Is there something malevolent about truth? Is it dangerous? For the person who wants to live in harmony with reality, of course not. For them, truth is a beautiful salvation that summits with the man, Christ Jesus. So why do governments try to censor it?
They do so because the truth is dangerous for those with self-interested objectives—some of them very evil—that rebel against reality. For them, truth is a threat. It’s a long-standing, stubborn, undefeated, enemy that testifies to the sin of their odious plans.
That is why it’s no surprise the Liberals introduce internet censorship bills. Their policies are increasingly unnatural, anti-human, anti-law, and not at all conducive to human flourishing. They don’t defend the cause of the needy or champion the existence of freedom; rather, MP’s solidify their seats in the House of Commons. The truth is a check on this contemptible power. But if MP's can't defeat truth, it must be silenced.
For example, there is no climate emergency. Study after study concludes the environment is going along exactly as it has for millennia. The production and harvest of oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels, means that we are more equipped to weather our naturally merciless, harsh, and deadly, climate than we’ve ever been. But these encouraging statistics are contrary to the alarmism promoted by radical leftists. They do not provide objective evidence that proves their position, but rather, shout senseless arguments from their moral throne.
The problem is that when facts are strategically engaged against pathos, the appeal to emotion sputters and fails. Truth is a heavyweight that Liberals don’t want to fight, so they try to censor it instead.
Proving how serious Trudeau is about this, the Western Standard recently reported that the Liberal caucus invited its members to poll what they believed were the most important constituents of the new agenda. Bills C-10 and 36 were omitted.
Pablo Rodriguez, “on October 26 described regulation of YouTube videos under the Broadcasting Act as fundamental. ‘We promised to bring in some bills very quickly. C-10 is one of them. Why? Because it is fundamental.’”*
Why call internet censorship bills “fundamental?” It certainly isn’t fundamental to freedom, the rule of law, or our country. Instead, fundamental things can’t be debated. Doing so brands oneself a fool. By calling “C-10” fundamental, Rodriguez insinuates that any criticism about the bill should be discouraged and treated as idiotic.
Everyone knows internet censorship isn’t for safety or to control “hate speech.” To justify the bill on those grounds is like putting up a 6ft chain link fence to block mosquitoes
In actuality, the internet is a hub where ideas can be debated and discussed. The problem for the Liberals is that with too much debate and discussion, people might discover what’s true. But what if the Liberals want to push an agenda that’s a lie? After reading articles online, what if a person concludes that climate change is a tool weaponized by Trudeau and other members of the G7 to force a radical dogma upon us? That isn’t advantageous for Canada’s party or their seats in the House, and as such, cannot be permitted to endure.
“But do you really think our government would act this way? Do you honestly believe they’d willingly harm their own people?”
Thank you for reading! If you’d like to stay informed about the Christian's perspective of current events, or if you’d like to join our growing community of members who love truth, subscribe here for free!
If you'd like to support my site and the work I do, click here! Thank you so much for your kind generosity!