Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rhino Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: More on Canadia's Orwellian 'Online Harms Law' Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 15:56:29 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 212 Message-ID: <20240521155629.00000d9a@example.com> References: <20240518194548.00000649@example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 21:56:32 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a5acfd34d5d083a9b28ad1c014840d3a"; logging-data="800733"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+oLeUWaSbGFWeBvk/yJJYwOmu01GgsOtA=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:6Nn9DX5dywNUXVUhr3ExO0ti4mg= X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240521-6, 5/21/2024), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.2.0 (GTK 3.24.41; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Bytes: 11022 On Sun, 19 May 2024 18:54:30 -0400 Nyssa wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > > In article <20240518194548.00000649@example.com>, > > Rhino wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 18 May 2024 16:12:37 -0700 > >> BTR1701 wrote: > >> > >> > This just gets nuttier and nuttier as well as more and > >> > more ominous for anyone who is a mapleback. Effa's so > >> > worried about Trump's dictatorial potential but Trump > >> > ain't got nothin' on Justin Trudeau's dictatorial > >> > reality. He's actually managed to work in *both* > >> > pre-crime penalties *and* ex-post facto law into the > >> > same bill. That's an achievement I don't think even > >> > Stalin and Mao managed to accomplish: > >> > > >> > The C-63 legislation authorizes house arrest and > >> > electronic monitoring for a person considered > >> > likely to commit a future crime. If a judge > >> > believes there are reasonable grounds to 'fear' a > >> > future hate crime, the as of yet innocent party > >> > can be sentenced to house arrest, complete with > >> > electronic monitoring, mandatory drug testing, and > >> > communication bans. Failure to cooperate nets you > >> > an additional year in jail. > >> > > >> > What is a hate crime? According to the Bill, it is > >> > a communication expressing 'detestation or > >> > vilification'. But, clarified the government, that > >> > is not the same as 'disdain or dislike', or speech > >> > that 'discredits, humiliates, hurts, or offends'. > >> > > >> > Unfortunately the government didn't think to > >> > include a graduated scheme setting out the > >> > relative acceptability of the words offend, hurt, > >> > humiliate, discredit, dislike, disdain, detest, > >> > and vilify. Under Bill C-63, you can be put away > >> > FOR LIFE for a 'crime' whose legal existence hangs > >> > on the distinction between 'dislike' and 'detest'. > >> > > >> > And if that's not fucking terrifying enough, as > >> > mentioned above, Trudeau has also added a retroactive > >> > ex-post facto feature to the bill: > >> > > >> > Canada to Imprison Anyone Who Has EVER Posted > >> > 'Hate Speech' Online > >> > > >> > The Trudeau regime has introduced an Orwellian new > >> > aspect to C-63 (The Online Harms Bill), which will > >> > give police the power to retroactively search the > >> > internet for 'hate speech' violations and arrest > >> > offenders, even if the offense occurred BEFORE the > >> > law even existed. > >> > > >> > If you don't thank every day whatever higher power you > >> > believe in that you live in a country whose founders > >> > not only gave us the Constitution but anticipated > >> > shitbags like Justin Trudeau and preemptively blocked > >> > them from being able to do bullshit like this, then you > >> > and I have no common frame of reference. > >> > >> There are going to be damned few Canadians that can't be > >> charged under this law if it gets passed - and there is > >> VERY little reason to imagine that it will NOT be passed > >> given that the Liberals and the NDP, who have a de facto > >> coalition, have enough votes to get it passed. > >> Ironically, a great many of those hateful remarks will be > >> those directed at those same two parties. Indeed, those > >> remarks may be WHY this legislation was created! The > >> politicians may have been more worried about themselves > >> being criticized than hurtful remarks being said about > >> minorities. > >> > >> A whole lot of the commenters in the websites that allow > >> comments have been quite open in expressing their disdain > >> for the present regime. I expect social media is much the > >> same. Heck, if Usenet counts as social media, I'm surely > >> going to be charged too for my remarks. If I suddenly go > >> quiet for more than a few days, you'll know that Bill > >> C-63 has swept me up. > > > > Wait! It gets worse... > > > > Not only do the 'hate speech provisions apply > > retroactively, the government will be paying bounties to > > people who snitch out their neighbors: > > > > Under C-63, anonymous accusations and secret > > testimony are permitted (at the Human Rights > > Tribunal's discretion). Complaints are free to file > > and an accuser, if successful, can stand to reap up > > to $20,000, with another $50,000 going to the > > government. > > > > What does any of this have to do with protecting > > children online? Nothing, as far as we can see. This > > entire law seems designed more to punish and silence > > enemies of the Liberal government and shield it from > > criticism than protect any children. > > > > In addition, all social media companies are going to > > be supervised by a brand-new government body called > > the Digital Safety Commission. This commission can, > > without oversight, require companies to block access > > to any content, conduct investigations, hold secret > > hearings, require companies to hand over specific > > content and information on account holders, and give > > all data to any third-party 'researchers' that the > > commission deems necessary. All data. Any content. No > > oversight. > > > > The ostensible purpose of putting the Commission (and > > not the ordinary police) in charge is so that it can > > act informally and quickly (i.e., without a > > warrant)... > > > > We don't need those pesky warrants anymore in Canadia. > > We're protecting the cheeeeeldruuuunnn, dontcha know? > > > > ...in situations where child porn can spread quickly > > across the internet. What it means in effect, > > however, is that the Digital Safety Commission is > > accountable to no one and does not have to justify > > its actions. It endows government appointees with > > vast authority to interpret the law, make up new > > rules, enforce them, and serve as judge, jury, and > > sentencing authority all in one. > > > > Canada already has laws criminalizing terrorism and > > threats, so we're not talking about someone plotting > > murder or terror. Then who are we talking about? > > People who read the 'wrong' websites? People who > > won't get vaccinated? People who criticize Justin > > Trudeau? People who go to church and believe certain > > activities are immoral and will send you to hell? > > > > Between the Online Harms Bill and his appalling > > misuse of the Emergencies Act to debank and > > protesters, Trudeau is making a mockery of the law he > > has sworn to uphold. > > > >> You might be surprised to note that this bill is NOT the > >> subject of great controversy in this country. In fact, > >> beyond the initial articles describing the intent of the > >> law, I haven't seen it even MENTIONED in our media > > > > Yes, they really do try and keep this sort of thing quiet > > until it's passed into law and the round-ups have begun, > > don't they? > > > >> Trudeau really HAS destroyed this country. This kind of > >> thing would have been unimaginable to anyone but the most > >> paranoid prior to his election in 2015. > > I can't see this tragedy of a proposed law being > declared constitutional if it is eventually passed. > > Even with that goofy "not withstanding clause" built > into the Canadian constitution that allows provinces > to opt out of laws and amendments they don't like, it > should not be able to pass a court's scrutiny or be > in line with the northern take on the US's Bill of > Rights...which is no where near as citizens'-rights > friendly as the US's. > I truly hope the normal mechanisms of the government will keep this atrocity from being passed in its current form. Then again, I'm appalled that Bill C-16 passed a few years back and allows for people to go to jail for 2 years for the act of misgendering someone! I would have thought THAT would also be unconsitutional. > For sure, if it does pass and is enforced, there will ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========