Trudeau has asked the Governor General (the British Crown's representative in Canadian Government) to prologue parliament to give his party time to find a replacement to run in the next election. This means parliament will be shut down, and bills that have been introduced but not passed into law basically become dead. If anyone wants to bring a law back in the next session, it will have to be reintroduced and debated, etc. One of Trudeau's worst bills was C-64, the so-called Online Harms Act. I asked Grok to summarize anyone unfamiliar with this legislation why this bill was so bad, and therefore why Trudeau's resignation cascades to this excellent consequence.
Libertarians express several significant concerns regarding Canada's Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act:
Freedom of Expression:
Libertarians argue that the bill poses a substantial threat to free speech. They are particularly worried about provisions that could lead to the criminalization of certain expressions, potentially creating a chilling effect where individuals might self-censor to avoid harsh penalties, including life imprisonment for hate-motivated crimes. Critics fear this could extend to prosecuting individuals for "thought crimes" or opinions that are merely offensive but not necessarily harmful.
Government Overreach and Surveillance:
There is a strong concern about the expansion of government surveillance and control over online content. The establishment of a Digital Safety Commission with powers to regulate content, impose fines, and even enter residences without warrants is viewed as an overstep, potentially leading to a surveillance state. This is seen as a move towards digital authoritarianism where the state can excessively monitor and control what is said online.
Anonymity and Reporting System:
The bill allows for anonymous reporting of "hateful conduct," with financial incentives for informants. Libertarians find this system problematic, as it could encourage abuse and lead to the weaponization of the reporting mechanism, where individuals might be targeted for their opinions rather than actual harmful actions. This could create a culture of snitching and undermine the principles of fair trial and due process.
Vagueness of Definitions:
The definitions of what constitutes "harmful content" or "hate speech" are seen as overly broad and vague, leading to fears of arbitrary enforcement. Critics argue that such ambiguity could be exploited to suppress legitimate discourse, including political dissent, under the guise of protecting against online harms.
Potential for Misuse:
There's apprehension that the bill could be misused to target political opponents or minority voices, especially given the government's discretion in interpreting what content is harmful. This could disproportionately affect those speaking out against government policies or expressing controversial but legal views.
Retroactive Penalties:
The notion that police could retroactively search for and penalize past online content is another point of contention, as it suggests a policing of historical expressions, which is fundamentally at odds with libertarian principles of individual liberty and privacy.
These concerns collectively paint a picture of a bill that libertarians view as potentially stifling free speech, expanding state power, and creating a climate of fear around digital communication, which they argue is antithetical to the values of liberty and personal responsibility.
I think of these two cities as Satan's playgrounds within America. LV is called the City of Sin for good reason. NOLA is different but the same...a place drenched in debauchery and of course the voodoo is clearly satanic. I'm not saying that either city is 100% evil, nor that other satanic thrones don't exist in America, but I just think of these two cities being linked in that way, that many people regularly visit them just to immerse themselves in a sinful atmosphere. My 2¢.
When Abraham pleaded for Sodom in Genesis 18, God said he would hypothetically spare Sodom for the sake of ten righteous men if such existed. Well, Sodom may have fallen short, but I know there are millions of men and women in the USA who have received the righteousness of Christ. God will NOT allow your nation to be destroyed. God bless you, and may His will be done in your nation.
This study looked at intergenerational economic mobility and found that one's neighbors had a greater influence on the next generation's economic situation than the parents' race or economic situation. (Seems to me like culture is a big factor.)
Side note: the study was funded by Gates Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and Overdeck Family Foundation. Two out of 3 of those will be a big surprise for many here, including me.
My friend's mom just got diagnosed with terminal glioblastoma (brain cancer). Knowing about Ivermectin, I've been looking up scholarly research articles to present to my friend so it doesn't just get brushed aside as a tinfoil-hat kind of snake-oil cure. Yes, there are promising signs for how Ivermectin can treat different types of cancers, including glioblastomas.
However, in researching doses, I came across an article about treating cancers with Doramectin (which, as the name suggests, is an anti-parasitic related to Ivermectin; however, Doramectin is almost exclusively used in veterinary medicine, whereas IVM is used in both humans and animals).
One line in the study (I looked up the full text through my local library) stood out to me:
[Doramectin] is absorbed more quickly, and has a longer lasting effect and plasma half‑life in animals compared with IVM ...
So I'm thinking, the elites were scared of Ivermectin getting publicized, not so much because they don't want us to get our dirty little hands on Ivermectin, but because Ivermectin is the gateway drug, so to speak, to other forms of related drugs that could be even more potent.