe that sounds reasonable
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: and no, it doesn't, think five seconds longer and it doesn't.
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: Let's see extreme sentencing. Under the new hate crime offense,
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: a person who commits mischief against property motivated by hatred
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: whatever that is, could face up to seven years in
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: prison rather than the current two years. By the way
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: these things, there's already laws for all this stuff. The
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: liberals are doing it for a purpose removal of Attorney
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: general oversight. So this is a big one. The bill
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: would allow police to charge a person with hate speech
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: without receiving the Attorney general's consent, which is an important
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: safeguard for freedom of expression that has been part of
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: Canada's law for decades. So this is so they can
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: just print up a pile of them and just hand
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: them out to political enemies or people who are to
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: political enemies and dissidents. That's why lowering the threshold for hatred.
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: The definition of hatred added as a new section three
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: nineteen seven, appears to lower the bar for hate speech
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: set by the Supreme Court of Canada in cases like
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: our versus kishtra and our versus What Gut, which could
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: chill speech and public debate. Gee, I wonder if the
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: liberals would like to chill speech and public debate. Sounds
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: exactly like the sort of thing they might like to do.
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: Let's go to the bill. We're not going to spend
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: hours on this. Don't worry, it's going to be relatively quick.
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: An Act two amend the Criminal Code Hate propaganda, hate crime,
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: and access to religious or cultural places. So repeal the
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: requirement that the Attorney General consent to the institution of
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: proceedings for hate propaganda offenses. So they don't need to
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: bother with that. They won't need to bother with that anymore.
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: They can just print up a big pile of hate
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: arrest warrants, I guess, and just start throwing them at
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: everybody they don't like. B Create an offense of willfully
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: promoting hatrede against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: in a public place. Again, you have to assume, I mean,
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: it's really just guaranteed that that's going to be used arbitrarily.
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: Create a hate crime offense of committing an offense under
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: that Act or any other act of Parliament that is
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: motivated by hatred based on certain factors. We know how
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: that goes creates an offense of intimidating a person in
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: order to impede them from accessing certain places, accessing certain
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: places that are primarily used for religious worship or by
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: an identifiable group for certain purposes. E creates an offense
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person's lawful access
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: to some places. None of this will actually affect the
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: people that are doing that now, because they are seen
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: as loyal liberal voters. So let's see willful promotion of hatred,
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: terrorism and hate symbols. So the only thing they actually
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: mention here is a thing that doesn't exist in Canada.
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: Like with Trudeau, there was like Thissa with Trudeau obviously
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: saying that Trudeau was a Nazi, right, that's I guess
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: that would be hate now. But why just that? Why
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: the thing that you never see? It's just not a
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: thing in Canada. You don't see all these Nazi flags
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: all over the place. You do see Hamas flags, Palestinian flags,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: you see terror group flags. You do see that. Why
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: aren't they in here? We know very well, we know
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: very well why they're not in here, because it's not
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: going to apply to them. Those are liberal voters. So no,
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: I'm afraid not. I mean the absurdity of this that
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: they put this in. They specify this thing which just
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: isn't even in Canada. This is not a thing in Canada.
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: You don't see these swastikas everywhere. You do see flags.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: You do see flags for hate groups or terrorist groups.
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: You do see them, but they are not specified in here.
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: There's only one that is. It's so transparent. What else
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: do we have here? So hatred means the emotion that
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: involves detestation or vilification, and that is stronger than disdain
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: or dislike. Well, I'm so glad they've made it perfectly,
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: crystal clear what hatred means. And then it can't be
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: interpreted in a thousand and any literally any way that
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: some activist judge wants, who decides what an emotion is,
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: the strength of an emotion means the emotion. So emotions
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: are illegal in Canada. How does this even make sense?
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: That's an illegal emotion. What hatred means the emotion that
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: involves detestation or vilification, and that is stronger than disdain
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: or dislike. Well, do you hate Nazis? Is that a
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: hate crime? Let's say for greater certainty, the communication of
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: a statement does not incite or promote hatred for the
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: perse of this section solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts,
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: or offends. Still not any clearer. So we've got an
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: illegal emotion that involves somebody's definition of detestation or vilification,
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: and it must be stronger than disdain or dislike. So
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: who's making this decision? Somebody who's calling everybody they don't
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: like a Nazi and a fascist. This doesn't which is
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: every leftist apparently now and the CBC and CTV and
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: Global remember they called on the CBC, they called Charlie
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: Kirk far right. It doesn't fill me with confidence. Offense
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: motivated by hatred Everyone who commits an offense referred to
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: in this section as the included offense under this Act
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: the included offense is motivated by hatred based on race,
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: national or ethnic origin, language, color, religion, sex, age, mental
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: So gender identity or expression, and as we know as
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: we know in Alberta the conservative premiere past day law
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: banning basically child sex surgeries, child banning, child sex changes.
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: So I wonder if this has anything to do with that. Ohso,
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: if you commit a crime, like I'm not into this
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: offense motivated by hatred, you should just have their punishments
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: for crime, and that should just be it, because again
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: you're relying on somebody's interpretation of an emotion. We nobody
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: can read anybody else's mind, right, this is all just
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: it's I find it very dystopian and insane, and of
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: course it's going to be wielded arbitrarily. I gainst against
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: anybody who's not left wing. Anybody one step to the
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: right of stalin life if maximum term of imprisonment for
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: the included defense is fourteen years or more and up
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: to imprisonment for life, imprisonment for life if your if
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: your term is fourteen years or more, but you did
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: it with hate, but you did the hate, imprisonment for life. Again,
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: I think we need something a bit more tangible than
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: just somebody's idea of what hate means. Somebody's interpretation of
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: something that can be of a definition that can be
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: so broadly defined, and there really isn't any objective measure, like,
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: there's no tests you can do. You can't do an
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: experiment right to find out what somebody's hate level is exactly, Well,
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: that's a nine point four of hate. You can't do that.
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: And again we can't read minds. And also should motion
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: be illegal in the first place? This is all insane anyway,
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: That's all I'm gonna say about that. Please like, share,
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: and subscribe. Subscribing really helps me out. I thank you
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: for that. I will see you next time.