Bill C-10 isn’t about protecting Canadian content online, it’s about restricting content Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party do not approve of—it’s about restricting conservative and Christian content online.
Yesterday, a judge ruled that James Coates’ rights and freedoms were not infringed on when the government of Alberta arrested and imprisoned him for over five weeks. The judge said:
“Religious freedom is subject to rule of law.”
Around the same time as the judge’s ruling yesterday—at the House of Commons in Canada’s capital city, Ottawa—Justin Trudeau’s federal government passed a gag order to restrict legislative debate over Bill C-10: a law that suggests freedom of expression is subject to the rule of the government.
After all, if religious freedom is subject to the rule of law, then all our fundamental freedoms are also subject to the rule of law. If our provincial and federal governments believe they should violate our freedom of religion to supposedly “ensure the safety and security of Canadians” over COVID-19, then why wouldn’t they believe they should violate our freedom of expression to supposedly “ensure the safety and security of Canadians” from online harm?
Bill C-10 was introduced by the federal government’s minister of Canadian heritage, Steven Guilbeault, last November. The bill is supposedly an attempt by Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party to amend or change Canada’s current Broadcasting Act—a bill from 1991 that regulates content by Canadian broadcasters.
The existing bill particularly forces television and radio stations in our nation to make “Canadian” content 50% of their daily broadcast. The federal government implemented this mandate as a reaction to Canada’s long established preference for American content.
