By Peter Taras

Bill C-63 purports to prevent harms to children. This would appear to be a good thing. Who doesn’t want to protect children? Consider that the people looking to pass Bill-C-63 are the same people who passed Bill C-4, which legalized the gender transitioning of minors and criminalized parents for trying to persuade their own children not to gender transition, so immediately I am skeptical of their definition of what it means to “protect.”

Much of this bill focuses on online sexual exploitation of minors, which every reasonable person would condemn. If this bill truly wanted to protect children, then they should clearly define what constitutes an offense of “online sexual exploitation of minors.” Instead, the bill uses shaky language such as “hate crime offence” and offences “motivated by hatred.”

Can we protect children more by strengthening government or strengthening families?

Another concern is that Part 2 of the Act redefines hate speech to include offensive language.

Who defines what is offensive?

Anyone who has a thought contrary to your own can be considered “offensive.”

If you believe that abortion is not healthcare, euthanasia is not compassion, genital mutilation of children is not “gender affirming care,” and Covid-19 vaccines are not 100% safe and effective, then according to Bill C-63 you are now spreading misinformation. And since children need to be protected from these hateful ideas, the offender requires jail time or fines. Also, anyone who does not “follow the Science” is subject to criminal penalty.

Would Bill C-63 and the creation of a new government bureaucracy prevent any child from committing suicide due to cyber-bullying?
The erroneous notion exists, by some, that social media platforms have a duty to protect your children. That duty ultimately lies with parents. Parents who are involved with their children every day and who control screen time are far less likely to encounter so-called cyber-bullying. Creating another layer of government bureaucracy with the veneer of virtuosity may help to make some people feel good, but it will not do anything to protect children and their families.

Our government is intent on destroying the family by promoting transgenderism, discouraging marriage, encouraging abortion, and making children reliant on government rather than on their parents. By continuing to outsource parenting to government, the family unit is weakened further, therefore magnifying the problem. A strong country is built by empowering families and individuals, not by empowering government.

Any government that believes it protects children by mutilating their genitals is not a government I can trust to protect my children. It is not the job of government to raise your children, it is the job of government to protect your rights so that you can raise your children according to your values.

Politicians now want to protect children from religion, morals, and family values. Bill C-63 will, in fact, criminalize the very things that this country was built on. During the pandemic, truth was censored and now our government wants to go one step further and punish any truth-tellers.

Totalitarianism has always been defended by the phrases: “to protect the common good,” or “to protect the children,” or “for your health and safety.”

There are at least 50 million corpses to prove that the ideologies of Marxism and Fascism that limit free speech and control government’s ability to control speech have never worked.

These ideologies are very cunning and have subverted the intellect of the smartest people.

Bill C-63 undermines human dignity through compelled speech and thought, and if it passes, it will continue to unravel the threads of our country.