Politics In Plain English

⚖️ Bill C-9 – The Combatting Hate Act: What They’re Not Telling You Parliament just debated Bill C-9, a so-called Combatting Hate Act. The title sounds noble, but once you look inside, it’s anything but. Every Canadian—no matter what faith or belief—should understand what this bill really does, what voices in the House exposed, and why it matters to every free citizen. 🔍 What the Bill Claims to Do Liberals say Bill C-9 strengthens protections against hate by: • Creating new “hate crime” offences • Banning certain symbols • Protecting access to places of worship and cultural spaces • Removing the requirement for the Attorney General’s consent before laying hate-speech charges Sounds harmless on paper—until you realize most of these things already exist in the Criminal Code under sections 318, 319, 423, 431, and 718.2. So why rewrite them? Because the real change hides in the details. ⚠️ What Changes Beneath the Surface 1. It redefines “hatred.” The Supreme Court’s Whatcott decision defined hatred as extreme manifestations of detestation and vilification. Bill C-9 quietly deletes the word extreme and replaces it with stronger than disdain or dislike. That one missing word lowers the bar for prosecution and opens the door to labeling ordinary disagreement as hate. 2. It removes the Attorney General’s consent safeguard. For decades, this step prevented political witch-hunts. Once it’s gone, any minister aligned with the government of the day can authorize charges—no independent check, no provincial balance. 3. It’s selective about who counts as a victim. The government press release highlighted antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia—but said nothing about the wave of Christian churches burned and vandalized across Canada since 2021. Over 100 churches—Catholic, Orthodox, evangelical—gone up in flames or destroyed, and still silence from Ottawa. 🧭 What Opposition MPs Exposed Several Members of Parliament—mostly Conservative, a few Bloc—stood up to warn Canadians what this bill really means. Andrew Lawton said the government is lowering the threshold for hate and expanding state power over speech. He reminded the House that real hate crimes—church arsons, synagogue attacks, and vandalism—are already punishable; what’s missing is enforcement, not new words on paper. He warned that when speech is equated with violence, free expression dies. Leslyn Lewis called it what it is: a political weapon disguised as protection. She pointed out that Christian persecution has been completely ignored even while congregations fear for their safety. She warned that once such power is granted, it will be used against dissent. The bill’s vague language turns emotion into evidence and feelings into crimes. Rhonda Kirkland described it as political theatre timed for optics after the Hamas terror attack in Israel. She called out the double standard—Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Indigenous, and Christian communities have all been targeted, yet only some get public sympathy. She condemned how sacred cultural symbols from ancient faiths could be mis-characterized as hate imagery under sloppy drafting. Her message was simple: hate is hate, and every community deserves equal protection and equal respect. Ziad Aboultaif exposed that the bill changes definitions but offers no new protection. He tied the rise in crime to the government’s earlier weakening of the Criminal Code through Bill C-75 and warned that this new one is just another hollow gesture. Kelly McCauley reminded Parliament that in Edmonton the only place of worship requiring constant police presence is the synagogue, proving that real threats already exist while government pretends to fix them with paperwork. Even Bloc Québécois MPs like Mario Simard and Patrick Bonin questioned why religious exemptions and faith-symbol issues weren’t being properly studied. 🧩 The Bigger Pattern For years, the same government has pushed bills that chip away at free expression—C-11, C-18, and now C-9. Every one of them widens Ottawa’s control over what Canadians can say, share, or question. The pattern is clear: censor under the banner of safety, silence under the banner of compassion, and centralize power under the banner of equality. They talk about hate, but the only thing growing faster than hate crimes is government control. When bureaucrats decide which emotions are legal, every opinion becomes a potential crime. 🕊️ What True Protection Looks Like Canada already has strong laws against: • Advocacy of genocide (s. 318) • Public incitement of hatred (s. 319 (1)) • Wilful promotion of hatred (s. 319 (2)) • Intimidation and mischief against places of worship (s. 423, s. 430) The real failure is enforcement, not the absence of law. Real protection means: • Prosecuting actual arsonists and vandals • Defending every place of faith equally • Upholding Charter section 2(b): freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression 🔥 What This Means for All Canadians Removing “extreme” from the definition of hate turns passionate disagreement into a potential hate crime. Removing AG consent hands political power to whichever government controls Ottawa. Ignoring Christian persecution tells millions of Canadians their faith doesn’t count. And pretending this bill fights hate while it rewrites speech laws is the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook. ⚔️ The Real Choice We can choose to live in a Canada that punishes actions and protects opinions, or a Canada where opinions themselves are punishable. Bill C-9 pushes us toward the latter. Hate exists. But we don’t defeat hate by handing the state a muzzle to place over our mouths. We defeat it by enforcing the laws we already have and defending the freedom that lets every Canadian speak the truth without fear. Stay awake. Share this before it disappears. #FreeSpeech #BillC9 #CanadaDeservesTruth

💸 When a Bill Dies in Canada — and Why It’s a Huge Waste of Our Tax Dollars Let’s break it down in plain English 👇 ⸻ 🏛️ What It Means When a Bill “Dies” When Parliament is prorogued, dissolved for an election, or just doesn’t finish all its steps in time, every unfinished bill dies on the Order Paper. That means: • All the debates, committees, witnesses, research, translation, printing, and legal drafting — paid for by us — vanish. • MPs can re-introduce the same bill later (often with a new number, like C-26 → C-8). • The process starts from scratch, even if 95 % of it was already done. 👉 So yes — millions of dollars and months of work disappear. ⸻ ⚖️ Why Bills Die 1️⃣ Parliament shuts down (prorogued or dissolved) The government decides to “reset” Parliament. Every unfinished bill is wiped. (Example: C-26 died when Parliament reset, so they brought it back as C-8.) 2️⃣ It didn’t have enough support Opposition parties or senators blocked or delayed it. 3️⃣ It was too controversial They let it quietly die before an election — then rebrand it later with a new number and softer language. ⸻ 🧩 What “Re-Introducing” a Bill Really Means They’re basically saying: “Canadians didn’t want it the first time, but we’re trying again — with maybe a few tweaks.” That’s why people call it “legislation by persistence.” They wait until the public stops paying attention — then bring it back under a new name. ⸻ 💰 Why It Wastes Taxpayer Money Each version requires: • Legal drafters & translators ( thousands of staff hours ) • Committee hearings (MPs, clerks, witnesses, security ) • Printing, publication, and web hosting • House time that could’ve been spent on something else 💸 It’s basically recycling failed laws at our expense. ⸻ 🚨 What “Everyone Didn’t Agree” Really Means If a bill dies, it’s usually because: • Opposition parties voted against it • The Senate stalled it • Or Canadians spoke out (loud backlash, petitions, pressure) So when it returns under a new number, it’s a sign the government still wants the same powers Canadians already rejected. Bill Life Cycle Chart: 1️⃣ First Reading → 2️⃣ Debate → 3️⃣ Committee → 4️⃣ Senate → 5️⃣ Royal Assent → ☠️ Dies if not finished → 🔁 Re-introduced later (new number, same idea) https://open.substack.com/pub/demandcontrol/p/when-a-bill-dies-in-canada-and-why