Majid Jowhari

Very strongly agree

Yes

The Liberal Party introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which specifically proposes allowing judges to impose preventative peace bonds on individuals suspected of committing future hate crimes. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly agree

Yes, preventative peace bonds are a proven legal tool to stop stochastic terrorism before online radicalization turns into real-world violence

This statement aligns perfectly with the rhetoric used by Justice Minister Arif Virani to justify the peace bond provisions in Bill C-63 as necessary tools for public safety. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes, but only with strict judicial oversight and a high burden of proof to prevent the weaponization of the justice system against political dissidents

The Liberal Party argues that the legislation includes sufficient judicial oversight and safeguards to prevent the abuse of these preventative measures. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No

This contradicts the Liberal government's flagship legislative effort to regulate online harms and proactively prevent hate-motivated violence through judicial intervention. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No, and we must entirely repeal Bill C-63 because 'hate speech' is too subjectively defined by whichever political party is in power

The Liberal Party is the primary architect and defender of Bill C-63 and views the expansion of hate speech definitions as a progressive step toward a safer internet. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No, this is a dystopian Minority Report overreach that crushes free expression by assuming guilt for crimes that haven't happened yet

This characterization mirrors the criticism from the Conservative Party and civil liberties groups, which the Liberal Party has consistently rejected as misinformation. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.