Bombshell Report: Exposing the Actors behind Canada’s Online Harms Act (Bill C-63)

Opinion by Dan Fournier, published Sunday, March 17, 19:10 EDT on fournier.substack.com

Author Note: This post has been archived on 2024-04-28 at https://archive.ph/qPpS8.

After having connected some important dots together, it is the assessment of this author that the following parties appear to be the principal actors who are behind the design, construction, and introduction of Canada’s very controversial Bill C-63, better know as the ‘Online Harms Act’:

1. Canadian Heritage

2. The Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (cyber.harvard.edu)

3. Bill Gates & the World Health Organization (WHO), NewsGuard & Edward Greenspon

4. Public Policy Forum (PPF)

5. The World Economic Forum (WEF)

In this exposition, I will present information and connections showing the interconnectedness between them which appears to indicate their collusive and collaborative efforts which have brought about the Online Harms Act in Canada.

1. Canadian Heritage

Canadian Heritage (also called the Department of Canadian Heritage) is the entity behind the Online Streaming Act (C-11), the Online News Act (C-18), and the recently introduced proposed Bill to address Online Harms (C-63).

On March 30, 2020, Canadian Heritage announced an expert advisory group on online safety. Here are some excerpts [with emphasis and one link added (for the Minister)]:

“Following the release of What We Heard: The Government’s proposed approach to address harmful content online on February 3, 2022, the Government of Canada is now unveiling the next step in its work to design legislation to address harmful content online by announcing the composition of its expert advisory group on online safety.

This expert advisory group has been given a mandate to provide the Minister of Canadian Heritage with advice on how best to design the legislative and regulatory framework to address harmful content online, and how to best incorporate the feedback received during the national consultation the government held last year.

...

More specifically, the expert advisory group will participate in nine workshops on the components of a legislative and regulatory framework for online safety, including an introductory workshop and a workshop summarizing the substantive sessions. The sessions will address the following core components of the framework:

• Setting out which online services should be regulated, and to what extent

• Establishing how “harmful content” would be defined and regulated

• Identifying a set of obligations and requirements for regulated entities to monitor, moderate and manage harmful content on their services

• Setting an enforcement toolkit to help promote and ensure compliance

• Laying out reasonable linkages to authorities

• Identifying programming and policy responses that could be included in the framework to confront disinformation and build civic and media literacy and resilience

• Ensuring the inclusion of elements that protect freedom of expression and privacy rights”

What is noteworthy of the announcement (apart from Bernie Farber of the controversial Canadian Anti-Hate Network being one of the selected members of the expert advisory group) is that of a lesser known figure named Vivek Krishnamurthy, a Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa.

At prima facie, there’s really not much to indicate any kind of alarm bells with regards to the selection of this expert. However, it is one of his connections that is particularly telling. Namely, that he is currently a Faculty Associate of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

This author has made Access to Information (ATI) requests to obtain existing documents about Canadian Heritage. Should the documents be forthcoming, relevant information will be appended to this post.

2. The Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (cyber.harvard.edu)

According to ReclaimTheNet.org, Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (whose domain name is cyber.harvard.edu), is a non-profit organisation that seeks to devise a “governance structure for the internet.”

Always follow the money.

Who funds them?

As per Klein’s own ‘Past Support’ page, you will find a very long list of extremely powerful backers.

These include the following powerful and influential groups (non-exhaustive list):

• Big Tech: Google, Facebook, Microsoft, PayPal, eBay, Wikimedia, Mozilla;

• Media & Broadcasting: Reuters, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting, Viacom/Paramount;

• Telecoms: AT&T;

• Government: United States Department of State, USAID;

• Think Tanks: World Economic Forum (WEF);

• Philanthropic giants: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Knight Foundation, Omidyar Network, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Oak Foundation USA, Getty Foundation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Wikimedia Foundation.

Much can be said about the above players. For example, USAID is heavily involved in countering “misinformation” endeavours. And we know that Google has also been heavily involved in the manipulation of search results, thought shaping, as well as other shenanigans such as with Google Jigsaw.

But what I’d like to focus on here are the funders.

The list of foundations enumerated above (click links for related information on each) is vast, extensive, and impressive.

Collectively, these foundations donate in the hundreds of billions of dollars to various causes.

What is notable, though, and what they seem to largely have in common is their support for issues such as, but not limited to:

• LGBTQ+

• DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion)

• Climate Change

• Election integrity

• Reproductive Health (i.e., Population Control)

• The war in Ukraine

These are all issues for which there is a tremendous amount of ‘narrative control’ promulgated by mainstream media (MSM) and Big Tech which has involved copious amounts of censorship over the past few years.

In Part 5 (Who’s Funding the Fact-Checkers?) of my series on Covid-19, I have documented how foundations (of which many figure above in this post) have ties to population control endeavours as well as how their extensive networks of [so-called] fact-checking outfits have bent over backwards to control narratives – particularly those surrounding Covid-19 measures and vaccines as well as the war in Ukraine.

I think I did a very thorough job in outlining and exposing their shenanigans in that section of my post. As such, I would strongly encourage the reader to read through it to discover the exhibits and evidence first-hand.

The uber-wealthy families/oligarchs behind these foundations have been employing their billions and networks of influence to control business, governments, social media, and so on for well over a century, if not longer.

It should thus come as no surprise that they wish to collaborate and conspire to bring about a global apparatus of surveillance, censorship, and control.

Sadly, they are doing one heck of a great job at it.

Their, along with private/supranational/unelected power groups such as the UN, WHO, and WEF, hold a significant amount of influence over our [s]elected officials and governments.

In Canada, it is no secret that the current Liberal Government is highly influenced by the likes of the WHO, WEF and other parties.

After all, our very own Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland sits on the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum.

Trudeau’s government has even been caught red-handed in secretly employing the WEF to further push the lie of “Climate Change” in order to justify their ominous Carbon Taxes on Canadians and Canadian businesses.

But Canada’s ties to the WEF is merely conspiracy theory, isn’t it?

Chrystia Freeland speaking at Davos (World Economic Forum) in 2016. Image source: via this author’s Dec. 8, 2022 article titled Trudeau & Freeland set to Carbon-Tax Canadians $140 billion yearly.

It must be...

Not to worry. There’s a heck of a lot more squandering of our money than with Carbon Taxes.

We must also not forget that Trudeau’s Liberal Government has also earmarked taxpayer contributions to Gavi The Vaccine Alliance to the tune of C$1.86 billion (from 2016 to 2025).

Photo of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with Bill Gates from September, 2016. Image source: Huffington Post Québec.

All that being said, one would be extremely naive to think that these backers/funders of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society do not have a say in which particular agendas their funds are designated to go to.

In this specific case, they certainly appear to have gone towards influencing our politicians and government institutions to bring about their apparatus of mass surveillance and censorship.

Lastly, let us not forget how these unelected supranational organisations in the United Nations and the WEF are tied at the hip through their Strategic Partnership Framework pushing Agenda 2030, the Climate Change hoax, Open Borders, woke ideology / gender equality / transgenderism, etc.

Let us now connect more dots to discover the trail of influence.

3. Bill Gates & the World Health Organization (WHO), NewsGuard & Edward Greenspon

Okay, now pay close attention.

It is no secret that billionaire Bill Gates, through his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with his Gavi The Vaccine Alliance (which has total immunity from prosecution, by the way) is the largest contributor to the World Health Organization (WHO), an unelected group of the United Nations.

It is also to be noted that Gates’ WHO has very strong ties to Big Pharma which, needless to say, entails an orgy of conflicts of interests and profiteering.

We have seen the extent to which Gates’ WHO has pushed the Covid-19 Scamdemic even before its start (Event 201).

So, how does this all tie in to the topic at hand?

Well, the WHO has been quite concerned and focused countering online so-called “misinformation” (which includes inconvenient truths, of course as the name of my Substack implies) about Covid-19 and the kill shots.

To counter this, the WHO has partnered with Google, GWI, The International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), and most notably NewsGuard.

I have already exposed the The International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), and its partner-in-crime Poynter, for the fraud that they are.

But let’s focus on NewsGuard; for, this is where things really get connected to Canada.

If one were to consult their Advisory Board, one will discover two highly influential Canadian media figures.

Namely, editorial advisors Edward Greenspon and Michel Cormier.

Here are their entries:

Edward Greenspon was the former editor-in-chief of The Globe & Mail, and editor-at-large for Bloomberg News in Canada.

Edward Greenspon. Image source and credit: Public Policy Forum.

More importantly though, Edward Greenspon is the President and CEO of the Public Policy Forum (PPF), a highly influential think tank that holds a unique position in the formation of public policy in Canada.

The PPF’s profile for Greenspon commences as follows:

It doesn’t take long to find out about Mr. Greenspon’s leanings with regards to online “misinformation.”

His January 27, 2021 opinion column in Postmedia’s Ottawa Citizen titled Greenspon: A proposal to combat harms to democracy on the Internet very much attests to this.

“Governments the world over have been tentative as hate and disinformation seep into our body politic,” he stated in the article, along with:

“After speaking with dozen of experts, commissioning original research and listening to input from a representative Citizens’ Assembly of 42 Canadians, the Canadian Commission on Democratic Expression has come up with a six-point plan to get the Internet back on course.”

Notably, and in an obvious alignment with the tenets of Bill C-63, Greenspon also states [with emphasis added]:

“After nine months of deliberation, the commission has called for the creation of a statutory Duty to Act Responsibly to be imposed on platforms, including social media companies, large messaging groups, search engines and others who host user-generated and third-party content. That means they will be legally obliged to take affirmative actions to ensure their services do not cause harm to individuals and groups.

...

For individual complaints, citizens would have several avenues of recourse. They would be able to lodge their objections with an e-tribunal, a streamlined dispute settlement body staffed by legal professionals but accessed online.”

Are you all starting to see a pattern here?

More on the Public Policy Forum (PPF) and this very telling six-point plan in the next section of this post.

But for now, let’s stay focused on NewsGuard.

Renowned American investigative journalist Whitney Webb has exposed the powerful players behind NewsGuard showing the outfit’s ties to the DHS, the U.S. Military, intelligence agencies (CIA), and the NATO’s mouthpiece think tank the Atlantic Council and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Screenshot of investigative journalist Whitney Web’s article titled How a NeoCon-Backed “Fact Checker” Plans to Wage War on Independent Media from January 19, 2019.

Put simply, it is not hard to tell that NewsGuard was set up by U.S. Military and Intelligence outfits as a watchdog organisation to steer and control narratives online that are aligned and in favour of the current oligarchical structure.

So, one may wonder or ask: how has it come about that highly influential figures in Canadian media like Edward Greenspon and Michel Cormier – the former Director of News at Radio-Canada (the French version of the CBC that is largely influential in the province of Quebec) – found their way on NewsGuard’s Advisory board?

Simple, they are the foot soldiers (enablers) for NewsGuard’s Canadian arm.

This author has submitted Access to Information (ATI) requests in relation to NewsGuard documents which have already been produced. I will add an addendum to this post should they be forthcoming.

4. Public Policy Forum (PPF)

Okay, now back to the Public Policy Forum (PPF).

As alluded to earlier, this Canadian think tank exerts powerful influence on policy making in the halls of government.

In January of 2021, the PPF published a report titled Canadian Commission on Democratic Expression, Harms Reduction: A Six-Step Program to Protect Democratic Expression Online (PDF here).

In the Executive Summary, they state that “Following nine months of study and deliberations, the Canadian Commission on Democratic Expression has settled on a series of principles and recommendations that can lead to a practical course of action.”

“What we set forth is a series of functional steps to enable citizens, governments and platforms to deal with the matter of harmful speech in a free and democratic, rights-based society like Canada,” the summary further states.

The summary also outlines these principles :

At the bottom of the image above, it reads that these principles have “led the Commission to an integrated program of six scaffolding recommendations.”

Without going into too much detail, these six recommendations are outlined in their PDF document – for which Edward Greenspon provided the Foreword, include:

1. A New Duty on Platforms to Act Responsibly

2. A New Regulatory Body

3. A Social Media Council

4. Transparency Measures

5. Remedies for Individual Content Harms

6. A Quick Takedown System

Here’s the important part, so pay attention.

The general direction of these six recommendations pretty much fall in line with those found in Bill C-63’s text.

For instance, Recommendation #2 of the PPF’s plan calls for the establishment of a new regulatory body. In the text of C-63, Part 1 calls for a ‘Digital Safety Commission of Canada’ (Commission) while Part 2 for a ‘Digital Safety Ombudsperson of Canada’ whereby their functions align with each other.

Many examples of how PPF’s Recommendations match with provisions of the bill could be further provided, along with the documents and findings of Canadian Heritage (as outlined in the first section of this post); but, to keep things simple, I will leave it at that.

Readers can explore the contents of Bill C-63 with that of the Public Policy Forum’s document and the aforementioned works of Canadian Heritage for other commonalities in order to make up their own minds as to whether they are in general alignment or not.

But, to me at least, they seem to predominantly fit nicely into the same glove.

This author has made several Access to Information (ATI) requests to obtain existing documents about the Public Policy Forum and will post relevant findings in this post should they be forthcoming.

5. The World Economic Forum (WEF)

In previous sections of this post, I have already outlined ways in which the World Economic Forum (WEF) has been in alignment with the agendas espoused by the oligarchical class.

Contributors, participants, and partners of the WEF, sometimes known as Davos elites, along with their Global Shapers and Young Global Leaders have yielded an incredible amount of influence of in this private-public relationship.

Sadly, even its Founder and Executive Chairman, Klaus Schwab, has openly bragged about having penetrated half of Canada’s Cabinet.

Furthermore, in addition to what I have already mentioned in that our Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland being a board member of the WEF, we sadly have a very large group of other Canadian politicians who are acolytes of the influential foreign think tank.

Over 3,336 pages of WEF agendas can sufficiently attest to the private sector interests promulgated by the organisation and its partners.

In particular, the WEF’s recent focus on cybersecurity, including its A Global Coalition for Digital Safety, further corroborates their alignment with the online surveillance and censorship model.

“With the growing challenge of terrorist and violent content, and the exploitation of children online, there is an urgent need for more deliberate global coordination to improve digital safety,” reads their home page.

Is there a real concern about the exploitation of children online? Absolutely.

Are there legitimate concerns about online harms? Absolutely.

Should there be better legislation in this regard? Absolutely.

Is “global coordination” needed to improve digital safety? That is debatable.

To them, this is more about controlling narratives and censoring voices to maintain the interests of the oligarchical and corporate class of elites that they cater too rather than a genuine concern for the safety and well-being of individuals.

Final Thoughts

I am currently writing another, larger, article titled ‘Canada’s Digital Gulag: the Dystopian Surveillance & Censorship Infrastructure Grid that’s Being Built’ which I should be posted on my Substack later this week.

It will provide a more comprehensive perspective of what the entire surveillance and censorship apparatus that is currently in development for Canada will look like, along with how it all ties in with Digital IDs and CBDCs.

In addition, the work also explores and outlines who the Handlers are, along with their Enablers, as well as Solutions that the collective citizenry can employ to escape these slave systems that are being devised and implemented.

A small taste of these “Enablers” has been showcased in this post.

I have been following, researching, and writing about these elitist oligarchs for many years and have predicted (see also hereunder) the fruits of many of their stratagems.

In fact, regarding this very Bill C-63, on May 17, 2023, I wrote a Substack comment which actually forewarned that something like this was more than likely to happen, then stating [with some emphasis added]:

“Brief initial take / summary:

- Notice how this operation stems from the TOP, i.e., the WHO, surprise surprise;

- They have many partners in this fight for dis/misinformation (read control of the narrative - be it C19, Climate Change, Ukraine War, etc.) + censorship to silent voices speaking against them. One of those partners is NEWSGUARD "fact-checking" outfit which is basically a MILITARY-LED Operation led by the criminal (Ret.) General Michael Hayden who is the key "commander" of Newsguard;

- Newsguard's Senior Advisor for Canada (i.e, the Canadian "General" in this operation) is none other than the aforementioned EDWARD GREENSPON (CEO of Canada's highly-influential-on-Canadian-legislation/legislators Public Policy Forum (PPF); moreover, he is like the great Climate Change Con architect Mark Carney who is responsible for that global takeover which is costing Canadian taxpayers in the hundreds of billions (as I extensively reported on in my Substack), but just in a different sheep's cloak.

- Greespon seems to be the architect of the PPF's "Six-Step Program to Protect Democratic Expression Online" - which seems to be code word for online censorship of voices like me (and many others) in order to maintain/control the desired narratives through the Canadian mainstream apparatus;

- While too long to go over, READ the 6 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PDF and you will ***clearly*** see WHAT THEY HAVE IN STORE FOR US and the future of news in CANADA;

- Bill C-11 was just the APPETIZER, but this 6-point PLAN (and similar/adjacent tools) is going to be the MAIN COURSE;

Can you start to see the pieces of the puzzle nicely mesh together nicely?

I wish I could form a team of ex-journalists like Rodney Palmer, Mark Edge, and yourself to better expose this evil plan, for it is a bit heavy for a single neophyte investigative journalist (who has only been doing this for 9 months) like myself to give it full justice and attention it deserves.

Regardless, I'm gonna try, for I am sick and tired of seeing our country disintegrate to the hands of Canadian politicial and bureaucrat sellouts and these foreign agents and it certainly won't be our CSIS who is going to stop them. It's up to us and the citizenry!”

Sadly, I was right.

What will happen with regards to bills C-63 and S-210 remains to be seen.

It is my hope that a critical mass of Canadians will push back on these bills with their [s]elected MPs and institutions of our current Government, lest we be stripped of our fundamental rights of freedom expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom of the press.

Get active and DO NOT COMPLY!

Addendum (2024-04-27): Empire Club Event ‘Online Harms / The Case for Legislating Against Harm and Hate’

As was recently tweeted by The Empire Club (above) and reported on by ReclaimTheNet.org’s article. it appears that positioning to further push and justify the passage of Bill C-63 (Canada’s Online “Harms” Act) has ramped up.

Bill C-63 is currently in the Second Reading phase in the House of Commons.

The Empire Club of Canada

If you are like me, you’ve probably never heard of the Empire Club of Canada.

Established in 1903, they have been around for more than a century and can be best described as a “Speakers Club” with a “desire for the country to maintain strong ties to the [British] Commonwealth.”

Some of its speakers have included the likes of Sir Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, the Dalai Lama, Indira Gandhi, Margaret Thatcher, Bill Gates, and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

I’ve highlighted the two last names (Gates & Tedros) for obvious reasons, i.e., their affiliations with the World Health Organization (WHO). This is noteworthy for reasons explained further below.

While many think tanks, speaker clubs, and the like are not uncommon in the Canadian lobbying landscape, there are some red flags with regards to the Empire Club’s upcoming (May 14, 2024) event called Where Online Harms Have Real World Consequences: The Case for Legislating Against Harm and Hate.

As the ReclaimTheNet.org article titled Big Tech Sponsors Event With Canadian Pro-Censorship Justice Minister Advocating Online Censorship notes, there are significant Big Tech outfits such as Meta (Facebook) and AWS (Amazon) that are sponsoring the event.

As was extensively reported on by various independent journalists like Matt Taibbi from Racket.News and other outlets, Facebook (among other Big Tech outfits) facilitated the censorship of so-called misinformation (mostly about the Covid-19 scamdemic) when asked by the U.S. Government.

• “We Shouldn't Have Done It": Facebook Exec Admitted They Censored For Biden Regime, July 28, 2023

• U.S. House of Representative’s Judiciary Committee - Chairman Jim Jordan Subpoenas Big Tech Executives, February 15, 2023

  • Chairman Jim Jordan’s letter & subpoena to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, February 15, 2023

• Summit News - Video: Jordan Blasts Biden Facebook ‘Censorship By Surrogate’, July 28, 2023

• Rep. Jim Jordan: THE FACEBOOK FILES, PART 1: SMOKING-GUN DOCS PROVE FACEBOOK CENSORED AMERICANS BECAUSE OF BIDEN WHITE HOUSE PRESSURE, July 27, 2023

• Racket.news - The Censorship-Industrial Complex: Top 50 Organizations To Know, May 11, 2023

One reason why I believe Meta is sponsoring this particular event - which seems to be one aligned with gaining support for Bill C-63 - is that Facebook could eventually implement measures to included biometric requirements (to continue using the platform) and surveillance.

A big imperative for the passage of Bill C-63 is to protect children online. That is great. But, even Facebook is currently facing a federal class action lawsuit whereby parents allege it profited from using kids’ biometric data.

Accordingly, there is much more to be scrutinised here as it pertains to the so-called protection of children online. What are Meta-Facebook’s real intentions here?

Amazon has also been known to be in bed with the government for a whole range of issues - ranging from biometric surveillance to contracts with the defense industry.

The other two main, peculiar, sponsors for the event are Hydro One and BrucePower, both from Ontario.

Why are provincial hydroelectricity/energy providers concerned with sponsoring an event that has to do with mitigating online harms?

Could it have anything to do with countering future online “dis/misinformation” that would question/challenge Climate Change (and possible climate-related lockdowns)?

Looking at the Empire Club’s long list of members from the Board of Directors yields an impressive list of power players from various outfits such as McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Siemens Energy Canada, Telus, KPMG, the University of Toronto, Rubicon Strategy, and Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association (APMA).

While I haven’t had time to look into what specific motives these Directors have, particularly with regards to a censorship bill such as C-63, one outfit stands out, namely Rubicon Strategy.

Rubicon Strategy is an influential lobbying firm that is concerned focused on “Government Relations” and “Public Affairs.”

In other words, they are a powerful thought shaper that can steer government employees and politicians in certain directions - in this case to push for the adoption of C-63.

CanuckLaw has showcased a few red flags with the outfit, one showcasing how they lobbied Doug Ford during the Covid-19 Pandemic on behalf of pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca.

• CanuckLaw - Another Ford Campaigner Now A Lobbyist, This Time For AstraZeneca; Rubicon Strategy, May 17, 2021

• CanuckLaw - Kory Teneycke, Rubicon Strategy, And The Puppets That Are Ford, Kenney & Harper, Oct. 22, 2021

I haven’t yet dug deeper into Rubicon Srategy and their prior lobbying efforts, but would rather caution on the old adage of where there’s smoke, there’s fire. They do, nonetheless, appear to have been lobbying in Alberta with regards to Energy.

With regards to a possible call for increased censorship ensuing from the event and Bill C-63, Canadian Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski warned of “regulatory capture” with regards to the event.

“Big Tech companies want government regulation of online speech to entrench their positions and keep out dissenting views.” - Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski

This kind of regulatory capture has exploded recently in the United States with the recent passing of the terrifying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance [Section 702] Act (FISA), among many other efforts.

Hence, the recent blitz with regards to online censorship shows no signs of weakening any time soon.

It remains to be seen what will be said and come of the ‘Where Online Harms Have Real World Consequences: The Case for Legislating Against Harm and Hate’ event.

Apart from talk surrounding “online harms,” it will also be worthwhile to cue in for any talk related to climate change and any future pandemics; for, we are quite cognizant that the real agenda behind this so-called online harms law is censoring and punishing voices that counter the “official narrative.”

Addendum (2024-04-28): A Member of Parliament outlines the Dangers of Bill C-63

Twitter/X user Mitchio wrote to ALL Canadian MPs regarding Bill C-63 and noted that MP Rachael Thomas of Lethbridge is the only one who wrote back to his wife.

Regarding her response, Mitchio noted that “It is the best written summary of issues I have seen yet. Long, but here it is…”

So, I will post image screenshots of the tweet hereunder for posterity in case it gets scrubbed (censored) from Twitter/X:

I personally believe the contents of MP Thomas’ letter response provides for an excellent summary of what Bill C-63 actually entails, including its dangers and potential abuses of power should it become law.

Judge for yourself.

Addendum (2024-05-18): More on the Dangers of C-63

Twitter/X user Buck wrote an excellent piece about the dangers of C-63. I strongly encourage you read it in its entirety.

Here is one passage from the post [with emphasis added]:

This is a deeply flawed conception of what free speech and constitutional protection are. Constitutional protections are limits to State power, and the preservation of individual liberties from the asymmetric authority the State has over individuals. It is absolutely NOT about the government adjudication of playground name-calling and disparagement. Free speech is achieved by limiting government power, not enabling the government to mediate the speech of individuals. This Bill is absolutely an attack on your Charter rights, and Varani [sic] knows that. It represents the continued inversion of liberalism we have seen by the Liberal Party of Canada, deceptively employing the language and iconography of liberalism, but advancing an authoritarian, progressive globalist agenda. It truly is Orwellian double-speak and should be called out as such.

To read the full piece, click the following image:

It is time for Canadians to mobilize and resist this government which has lost its mandate and democratic legitimacy. Passing Bill C-63 before the next election represents a tangible threat to democracy. My hope is we never find out if my words ring true.

Addendum (2024-11-17): The FCC in the United States calls out NewsGuard for their abuses

As recently reported, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr wrote a letter to Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Apple, and Meta, and accused them of having “participated in a censorship cartel that included not only technology and social media companies but advertising, marketing, and so-called "fact-checking" organizations as well as the Biden-Harris Administration itself.”

…

By “fact-checking” organizations, Carr was referring to NewsGuard which he specifically equated to an Orwellian group that helped to enforce one-sided narratives [during the Covid-19 Pandemic].

He also added that the “censorship cartel must be dismantled.”

His Letter appeared in his X post (archived here) and is also shown hereunder [with emphasis added in red]:

The parts highlighted above in red speak volumes as to the egregiousness of NewsGuard’s censorship efforts, and further corroborate my previous reporting on this nefarious outfit.

Notably, the letter stated the following:

As exposed by the Twitter Files, NewsGuard is a for-profit company that operates as part of the broader censorship cartel. [5]

Indeed, NewsGuard bills itself as the Internet’s arbiter of truth or, as its co-founder put it, a “Vaccine Against Misinformation.” [6]

NewsGuard purports to rate the credibility of news and information outlets and tells readers and advertisers which outlets they can trust. [7]

As the U.S. House Committee on Small Business 2024 Staff report stated, “[t]hese ratings, combined with NewsGuard’s vast partnerships in the advertising industry, selects winners and losers in the news media space. [8]

NewsGuard does so by leveraging its partnerships with advertising agencies to effectively censor targeted outlets.

It remains to be seen how NewsGuard will respond, and even whether it will survive as a so-called fact-checking outfit that is an “arbiter of truth” going forward.

Truth always prevails!

Support Independent Journalism

As an independent journalist, I take great care and pride in providing my audience with quality investigatory work and writings.

This is the kind of work that is seldom reported on in as much detail by the mainstream media, for they also tend to avoid the subjects and sometimes controversial topics that I, myself cover.

As an independent, I get paid very little for this work, for the bulk of my revenue comes from Substack subscriptions, and I am mostly surviving and supporting my family by means of personal savings.

You can support my work by considering a paid subscription to my Substack – Dan Fournier’s Inconvenient Truths (for only $5 a month, or $50 a year).

I am still waiting for a Founding Member for my Substack which could be you.

For one-time donations, you can also buy me a coffee.

If you are unable to support my work financially, it is greatly appreciated if you can share it on your social media feeds, for this brings additional exposure (and much needed eyeballs) which can lead to new paid subscribers.

Your comments are most welcome and appreciated and can be given in the Comments section below.

I sincerely thank you for your time and support.

May God bless you all.

In Peace & Liberty,

Tweet this article

Share this article on Facebook

Disclaimer:

See the author’s About page for full disclaimer.