reSee.it - Related Video Feed

JC stands outside the House of Commons where he was recently banned. Today, a non-confidence petition is being read, and more people are being removed from the House. JC talks to someone who was allowed in when he was kicked out. They discuss how the petition was applauded by everyone except JC, who was singled out and told not to clap. They speculate that their presence and political leanings are seen as a danger by the members of the House. They conclude that their voices are their weapon.

According to Speaker 0, Canada's new prime minister threatened to seize capital from companies not advancing Canada's climate agenda. Speaker 1 stated the goal is for every financial decision to consider climate change, backing companies that are part of the solution and taking capital away from those who are part of the problem. Speaker 0 claims the prime minister is a fan of censorship and threatened American social media platforms, referencing a statement by Speaker 1 that large American online platforms have become seas of hate and are being used by criminals to harm children, and that his government will act. Speaker 0 asserts there is no free speech in Canada and that the prime minister wants to ban social media platforms, shut down dissent, and use the climate crisis as an excuse to steal from businesses and control their means of production. Speaker 0 concludes that while the friendship between the US and Canada will continue, the "free ride" is over.

Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, called for the censorship of a video showing evidence of wrongdoing by the federal government and the police department controlled by Nancy Pelosi. He claimed that showing the video was a threat to democracy. Schumer was joined by Mitch McConnell and other Republicans in their outrage and calls for censorship. This reaction stems from fear and panic because the videos challenge the lies they have been telling. It is clear that they are all on the same side, regardless of party affiliation, and are aligned against everyone else. This incident reveals their shared interests and exposes their true intentions.

Speaker 0 opens by saying they take umbrage and will speak on behalf of their colleagues. They state they are "willing to work with anyone who's serious about doing the work of censoring the American people and advancing progress." They add, "That's right. But they are not serious."

Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, outside. Ministry of Women and Gender Diversity. You can't give an inch to the left. Can you define a shitty lefty? Because they're all shitty. What madness are we living in? The madness of stupid political correctness where if you don't recite cool socialism, if you're not woke, then you're violent, a danger to democracy. Come on. Sure. Let's continue with this nonsense and instead of being united, let's create the biggest slum.

The speaker expresses concern over a piece of legislation pursued by the Albanese government, stating that no government can be trusted to determine what is true or false. They compare this to actions taken by dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. They mention various topics that have been censored, such as Wuhan, the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. They question whether Facebook would be fined for publishing a specific story. The speaker believes this level of censorship is reminiscent of Orwell's "1984" and expresses worry about the government's ability to pass the legislation with support from the Greens and crossbenchers. Another speaker emphasizes the importance of trusted news services and the dangers of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

The Canadian government is proposing a bill, C-63, to combat online hate speech by defining and punishing hatred. Offenses motivated by hate could lead to life imprisonment. The bill also allows for pre-crime reporting and anonymous complaints, with rewards for accusers. Critics fear abuse of power and suppression of free speech. Prime Minister Trudeau's past accusations of hate against protesters raise concerns about misuse of the proposed legislation. People are mobilizing to oppose the bill.

The transcript claims that the Canadian government has passed Bill C-9, the “Combating Hate Act,” and that it is heading for royal assent to become law. The speaker characterizes it as an expansion of government control over speech, belief, and religious expression, saying it would make it easier to prosecute and jail Canadians for what they say—particularly when it involves sincerely held religious beliefs. The transcript argues the bill is portrayed as protecting places of worship and cracking down on hate symbols, while allegedly functioning as state-sponsored censorship and an assault on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The speaker says Bill C-9 amends the Criminal Code by creating new offenses related to intimidation or obstruction at religious or cultural sites, adding a standard hate crime provision, and banning the display of certain hate symbols in public. The transcript states that some conduct could lead to up to 10 years. It further claims a key protection is removed: the “good faith religious expression defense,” which the speaker says used to prevent pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams from being dragged into court for willfully promoting hatred based on quoting religious texts or expressing sincerely held beliefs. The transcript presents examples, including reading Leviticus in church and discussing biblical views on marriage or sexuality, warning that vague definitions of “extreme vilification” or “detestation” could allow a judge to interpret the terms in a way that results in prison time, even for religious expression. The transcript asserts the bill is not about stopping Nazis or violent thugs because it claims laws already exist for intimidation and threats, and instead is described as chilling dissent by lowering the threshold for what counts as hate while narrowing defenses. The speaker claims enforcement would aim to keep challenges to approved narratives on gender, immigration, culture, and religion from happening without fear of state consequences, including through self-censorship by pastors and everyday Canadians. It also claims that many people wrote in to oppose the bill, including faith leaders, free speech groups, and the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, but that the bill was still passed with rushed votes and minimal debate. The transcript references prior legislation and measures—such as the Emergencies Act, “online harm bills,” and pandemic mandates—as part of a repeated pattern of creating a crisis, offering a solution that increases power, and labeling opponents as villains. The speaker’s calls to action include staying informed by reading the bill and sharing information, supporting groups fighting in court, not self-censoring, exposing enforcement attempts by filming and sharing, and building “parallel structures” such as independent media, strong communities, and resilient families. The transcript concludes with the claim that Bill C-9 is another step toward greater state control and encourages continued resistance, with a final line asserting, “The truth will set you free.”

Speaker 0 accuses the Liberal government of attempting to censor Canadians online through bills like C-11, C-18, and C-63. They claim these bills give the Liberals control over online algorithms, squeeze out independent media, and criminalize thought. The speaker alleges that cabinet ministers are competing to oversee the latest online censorship law. Speaker 1 responds by stating that Google agreed to pay $100 million to support Canadian journalism. They accuse the Conservative Party of opposing this initiative, which they claim would prevent deaths and hinder the media from receiving funding for local content and journalists. The speaker deems this opposition unthinkable and immoral.

The speaker expresses concern over a piece of legislation pursued by the Albanese government, stating that no government can be trusted to determine what is true or false. They compare this to actions taken by dictators like Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Xi Jinping. They mention various topics that have been censored, such as Wuhan, the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. They question whether Facebook would be fined for publishing a specific story. The speaker believes this level of censorship is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 and expresses worry about the government's ability to pass the legislation with support from the Greens and friendly crossbenchers. Another speaker emphasizes the importance of trusted news services and the dangers of misinformation and conspiracy theories.

In this video, a member of parliament raises concerns about outside interference in democracy. They mention Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum, who allegedly claimed that his organization has infiltrated governments, including Canada's cabinet. The member asks for transparency regarding which cabinet ministers support the WEF's agenda. However, the audio and video quality are poor, leading to interruptions and apologies from the speaker. Another member accuses the first member of promoting disinformation. Then, a third member thanks a colleague for their speech and intends to ask a specific question related to the legislation being discussed.

The speaker criticizes the idea of unity among politicians, highlighting instances where unity led to negative outcomes. They mention the unity behind the passing of the Patriot Act, which was initially believed to target foreign individuals but ended up affecting citizens. The speaker also mentions unity in support of the Iraq war, COVID lockdowns, and distributing money to non-working individuals. They caution that when major bills have overwhelming support, it is a cause for concern.

The speaker discusses Canada becoming interesting in January and February due to protesters in Ottawa. The job of reporters, according to the speaker, is to go out and ask protesters why they are on the streets, why they are there with their kids, and why there is a bouncy castle in the middle of Ottawa, to discover the story. The speaker claims the Government did not want that and that the Prime Minister decided in advance that the protesters were all the modern excommunications—Nazis, white supremacists, anti-Semites, probably homophobes, misogynists, probably transphobes, etc.—and then he brings in the Emergency Powers Act. The speaker asks what the mainstream media would do at such a time, and asserts they would question it, but claims the Canadian mainstream media did not and instead acted as an Amen Chorus of the government. Several examples are provided. A CBC host described the Freedom Convoy as a feral mob. A Toronto Star columnist said, “sorry for the language, it's a homegrown hate farm that was then jet fueled by an American right funded rat fucking operation.” The speaker notes that CBC claimed two indigenous women who were scared to go outside in Ottawa because of racist violence did not bother to mention that indigenous drummers had led the truckers in an 0 Canada rendition. The National Observer allegedly stated that many black and indigenous freedom convoy supporters were, in fact, duped by the truckers. A Globe and Mail reporter claimed, “My 13 year old son told me to tell protesters I'm not a Jew” out of fear of antisemitic violence, without mentioning that one of the convoy leaders was Jewish. The speaker argues this demonstrably rancid and corrupt behavior is rooted in a system where in Canada, the media is funded by the government. It is stated that in 2018, election year, there was a coincidence with the government funding; the Canadian media allegedly received $595,000,000 over five years, and the Toronto Star estimated it was going to be getting $3,000,000 from the Government in the first half of the year. The government is described as able to tell banks to shut down people’s bank accounts, and able to tell the media what to do, with the media then doing the bidding of the government camp. The speaker concludes that this is not a free society’s media.

The Democrats have lost their minds and are out of control. You could see it the other night during the speech when they wouldn't stand up for the two young ladies killed by illegal aliens, or the young man with cancer. All they wanted to do was stand up and applaud the man and the young boy. Nobody has ever seen anything like that.

Speaker 0: The government’s proposal, as outlined in the document, sets out the steps to move the legislation. It says the committee will meet within one hour of adopting the order to complete clause-by-clause consideration. If they have not finished within 30 minutes of the meeting’s start, all remaining amendments submitted by 4:30 will be “dean moved,” and subsequent steps will follow to move the bill quickly through the House of Commons. Speaker 1: This is dangerous territory because the subject matter involves giving police and other authorities increased powers. An order that requires all bill details to be passed within 30 minutes is frustrating to those who want police to have the right tools and also want Canadians’ privacy protected. The issue is that such a process is likely to be imperfect and then challenged and applied unevenly (“too strong here,” “too weak here”). Speaker 1 contrasts the idea of pushing back: if an important priority is truly important, time should be set aside, while dragging heels and causing chaos can justify pushing; however, Speaker 1 is not sure that justification applies to this bill. Speaker 1 also describes a broader pattern across multiple bills, saying the government will later claim people have been examining them for months even though they were introduced at the last minute with the clock running. Speaker 1 concludes that the bills matter, are very important to Canadians, and are likely to be gotten wrong without sufficient scrutiny or pushback on the government’s original ideas.

The speaker expresses frustration with liberals and accuses the federal government and the Biden administration of targeting conservatives. They criticize liberals for supporting government actions that restrict freedom of speech and argue that the government is afraid of the right side of the country. The speaker warns that once the government is done with conservatives, they will turn their attention to the left, and the consequences will be much worse.

MP Frank Caputo from Kamloops Thompson Cariboo expresses his disbelief that several Liberals voted against the Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act. He is standing outside the House of Commons and mentions the green carpet behind him. Caputo mentions that the bill, S210, was championed by his colleague Karen Vecchio and he expected it to have unanimous support.

The speaker argues that people often believe untrue things, using vaccinations as a prime example, and asserts that vaccines should not be forced but that if you don’t want to get vaccinated, you cannot board planes or trains alongside vaccinated people. The speaker states that anti-vaxxers are wrong and emphasizes that to travel on planes or trains in the coming months, individuals must be fully vaccinated. Those who hesitate or resist will not enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities as those who have done their part for others, with consequences for choosing not to get vaccinated. The speaker contends that while frustrations with mandates are understandable, mandates are necessary to avoid further restrictions, and unvaccinated people will not be able to board a plane or a train in Canada. The federal government has invoked the Emergencies Act, with interjections of “Go. Go. Go.” The speaker notes that Canada is a place of free expression where individuals and communities can express themselves openly and strongly, and thanks people for sharing their perspectives. The speaker adds that democracy does not mean everyone must agree; it means everyone can work together, listen to each other, and respect each other. The speaker then references young leaders, stating that “they all have been young global leaders of the World Economic Forum.” The final emphasis is on pride in the newer generation, describing “a young generation like prime minister Trudeau” as a source of pride.

Canada's agreement with Ukraine shows solidarity and support for their freedom and sovereignty. However, every conservative member of Parliament voted against it, which is shocking. It raises concerns about the conservative party's commitment to Ukraine and their lack of support for those fighting for freedom. Ukrainian Canadians should question the party's motives. Mr. Poliyev, who claims to stand for freedom, has not shown support for Ukraine or people around the world.

Speaker describes conservatives warning that a serious bill is being pushed to restrict freedom of speech by making it illegal to criticize Jews. They frame this as significant, noting a "little bit of good news" because Goebbels has one of those quotes: "once Jews start making laws about speaking about Jews, it's usually the the sign of their first their demise." The speaker replies, "That's awesome. Yeah, that's great," and then appeals for aid to push the bill, concluding with, "We could use your help with pushing that bill." The exchange reflects a stance in favor of the bill and opposition to criticizing Jews.

The video features a confrontation between individuals and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The speakers accuse Trudeau of censoring the internet, gaslighting, and dismissing dissenting voices. They also criticize his handling of veterans and accuse him of being a weak leader. The speakers express their anger and frustration, calling Trudeau a narcissist, weakling, and a Nazi. They demand accountability and express their belief in the power of truth and Jesus Christ. The video ends with a confrontation between the speakers and law enforcement officers.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss what they call the TikTok ban bill, claiming it does more than just ban TikTok. They assert that foreign adversaries can change definitions at any time, listing a few already, but saying these definitions can change, enabling broader control. They warn that a group could be labeled as foreign adversaries, including doctors, by loosely defined terms. They claim the bill covers hardware technology such as modems, routers, home cameras, and virtual tech like VPNs, and bans them if they are manufactured by or used to contact and deal with foreign adversaries. They explain that a VPN is a virtual private network that allows users to search on Google while revealing data about them, and that using VPNs to bypass banned apps like TikTok becomes a criminal act under the bill, with penalties of a minimum imprisonment of twenty years and a minimum fine of $250,000 or $1,000,000 depending on whether the act was knowingly done to access banned content. The bill allegedly grants the federal government power to monitor any activity used by these suspected devices, whether virtual or not, effectively enabling twenty-four-seven monitoring of home activity without informing users. They list examples including routers, video games, streaming apps, smart thermostats, Ring cameras, and essentially anything that uses the internet, noting that cell phones and Alexa are included and that conversations could be used against individuals in court. They emphasize a particularly terrifying aspect: the bill would have the president appoint a secretary of communication, who then forms a group independently, without voter input, with meetings behind closed doors. This group could ban and deem anything inappropriate or a security risk at any moment, and could censor via access to instant messages, emails, texts, and anything that uses the internet. The speakers warn that if this passes, videos like theirs could disappear as apps like Telegram, which enable them to speak freely, might be removed. They question who in the government would decide what content is banned versus allowed content. They urge viewers to consider this deeply. In summary, they contend the bill could effectively ban anything the government deems inappropriate very quickly without warning, with ramifications including disrupting mass communication methods and enabling spying on home devices and cameras. They assert the bill is “that bad,” insisting they are not using hyperbole. Speaker 0 adds a metaphor about banning books from libraries and facing jail for accessing banned books, suggesting the bill represents a push for complete control and urging people to wake up and investigate further.

Pierre Pauliev announces an emergency in parliament as the Liberals shut down debate on their censorship bill. He says they are censoring debate on the online screening act and that closure is being used to ram the bill through in record time. He asserts that Liberal efforts would give Trudeau’s woke bureaucrats at the CRTC power to control what Canadians see and say online, describing it as creeping totalitarianism referenced by artist Margaret Atwood. Pauliev claims conservatives are the only party fighting back against this censorship bill and that Canadians should have the freedom to decide what they see and say online. He urges listeners to immediately sign his freedom of speech petition, providing a link, and states the goal of giving people back control of their lives to make Canada “the freest country on earth.”