TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @LeslynLewis

Saved - January 28, 2026 at 9:11 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I fear Bill C-16 creates new offences (Criminal Code 264.01) for a “pattern of coercive or controlling conduct” even when there is no violence or threats. Ordinary, loving family interactions—asking where a spouse is, expressing concern about drinking, discussing finances, setting boundaries—could be labeled criminal after the fact. Crimes should target clear abuse; this bill risks police intervention in homes.

@LeslynLewis - Dr. Leslyn Lewis

Do you think the government should criminalize everyday interactions in your home with your family? If not, you should read Bill C-16. The bill creates new offences (Criminal Code Section 264.01), which are deeply concerning for normal, loving family interactions, based on a “pattern of coercive or controlling conduct,” even when no violence, threats, or illegal acts occur. It criminalizes a pattern of otherwise lawful and often common behaviour that may later be perceived as threatening by an intimate partner. That means ordinary family interactions could be re-interpreted as criminal after the fact. Examples include: - Asking a spouse where they are after they said they’d be home -Expressing concern about excessive drinking -Disagreeing about finances or spending -Asking a partner not to give children junk food - Raising concerns about time away from family - Setting household boundaries or expectations These are not crimes. They are part of marriage, parenting, and shared responsibility. This does not diminish the seriousness of coercive control in genuinely abusive relationships. But criminal law should target clear abuse and violence, which are already addressed in law. Bill C-16, as written, opens the door to police intervention in the homes of ordinary families.

Saved - November 18, 2025 at 11:24 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I argue Liberal Budget 2025 calls a digital program “generationally transformative” and Canadians deserve to know what that means. It shifts infrastructure from bridges to AI networks and digital IDs; counts data and behavior in GDP; moves toward programmable digital currency; tracks purchases, travel, and carbon in a centralized ledger; replaces ownership with access; I warned this was coming and urge Canadians to engage for consent.

@LeslynLewis - Dr. Leslyn Lewis

When Liberal Budget 2025 calls a digital program “generationally transformative,” Canadians deserve to know exactly what that means, and how it will reshape their rights, their democracy, and the integrity of the nation. This budget sets in motion changes to your life in fundamental ways. Under this new digital framework: You will see national infrastructure begin shifting from physical assets like bridges and power grids to AI networks, data centres, and emerging digital ID systems that govern access to services. You may experience your economic activity being redefined, as your data, behaviour, and digital interactions become counted as part of Canada’s capital assets and GDP. You will eventually spend money differently as the government moves towards programmable digital currency to control when, where, and how your funds can be used, and even expiring if not spent. You will be tracked more closely, as your purchases, travel patterns, and even your carbon footprint become part of a centralized ledger that monitors real-time interactions. You will see ownership replaced with access, as government and corporations move toward systems where you rent, subscribe, or log in, where Gen-Z's should forget about ever owning a home, products, or tools outright. I warned five years ago that this shift was coming, and now the foundation for it is being laid. My hope is that this serves as a wake-up call for Canadians to become more engaged in our public life, because the future of our rights, our democracy, and our national identity will depend on your consent.

Saved - October 23, 2025 at 10:00 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing an update on the WHO Pandemic Treaty and inviting Canadians to join the call for Parliament to debate the agreement before it’s signed and ratified in Canada. Read the full update and add your name at https://whotreaty.ca.

@LeslynLewis - Dr. Leslyn Lewis

I have heard from many Canadians asking for an update on the World Health Organization Pandemic Treaty and how they can stay involved on this critical issue. Today, I am pleased to share an opportunity for Canadians to join the call for Parliament to debate the WHO Pandemic Agreement before it is signed and ratified here in Canada. You can read the full update and add your name to the petition at https://whotreaty.ca.

(no title) whotreaty.ca
Saved - October 14, 2025 at 5:19 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Reading Bill C-8, I see a danger: it could silence Canadians who dissent and let ministers decide who has a voice. If Canada is to stay free, we must not erode liberties for security, nor let ministers override courts and silence people.

@LeslynLewis - Dr. Leslyn Lewis

When we read Bill C-8 and look at what it actually says, it’s clear this bill risks digitally shutting out Canadians who dare to dissent, while giving the Minister sweeping power to decide who gets a voice. If Canada is to stand as a beacon of freedom, we cannot erode our liberties—or our ability to speak up—in the name of security. We cannot allow government ministers to usurp the courts and decide who loses their right to speak freely.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and preserve the core claims about Bill c eight and how it should be read. - Retain explicit statements about weaponization risk and the protection of telecommunication infrastructure. - Highlight who the speaker says is most at risk (dissenters, civil society actors) and why. - Emphasize the asserted impact on fundamental justice, security, transparency, and liberty. - Quote exact phrases where they carry key meaning, and paraphrase the rest to maintain coherence. - Exclude evaluation or commentary about truthfulness; do not add new claims. - Translate if needed (text is already in English). - Keep the final summary within the 368–461 word limit. Summary: We must take the bill at face value. We must rely on what the text explicitly sets out in the law. Otherwise, the law intended to protect telecommunication infrastructure could easily be weaponized by any government against ordinary citizens. The speaker emphasizes that this concern would arise if the bill is not interpreted strictly by its text, framing a risk that the law’s protections could be misused to target the public rather than shield critical infrastructure. The argument underscores the potential misalignment between formal protections and actual practice if the text is not applied as written. Citizens most at risk, according to the speaker, are people like me—those who publicly and loudly express dissent, challenge orthodoxy, or raise uncomfortable truths. These individuals are described as the most active in civil society and therefore the ones most at risk of being cut off, penalized, and isolated without ever knowing why. The speaker frames dissenters as central to democratic life, noting that their visibility and vocal advocacy place them in a particularly vulnerable position under the bill’s regime as envisioned by critics. For these reasons, Bill c eight undermines the principles of fundamental justice in the charter as it stands. The assertion implies that the bill, in its current form, jeopardizes core constitutional guarantees by enabling measures that could circumvent due process or equal protection in the name of security or infrastructure protection. The concluding claim connects security to a broader concern: security in this context can be a pretext for control while transparency and liberty are sacrificed. In other words, the speaker contends that heightened security measures risk eroding openness and individual freedoms, using the bill as a vehicle for increased governmental reach at the expense of civil liberties.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We must take the bill at face value. We must rely on what the text explicitly sets out in the law. Otherwise, the law intended to protect telecommunication infrastructure could easily be weaponized by any government against ordinary citizens. Yeah. Yeah. Citizens most at risk are people like me. Those who publicly and loudly ex express dissent, challenge orthodoxy, or raise uncomfortable truths. These citizens most active in in civil society are most at risk of being cut off, penalized, and isolated without ever knowing why. For these reasons, Bill c eight undermines the principles of fundamental justice in the charter as it stands. Security in this context can be a pretext for control while transparency and liberty are sacrificed.
Saved - October 2, 2025 at 8:30 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Bill C-9 isn't aimed at combating hate; it's about empowering Ottawa to silence us. Current laws already address hate crimes, but C-9 removes Attorney General oversight and introduces a vague emotional test for "hatred," risking the criminalization of dissent. We need genuine protection, not laws that weaponize free speech.

@LeslynLewis - Dr. Leslyn Lewis

Bill C-9 isn’t about fighting hate - it’s about giving Ottawa more power to silence our voices. Existing law already criminalizes genocide, hate propaganda, symbols, and vandalism (Sections 318, 319, 423, 430). C-9 removes Attorney General oversight, replaces objective “hatred” with a vague emotional test, and risks criminalizing dissent. This isn’t protection — it’s politicized power. Canadians need real protection — NOT laws that weaponize free speech. #cdnpoli

Video Transcript AI Summary
Christian hate was not even mentioned in the bill. Just last week, a century old Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Edmonton was burned to the ground. The government's press release mentions anti Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia, yet it makes no mention of the rise of hate crimes towards Christians. This bill does not add new protections for worshippers. Instead, it expands state powers by removing the legal safeguards and watering down the definition of hate speech. It even risks criminalizing dissent to what some would call thought crimes. Once such powers are granted to the government, they can be weaponized by any government against its critics. Bill c nine attempts to redefine hatred so vaguely that it risks capturing legitimate debate.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Beginning with my first objection to bill c nine, I find it quite perplexing that Christian hate was not even mentioned in the bill. In recent years, we have seen alarming hate motivated attacks, including burning and vandalism of churches across Canada. Just last week, a century old Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Edmonton was burned to the ground. As we witness a record number of sacred spaces being destroyed, Christians have noticed the government's silence. Congregations have been left in fear and people of faith feeling abandoned by their government's lack of enforcement of existing laws. In this context, it is shocking that a bill about combating hate is completely silent on the rise of Christian hate. The government's press release mentions anti Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia, yet it makes no mention of the rise of hate crimes towards Christians. This bill does not add new protections for worshippers. Instead, it expands state powers by removing the legal safeguards and watering down the definition of hate speech. It paves the path towards politicizing restrictions on speech. It even risks criminalizing dissent to what some would call thought crimes. We must exercise caution. Once such powers are granted to the government, they can be weaponized by any government against its critics. The existing criminal code already covers the most serious offenses. Section three eighteen makes it a crime to advocate or promote genocide. Section three nineteen criminalizes public incitement of ace hatred and willful promotion of hate and speech that would lead to a breach of peace. These provisions already strike a careful balance between protecting Canadians from true hate and safeguarding freedom of expression. Bill c nine attempts to redefine hatred so vaguely that it risks capturing legitimate debate.
Saved - November 18, 2024 at 8:52 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
This week, news emerged about Trudeau's $9-million investment in a cricket protein factory in Canada. I previously warned Canadians about this expenditure, hoping the Liberals would reconsider and consult the public. Instead, they launched a smear campaign against me. Now, the truth is coming to light. This situation highlights the need for mature political discourse rather than insults. Canadians have consistently expressed their disinterest in eating bugs, a sentiment that remains unchanged since 2022.

@LeslynLewis - Dr. Leslyn Lewis

This week the news broke about Trudeau’s $9-million deal to establish a cricket protein factory in Canada. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trudeau-9-million-bet-on-edible-crickets-runs-into-trouble The Liberals have wasted $9 million tax-payer dollars to explore edible crickets. In 2022, I alerted Canadians to this fact in hopes that the Liberals would have some shame and at least consult with Canadians. Instead they launched a smear campaign against me to try to silence me. I have included the letter I sent out below. Now, people are seeing the truth of the matter. This is a great example of why we need to engage in mature political discourse on issues, instead of just name calling and belittling people. Canadians don’t want to eat bugs, it was as true in 2022, as it is today.

FIRST READING: Trudeau’s $9 million bet on edible crickets runs into trouble The world's largest cricket factory, funded in large part by federal monies, enters extended retooling nationalpost.com
Saved - September 12, 2024 at 3:45 AM

@LeslynLewis - Dr. Leslyn Lewis

In Canada, children cannot buy alcohol or marijuana, but they can get free government-subsidized crack pipes, drug needles, and naloxone kits. Let that sink in. This 13-year-old’s death should never have happened! https://bc.ctvnews.ca/parents-fight-for-change-after-13-year-old-girl-dies-in-b-c-homeless-camp-1.7033221

Parents fight for change after 13-year-old girl dies in B.C. homeless camp Brianna McDonald's death was caused by a suspected overdose, according to her family. And her grieving parents are urging change so other families don’t have to face what they are going though. bc.ctvnews.ca
View Full Interactive Feed