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 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: More on Canadia's Orwellian 'Online Harms Law'
References: <atropos-7BE517.16123718052024@news.giganews.com> <20240518194548.00000649@example.com> <atropos-4719EC.20282118052024@news.giganews.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: <atropos-EA49DB.14092519052024@news.giganews.com>
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 <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> 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 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.