Conman Carney is Turning Canaduh into a Dictatorship

[Herman]

[Herman]

[Shen Li]

Not a chance Carney and his party will leave Canadians alone.

[Brent]

The Senate human rights committee last night voted seven to one to criminalize Indian Residential School "denialism." Public statements intended to promote hatred by downplaying the impacts of Residential Schools would be outlawed under threat of two years in jail.

Chief Aaron Peter has volunteered to be the first "criminal" to be convicted of their proposed "denialism" law if this standing committee of Canada's "wise chamber of second thought" gets its way, and makes anyone who says anything they construe as negative about residential schools a criminal.

Here is Chief Pete's post:

[Herman]

 Over the past few years, the Liberals have brought in a flood of people committed to supporting foreign conflicts in Gaza, India, and other places. Canadians have had the misfortune of watching these conflicts spill into our streets.
But today, Mark Carney said he has a plan to stop this. He's bringing in Bill C-9, which seeks to criminalize the quoting of religious scripture if the Liberals deem it "hateful."
In other words, YOU lose your freedom of speech AND freedom of religion because the Liberals brought in hateful people from foreign lands.
We have a better solution: stop importing people with hateful attitudes and deport the people who bring these conflicts into our streets.

[Brent]

Carney's dad, Robert Carney was an educator who would have been labelled a denier by  progtards like his sone Mark.

[Brent]

Bill C-9 removes the "good faith religious speech" defence from the Criminal Code. While amendments restore the clause requiring the Attorney General's consent for hate speech prosecutions, critics argue that enforcement would still remain largely discretionary.

The bill gives authorities expanded powers regarding hate propaganda offences and creates new hate-related offences. Critics contend that the legislation could affect online communications and public expression in ways that are not always clear. Ordinary discussions, religious teachings, or public opinions could become the subject of complaints or legal scrutiny.

These changes could permit greater use of hate propaganda provisions by private complainants. Individuals sharing lawful content could face lengthy legal battles and significant legal costs defending themselves — even when their speech is ultimately found to be lawful.

[Herman]

The Liberals have now introduced Bill C-22.

The Liberals say Bill C-22 is about helping police investigate serious crimes online. Police should have the tools they need to go after terrorists, child predators, organized crime networks, and cybercriminals.

But that isn't what concerns us.

What should concern folks is what else is hidden in this bill.

As written, Bill C-22 would allow Ottawa to secretly force companies to build new surveillance capabilities. It could also weaken the encryption Canadians rely on every day to protect private messages, personal information, and financial transactions.

Think about where this is heading.

For months, Liberals have talked about following countries that are increasingly regulating online speech. Now they are asking Parliament to give them sweeping new powers over digital communications.

When a government starts talking about regulating what people can say online while also giving itself more power to monitor online activity, Canadians have every reason to be concerned.

Major technology companies like Google, Meta, and Apple have all raised concerns about the bill. Signal, NordVPN, Windscribe, and DuckDuckGo have warned that they could leave Canada if Bill C-22 passes as written.

[Brent]

Ottawa is once again asking Canadians to hand over liberty in exchange for a promise of safety.

The federal government has introduced Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, with a headline ban on social media use for children under 16. Canadian Identity and Culture Minister Marc Miller says the goal is to make social media platforms and AI chatbots safer for children.

A ban on under-16 users cannot be enforced by guessing. It cannot be enforced by trusting teenagers to tick a box saying they are old enough. That trick has failed for years.

To keep a 15-year-old off Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, or X, the platform must first know whether every user is 15, 16, 45, or 75.

That means age verification for everyone.

University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist has warned that this is the core issue. A rule aimed at minors becomes an age-verification mandate for the whole population.

Tens of millions of Canadians who are not accused of doing anything wrong would have to prove their age before using common online services. That could mean uploading government ID, using a third-party verification company, submitting to facial scanning, or allowing platforms to infer age from online behaviour.

That is not child protection. That is a digital licence.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada has already acknowledged the danger. Its 2026 policy note says age assurance can raise privacy harms, including requirements for people to reveal sensitive personal information just to access information or online services. Its consultation report also notes that age assurance is not a magic answer and must be judged by risk and proportionality.

Canadians should pay attention to that word: access.

Once the government creates the system, the question is no longer whether a person is old enough for social media. The question becomes whether a person is permitted to enter the "digital public square" at all.

[Herman]

I think Jamil Jivani might be one of the bravest MPs in Ottawa right now. And I'll tell you why.

He's taken on an issue almost no one else in Parliament will touch — it's what he bluntly calls "Liberal racism."

That's his term for the federal government's DEI hiring regime, in which Ottawa sorts Canadians by skin colour and ethnicity rather than hiring the best person for the job. I like that he doesn't dress it up.

It wasn't long ago that refusing to hire someone because of their race was rightly called racism. Today, the government does the very same thing and parades it around like some progressive win for society.

And Jivani has the receipts.

Jivani's order paper question forced a 60-page response out of the federal departments.

In black and white, they admit they do not hire "the most qualified candidate." The Department of Justice even confessed to tagging employees with special codes by race to track how far they climb.

A government department, assigning racial codes to its own staff. It's insulting to every hardworking Canadian who believes you should be judged by what you can do, not by what you look like.

Jivani says it's paternalistic to tell minorities they can't possibly succeed on their own. If a conservative did that, it would be wall-to-wall coverage on the CBC, complete with an outraged mob outside their office demanding their resignation.

[Herman]

Conman Carney is considering appointing a prominent legal supporter of race-based sentencing to the top bench.
As recently as last year, Loparco called for the government to be funding "race reports," twisted documents which turn perpetrators into victims to justify giving shorter sentences to non-White criminals.
Meanwhile, Mark Carney wants you to think he's committed to fighting crime in this country.

[Herman]

There are few easier political arguments than saying we must protect children online. Every serious parent agrees with that. Every responsible adult knows social media can be addictive, manipulative, corrosive, and, at times, deeply harmful. The platforms have designed products that capture attention, reward outrage, promote insecurity, and keep young people scrolling long after common sense says they should be outside, reading a book, playing hockey, or annoying their parents in a healthier way.

So when Ottawa introduces a bill called the Safe Social Media Act, it sounds harmless enough. Compassionate, even. It sounds like the government is finally stepping in where Silicon Valley has failed. But Albertans should read Bill C-34 with both eyes open.

This is not simply a child protection bill. It is another major federal move into online speech, online identity, platform access, algorithmic design, content moderation, artificial intelligence, and the regulation of what Canadians may see, say, share, and access online. It is being sold as a shield for children. In practice, it risks becoming another lever of centralized federal control over the digital public square.

Bill C-34 would create two new pieces of law: the Digital Safety Act and the Digital Safety Commission of Canada Act. Its stated purpose is to make social media services and AI chatbot services safer, especially for children. The bill would require regulated platforms to assess risks, mitigate exposure to harmful content, provide blocking and flagging tools, label synthetic content, publish safety plans, and adopt "age-appropriate" design features. It would also establish a new Digital Safety Commission of Canada to oversee, audit, enforce, order compliance, and penalize companies that fail to meet the new rules.

[Herman]

Australia has an intrusive law intent on banning under sixteens from social media. But, almost all Australian adolescents are still using social media.

Conman Carney's bill aint about protecting kids.

[Herman]

The Liberals' Online Harms Act procedurally died when Trudeau prorogued Parliament in January 2025. But the Carney government wasted no time picking up where he left off.

First came Bill C-9 — the so-called Combatting Hate Act.

Ottawa rammed it through Parliament, censoring debate on their own censorship bill. It received Royal Assent on June 18, 2026.

Then, two weeks ago, the Carney government introduced Bill C-34. That's the so-called Safe Social Media Act.

Don't let the name fool you.

Bill C-34 would create an unelected Digital Safety Commission of Canada with the power to decide what Canadians can say online.

Social media platforms and AI companies would be forced to suppress content the government labels "harmful." Companies that don't comply face fines of up to $10 million.

They can't ban speech outright. So instead, they're outsourcing censorship to platforms through a regulatory hammer.

The result is the same: Canadians silenced. Ottawa in control.

[Herman]