Sam Lilly

Very strongly agree

No

The party platform emphasizes that people should be punished for crimes they have committed, not for crimes they might commit in the future based on subjective interpretations of speech. 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

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

The Conservative Party has pledged to protect free speech and has consistently criticized the vague definitions of 'hate speech' used by the current Liberal government to justify new regulations. 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

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

Poilievre has used almost identical rhetoric, describing the bill's provisions as 'Orwellian' and comparing it to 'Minority Report' style pre-crime detection. 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 disagree

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

While the CPC supports judicial oversight in general, they view the specific concept of house arrest for anticipated hate speech as fundamentally incompatible with a free society. 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

Yes

Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives have explicitly denounced the preventative detention provisions of Bill C-63 as a fundamental violation of civil liberties and due process. 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

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

The Conservatives reject the expansion of peace bonds to speech-related offenses, arguing that current laws already adequately address direct threats of violence. 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.