Path: local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 20:59:45 +0000 From: BTR1701 Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: More on Canadia's Orwellian 'Online Harms Law' References: <20240518194548.00000649@example.com> <20240519162147.00003433@example.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 14:09:25 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 153 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-2232ERG48r7EQw48QSehv2J+lPtXJFhFvdJKk2/53pC8Fz8qJZ/a3brNXzsKcAnXQhR1bMWtTK0NUZL!98a66ToEIb+24HhbkK99CaV+qcXi9zQpR3jwdpqRj8/G3DUwBs5Fi9Z6Sw/YM2K07kN9+ySz2UB9!+o8= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 9189 In article <20240519162147.00003433@example.com>, Rhino wrote: > On Sat, 18 May 2024 20:28:21 -0700 > 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 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. > > What is the source of the quotes you've put in this thread? I really > need to share this with all my friends, none of whom are on Usenet. The Spectator in the UK. > This law should be massively gutted, especially of the provisions that > allow for its application to things said before the law is passed and > the money paid to snitches. The definition of "hate" and the > distinction from "disdain", "dislike", et. al. also needs to be a lot > clearer. Of course if they do that, nothing much is left.