Two posts about the state of liberty in Canada and how the state uses antisemitism laws to manufacture antisemitism

Link to article

One line of the article is here:

• “accuses a group of carrying out secret conspiracies to gain global control or that they are plotting to destroy western civilization”

But it’s a fact. The Muslim Brotherhood is indeed doing exactly that. The Project, and the Memorandum both explicitly state what the plan is for religious Muslims to do as it is specified within Islam’s own canon. My guess based on how things have been in Canada for the last 20 years or so, is people who make factual and verifiable claims about certain groups will face persecution, while people who launch massive conspiracies about Jews, which takes place in every mosque every day, will not. Why can we say this? Because it has already been tested when Muslims have broken existing and far more rational ‘hate crimes laws’ if such a thing is possible.

In any case, anyone who thinks this is great and antisemitism will be illegal and finally Jew will be protected from hate yada yada wuzza wuzza, lemme tells ya, that ain’t how it’s gonna go.

It will massively increase hatred of Jews who will be seen, and partially correctly, as being the architects of destroying freedom of speech. They will suddenly appear to be that exact thing which people have accused Jews of being forever. A tiny group that controls everything. And there will only be enforcement against whatever target suits the real interests of the state. Chances are extremely high that groups like the dialectically named, “Canadian Anti-Hate Network” will fund a few Nazis like Second Sons or Diagalon, and the state will pick off a few of them to make examples of them. We can say that with high confidence because their parent organization the SPLC was funding every hate group they could find.

But no charges against any mosques that actually demand genocide of the Jews at pretty much every prayer session and twice on Fridays.

This is one example out of hundreds available on MEMRI.Org, RAIR Foundation, Gates of Vienna and here for that matter. This one is from Toronto.

And below is a story about one brave Montrealer who tried to bring one of the most virulent imams to the Human Rights Commission.

But wait! There’s More!

Full text:

Ezra Levant: Thanks to floor crossers, Carney can now ram through his spy bill

Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill.

The answer? It is a direct assault on parliamentary democracy and your freedoms.

Last year, Mark Carney won the election with just 43 percent of the vote. That delivered him 169 seats out of 343 in the House of Commons, three short of the 172 needed for a majority. Canadians deliberately gave him a minority government. Sometimes voters do that on purpose, wanting to keep a politician on a shorter leash and force him to work with Parliament rather than dominate it.

But Carney was not content with the verdict of the electorate. While the political establishment spent years warning that Donald Trump might refuse to accept election results, Carney set about changing his own. By persuading a string of opposition MPs to cross the floor, he secured the majority Canadians had declined to give him at the ballot box.

The obvious question is why? Justin Trudeau governed for nearly a decade without a formal majority, relying on NDP support to pass budgets and survive confidence votes. There was little reason to believe Carney could not have done the same.

Ezra’s answer is that Carney wanted something more than legislative support. He wanted the ability to shut down parliamentary scrutiny itself.

That is now on full display.

Using his newly acquired majority, Carney’s government has moved to dramatically curtail debate on Bill C-22, the so-called lawful access bill. The legislation would compel technology companies to retain user data for up to a year and make that information available to government authorities. Civil liberties advocates have raised serious concerns about privacy, government overreach and the expansion of state surveillance powers.

The concerns are hardly theoretical. Canadians have already witnessed a government willing to freeze bank accounts and invoke extraordinary powers during the trucker protests. Mark Carney himself, while living in Europe at the time, wrote in The Globe and Mail that Ottawa should take a harder line against convoy participants and their supporters. It is therefore not surprising that critics view Bill C-22 as part of a broader push toward greater state control.

What makes the situation particularly troubling is not only the substance of the legislation but the manner in which it is being advanced.

The government has introduced a motion declaring that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-22 will be pushed through Parliament on an accelerated timetable. In plain English, the normal rules are being set aside.

Committee members will have just 30 minutes to complete clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Any remaining amendments will be deemed moved and voted upon without further debate. The legislation will then move rapidly through report stage and third reading with strictly limited speaking time for opposition parties and virtually no opportunity for extended scrutiny.

For a bill that constitutes one of the most significant expansions of government surveillance powers in Canadian history, Parliament is being afforded remarkably little time to examine the details.

Professor Michael Geist, one of Canada’s leading experts on technology law and digital policy, has publicly criticized the government’s approach. Geist argues that hearings are being cut short, amendments are being rushed through without proper discussion, and the public is being denied the transparency normally expected during the legislative process. His warning is not about partisan politics but about the erosion of parliamentary accountability.

This is why Carney needed those extra seats.

The issue is not merely that opposition MPs crossed the floor. It is what those additional seats are now being used to accomplish. This is a double violation of democratic principles: first, altering the balance of Parliament after voters had already spoken; and second, using that altered balance to restrict Parliament’s ability to debate, amend and scrutinize legislation.

The implications extend beyond a single bill. Across Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Australia, governments are increasingly embracing online surveillance measures, age-verification requirements and expanded regulatory control over digital spaces. These initiatives are almost always presented as necessary protections for children or public safety, yet they also require citizens to surrender more privacy and give governments more information about their online activities.

It is a stark contrast to the vision of technological progress championed by figures such as Elon Musk, who promote innovation, space exploration, artificial intelligence and the expansion of human potential. One approach sees technology as a tool of freedom and advancement. The other increasingly treats it as something to be monitored, regulated and controlled.

This is what an unchecked majority can look like under Mark Carney: Parliament reduced to a rubber stamp, debate curtailed, privacy placed at risk and major legislation rushed through with minimal scrutiny.

Canadians deserve better.

The democratic process only matters if it is respected when it becomes inconvenient. If Parliament is no longer permitted to properly examine legislation, question witnesses or challenge the government of the day, then the institution itself is diminished. That should concern every Canadian regardless of political affiliation.