BILL C-63 - Everything You Need to Know | Bruce Pardy & Konstantin Kisin | EP 442

()

Bill C-16 and Bill C-63

Bill C-16 added gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act, leading to concerns about compelled speech and pronoun usage.
Bill C-63 expands on C-16 and introduces changes in administrative, criminal code, and Canadian Human Rights Act amendments.
The administrative changes aim to protect children from online harm but may lead to a crackdown on free speech.
The criminal code amendments make the maximum sentence for any offense motivated by hatred life imprisonment, signaling a shift away from the principle of free speech.
The Canadian Human Rights Act amendments reinstate a previously repealed section that prohibits discriminatory speech, potentially leading to a chilling effect on free speech.
The bill gives an unspecified range of power to a new government agency to supervise online platforms, potentially turning the internet into a policed state.

The government's increasing control over various aspects of society, including speech, is a dangerous trend.
The government should not be responsible for keeping people safe, as this undermines the role of parents and individuals in protecting themselves.
The government's job should be to protect individual rights and prevent coercion, not to regulate speech.
The Charter of Rights is not as effective as the American Bill of Rights in protecting individual rights because the courts have interpreted it to allow for broad restrictions on speech.
The courts are giving power back to the administrative state, which is not accountable to the people.

Defining hate speech based on the self-perception of the purported victim opens the door to manipulation and abuse.
Unlike most criminal offenses, intent and truth are not relevant in determining hate speech, which is problematic.
Hate speech laws are being used to silence dissent and criticism, particularly in the realm of comedy.
The definition of hate speech is often vague and subjective, leading to the selective enforcement of the law.
Protected groups are given preferential treatment under hate speech laws, while criticism of these groups is often tolerated or even encouraged.
Bill C-16 has further expanded the scope of hate speech laws and made it even more difficult to criticize certain groups.

The weaponization of human rights is a serious threat to freedom of speech and expression.
Bill C63 enables anonymous denunciations, allowing individuals to weaponize the state's power against others without accountability.
The division of society into oppressed and oppressor groups can lead to the misuse of victim narratives for personal gain.
Human rights commissions in Canada have been weaponized, allowing complaints to be filed against individuals without due process.
Bill C63 includes provisions for pre-crime measures, such as house arrest and restrictions on communication, based on the fear that someone might commit a hate crime.

The supporters of Bill C63 have a different vision of the law's purpose, aiming to enforce certain behaviors rather than upholding traditional legal principles.
The speaker expresses concern about the fundamental transformation of the law, where legitimate speech is deemed illegitimate if it has a negative impact on people.

The current legal system is complex and unpredictable, requiring more resources and time to resolve disputes.
Legal education has been influenced by critical theory and social justice ideology, leading to generations of graduates who promote these ideas in various professions and institutions.
The managerial class benefits from the continuation of the current system.

True freedom requires virtue, and enforced virtue is not virtuous.
The state often takes responsibility for problems that individuals should address.
Personal responsibility is crucial for a meaningful life and protection against tyranny.
Distributed hierarchy of responsibility prevents the concentration of power and preserves individual freedom.
The decline of traditional institutions leads to increased state intervention and regulation.
Lack of self-regulation necessitates more laws and government intervention in personal relationships.