TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Liberals are proposing a law where a minister can ban me from the Internet, my Internet service provider ban me from the Internet, and neither of us be able to say anything about it. Matt Strauss, who's a doctor and a physician and also a member of parliament, said that you need to be concerned about bill c eight. It allows Melanie Jolley to kick anyone off the Internet with no trial and no warrant. Worse off, you won't be able to say that you've even been kicked off. And this is the Emergencies Measures Act on steroids, only permanent and secret? "Watch this. Ministers order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunication system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption, degradation, the minister may by order and after consultation with the minister of public safety, prohibit a telecommunications service provider from providing any service to any specified person, including telecommunications service provider." "The order may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence or some or all of its contents by any person." "This is crazy." "The minister may require any person to provide to the minister or any person designated by the minister, meaning she's able to designate whoever the heck she wants, within any time and any subject to any conditions that the minister may specify." "Any information that the minister believes on reasonable grounds is relevant for the purpose of making, amending, or revoking an order under section 15." "This is insane." "This is a minister that will have the sole power to kick you off the Internet at their will, then ban you or anyone else from being able to speak on this." "If the conservatives did this, there would be an uproar all over the media, all over the world." "They would call them a dictatorship. They would call them communist. They would say this is Nazi like." "But the liberals are doing this, and now everyone's quiet." "Come people have to speak up." "I promise you, if this bill goes through, it's gonna be ugly for everyone." "And if I get kicked off, I'm going to break that ban." "I will talk about it. I will let the world know that a totalitarian state, a communist state of the Liberal Party is trying to silence its people at its discretion, not the police, but the government." "Ridiculous."

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.

The exchange centers on content posted online to the Department of State of Canada and the implications of that content. Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about what she posted and asks for a screenshot to verify the online statements. Speaker 1 asserts that she referred to someone as “a Zionist scumbag” and says “he's not my prime minister,” adding, “But really, you're gonna come to my door and you're worried that I'm going to do something.” Speaker 0 notes that there were “threats” and explains the purpose of the visit: to address such threats, which could lead to consequences if continued. Speaker 1 responds that the focus should be on “actual real crime” rather than harassing her over online remarks, and argues that the visit is a waste of tax dollars. Speaker 0 warns that if the behavior continues, there could be an arrest and charge, stating, “if you made some threats that are concerning… you could be arrested and charged.” Speaker 1 demands to see what she allegedly said, asking, “Show me what I said,” and accuses the interaction of harassment and harassment for expressing dissent about the prime minister. The dialogue touches on the nature of the statements. Speaker 1 repeats hostility toward the prime minister and labels the act as “harassing people for what they say online because I don't like our stupid prime minister, and he's a Zionist sunbag,” while Speaker 0 reiterates the right to express opinion but cautions against threats. The conversation escalates with Speaker 1 calling the environment “Communist Canada” and questioning the officers’ pride in their work, challenging, “How do you like working for that?… Do you go back home and look at your family in the mirror and say, this is what you do for a living?” Speaker 0 emphasizes the possibility of documenting the behavior and filing a report if the conduct continues, with a vague reference to “the Trump Blah blah blah blah blah.” Speaker 1 maintains, “I will say whatever the fuck I want about our prime minister. You can't stop my speech. Sorry. Opinion. Yeah. Exactly.” The dialogue ends with Speaker 1 stating, “Okay. Have a nice day. Goodbye now,” and Speaker 0 reiterating the threat assessment: “Be threatening. That's all I'm asking you.”

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.

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.

There is a small fringe minority with unacceptable views on their way to Ottawa, but they do not represent the majority of Canadians. Canadians believe in supporting each other and following scientific guidelines to protect one another. This is the best way to safeguard our freedoms, rights, and values as a country.

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 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.

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.

A journalist confronts Chrystia Freeland, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, about the government's support for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRDC). The journalist is then arrested by the police for allegedly assaulting someone. The journalist protests his innocence and requests the microphone to record the incident. He criticizes the government for suppressing freedom of speech and accuses them of prioritizing political correctness over addressing the IRDC's alleged terrorist activities. The journalist expresses frustration with the arrest and claims that Canada is becoming a totalitarian state. The video ends with the police providing a brief statement assuring everyone's safety.

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.”