Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: More on Canadia's Orwellian 'Online Harms Law'
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 16:21:47 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <20240519162147.00003433@example.com>
References: <atropos-7BE517.16123718052024@news.giganews.com>
	<20240518194548.00000649@example.com>
	<atropos-4719EC.20282118052024@news.giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 22:21:52 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="09b046d3d2b1421e610827cd790f4694";
	logging-data="3734847"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/5UJLHM+ZLF9GaldRy0q6BpBa9jXOICtU="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8GhgzxXHc+Eo6SFSjd5bH4+p88Y=
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 240519-6, 5/19/2024), Outbound message
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.2.0 (GTK 3.24.41; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 8849

On Sat, 18 May 2024 20:28:21 -0700
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <20240518194548.00000649@example.com>,
>  Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 18 May 2024 16:12:37 -0700
> > BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> 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.  

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. 

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. 

-- 
Rhino