Justin Trudeau Wants to “Disappear Unacceptable Views”: Free Speech Won’t Live Long After Bill C-11 Passes.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Argentina’s so-called Dirty War lasted from 1976 to 1983. As many as 5,000 people, considered political subversives by the ruling junta, were ‘disappeared’ — mainly by being sedated, then dropped into the ocean from airplanes.
Bill C-11 is intended to ‘disappear’ what Justin Trudeau refers to as “unacceptable views” — with no sedation or airplanes required.
Trudeau explained what “unacceptable views” were clearly to Canadians during last winter’s convoy protest.
He was asked why he supported and participated in BLM protests, but would not even meet with convoy protestors.
He explained he participated in the former because they had “acceptable views,” while he denounced the latter — and then brought the full power of the state upon their heads — because they had “unacceptable views.” It was a given he and committees he appointed would get to decide which views were “acceptable” and which were “unacceptable.”
Bill C-11 incorporates this thinking into what — if it becomes legislation — will make “unacceptable views” so hard to find on the internet that they will be “disappeared” just as effectively as if they had been dropped into that cold, dark South Atlantic ocean.
Through the use of manipulating algorithms by de-boosting, (decreasing visibility), shadow banning and other tricks, Canadians will see one side of a debate only — the side the current government wants us to see.
The government vehemently denies that they are not going to to this, but “methinks they protest too much.”
They are lying.
What are some examples of how manipulation might work? Let me suggest three:
First, the “phobes.”
Take the “transphobe” issue. Trans people are those who suffer from gender dysphoria — men who believe they should live their lives as women, and women who believe they should live their lives as men. So far, no problem. They should be able to live their lives as they wish. They should not be persecuted, and should have the same rights and legal protection as everyone else. No reasonable person disagrees with that.
A well known trans person is Kaitlin Jenner. Jenner lived most of his, her or their life as Bruce Jenner — one of the truly great athletes. He always felt he was meant to be a woman and after his children grew up and left home, he “transitioned.”
He explained publicly he intended to live the rest of his life as a woman. I don’t think anyone has a problem with that. His business. However, Jenner clearly says he’s fully aware transitioning did not actually make him a woman. He believes trans men should not be able to participate in women’s sports or enter women spaces, and he is generally respectful of the rights of biological women. He simply wants to be left alone to live his life as he chooses. Everyone can agree with that.
Except for the small radical fringe of loud trans activists. They insist men with gender dysphoria actually become women simply by declaring themselves to be so. And everyone must agree with their view.
That is the “acceptable view” according to the Trudeau Liberals. Anyone disagreeing with that view — like J.K. Rowling, who says that “sex is real” — have an “unacceptable view” that must be made subject to C-11. So, the “acceptable view” is “boosted” and is on page one of Google, while the J.K. Rowling “unacceptable view” is “de-boosted” so far back on the pages it has been effectively “disappeared.”
Or “Islamophobes.”
Islam is one of the world’s major religions and Canada has a healthy and growing Muslim population. A disproportionate number of Canada’s Muslim population are doctors, engineers and other high achievers. No issue there. Muslims have exactly the same right as any other Canadian to live their life and practice their religion as they please.
However, this does not mean that Islamism — political Islam — is not a threat domestically and internationally. Pointing this obvious fact out is not Islamophobia, Xenophobia or any other phobia. That ISIS, Al Quaeda and other Islamic groups use their religion as a weapon to cudgel their enemies, or exposing unacceptable practices.
But, judging by this government’s conduct in recent cases, it’s clear radical Islamist voices will find favour with Liberal C-11 manipulated algorithms, while the voices of those warning about such dangerous people — including moderate Muslims — will be called Islamophobes and effectively disappeared.
Then there are the the “denialists.”
The overwhelming majority of Canadians know many indigenous people were abused while in residential schools, and they suffered long term consequences. That majority also supported compensating those people for the harm done to them. However, this does not mean they believe absolutely nobody ever benefitted from attending the schools, or they believe the increasingly extreme claims now being made by some indigenous communities about priests murdering and secretly burying children, hanging them on meat hooks in barns, throwing their dead bodies in rivers, streams and lakes and poisoning them by deliberately infecting their milk with tuberculosis bacilli.
But judging by this government’s behaviour, it’s almost certain the group making the extreme claims that will be boosted, while people questioning these claims will be labelled denialists and effectively disappeared.
We have recently seen how a charge of “residential school denialism” resulted in the case of Frances Widdowson. She was fired from her assistant professor position at Calgary’s Mount Royal College and publicly humiliated and refused permission to speak at the University of Lethbridge, largely for contradicting the residential school narrative preferred by the government.
Similarly, we have seen how Senator Lynn Beyak was hounded out of the Senate for simply making the perfectly valid statement some people benefited from their time at residential schools. C-11 would in effect make moderating voices, such as Widdowson’s and Beyak’s, disappear.
Finally, much of Bill C-11 is concerned with finding yet more ways to further subsidize an already subsidized legacy media — particularly wokeism’s advocacy group called the CBC. The bill also addresses many legitimate needs. However, the algorithmic manipulation parts that the Senate did not fix are the most insidious parts of the proposed legislation.
The above are just three possible examples of how C-11 will do serious damage to the free exchange of ideas in Canada. There are many more.
I realize that Orwell references are overused, but I can’t help but think Orwell would see in a minute what these scoundrels are up to: C-11 is a blatant attempt at thought control.
The Trudeau Liberals are attempting to implement the same sneaky tricks Twitter used, and that Elon Musk has recently exposed. This legislation should not be passed.
In fact, I will venture to guess if those Argentinian junta generals had Bill C-11, they wouldn’t even have bothered with airplanes to kill those 5,000 dissidents.
They would just have used C-11 to “disappear” their voices from the internet.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Brian Giesbrecht is a retired Manitoba judge.
Featured image: Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis has been a strong critic of Bill C-11. As writer Brian Giesbrecht points out, if passed C-11 will give the government the ability to use technology to not only try and control what’s visible on the internet, but ultimately society itself. Photo
