, 05.05.2021 09:22 AM

My latest: C-10 must be stopped. But who will stop it?

It’s not censorship.

It’s not censorship to want to use the law to prohibit, and punish, those who make and distribute child pornography.

It’s not censorship to object to hate propaganda, or to sanction those who promote genocide against those they hate.

It’s not censorship to believe that we shouldn’t make it easy for lunatics to access detailed instructions online about how to make bombs or chemical weapons.

It’s not censorship, it’s showing good judgment. In a civil society, it’s the obligation we owe each other. It keeps us safe, among other things.

But Justin Trudeau’s Bill C-10 isn’t about censoring things that we all agree are harmful, it’s about censoring you, and what you say online — in a tweet, a Facebook post, on a blog. It’s about limiting your ability to express yourself in a democracy.

It’s a constitutional abomination. It needs to be stopped.

So why haven’t the Opposition parties stopped it?

The Opposition, as on most days during the pandemic, are completely irrelevant. They didn’t see the political opportunity presented by C-10 until a few days ago.

The Bloc Quebecois are all for the Bill, naturally. No surprise there. They come from a province that has a long history of controlling political speech. It’s in their DNA.

The NDP, meanwhile, is for it too. The New Democrats like to persuade themselves that C-10 will control “hate speech,” but that’s just a lie they tell themselves to justify their ongoing role as Trudeau’s Parliamentary eunuchs. They’re irrelevant, numerically and philosophically.

The Conservatives, naturally, never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They didn’t see the outrage that is C-10 until their grassroots demanded that they wake up.

That’s the Opposition. They don’t matter, much. Not yet. But what about the government? That’s what this writer doesn’t get.

Now, as readers of this newspaper know, Justin Trudeau is a deeply dishonest man. He is the most inauthentic politician in generations, and that’s saying something.


But he knows he lacks his father’s intellectual depth — or Stephen Harper or Jean Chretien’s strategic skill. What he does possess, in abundance however, is a finely-honed sense of self-preservation. He’d kill his dog to win. (Anyone seen the dog, recently, BTW?)

So why would he do something like C-10 on the eve of an election — likely if not in June then in October? Why would he do that? Why would he risk losing over this? Because he could.

It’s not a piece of legislation. It’s a political suicide note. It’s self-immolating madness.

That’s what some of us just don’t get: you could run an entire national election campaign on C-10 because the Internet is the only thing that connects pandemic-bound people to the world right now.

The Internet – and its bastard children Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and TikTok – are the only way many of us can connect with each other during this pandemic without end.

And Trudeau wants to be seen as censoring that? Has he lost his mind?

Now, never discount the possibility that powerful people make powerfully stupid choices, I always say. But this? This is historically stupid. It is epically stupid.

It is stupid on steroids.

The Conservatives, who have been on a downward trajectory in the Erin O’Toole era, have been handed a way to actually win the election. Personally, I doubt they’re intelligent enough to recognize it. And the Liberal Party, as it turns out, isn’t intelligent enough to figure that out, either.

But – improbably and unexpectedly, things just got interesting.

Because this is really, truly censorship.

— Warren Kinsella is a lawyer and adjunct professor at the University of Calgary Faculty of Law


  1. Douglas W says:

    Conservatives need political pros to operate their war room.

    I hope they find them, soon.

    • irreversible road map to freedom says:

      Wrong. If Justin has proven anything over the past five years its that political pros are not needed to win elections. Incompetents and imbeciles will do just fine.

    • Doug says:

      I increasingly share that point of view. The leader alone cannot set the party’s direction and align communications behind that vision. I’ve never had even a passing inclination to support the Liberal Party, but I am in awe of the reality distortion field projected by its communications strategy.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        They are nothing special, believe me. People choose to believe what they want to believe, be it factual, relevant or even remotely connected to planet Earth. Right now, Trudeau is the default option that they’d rather not have but so far O’Toole doesn’t seem to be making significant inroads with reluctant |
        Trudeau supporters. That’s basically it.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      They need King Norquay and they need him yesterday.

  2. Dave says:

    Well Warren I think that [censored} would be[censored] and in[censored] in the mean time could [censored] but in the long[censored] but [user deleted]

  3. The Trudeau Liberals live and breathe by political overkill and sometimes the reverse, as in SNC and WE. So, for them, it’s certainly not a bridge too far. They count on an ever somnolent electorate and that’s a tough and highly risky bet to make, especially in these screen-focused times. But hey, if they are stupid enough to cut their own throats, who am I to complain?

  4. Steve T says:

    And when the Heritage Minister keeps telling us that the CRTC would “never censor content”, just cast your mind back to the not-so-distant past.

    Remember the “values test” that the Libs implemented for the Summer Jobs program a few years ago? And how they said it would never be used to violate people’s freedom of conscience? Until it was, of course.

    So why will C-10 be any different? The Libs will outright lie, just to get any piece of virtue-signalling legislation across the finish line. C-10 is just the latest instance.

    • Doug says:

      What is the problem that this legislation aims to solve? The only motivation I can see is to funnel more money into the cultural sector either via taxes on digital service prodiders, or restriction of competition. How is that of any value to Canadians?

      • Steve Teller says:

        Like much of what the Liberals have been doing lately, it isn’t looking to solve any problem. It is, as the saying goes, a solution looking for a problem.

        What it is also, however (and this is the strategic part), is Woke Whispering. There is a fairly large swath of Canadian society who: (a) feels there is no situation that isn’t helped by a little bit more government, and (b) feels good about themselves every time a scornful eye is cast upon some perceived sector of society that is “bad”. For those people, C-10 is blissful music to their ears.

  5. irreversable road map to freedom says:

    …sigh…. the public is never going to believe that Justin understands anything about this legislation.

  6. Miles Lunn says:

    And its not just your conspiracy types claiming Trudeau has a secret plot to bring communism to Canada and Randy Hillier nutcases opposed, many people who understand freedom of expression are very concerned. Michael Geist who is a University of Ottawa professor who specializes in this has sounded alarm bells. Hopefully this gets defeated or at very least amended as doubt BQ or NDP will vote against this but hopefully have enough sense to get rid of the worst parts. And hopefully some Liberal MPs for a change put principle ahead of party. But sadly I’ve found unlike in the past, a lot of Liberal partisans just blindly support whatever party does no independent thought.

  7. Robert White says:

    If I claim accurately that Sars-2-nCoV-19 is an offensive Fourth Generation Biowarfare Gain-of-Function deadly pandemic pathogen deployed intentionally the government will want the ability to censor my comment before their handling of mutations is questioned by the great unwashed masses.

    C-10 is merely contemporary management by bureaucrats never interested in fact finding as ideologues instead of evidenced based scientists.

    If it damages freedom of speech it has to be fought until it dies on the order table.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      So glad I wasn’t the only one who called it correctly from Day One. But we ain’t seen anything yet what with the countless lab-created variants circulating and especially those specifically designed for the renegade province. That will be quite the horror movie, albeit without the customary popcorn and drinks.

      • Robert White says:

        I completely agree that the mutations are going to get progressively more frightening as the Gain-of-Function process starts functioning as it was engineered to.

        People will start realizing this is not a once in a hundred year pandemic pathogen when the mutations manifest YoY.


  8. Peter Williams says:

    First Nations access to clean water now pushed back to 2026.

    Perhaps Justin and his incompetents should drink bottled water until all First Nations have clean drinking water.

    But alas, Justin is undoubtedly too busy with Harrington Lake upgrades to worry about First Nations water.

    And where’s Jagmeet on this issue? Supporting Trudeau as usual.

    If C-10 is passed, all of the above comments will be banned.

  9. whyshouldIsellyourwheat says:

    Even though she is guilty as hell, I am baffled why O’Toole has chosen to go after Telford’s head rather than Sajjan’s.

    The case against Sajjan is easier to sell and explain (he has had six years and did eff all to protect women in the military), and much easier to get Trudeau to use dump him to protect himself, than Telford, where the whole Laurentian establishment and media will rise up to protect her and Trudeau. Sajjan is just one of Trudeau’s BIPOC “garments”, than he would be more than willing to toss away to protect himself.

    The removal of Sajjan would have exposed the Liberal’s weak parliamentary bench, and it would have been extremely difficult to replace Sajjan with anybody except some white dude from Metro Toronto.

    Bains retiring and Sajjan being dumped by Trudeau is a far more achievable political blow than going for the queen. When you go after the queen or king, you have to (metaphorically) kill them, or else you lose.

    Trudeau and Telford are too protected by the Laurentian establishment. O’Toole will look weak if he fails to deliver a head, and Sajjan’s head was the more easily achievable one.

    Plus, more of Trudeau’s courtiers would realize that their loyalty is just a one way street.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      Depends on whether you follow that old chestnut that apparently so many new Canadians support the party that allowed them to immigrate to Canada. That would mean lots of CPC new Canadians and lots of Liberal ones: so mighty risky for the CPC if you try to nail Sajjan. But with Katie, far less political risk as Liberals stick with Trudeau every single time the faux feminist throws another woman overboard. I would do like O’Toole and play the Telford card.

    • irreversible road map to freedom says:

      They are going after Telford because Ministers do not have any authority or responsibility in this government. Its the staff and only the staff who matter.

      • IRMTF,

        By all means, LET Telford testify. I couldn’t be any happier. That should finish them off for good.

        • Poor, poor, Pablo. They’ve quite deliberately made him look stupid and foolish. Remember how precedent required that only ministers testify? Not S-T-A-F-F. Rodriguez must be at full boil by now and rightly so. What a bunch of assholes.

  10. irreversible road map to freedom says:

    I honestly can’t figure out why everyone is so worked up about Justin possibly doing something. Canada has never fielded a leader more prolific in their surrenders. Everyone needs to settle down….
    Some 20 yr old stooge in his office will figure out the polling and Gerald will instruct Justin to give up like he always does.

    Just like he gave up on women, minorities, the economy, the environment, accountability, electoral reform, balanced budgets, vaccines, corruption, pipelines, students, infrastructure, military procurement, human rights, religious freedom, MMIWG, reconciliation, parliamentary procedure, COVID safety measures and finally, his own dignity by even running in the first place. If there’s one thing Canada can count on from Justin, its to throw in the towel.

  11. Ken Newman says:

    Well said Mr. Kinsella. But you make it sound like the electorate in this country is completely stupid. You want to know who will stop these bungling fools ? It is the electorate, they can stop this bonehead by not voting for him. Please tell me why it is that only the folks in Western Canada get that Trudeau should be running a popcorn stand, not a country. We especially get it in Sask and Alberta, as being a Liberal is the political kiss of death. Why is it that the rest of the country does not get it?? Nothing sticks to Trudeau, and he is clearly the dumbest man that has ever sat in the PM chair

  12. Peter Williams says:

    And remember that Justin got a raise of $6400 on April 1.

    We’re all in this together! Unless you’re out of work.

    Two years without a budget, and Justin gets a raise.

    • Peter,

      You mean the ALLEGED 12 million dollar inheritance isn’t enough for the Trudeau clan to make ends meet? Someone must be doing a lot of spending money that is not necessarily strictly that person’s… HR & O must hold all-smiles open houses just for Trudeaus. I thought only Her Majesty The Queen did that. But I digress.

    • Robert White says:

      My Social Assistance = $940.00 per month. No raise at all for Basic Needs Assessment as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau votes himself and federal bureaucrats incremental raises in pay YoY.

      Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada have completely broken any social contract that was perceived prior to their election wins and minority governance mandates.

      Thank you for reminding me how badly I am being shortchanged on my income stream as opposed to the income streams of federal bureaucrats & politicians that have seen gains relative to my losses.


  13. Andy Kaut says:

    “Take a knee? This Prime Minister is the one in power. He should be taking a a stand.”

    – J. Singh

    • Andy,

      Finally, some hope for Jagmeet now that the porch light has been turned on. But he still needs to do better. Show us, Jagmeet: sink those fuckers. Thank you.

    • Peter Williams says:

      Jagmeet Singh shouldn’t be lecturing anyone about taking a stand. He’s supported Team Trudeau and gotten nothing in return.

  14. Brine says:

    Not to hijack the thread, but I just wanted to highlight a fantastic column by Diane Francis in the Post:


    This should be required reading, IMO. And Trudeau and the Liberals ought to be crucified for such dumbfuckery, but naturally I expect crickets from the sell-out media.

    Warren, I would love to hear your take on this important issue.

  15. Gilbert says:

    Prime Minister is so arrogant that he thinks censoring the internet will help him win. The problem, though, is that he’s underestimating the Conservatives and the Canadian public. Many experts suggest the PM will secure a majority. I’m not so sure about that. Pride goes before a fall.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      Just look at the recent track record of the so-called ExpertsClassTM? Not exactly shining is it. Didn’t they predict another Trudeau majority last time? Exactly. At least those of us who are humble nobodies were able to do what we could to hold them to a minority, even though we were trying to defeat them outright. I had better luck with Harper in 2015. That incredibly foolish lurch to the OldStockRightTM cost him power just as I predicted and worked hard for. Canadians like competent moderates in power. No gonzo right or incompetent left leader will ever see a majority ever again in this country.

  16. Gilbert says:


    I agree with you. Stephen Harper’s old stock comment and also the barbaric practices hotline cost him votes.

  17. Al Zwikker says:

    In the early days of the internet it was thought that if more people had access to the web, the more knowledge people would have and this would benefit society. it’s apparent it hasn’t turned out that way..

    • Al,

      Maybe I’m already full of shit but I would say that most people go in search of info that confirms or aligns with their individual predetermined positions — not just political positions. We just love as many Confirmation Biases as we can find. Should that be called human nature? I wonder.

  18. Joseph says:

    C10 is going to create a great many one issue voters half of which will come from that third of eligible voters that usually sit out elections.
    It’s simple.
    A third of the eligible voters don’t feel like casting a ballot when what’s on offer all looks the same.
    This issue is easy to remember and sells to those that are tired of government intervention in their lives, something that is becoming tiresome during this pandemic.
    A good example would be a campaign promise to kill the GST.
    First party that pledges to rescind this legislation will win a majority regardless of their party politics.

    • Joseph,

      Unfortunately, the worldwide reality, post-COVID-19 is that vital and other spending has left countries with debts that can never, ever, be paid and deficits that can never be meaningfully reduced. TRANSLATION: politicians of every stripe will make the painful and stupid decision to raise most people’s taxes who are either in the middle class or the upper. That so-called revenue will amount to the trickle of water in a glass as opposed to the debt which is in the mould of Niagara Falls and growing across the globe. Standards of living will fall drastically and misery will make its way from one end of the Earth to the other.

  19. Jess says:

    Which clause of the act would result in censorship?

    • I think the idea is that sometime in the future the CRTC could set controls to the way sites like YouTube promote videos in a similar way that TV channels are currently subject to brutal requirements to promote the current party in power. Is that right?

  20. Birkenstock Bucky says:

    Guilbault has already stated they will add a clause to exclude user-generated content from the Bill’s scope.
    Once again, a tempest in a teapot and the LPC on the verge of another majority.
    Feels good in the (QC) hood!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *