Discussion about this post

User's avatar
James Pew's avatar

For the first time in the storied annals of Woke Watch Canada history I regret my choice of lead image. Every time I look at my damn website that deranged lunatic is leering and smirking back. I apologize to readers who may also be experiencing this most unnerving visually-induced chill. Just awful.

Lawyerlisa's avatar

Bill c-9 has a huge exposure not discussed by our media who only focus on the speech component. The bill was introduced by Mark Miller who stated Acts, Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Romans are Hate Speech.

If that wasn't enough..

Clause 2.2 enables the cross or Bible to be chosen as the hate symbol.

Then no speech is necessary. The clause operates to outlaw Christianity.

The entire group is banned. The offense is membership in the group.

Concern: Undefined scope of forfeiture power in Bill C9

Please write Mps

Proposed subsection 319(4) authorizes forfeiture of “anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed” without defining the outer boundary of “anything,” or restricting interpretations of " the means by which," or " means in relation to."

While forfeiture provisions are traditionally limited to property, the absence of an explicit statutory limitation risks over-breadth and uncertainty.

In particular, the clause does not distinguish between:

· items integral to the commission of the offence, and

· items that are merely incidental, expressive, or part of a person’s general means of participation in public life.

- whether "the means by which", or "the means in relation to" could include the person.

Assuming any government knows it's place and prefers generous interpretations in accordance with charter rights, knows neither history, nor the lived experience of individuals.

This creates the potential for a veiled capital punishment. Imagine the silence.

It further allows for disproportionate forfeiture of lawful expressive tools, devices, or platforms, engaging sections 2(b), 7, and 12 of the Charter. Parliament should not rely solely on post-hoc judicial restraint to cabin a power that directly affects property, expression, and proportionality at sentencing.

Clear statutory limits would preserve prosecutorial effectiveness while ensuring that forfeiture remains targeted, predictable, and constitutionally sound.

Recommended amendment

Add the following limiting language (bolded):

“anything that constitutes property, other than a person, and that was directly and primarily used as an instrument in the commission of the offence, by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed and only where the court is satisfied that forfeiture of the property is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and does not unduly impair lawful expressive activity.

This bill should be scrapped in it's entirety. However if the Liberals cannot limit the forfeiture clause, we have flushed them out as to the genuine purpose of this bill.

The one two punch of 2.2 and 4 are the dangers not expressed. This is what I see plain as can be.

23 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?