(0:00 - 1:49) After Bill C-63 died due to Trudeau's proroguing of Parliament late last year, we breathed a sigh of relief. C-63, the Online Harms Act, would have criminalised offensive speech and imposed heavy fines and even jail sentences for saying anything that our liberal totalitarian government didn't like. And it would even have allowed for anonymous complaints, suspending your legal right to face your accuser in court. In short, it was yet another attempt to silence all dissent in Canada to the globalist-led liberal government agenda. Three new bills have been tabled in the House recently. Bills C-2, C-8, and C-9, together, if passed, will turn Canada into a police state. And it could happen as early as the end of this year. Two of those bills have already passed second reading. These bills would allow for warrantless searches of your property, including your email and cell phone, ban you from the internet if they don't like what you're saying or who you associate with, and expose you to prosecution for hate speech without ever clearly defining what hate speech is, which means it will be whatever they say it is. To add to that, the liberals are talking about resurrecting Bill C-63. John Carpay is the president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Canada's top legal organisation that is fighting for our charter rights. He joins me in the studio today to reveal the details of these bills, the extreme threat to our rights and freedoms if they pass, and what you can do to stop them. (1:59 - 2:18) John, thanks for coming in again. Glad to be with you, Will. I think at this point in time, you have the reputation of being the guest that I've interviewed most frequently, partly, of course, because of your position as the president of the JCCF, and partly because of all of the shenanigans that have been going on in this country for the last few years, and they're at it again with bills C-2, C-8, C-9. (2:18 - 2:58) Recently, you put a short video up on social media, only a few minutes long, explaining what these bills are, what the threats are to us, and between your various social media accounts, you get half a million views, which is fantastic, but out of a country of 40 million people, that's still a very small number. We need more people to know, so thank you for coming in, so that hopefully some of my viewers will pick up on this and share it as well. So let's get into that. Let's start with those bills, and in any order you want to address them, John. Might as well do them numerically. So we'll do 289, and then bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which died before the April 2025 election, but there's serious talk of bringing it back. (2:59 - 3:28) So definitely that one is really bad, but numerically. So Bill C-2, kind of do the tip of the iceberg only. It's 140 pages long, which makes it next to impossible for Canadians to, even people working full-time in public policy, it's hard to wrap your head around 140 page piece of legislation, but it criminalises the use of cash in amounts of 10,000 or more. (3:28 - 4:10) It gives Canada Post the authority to open letter mail without a warrant. It creates a new piece of legislation called the Authorised Access to Information Act, which allows the government to demand information from and demand to inspect the computers of anybody who is an electronic services provider. Now, when you look at the definition of electronic services provider, it is anybody who sends out emails, right? So you, me, what, 90 something percent of the adult population of Canada, that's anybody using email, you are an electronic services provider. (4:11 - 5:31) So it creates a whole new army of non-police federal bureaucrats that are authorised to inspect your computer, inspect your phone. Bill C-2 also authorises the government to demand subscriber information from companies like Telus, Rogers, and so on, and IP addresses. And all of it is, it's a massive expansion of warrantless searches. And that's very dangerous because in the last 158 years of Canada's history, we've generally struck a good balance between protecting the privacy and property rights of individuals and allowing police to do their work. And the balance is struck by way of a warrant. So generally starting point is we have privacy rights and your home is your castle and police can't bust in. Nobody can bust into your home, not even the government, except if they get a warrant. So if they say, well, we think that, let's say Mark Smith is trafficking child pornography, the police can go before a judge with an affidavit and they can say, we have good reason to believe that Mark Smith is trafficking in child pornography. We want a warrant to bust into his home unannounced and seize his computer. (5:32 - 7:15) And the judge would grant that. They get a warrant to violate the privacy rights and the property rights of Mark Smith, but it's a warrant for one person for one purpose. Okay. So it's really, when you get this expansion of warrantless searches, that is the essence of the police state where the police just says, Hey, I want to see your cell phone right now. And it's like, I don't need, you're an electronic services provider. I don't need a warrant. That's the kind of society that C-2 is going to get us into. Now, let's start that you go through these in order of concern to, at least in what I think would be an order of concern to the viewers. And that is, let's start with that one. Their ability to just simply walk into anybody's home, demand access to your system, your computer system, your phone. What is their supposed justification for doing this? Protect you, keep you safe. You know, like make it illegal for you to donate $10,000 cash to a charity, even if it's broken apart. Okay. So if you donated $1,000 cash to the justice centre once a month, then with your October donation, your 10th donation of $1,000, you'd be breaking the law. Well, this is supposedly to keep us all safe from money laundering and from organised crime. So we got to restrict the use of cash, which is dangerous. Canada Post able to open letter mail without a warrant from the court. That's to keep you safe. You know, there's bad guys out and about and there's bad people doing bad things and the government's going to protect you. So in order to protect you, we need to be able to open your mail without a warrant, inspect your computer without a warrant. Right. (7:15 - 7:35) Safety. Right. Safety, safety, safety. The safety and security, the dreaded SS, and I've seen them at play for a very long time and it's just getting worse. It's all about safety, security. And some Canadians, unfortunately, they'll accept, they'll surrender any rights and freedoms as long as they're promised safety and security. (7:35 - 8:24) Yes, they will. So the, I think that the surveillance of our mail, the surveillance of our electronic systems is fairly obvious because that's been going on for years. I mean, back in 1995, Bill Gates launched Internet Explorer for free because he knew full well that this has been a great way of collecting data on the users. And so now that's what the government's doing with checking our mail, with being able to check our electronic devices, they can surveil us, they can watch everything we're doing. Now I want to talk a little bit more about that $10,000 limit though, because that I think ties into CBDC's digital money. What they're doing now is they're not saying, well, you couldn't donate more than say $10,000 to the JCCF. But if you do, it has to be in the form of a check or something that they can track. It can't be- E-transfer. That's right. (8:24 - 8:29) Wire transfer, credit card, debit, yeah, whatever. But yeah, but not cash. Right. (8:30 - 8:51) And the scary thing about it is they can reduce the limit because practically speaking, some people will argue, and I think this holds a lot of water. You know, it's not that often that people, maybe when you're buying a used car from somebody, you're dealing in cash, but most of our transactions aren't cash. The Justice Centre has never had a $10,000 cash donation. (8:51 - 9:11) Okay. So technically it's true. It's not going to have a huge impact on people, but it's a step in the wrong direction. It's a step towards central bank digital currency because once it's $10,000, then it becomes $5,000. Well, you don't need to use cash for a $5,000 transaction. You know, nobody carries $5,000 of cash around with them. (9:11 - 9:46) And then it becomes a thousand. And then finally you're down to a hundred bucks. You can spend that at a garage sale, you know, and then it's zero. And then all of our money is controlled by the government because our money consists of numbers on a computer. It's all electronic. And then you get totalitarianism that makes lockdowns look like an absolute cakewalk. Yes. Because of course, once it's all digital, it can all be controlled by an AI, which can track what you bought, where you bought it and can cut you off. They don't want you buying any more of that particular. (9:46 - 10:21) You bought too much meat or you bought too much gas for your car. Or I didn't like your Twitter post that you put up yesterday. And so I'll still let you buy groceries, but you're not travelling. Travel is not a right, it's a privilege. And if you're a well-behaved good citizen and you don't put evil things on your X account, like what you do all the time, Will, right. Then, uh, you know, we'll allow you, we'll magnanimously allow you to travel, uh, if you're a good boy and you're well-behaved and, and, uh, you don't put bad things on your social media. (10:21 - 12:53) Right. Now you said you wanted to go through these numerically, but when you did your post online, you did C-9 first and then C-8. I think there was a reason for that. Do you, which one of those do you want to address now? Well, let's, let's just go into C-8. C-8, again, just tip of the iceberg, gives federal cabinet ministers the power to kick you off the internet on the pretext that if the Minister of Public Safety thinks that there is a threat, which is not defined, a threat to Canada's telecommunications systems, he can issue a demand to a telecommunications service provider, which is any company that provides you with internet or phone. He can order the company to kick, uh, uh, Will Dove or John Carpe off of the internet. Now, if the minister was joining us and was sitting here and, and could contribute to the discussion, he would say, oh yeah, but that's not going to be based on internet content. It's not, we would never ever kick a Canadian off the internet because we disagreed with what they were saying. This is about, if you, we would only use this power if, if we had good reason to believe that you are a cyber terrorist, that you are a hacker, you are working for a foreign state actor, only in that situation would we ever kick somebody off the internet. Well, now we're into the realm of good intentions. Like we would never freeze your bank account, or we would never, um, turn you into a second class citizen for not, uh, taking a certain injection. So the legislation itself doesn't have any safeguards. It just says, if the Minister of Public Safety thinks that you are a threat to Canada's telecommunications systems, then he can order the company to kick you off the internet. So you suddenly find yourself without phone access, without internet access. Uh, maybe you're married and your wife can help you out in some ways, or maybe you have some friends, but you yourself are cut off, right? Just like that. And that order can be secret. So the order itself can say this order is to remain secret. So you can't talk about it to anybody. Um, and if you violate the minister's order, you can be liable to penalties of up to $50,000 per day. Yes. For each day that you violate the order. (12:54 - 13:05) If you're a company and you want to disobey the minister and say, well, we're not, we're going to kick somebody off the internet. Uh, say, okay. Fines up to 15, 1.5, 15 million per day. (13:05 - 13:22) 1.5 million per day, I believe. Was it not? Let's say it's 1.5 million, not 15 million. I'm sorry. I took, I took notes. I took notes on what you said. Um, 1.5 million for companies, 50,000 per day for individuals. (13:23 - 20:05) Still pretty scary though. Let's say. It's pretty scary. It's ridiculous. It's, it's insane. Well, it's evil. Yes. It's not, it's not crazy. So the penalties are so high, there's going to be compliance, right? Because if you're running a business, you're not going to take a risk of, of getting fined 1.5 million. So that's C-8. Bill C-8 gives federal cabinet ministers the power to kick individual Canadians off the internet, make the order secret. And you, your only recourse then is you can go to court and sue for a court order to overturn the minister's ruling against you. But for that, you need a hundred thousand dollars spare cash on hand to spend on litigation. And the court action would take you two or three years and there's no guarantee that you'll win. Right. And they like to say that, well, we would never do this on the basis of content. Well, how many people in this country have been arrested now because of things they posted online? And it's happened. Not as bad as it's been in England, but it's happened. So that ties us into, right into C-9, the Hate Act. Yeah. Combating Hate Act. So the minister introduced this, uh, with the pretext of protecting access to houses of worship. And of course that there's that resonates, uh, that you've had the last two years since, since the Hamas-Israel situation and their synagogues that have been vandalised and whatnot. The thing that's duplicitous though, is that it's already a Criminal Code offence to obstruct somebody from going to point A to point B. If you're trying to get in your car and I physically get in between you and your car, even if I don't touch you, touching you is an assault. It's also criminal. Even if I don't touch you, if I obstruct you from getting into your car, your house, your mosque, your synagogue, your temple, your church, that's a Criminal Code offence. If I threaten you and if I say, Hey, you know, you filthy blankety blank member of this religious group, um, you know, peaceful protest is okay. But if I threaten you, that's a Criminal Code offence. But that's the pretext is, is, uh, now what's really interesting too, is when Justice Minister Sean Fraser introduced this, he said, he's doing this to combat rising antisemitism, Islamophobia, transphobia, and homophobia, which pretty disparate things. But anyway, what he doesn't mention is the dozens of Christian churches that have been burned to the ground, uh, destroyed by arson. That's not a reason to, you know, it's so glaring, right? He's got antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, but nothing about dozens of churches being burned to the ground. So this is highly political. So what Bill C-9 does, the worst part of it, uh, there's, there's two or three components. The worst part is it gets rid of currently we have a review process that if the local police, local crime prosecutors want to prosecute you for hate speech, and those laws have been on the books for decades. If they want to prosecute you, it gets reviewed by the Attorney General. So there's a sober second thought that's a restraining influence on local police, local crime prosecutors. Bill C-9 would get rid of that requirement that the locals need the approval of the attorney general before they can prosecute an individual for hate speech, gets rid of that. So now, whether you live in, uh, Halifax, Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, uh, local police and prosecutors can just decide on their own if they don't like something you've said on the internet. And if they feel that it's hateful, and this is a very subjective emotion, uh, you can get criminally prosecuted. And they would say, well, don't worry. You know, if, if, if you're innocent, you'll get acquitted and the judge will see through it. It's like, no, no, you're missing the whole point. Um, you're gonna have to spend $50,000 on legal bills and have criminal charges hanging over your head for nine months or 18 months or three years. Um, so even if you get acquitted at the end of the day, you've been severely punished already just by being criminally charged. Now, as you've pointed out more than once, we already have anti-hate laws in Canada, have for some time. Now, my understanding of those laws, and I want you to correct me if I'm wrong here, is the existing laws for that, in order to be convicted of hate speech, there had to be some evidence that the purpose of that hate speech was to, um, foment violence against, or, or, you know, obvious discrimination against a certain group. It couldn't just be, oh, you offended somebody with what you said. Is that correct? Yes. So you got two sections. You got 319 prohibits the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, but this is limited identifiable as per race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, religion, age. It's not, it excludes doctors, lawyers, bankers, people who didn't get injected. You can promote hatred against all kinds of groups, but not on the basis of race, religion, sex, not on the basis of certain grounds. Then there's a separate offence. So that's just promoting hatred, you know, with or without promoting violence. There's a separate offence that it's also criminal to advocate for genocide, which is the killing of a people group. And that also, it's limited to those particular grounds of the race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity. You cannot advocate for the, the killing of a people group on those grounds. Although if you wanted to say all of the people that didn't get injected or all of the lawyers, they should all get killed. That would be okay, but not genocide based on those grounds of race and religion. So those are the laws on the books right now. Okay. I just want to clarify something that was just what you just said. You know, if you want to say kill all the lawyers, that'd be okay. Except I thought it was a crime to suggest that someone commits a crime. Oh, of course. Yeah. No, I stand corrected. You cannot advocate for the commission of a crime. So I can't say. You can't say kill all the lawyers, but you could say, I wish they were all dead. Never do business with them. You know, let's boycott all the lawyers. (20:05 - 21:16) They're terrible people. We should never deal with any of them. Yeah. Or we should lock up the people that didn't get injected into some camps where we can preserve safety by having those icky people cast out of society because we're all clean and safe because we got injected. You could advocate for that kind of stuff. Whereas you couldn't say, well, never do business with Aboriginal people. They're terrible people. That would be a clear violation of our hate speech laws because that's an identifiable cultural racial group. Yeah. Yeah. It has to be an identifiable cultural racial group. But the bizarre part is, I mean, hate is an emotion and the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as now the politicians with Bill C-9, they are doing triple backflips and twisting themselves into contortions, trying to define hate. And they can't really do it because it's ridiculous because they, I'll give you an example from Bill C-9, they say dislike and disdain is not hatred. So if I express strong dislike for a religious or ethnic group, that's okay. Dislike and disdain are okay. (21:17 - 23:42) Detestation and vilification are not okay. So I can express, you know, yeah, dislike and disdain. Also Bill C-9 clarifies, I think it just muddies the water, but it clarifies that to discredit, mock, ridicule, offend, or hurt the feelings of somebody is not hate speech. But don't get into detestation and vilification cause that's hate speech. That's ridiculous. It's time to pull the plug on that. It is so wishy-washy that it could be anything they want, really. And then the other scary part of Bill C-9 is it empowers the judge to vastly increase the penalty if you are convicted of a crime. And if the judge feels that it was motivated entirely by hate or partially by hate, the maximum penalty could go from two years to five, five years to 10, 10 years to 14, 14 to life in prison. So let's say you find out that there's a guy is having an affair with your wife and you go and attack him and you beat the pulp out of him. And that's aggravated assault. And let's say the maximum penalty is 10 years for severely beating up somebody else. But if while you're beating the tar out of him, you also say something bad about his race or ethnicity or religion, well, now your maximum penalty can go from 10 years to 14 years because there was hatred involved in the crime. I see. Okay. Now, just in case we lost any of the viewers there, but in the last few minutes, some of what John and I have been talking about are the anti-hate laws that exist now, not the ones that are coming if these get away with these. So what they're doing with this, John, and we could break it down, but I think you have to look at them all together. Because they work all together to set up a system where the government can surveil everything that we do and say, and they can restrict what we do and say. And furthermore, if they don't like what we do and say, they can impose penalties on us under the hate laws because we said something that they didn't like. And this is where we're in 12,000 people arrested in the United Kingdom. Per year. (23:42 - 24:54) Per year. Yeah. Over using intemperate language when they're criticising their country's immigration policies or things like that, right? Because I would venture a guess if you were in Britain and you said, yeah, there's too much immigration. We should reduce the numbers from X down to X. You might not get the police knocking on your door, but if it's intemperate language and you see you've got the wrong kind of immigrants coming in, or we got the immigration from the wrong countries where we shouldn't be letting people in from certain countries, if you don't choose your words carefully, you can get arrested. Now that gets into another question because my understanding of things like slander and libel is that it wasn't slander or libel if you could prove that it was true. So where I'm going with that is let us say that I was to make a comment that I don't appreciate the Indian immigrants who are coming into our country and pooping on our beaches because we have video of this. We know it's being done. It's true. But if I say that under these new laws, it sounds to me like, oh, well, that's hate speech. (24:54 - 26:26) Well, the criminal code does have truth as a defence. So if you said that a particular ethnic group is disproportionately involved in crime, that ethnic group X is 7% of Canada's population and 25% of Canada's crime. If that was true, truth can be a defence in the hate speech thing. Truth is not a defence under a human rights prosecution. And this is where the very scary reintroduction of Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which died in April when we had the election. If they bring that back and if they pass it, it would give the Canadian Human Rights Commission the power to prosecute non-criminal prosecution of offensive speech. And this is where you get into this land where even if you could prove that what you've said is true, the Canadian Human Rights Commission can still find you guilty and order you to pay up to $50,000 to the government and up to $20,000 to a complainant. And so that's the Online Harms Act, including this new powers for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to prosecute non-criminal offensive speech. But that act goes beyond that because it really gets into thought police, where you can be prosecuted for something you didn't actually do yet. (26:26 - 27:06) You can be brought before a judge. If your neighbour fears that you're going to commit a speech crime, a hate speech crime in future, you could be ordered by the judge, placed under house arrest and ordered to respect a curfew, wear an ankle bracelet, not communicate with certain people. That's without having been charged with a criminal offence, without having been found guilty. Preemptively, the judge can violate your fundamental human rights, your freedoms, your security of the person. The judge can impose an order on you without you having been tried or convicted. That's the Online Harms Act as well. (27:07 - 27:56) Right. So now let's take a look at a very realistic scenario that could occur from that. Let's say that I have a new neighbour move in next door. And let's say that that neighbour is very obviously LGBTQ, trans, whatever. And I have many times online said that I object strongly to our children being brainwashed with SOGI and LGBTQ narratives in our schools. So strongly that I believe that we should be electing politicians who will shut that down, who will make that kind of thing illegal. Now, my new LGBTQ neighbour, knowing what I've done, could potentially go to the police and say, well, this guy hates people like me and therefore he should be muzzled. Well, worse yet, your next door neighbour has nothing to do with it. It could be somebody watching your podcast who lives in Halifax or Montreal on the other side. (27:56 - 29:00) On the other side, any person, as you're right, it could be any person. So if they file the criminal complaints against you with the police, chances are pretty high that the police would look at that and go, no, that's political advocacy, it's not hate speech. You'd probably be okay on the criminal front. If they file a human rights complaint against you and if the Online Harms Act has been passed by parliament, now you're facing a prosecution that will drag on for years. And if you choose to retain a lawyer, they'd be spending tens of thousands of dollars on legal bills over the course of years, have this hanging over your head with this non-criminal prosecution, where the complainant who could be your next door neighbour or somebody who lives on the other side of the country, they can just file that complaint and they can get paid up to $20,000 for their hurt feelings. Plus you could be out of pocket an additional $50,000 paid to the government for your discriminatory, not hate speech, but discriminatory comments against trans people. (29:00 - 30:02) Because you've said that the school shouldn't be pushing SOGI on kids. And I believe there's also a clause in the original Bill C-63 where the person who made the complaint could do it anonymously. Which of course completely abrogates my right to face my accuser, which I've always been a tenant of the law, that I have the right in court to face my accuser, but not if Bill C-63 gets passed. Now somebody can say, well, I'm a hate criminal and I don't even get to know who it was. And then another part of C-63, C-63 might be, well, they're all, you know, you made a really good point. It's all together. I was almost going to say C-63 is worse than Bill's C-2, C-8, C-9. Well, I don't know if it's worse or not, but you add on C-63 to Bill's 2, 8 and 9, you've got a thorough police state. And the other part of C-63 is that the federal cabinet acquires powers to pass regulations to regulate the content of the internet. (30:03 - 30:46) They get to decide in greater detail what is offensive, not offensive, what is discriminatory, non-discriminatory. And every internet provider, every server is going to be subject to that. And they're going to obey because they're going to face huge penalties. I forget the amounts on C-63, but it's sort of financially unaffordable to not obey the federal regulations. So what will happen is, if C-63 Online Harms Act is reintroduced and if it passes, what will happen is the companies will do the government's dirty work. The government doesn't have to do very much of anything because every company is going to be looking at content. (30:46 - 32:46) And as soon as they see something that they think violates federal regulations on content, they will delete it. The government won't even have to. I mean, they will, of course, employ many more new bureaucrats to police. You have a new digital safety commission to police all this stuff. But the companies will be self-motivated that the moment that Will Dove posts on social media or you have a website and the company that's hosting your website thinks that you're out of line, they will remove your content. Yes. Now, you and I have certainly learned in the last few years, as have many people, just how much the piece of paper our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is written on is worth. But is it not true that these acts that we're talking about today would violate certain rights? Yeah. And I mean, the Justice Centre would do its utmost to take these bills to court, so to speak. However, the best thing, the smartest thing is to have an educated, alert, awake, aware population because politicians, most of them are followers, not leaders. So if they sense that there's strong opposition to central bank digital currency, as an example, if they sense that there's strong opposition to that, they're unlikely or far less likely to move ahead with that. And the same with all these bills. Some good news, Bill C-2 has been carved up. It's still there. The federal government has created a new Bill C-12, which focusses just on the border security that they're in a hurry to get through because they're, I think they're trying to please President Trump. And I say that in a non-partisan way, but just that's political reality. So they got Bill C-12 to push through the stuff on immigration and refugee, and it might have the support of the conservatives. They'll get that through. (32:47 - 33:14) And then they're still left with Bill C-2, but they'll remove from Bill C-2 the components that got passed in Bill C-12. So they've actually, they're putting C-2 on the back burner because they're sensing a lot of opposition. In the last few months, a lot of people have contacted their MP to say Bill C-2 is, creates the strong surveillance state and we don't want our privacy rights violated. (33:14 - 33:44) Right. And it's very important, I think, for people to understand that C-63 wasn't defeated in parliament. It was just shut down because of the election. It never finished all the way. Oh, it would have, it would have. The NDP and the bloc were both, well, the liberals had a minority, but the NDP, which had a lot more seats prior to April, 2025, the NDP and the bloc both, but even just one of those two parties could give enough extra votes to the liberals to get C-63 through. (33:44 - 33:48) So yeah, you're right. It was defeated because of the election. Otherwise it likely would have passed. (33:48 - 39:45) Right. And so this is what viewers, you need to understand this is that we're not talking about something here where our politicians are going to come to their senses and stop this from happening. John's right. If you don't talk to your politicians, if you don't go to them and say, we don't want this, they're very likely just going to rubber stamp this crap. And as you say, John, we're going to end up living in a police state by Christmas. Yeah. It could happen by Christmas or, you know, they could, they could play their cards wisely and have all of the bad stuff in place, but just not really apply it yet. Yes. And just gradually get more ruthless, you know, let the noose tighten. If they, if they go all out and start arresting thousands of people and prosecuting thousands of people immediately. Right. But it's the old story of if you put the frog in the cold water on the stove and the water heats up slowly, supposedly, some people have said this is not scientifically correct, but anyway, supposedly the frog will boil to death. It won't jump out. Whereas if you toss the frog into boiling water, it immediately will jump back out. Right. So it's, it's the. Yes. So something I wanted to talk about in specific in C-9, because I was talking yesterday with Lisa Miron, who's a lawyer in Ontario, and she brought to my attention something that I'm going to ask you to verify or not. And you were talking about this earlier in C9 where there's these, it talks about certain identifiable groups like LGBT groups, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But it doesn't say anything of all the Christian churches that have been burned. And what Lisa told me was that there's clause or clauses in there that talk about certain symbols, such as swastikas becoming illegal, because those are symbols of hate speech, which that's true. I would say that's valid when we're talking about a swastika. Well, yes and no, because there are Hindus and Buddhists all over the world that use a swastika. I had the good fortune of being able to travel in Japan and you've got swastikas on maps and on temples. It is an ancient Sanskrit symbol of prosperity. Now, the swastika, the arms of it go in a different direction from the German swastika. Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act, does, it does have a religious exemption. So if the police are paying attention and following the law, they're not going to start arresting Hindus and Buddhists in Canada who have a swastika carved above their door. And I've seen this. It's not a huge number, but there are houses in Canada that have a swastika carved out or displayed above the door as a religious symbol for prosperity and good fortune. So what I really take exception to is that it's so political because if somebody wants to wave the communist hammer and sickle on a flag or as a symbol, that's perfectly legal. Even though tens of millions of people were murdered by communists in Russia, China, Cambodia, and other countries, those tens of millions of people were murdered under the banner of the communist hammer and sickle. No restriction on that. But the Nazi swastika, you cannot display that in public unless it's a educational purpose. So if there's a library book about German history in the 1920s that had a swastika on the cover, that would be okay. It's an educational purpose. It would be okay for a religious purpose, like a Hindu or Buddhist person putting the swastika on their house. But it's political. Right. So where I was going with that, and this is Lisa's concern, is that we have, yes, we have, as you said, churches being burned across Canada. Partly false narrative that there are murdered children buried at our residential schools. But there's also the fact that any genuine practising Christian will say, and probably quote the Bible, say, we hate the sin, not the sinner, but just the same. We don't approve of certain practises such as intergenerational sex, which is basically child predation. A number of things that are really tied to, say, LGBTQ communities and lifestyles, where they could argue potentially under these new acts that the Christian cross is a hate symbol and therefore should be abolished. If it was within their power to do it and get away with it right now, there are people in Canada who would, if it was within their power, they would banish the cross. They would banish the Star of David, the Jewish six-pointed star. The whole point is the government shouldn't be in the business of defining a hatred because you and I and our viewers and listeners, your viewers and listeners, we are adults. And in a free country, we get to decide ourselves whether something is true or false, hateful, not hateful, wise or foolish, et cetera. And so the underlying problem is just this notion that government's going to decide on our behalf. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether the cross, the Star of David, the swastika, whether these are hate symbols or not, the government shouldn't be making that determination in the first place. If you think that a six-pointed Jewish Star of David is, if you feel that that's hateful, well, that could be your opinion or your feelings, whatever. (39:45 - 40:03) Other people would say it's not hateful. It's not up to the government to step in and say, which symbols can be displayed or not. Right. Now, John, I gave my little speech about what I think the viewers need to be doing about this, but you've been involved in politics in your life. You've been a lawyer, constitutional lawyer for a very long time. You've been running the JCCF for many, many years. (40:03 - 40:58) Your advice for the viewers on this. Contact your MP today or as soon as possible. Email him or her and say, you know, vote against Bills C-2, C-8, C-9. Do not bring back the Online Harms Act. If you don't vote for my privacy rights and my freedom of expression, I'm going to vote against you in the next election. That's it. Short, simple message. You can get information on these bills, many places, Justice Centre website, www.jccf.ca. and get information on the bills. But even a short email, you don't necessarily need your 17 good reasons to vote against these bills, but just contact your MP. (40:59 - 41:01) Very good. Thank you, John. Thank you.