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 <no_offline_contact@example.com>
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: <atropos-7BE517.16123718052024@news.giganews.com>
	<20240518194548.00000649@example.com>
	<atropos-4719EC.20282118052024@news.giganews.com>
	<v2dvv5$3jq72$1@dont-email.me>
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 <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:

> BTR1701 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.  
> 
> 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 ==========