The National Telegraph - Wyatt Claypool - October 26, 2025


Liberals lose on another issue - Bill C-9 gets destroyed in Committee!


Episode Stats


Length

23 minutes

Words per minute

169.63081

Word count

4,025

Sentence count

171

Harmful content

Misogyny

4

sentences flagged

Hate speech

7

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Bill C-9 is a bill that would make it easier to prosecute people for hate speech online, and it would also make it much easier to get rid of the requirement for the Attorney General to give consent for hate crimes. Conservative MP Roman Baber has been leading the charge against the bill, and has been doing a great job ranting about it.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.000 Hey guys, Wyatt Claypool here.
00:00:02.820 For Mark Carney and the Liberals to be able to win another election,
00:00:07.360 they have to prove to Canadians that they are more sober-minded
00:00:11.400 and even maybe a little more conservative than Justin Trudeau's version of the Liberal government was.
00:00:18.100 But they are not doing that at all.
00:00:21.040 If anything, they are moving both more quickly and stupidly than Trudeau's Liberals were,
00:00:26.700 and you can see this with all of the bills they've been trying to shove through Parliament
00:00:31.240 that they are being heavily scrutinized over right now by their Conservative opposition.
00:00:37.040 Can they probably pass this stuff anyways with the help of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP?
00:00:42.280 Sure, but public perception really does matter,
00:00:45.700 and when the Liberals are just jamming through two different censorship laws that they cannot defend,
00:00:51.720 and that's not going to do very well when Canadians put a ballot in a ballot box next time around,
00:00:57.620 whether that's next spring or in three more years.
00:01:01.180 But anyways, before we get into it, guys, I just want to remind you that if you like the show,
00:01:05.960 make sure to leave a like on this video, subscribe if you're not yet a subscriber,
00:01:10.060 and if you are a subscriber, hit the notification bell next to you, next to the subscribe button,
00:01:14.960 and then of course leave a comment on what you think about all this.
00:01:17.960 And before I get into the real story, I do want to highlight this post from the National Roast on X
00:01:24.200 because I found it quite funny, and he says,
00:01:26.900 I don't know about y'all, but I'm ready to go for Halloween.
00:01:30.220 And he has made me into a spirit Halloween costume.
00:01:34.620 Wyatt Claypool here includes hair, glasses, and the shirt.
00:01:38.800 So if you guys also want to be Wyatt Claypool,
00:01:41.940 you can find wherever this fake product is being sold,
00:01:44.680 so you can also go door-to-door dressed as, I don't know, maybe your favorite YouTuber,
00:01:49.880 maybe just some guy you tolerate.
00:01:51.760 I don't know.
00:01:52.840 But now I want to go through the discourse that's been taking place on Bill C-9,
00:01:58.740 which is the hate speech legislation that the liberals are trying to ram through.
00:02:03.680 One of the MPs who has been doing a great job on this issue has been Conservative MP Roman Baber.
00:02:10.460 Andrew Lawton has also been doing a fantastic job roasting the liberals on just how bad Bill C-9 is,
00:02:18.140 but Roman Baber has put everything into a convenient thread to go over every aspect of Bill C-9
00:02:24.840 and why this would be a disastrous bill to pass.
00:02:28.500 Not only are we potentially going to be trying to prosecute Canadians based on what they post on social media,
00:02:34.340 but they've also changed the definition of hatred so that it's way easier to prosecute people
00:02:39.780 and there doesn't even need to be an underlying crime attached to the hate crime.
00:02:45.160 It can just be that you're hateful, so we're charging you.
00:02:48.440 I find a lot of hate crimes just to be really silly.
00:02:51.720 If you assault somebody, I don't really care if you were doing it for, you know,
00:02:56.900 group-based hatred reasons or you were just beating somebody up.
00:03:00.460 I think you should be similarly charged and you should be harshly charged in both instances.
00:03:06.660 Anyways, so let's go through this thread by Roman Baber because he does a very good job
00:03:11.460 taking down just how terrible this legislation is.
00:03:15.780 Roman Baber here says,
00:03:17.320 So effectively what this is is before, in order to be able to charge a hate offense,
00:03:40.420 you had to get the Attorney General sign-off because even though I disagree with these hate upgrades being present
00:03:48.440 because we should just be charging all criminals harshly no matter what the motivation is behind your crime,
00:03:53.960 unless it leads to another crime that you are attempting to commit to,
00:03:58.060 even if they are to exist, they should be used sparingly, extremely sparingly,
00:04:04.180 and that's why they used to need Attorney General consent,
00:04:06.700 but now prosecutors can just throw in extra hate charge upgrades whenever they want.
00:04:10.940 Bill C-9 removes the requirement of the Attorney General's consent for the allaying of hate speech offenses.
00:04:19.560 Are you concerned that politically motivated crowns or police may initiate prosecutions that aren't appropriate?
00:04:25.940 And specifically, to go further, that vexatious litigants may litigate private prosecutions for hate speech
00:04:34.060 and appeal decisions that try to end or block such prosecutions?
00:04:39.880 So I am concerned, and I have expressed that concern for over 30 years,
00:04:44.300 that the Attorney General's consent is a safeguard against the frivolous and vexatious use of these sensitive sections of the criminal code.
00:04:52.960 That's why I've proposed either the retention of the Attorney General's consent,
00:04:57.420 notwithstanding the difficulties at times in getting that consent or getting that consent in a timely way,
00:05:04.040 or as an acceptable alternative, that the consent be retained for privately initiated investigations,
00:05:11.700 because that's the real danger, the privately laid charges.
00:05:15.620 Because if you're not aware, there is the ability as a member of the public
00:05:20.260 to file a private prosecution against somebody that you believe has committed a crime.
00:05:25.920 Now, we actually did do this in British Columbia with the 1BC party that I work for,
00:05:31.640 where our leader, MLA Dallas Brody, filed a private prosecution against Charlotte Cates for terrorism,
00:05:38.780 because Charlotte Cates runs the listed terrorist organization Samadun, 1.00
00:05:43.100 which is a money laundering front for terrorist organizations around the world.
00:05:46.180 They promote terrorism. They try and counsel people on how to commit terrorist acts.
00:05:51.480 And because the Attorney General of the province, Nikki Sharma, the BCNDP Attorney General,
00:05:56.060 is so useless and has not filed a charge yet, that we filed it ourselves.
00:06:01.420 But imagine if some random activist, so we charged a serious offense that requires a lot of evidence,
00:06:07.740 and we have the evidence, the evidence exists out there, everyone can easily find it,
00:06:11.700 that this person should be charged under some terrorism-related offenses.
00:06:17.000 But what happens if it's just something that's hyper-subjective?
00:06:20.760 Like, this person's been hateful to me. I feel targeted.
00:06:24.620 Well, that's pretty dangerous that activists could effectively go around trying to shut down their political opposition
00:06:30.780 by just imagining things that they said that were hateful,
00:06:33.760 or this person said something to me in a hallway, or I was offended by this tweet,
00:06:37.440 they're dog-whistling, and suddenly you have seven pending charges from a bunch of random idiots 0.82
00:06:43.220 who have no public accountability at all.
00:06:46.400 But now, let's move on to the next part of the thread.
00:06:50.180 Again, shout-out to Roman Baber. This is just really, really well put together.
00:06:53.560 Him and his staff did a good job.
00:06:54.880 So, Roman Baber here, in the second part, says,
00:06:59.840 Bill C-9 enacts a new stand-alone criminal hate offense,
00:07:03.620 which can be stacked on top of any offense, contrary to any act of parliament.
00:07:08.100 That means one can be charged criminally for conduct that is not currently criminal.
00:07:13.000 So, it's a stand-alone offense. It's not even just an upgrade.
00:07:16.360 You didn't do something that was even criminal, or it wasn't a felony.
00:07:20.020 It was like a misdemeanor or something like that,
00:07:22.560 and immediately you can have a felony hate offense added on top of it.
00:07:26.340 You can even have done technically nothing illegal,
00:07:29.460 but you got hit by a criminal hate offense
00:07:31.740 because you did your non-criminal act hatefully in some way.
00:07:36.440 The new stand-alone criminal hatred offense
00:07:40.260 can be laid in response to any offense contrary to any act of parliament.
00:07:44.460 I find that to be very concerning
00:07:48.260 because we may attract criminal prosecution
00:07:50.340 for what is otherwise civil or quasi-criminal legislation.
00:07:56.380 Would you recommend that we confine the application of the hate offense
00:08:01.260 to conduct that is truly criminal in nature?
00:08:06.200 Well, I definitely agree that the hate offenses
00:08:09.600 should apply not to quasi-criminal offenses, but to criminal offenses.
00:08:13.820 So, if there is concern about the scope of the present provision,
00:08:18.800 then one can either deal with it
00:08:20.680 by confining hate offenses to the criminal code,
00:08:24.140 or what I would suggest is specifying the acts of parliament to which it applies.
00:08:30.820 Yes. So, because without any of that,
00:08:33.360 and really they should just do away with all of it,
00:08:35.720 you know, do not pass Bill C9, it's terrible.
00:08:38.300 What they're talking about with civil offenses
00:08:39.940 is that if you defamed me...
00:08:43.820 in some way, and I was suing you for defamation,
00:08:46.800 I could put extra pressure on you
00:08:49.040 by saying it wasn't just a famatory,
00:08:51.280 you didn't just hurt my reputation
00:08:53.020 and you owe me money in some way
00:08:54.540 because you got me, you know,
00:08:56.100 cancelled from some sort of tour I was on,
00:08:59.360 or you ended up, you know,
00:09:00.800 causing me to, you know,
00:09:02.740 receive some sort of financial harm
00:09:04.320 because of a lie you made up about me.
00:09:06.040 I can say it was also hateful,
00:09:07.840 and now I'm going to have the police go after you too.
00:09:09.820 It means that there's going to be a lot of mission bleed,
00:09:13.040 and also it could also turn into a vexatious tool
00:09:16.280 that you file a frivolous defamation suit,
00:09:19.340 and then you also say,
00:09:20.460 I also think they're being racist in some way,
00:09:22.460 and then you just have the police go after them too.
00:09:24.480 It's now turning into a mechanism of harassment, potentially,
00:09:29.920 and if the law becomes harassment,
00:09:32.320 if it becomes a mechanism for harassment,
00:09:34.260 obviously the law is not doing its job anymore.
00:09:36.880 And now we move on to part three out of five
00:09:39.140 on this thread with Roman Baber,
00:09:40.940 and he says,
00:09:41.400 Mr. Sandler,
00:09:59.860 if a person intimidates someone
00:10:01.620 as they're walking in,
00:10:04.840 if they obstruct and intimidate someone
00:10:06.500 as they're walking into their religious institution
00:10:08.840 or their educational institution,
00:10:10.780 isn't that already criminal under the criminal code?
00:10:13.300 It could be mischief,
00:10:14.540 it could be intimidation,
00:10:15.700 it could be assault.
00:10:16.840 So as I said,
00:10:18.160 so the answer is yes.
00:10:19.380 What I've said is that
00:10:21.000 the current proposed intimidation
00:10:24.220 or obstruction sections
00:10:25.200 don't make criminal conduct
00:10:27.280 that is not already criminal.
00:10:29.220 In my view,
00:10:30.540 they send a signal
00:10:31.800 to those who would be minded
00:10:34.540 to commit these offenses.
00:10:36.300 They assist law enforcement
00:10:38.400 in giving priority to them,
00:10:40.120 and they enhance sentences for it,
00:10:41.760 but they do not criminalize conduct
00:10:43.140 that is not already criminal.
00:10:45.040 Yeah.
00:10:45.820 So that is an entirely worthless part of the bill
00:10:48.660 saying like,
00:10:49.560 oh, don't worry,
00:10:50.160 we're going to prevent people
00:10:51.100 from like attacking synagogues 0.98
00:10:52.680 or trying to block people
00:10:53.580 from attending a synagogue
00:10:54.600 or a church or something like that.
00:10:56.180 It's like,
00:10:57.000 okay, well,
00:10:57.660 that's already illegal,
00:10:58.460 so what is the point of this?
00:11:00.020 This is the smokescreen
00:11:01.520 that the liberals will put up
00:11:02.760 to pass a bad law.
00:11:04.440 Well,
00:11:04.620 we're doing this
00:11:05.340 to protect religious institutions,
00:11:07.120 to protect,
00:11:07.860 you know,
00:11:08.640 religious day schools.
00:11:11.820 Okay,
00:11:12.300 you already can't
00:11:13.380 just form a human chain
00:11:14.520 and block kids
00:11:15.140 from going to church or school.
00:11:17.860 That's already an offense,
00:11:19.160 and we should just treat it
00:11:20.240 as the offense
00:11:21.760 as it already is.
00:11:23.020 If you're assaulting people
00:11:24.040 outside of a religious institution
00:11:25.900 or a school,
00:11:26.720 you should be charged
00:11:27.580 and harshly punished
00:11:28.560 without hate
00:11:29.640 having to enter the equation.
00:11:31.040 It doesn't matter.
00:11:31.740 But here we have
00:11:33.280 Roman Baber
00:11:34.420 in 4 out of 5 says,
00:11:35.720 Bill C-9 reveals
00:11:36.640 an existing criminal code section
00:11:39.140 that prohibits
00:11:39.860 desecration
00:11:40.580 of religious institutions
00:11:41.840 and limits the scope
00:11:43.220 limits the scope
00:11:44.620 for a conviction.
00:11:45.720 So,
00:11:46.040 in effect,
00:11:46.460 it will be easier
00:11:47.220 to get away with mischief
00:11:48.320 to a church,
00:11:49.420 synagogue,
00:11:49.880 or a mosque.
00:11:51.080 Check this out.
00:11:51.720 Bill C-9 repeals
00:11:53.580 section 430,
00:11:54.980 4.1,
00:11:56.000 mischief,
00:11:56.860 targeting places of worship
00:11:58.140 because of bias
00:11:58.960 or prejudice.
00:12:00.460 Going forward,
00:12:01.580 hatred will be required.
00:12:03.240 Doesn't that mean
00:12:04.180 that it will be
00:12:05.740 more difficult
00:12:06.820 or a conviction
00:12:08.120 for mischief
00:12:08.960 against religious property
00:12:10.040 would be more limited
00:12:11.260 in scope
00:12:11.940 if this section
00:12:13.800 was repealed,
00:12:14.700 if someone was
00:12:15.340 to desecrate a church
00:12:16.220 or a synagogue
00:12:16.800 or a mosque?
00:12:17.680 Well,
00:12:18.040 let me put it this way
00:12:18.980 because in essence,
00:12:19.880 I'm going to agree with you,
00:12:20.780 but I'll frame it
00:12:21.680 in my words.
00:12:22.800 That's what lawyers do. 0.99
00:12:24.860 What I would say
00:12:25.840 is this,
00:12:26.500 that I was an advocate
00:12:28.140 when this section
00:12:28.960 was created
00:12:29.620 to show
00:12:31.940 that the desecration
00:12:33.300 of places of worship
00:12:34.920 and other similar places
00:12:36.980 be treated
00:12:38.260 in a more serious way
00:12:39.460 and that's why
00:12:40.020 this offense
00:12:40.920 was created
00:12:41.740 and it need only
00:12:43.280 require proof
00:12:44.420 that the vandalization
00:12:47.380 was based upon,
00:12:49.140 was motivated
00:12:50.180 by bias,
00:12:51.500 prejudice,
00:12:51.900 or hatred
00:12:52.480 which is a lower standard
00:12:53.720 than hatred.
00:12:54.780 I understand
00:12:55.520 the use of hatred alone
00:12:57.420 for direct offenses
00:13:00.400 involving speech,
00:13:01.940 but for the vandalism
00:13:03.160 of religious institutions
00:13:04.480 and the like,
00:13:05.560 for me,
00:13:06.400 this section
00:13:07.060 should be retained
00:13:07.900 as is.
00:13:09.380 We shouldn't be making
00:13:10.220 it more difficult
00:13:11.220 to label
00:13:13.240 the desecration
00:13:14.540 of religious institutions
00:13:15.760 as hate offenses.
00:13:17.000 So this is basically
00:13:19.480 what he's making
00:13:20.060 the point of
00:13:20.560 is because they've
00:13:21.580 upgraded how much
00:13:23.060 oddly enough
00:13:23.800 in this bill
00:13:24.300 where they say
00:13:25.080 they're trying to take
00:13:25.740 hate very seriously
00:13:26.780 in the section
00:13:28.020 where,
00:13:28.500 you know,
00:13:28.920 if someone firebombed
00:13:30.060 a synagogue,
00:13:30.480 we're like,
00:13:31.160 well,
00:13:31.460 we don't know
00:13:32.040 if they just wanted
00:13:32.540 to throw it at the synagogue
00:13:33.500 because it was a big building
00:13:35.020 or they were doing it
00:13:36.920 because it was a synagogue.
00:13:38.740 Oh,
00:13:38.980 we don't know.
00:13:39.640 We can't tell
00:13:40.300 if they were hateful
00:13:41.000 or not.
00:13:42.060 The original law
00:13:43.340 that's still in place
00:13:44.220 is basically saying
00:13:44.960 if you're throwing
00:13:46.060 rocks through the windows
00:13:47.340 of a church
00:13:48.000 or a synagogue
00:13:48.540 or a mosque
00:13:49.420 or a temple,
00:13:50.380 you're spray painting
00:13:51.400 something that's
00:13:52.280 clearly targeting
00:13:53.320 it as a religious institution,
00:13:55.980 that should be obvious.
00:13:57.100 It should be an obvious
00:13:58.060 way of being able
00:13:59.520 to charge mischief
00:14:01.500 because this wasn't
00:14:02.480 just standard vandalism
00:14:03.960 where you like tagged
00:14:05.620 the back of a pizzeria
00:14:06.940 or something like that.
00:14:08.060 You're doing it
00:14:08.900 to this place
00:14:09.500 on purpose
00:14:10.680 and you're targeting it
00:14:12.340 and because
00:14:12.840 there's a bigger incentive
00:14:14.360 to target a religious institution,
00:14:15.940 there's a higher upgrade.
00:14:17.080 See,
00:14:17.240 that's where I actually
00:14:18.100 I don't mind
00:14:19.180 there being
00:14:19.900 a slightly higher offense.
00:14:21.460 It's universal.
00:14:22.340 It's not just saying
00:14:23.120 arbitrarily we're going to say
00:14:24.260 it's hateful or not
00:14:25.420 and so in one instance
00:14:26.720 of someone being hateful
00:14:27.640 they get upgraded charges
00:14:28.880 but in another instance
00:14:30.040 because it's not in vogue
00:14:31.240 to assume that one,
00:14:32.420 like, you know,
00:14:33.100 if someone attacks a Christian,
00:14:34.260 well,
00:14:34.400 it's not in vogue
00:14:34.940 to say that there's such,
00:14:35.880 there's hatred against Christians
00:14:36.920 so that guy's not going to get
00:14:38.060 the upgraded hate charge.
00:14:39.220 If it's just blanket,
00:14:40.960 if you are,
00:14:41.440 you know,
00:14:42.080 vandalizing,
00:14:42.920 if you are trying to
00:14:44.840 desecrate a religious institution, 0.85
00:14:48.520 yeah,
00:14:49.280 we can probably upgrade that
00:14:50.480 but it has to be universally applied.
00:14:52.260 It applies to all churches,
00:14:53.500 synagogues,
00:14:54.280 mosques,
00:14:54.880 temples.
00:14:55.400 That's fine with me.
00:14:56.980 I'll let this clip finish up though.
00:14:58.400 Well, I will take your invitation
00:15:01.280 and I will phrase it in my own way
00:15:03.160 which is I believe
00:15:04.580 that repealing this section
00:15:05.920 will make it easier
00:15:07.440 for someone to get away
00:15:09.040 with desecration
00:15:10.320 or mischief
00:15:11.080 against a religious institution.
00:15:14.180 Yes, because again,
00:15:15.360 it makes it so that
00:15:16.200 you can't really,
00:15:17.120 it makes it very difficult
00:15:18.460 to prove that there was
00:15:19.780 any material difference
00:15:20.940 to attacking the church
00:15:22.740 compared to attacking the pizzeria.
00:15:24.780 And then in the last part
00:15:27.100 of this thread,
00:15:28.960 Roman Baber says,
00:15:29.760 finally,
00:15:30.240 the liberals are redefining
00:15:31.660 the phrase hatred.
00:15:33.140 Bill C-9 lowers the bar
00:15:34.400 to convict of hate speech
00:15:35.780 from what is articulated
00:15:36.780 by the Supreme Court
00:15:37.700 is unconstitutional
00:15:39.020 and dangerous.
00:15:40.380 Its present form,
00:15:41.660 Bill C-9,
00:15:42.260 is a big liberal fail.
00:15:44.280 And so like right now,
00:15:45.900 current hate speech laws
00:15:48.540 and we don't really have
00:15:49.900 hate speech laws
00:15:50.820 but if you are going to be
00:15:52.560 charged for hate,
00:15:53.860 it's not the way
00:15:55.240 that you usually hear
00:15:56.620 of a bad hate speech law.
00:15:58.760 It's not really
00:15:59.260 hate speech law.
00:16:00.060 You can't incite.
00:16:01.520 You cannot incite,
00:16:02.500 say,
00:16:02.720 get those people over there.
00:16:04.600 Yeah,
00:16:04.920 that is not even hatred,
00:16:06.220 it's incitement.
00:16:07.140 And the thing is,
00:16:07.800 in the original law,
00:16:08.980 there isn't really hate speeches
00:16:10.260 that you can't incite.
00:16:12.100 You can't basically be like
00:16:13.780 falsely trying to accuse
00:16:15.900 a group of people
00:16:16.620 of having done something
00:16:17.660 to try and spur people
00:16:18.840 to attack them
00:16:19.740 or something like that.
00:16:21.480 But now,
00:16:22.080 the current version
00:16:23.540 of this Bill C-9
00:16:25.040 wants to make it
00:16:26.060 that just generally
00:16:27.480 disliking somebody,
00:16:29.220 no vilification
00:16:30.400 is even needed,
00:16:31.800 just generally
00:16:32.720 disliking somebody
00:16:33.840 or a group,
00:16:34.760 which,
00:16:35.080 you know,
00:16:35.260 that's wrong,
00:16:36.440 that's wrong,
00:16:37.400 but you're allowed
00:16:38.320 to dislike people.
00:16:39.780 That would alone
00:16:41.100 be enough to be able
00:16:42.100 to charge someone
00:16:42.640 with hatred.
00:16:43.140 For 35 years,
00:16:44.340 we used the Supreme Court's
00:16:45.560 definition of the word
00:16:46.800 hatred in Kigstra,
00:16:48.260 an emotion of intense
00:16:49.260 and extreme nature
00:16:49.940 that's clearly associated
00:16:51.080 with vilification
00:16:52.220 and detestation. 0.56
00:16:53.240 But the liberal definition
00:16:54.640 of hatred
00:16:55.560 is an emotion
00:16:56.600 that involves detestation
00:16:58.660 or vilification.
00:16:59.780 They remove the words
00:17:01.160 intense and extreme nature.
00:17:03.360 And instead of being
00:17:04.400 clearly associated
00:17:05.680 with vilification
00:17:07.180 and detestation, 0.80
00:17:08.380 they just want
00:17:09.100 an emotion
00:17:09.960 that involves them.
00:17:11.220 Am I wrong to think
00:17:13.140 that the liberal definition
00:17:15.400 of hatred
00:17:16.140 prescribes a significantly
00:17:17.960 lower bar
00:17:18.920 to convict
00:17:20.080 of hate speech?
00:17:21.900 You're not wrong
00:17:23.540 in the sense
00:17:24.200 that I wholly support
00:17:27.060 the use
00:17:27.720 of the precise language
00:17:29.100 that the Supreme Court
00:17:30.200 of Canada used
00:17:31.080 in Kigstra
00:17:31.740 to define hatred
00:17:33.300 because I am concerned
00:17:35.720 that the definition
00:17:36.500 that currently exists
00:17:37.760 arguably does lower
00:17:39.600 that standard,
00:17:40.480 particularly in the
00:17:41.200 use of detestation
00:17:42.400 or vilification
00:17:43.180 as opposed to detestation
00:17:44.860 and vilification
00:17:45.880 and some of the other
00:17:47.100 points that you've made.
00:17:48.320 I do not want
00:17:49.380 any excuse
00:17:50.120 for a challenge
00:17:51.320 to the existing
00:17:52.240 hate propaganda sections
00:17:54.240 of the criminal code
00:17:55.020 based upon a perceived
00:17:56.100 difference
00:17:56.700 in the standard
00:17:57.780 set for hatred.
00:17:58.920 And you've heard
00:17:59.400 some of the other
00:18:00.420 witnesses today
00:18:01.220 articulating a concern
00:18:02.440 that the proposed
00:18:03.660 definition
00:18:04.120 is unconstitutional.
00:18:05.240 Well, my point is
00:18:08.500 that the Supreme Court
00:18:09.220 of Canada
00:18:09.740 upheld the hate
00:18:11.280 propaganda section
00:18:12.180 of the criminal code
00:18:12.940 on the basis
00:18:13.820 that it set a standard
00:18:15.800 for willful,
00:18:17.020 it set a standard
00:18:17.700 for promotion,
00:18:18.500 it set a standard
00:18:19.180 for hatred.
00:18:20.440 And that's what
00:18:21.740 made the section
00:18:22.620 constitutional.
00:18:23.860 So I do not want
00:18:25.220 to interfere
00:18:25.780 in the slightest
00:18:26.720 with the standards
00:18:28.500 that the Supreme Court
00:18:29.420 of Canada set
00:18:30.220 which was the basis
00:18:31.360 for its determination
00:18:32.420 that the legislation
00:18:33.460 is constitutional.
00:18:34.860 Yeah, so when they're
00:18:35.640 talking about hate
00:18:36.160 propaganda too,
00:18:37.460 this is a very specific
00:18:39.280 type of thing
00:18:40.360 to charge for.
00:18:41.540 This isn't someone
00:18:42.360 just saying something
00:18:43.380 rude on the internet,
00:18:44.680 which that's what
00:18:45.260 the conservatives
00:18:45.760 are going after right now,
00:18:46.980 that you should not
00:18:47.940 be criminalizing people
00:18:49.080 for putting out
00:18:50.000 mean tweets
00:18:50.500 or even hateful tweets.
00:18:51.780 It's a tweet.
00:18:52.800 Unless the person
00:18:53.480 is inciting violence
00:18:54.660 saying that people
00:18:55.380 go down and firebomb 0.98
00:18:56.520 this place,
00:18:57.380 you shouldn't be able
00:18:58.060 to be charged
00:18:58.800 for just saying stupid
00:18:59.880 things on the internet.
00:19:01.300 The hate propaganda
00:19:03.000 legislation is the idea
00:19:04.820 that you couldn't
00:19:05.760 put up World War II 0.77
00:19:06.900 style Nazi 0.60
00:19:07.800 basically like hatred
00:19:09.620 posters against
00:19:10.480 Jewish people.
00:19:11.560 You can't do that
00:19:12.460 against any group
00:19:13.300 like if somebody
00:19:14.300 was going around
00:19:15.280 saying, you know,
00:19:17.140 for true reconciliation
00:19:18.120 burn down a church.
00:19:19.840 Yeah, that should be
00:19:20.660 under hate propaganda
00:19:21.760 and those people
00:19:22.280 should be charged
00:19:22.920 for trying to
00:19:23.520 encourage something
00:19:24.220 like that
00:19:24.780 because it's not
00:19:25.740 just an opinion
00:19:26.700 that you hold,
00:19:27.600 you are now literally
00:19:28.520 marketing it
00:19:29.620 attempting to get,
00:19:30.880 you know,
00:19:31.400 criminal activity going.
00:19:33.280 That's the difference.
00:19:34.520 You know,
00:19:34.660 this is something
00:19:35.180 even in the United States,
00:19:37.440 you cannot get on
00:19:38.640 a blow horn
00:19:39.260 in the middle of the city
00:19:40.080 and just start screaming
00:19:41.140 about how people
00:19:42.040 need to be removed
00:19:42.800 from society
00:19:43.540 and whatnot
00:19:44.080 and destroy this group
00:19:45.320 and all that stuff.
00:19:46.400 Obviously, you can't
00:19:47.440 because that is not
00:19:48.740 even you giving
00:19:49.840 an opinion you have.
00:19:50.960 That is you saying
00:19:51.720 there's some actions
00:19:52.880 that should be taken
00:19:53.640 against that group
00:19:54.700 or this group.
00:19:55.500 But the liberal legislation
00:19:56.780 is trying to make it
00:19:57.860 that you just
00:19:58.720 kind of dislike
00:19:59.800 somebody or some group
00:20:01.080 or something like that
00:20:02.060 and they can attack
00:20:03.540 even if you don't
00:20:04.460 dislike anyone
00:20:05.180 but you say something
00:20:06.040 that sounds like
00:20:06.840 a dog whistle
00:20:07.620 you could be charged.
00:20:10.200 That is ridiculous.
00:20:11.220 And again,
00:20:12.720 this is the liberals
00:20:14.100 were trying to pretend
00:20:15.100 that they were going
00:20:15.640 to be the more kinder
00:20:17.100 gentler version
00:20:18.020 of the liberal government
00:20:19.460 because, you know,
00:20:20.760 Trudeau's became
00:20:21.480 too much of an activist government.
00:20:23.800 This is,
00:20:24.660 guys,
00:20:24.960 they are even worse
00:20:26.180 than Trudeau's liberals
00:20:27.660 on this particular bill.
00:20:29.040 They're sneakier.
00:20:30.220 They're good.
00:20:30.820 They're better
00:20:31.200 at marketing the bill.
00:20:32.740 They're saying,
00:20:33.480 oh, we're trying
00:20:33.760 to protect religious institutions
00:20:35.160 even though it actually
00:20:36.440 makes it harder
00:20:37.400 to charge people
00:20:38.120 for attacking
00:20:38.660 religious institutions.
00:20:40.500 But they're trying
00:20:41.320 to market it that,
00:20:42.120 oh, no,
00:20:42.400 it's just about
00:20:42.940 defending religious institutions
00:20:44.640 and cultural centers.
00:20:46.060 And then you read
00:20:46.620 through the whole thing
00:20:47.380 and not only does it
00:20:48.500 make it easier
00:20:49.120 to go with those offenses
00:20:50.000 but they're going
00:20:50.700 to be able to charge
00:20:51.220 you for mean tweets.
00:20:52.920 And somebody could
00:20:53.800 send out a civil prosecution
00:20:55.680 against you
00:20:56.500 in order to basically
00:20:57.680 criminally harass you
00:20:58.900 by getting rid
00:20:59.800 of the need
00:21:00.340 for the attorney general
00:21:01.180 to actually sign off
00:21:02.360 on a prosecution.
00:21:03.760 These can just be done
00:21:04.580 willy-nilly
00:21:05.100 by prosecutors
00:21:06.520 and officers.
00:21:07.700 Someone could just say,
00:21:08.440 I don't like that guy,
00:21:09.300 so, oh,
00:21:10.220 hate speech accusation.
00:21:11.880 And that doesn't even need
00:21:12.600 to be tied to anything else.
00:21:13.660 You can just have an opinion
00:21:14.460 on the street
00:21:14.880 and they're like,
00:21:15.260 oh, you're being charged.
00:21:16.520 You committed a hate offense.
00:21:17.960 It's ridiculous.
00:21:19.520 And hopefully,
00:21:20.200 more Canadians
00:21:20.680 pay attention to stuff
00:21:21.560 because it's dangerous
00:21:22.960 to actually be destroying
00:21:25.000 the law like this,
00:21:26.200 to be lowering the barriers
00:21:27.760 to charging people
00:21:28.820 for opinions.
00:21:30.440 Whether you like
00:21:31.260 those opinions or not,
00:21:32.640 you shouldn't be charged
00:21:33.620 for an opinion
00:21:34.440 on the internet,
00:21:35.420 which is what
00:21:36.320 this thing does.
00:21:37.340 That is what
00:21:38.160 Andrew Lawton
00:21:38.860 had done
00:21:39.260 in his own
00:21:40.200 actual,
00:21:42.360 his own,
00:21:43.340 like,
00:21:43.820 effectively cross-examination
00:21:45.340 of Attorney General
00:21:46.560 Sean Frazier,
00:21:47.280 that Sean Frazier
00:21:47.900 had to admit
00:21:48.500 that, yes,
00:21:49.200 this basically
00:21:49.840 allows for hate charges
00:21:51.320 to bleed onto the internet
00:21:52.600 where, you know,
00:21:53.640 you put out a meme
00:21:54.480 that was some joke meme
00:21:55.680 or whatever,
00:21:56.180 and you can be charged
00:21:56.800 for it because it was
00:21:57.540 deemed as hateful.
00:21:58.640 It doesn't even have
00:21:59.240 to be vilifying.
00:22:00.400 It doesn't even have
00:22:01.040 to be hate propaganda
00:22:02.000 where you're attempting
00:22:02.980 to incite violence
00:22:04.520 or incite some sort
00:22:06.200 of, like,
00:22:07.100 criminal activity
00:22:07.780 against a group.
00:22:08.720 Just by having
00:22:09.400 a dumb meme,
00:22:11.160 you could be charged.
00:22:13.080 Anyways,
00:22:13.680 so that should be it
00:22:15.200 for this video, guys.
00:22:16.240 Thank you for sticking around.
00:22:18.200 Potentially go get yourself
00:22:19.460 one of those
00:22:19.840 Wyatt Claypool costumes
00:22:21.020 if they exist
00:22:21.820 in stores around you.
00:22:23.300 They do not actually.
00:22:24.280 I am joking.
00:22:25.520 But I will be back
00:22:26.700 later today
00:22:27.840 or tomorrow.
00:22:29.120 Either,
00:22:29.540 I'll have another video out.
00:22:30.640 There's another thing
00:22:31.480 I need to cover.
00:22:32.060 It's all the crazy,
00:22:34.240 there's a bunch
00:22:34.900 of crazy news
00:22:35.500 on immigration.
00:22:36.580 We had Michael Cooper
00:22:37.720 going after the liberals
00:22:39.200 for effectively losing track
00:22:41.100 of over 32,000
00:22:42.820 illegal immigrants
00:22:44.240 in Canada.
00:22:45.380 People who maybe
00:22:46.160 entered with a visa
00:22:47.020 or didn't enter
00:22:47.740 with a visa
00:22:48.360 who should be
00:22:49.300 leaving the country
00:22:50.100 and they don't know
00:22:51.120 where at least
00:22:51.620 32,000 of them are
00:22:53.020 and that's just only people
00:22:54.420 they have a warrant
00:22:55.060 out for.
00:22:55.860 I assume there's
00:22:56.380 many other people
00:22:57.000 they've still not ever
00:22:57.900 even issued a warrant
00:22:58.980 for yet.
00:22:59.980 That's insane.
00:23:00.920 Take the US 0.94
00:23:01.680 or take that number
00:23:02.760 32,000
00:23:03.520 and multiply it
00:23:04.360 by like eight
00:23:04.960 and a half times
00:23:05.880 because that's
00:23:06.960 the population difference.
00:23:08.320 So when you scale
00:23:09.040 up the problem,
00:23:10.160 that would be
00:23:10.680 a massive scandal
00:23:11.860 that if they knew,
00:23:13.800 the government knew
00:23:15.000 that they needed
00:23:15.680 to remove
00:23:16.740 X amount of people
00:23:18.440 and it was like
00:23:19.400 800,000 people
00:23:20.700 or like,
00:23:21.120 you know,
00:23:21.360 like 600,000 people,
00:23:23.480 they couldn't get
00:23:24.380 proper,
00:23:25.940 they couldn't even,
00:23:26.780 they could not get
00:23:27.700 a proper
00:23:28.320 like warrant out for,
00:23:30.280 they couldn't actually
00:23:30.880 find the person.
00:23:31.800 That would be scandal
00:23:32.740 for any government.
00:23:34.500 But anyways,
00:23:35.140 so that should be it
00:23:36.500 for me today, guys.
00:23:37.440 Thank you for watching.
00:23:38.340 Like, share, and subscribe.
00:23:39.260 Hit the notification bell
00:23:40.240 if you're already
00:23:40.860 a subscriber
00:23:41.460 and I will see you guys
00:23:42.540 all next time.