Last night I showed you a few clips from Steven Guilbeault, Trudeau’s censorship minister. I know his actual title is Heritage Minister, but he really doesn’t care much about our heritage — like Trudeau, he thinks Canada’s heritage is one of racism and sexism and genocide. He’s a destroyer, not a builder.
And what bugs him the most about the Internet is not child pornography or terrorism or obscenity. It’s people who taunt politicians.
Of course, taunting someone, or insulting someone, or criticizing a politician, isn’t against the law. In fact, it is protected by law, the highest protection, in our fundamental freedoms.
There is no speech that is more protected in society than political speech criticizing the government. But try telling that to a convicted criminal like Guilbeault.
So because no court will abide him, he will create a new court — a new ministry of censorship.
And this new censorship court will have tremendous power, including the power to overrule moderators at Facebook or Twitter or YouTube who the government thinks aren’t censoring hard enough.
Really? Who on earth — other than governments in China and Iran and North Korea — thinks YouTube and Twitter and Facebook aren’t censoring hard enough?
So I showed you those clips yesterday. I want so show you a few more today.
And it’s interesting to me that these comments, which are so shocking, were only reported on by Blacklock's Reporter, the independent, Ottawa-based news website.
Even the interviewer there, a National Post reporter named Anja Karadeglija, who asked substantive questions, she got those shocking answers — and she didn’t write a story about them. She was willing to participate in a Canada 2020 event — that’s a Liberal Party conference.
Her questions were fair — they weren’t aggressive, but they were substantive. The answers to them were outrageous. And… she didn’t write up the story.
I asked her why, and she said she had written a story that covered the same ground a few weeks earlier, this one. And it’s true; and it’s a fair story, actually.
But surely the minister of censorship talking about banning things from even being uploaded; about banning foreign servers, about a “nuclear option” — surely that is newsworthy? No? Nobody? Anybody?
If a Stephen Harper cabinet minister had talked about using the nuclear option to censor political critics who “taunt” him — surely that would have been a bit of news? Especially if it were said directly to a journalist?
But if social media companies don’t do what he says — get ready for massive fines.
That’s what I’m worried about. If you were YouTube, and there was a Rebel News video criticizing Steven Guilbeault, by “taunting” him about the fact that he’s a convicted criminal, and not particularly bright — and Guilbeault made a complaint, would you fight for freedom of speech? For me? For Rebel News?
Would you hire lawyers to fight against Guilbeault — if you were YouTube? Why would you?
Why would you incur financial costs, legal costs, political costs? Why would you get offside with the government? Why wouldn’t you just say — nuke it! Nuclear option. Delete Rebel News altogether. Just get rid of the problem. No fine, no legal bills, not nasty emails from Guilbeault.
It’s the safer option. The easier option.
Just do what Guilbeault says.
This law is coming. We plan to fight it. You bet I’ll keep you posted.
GUEST: Spencer Fernando (@SpencerFernando on Twitter) on Guilbeault's Internet censorship bill.
FINALLY: Your messages to me!