Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Canada to Start Punishing People for Pre-Crime
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:04:17 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <etg0vi500jelb00ghvu1o1n46i6e2mkq3v@4ax.com>
References: <BlqdnWeTk-eAf3L4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3fa150600be4ec866dd2f7bee88bc26d";
	logging-data="304055"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+KLhB4BuPYNetirYBazYKXrCMAoPvkdWQ="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:phwlLm+DmUbZRP53maRKFeuPnl8=
Bytes: 3936

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:03:25 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
>speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
>authoritarianism.
>
>If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
>for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.
>
>Progressivism!
>
>----------------------------
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/07/justin-trudeau-canada-legislation-hate-crimes-free-speech/
>
>Justin Trudeau's government has proposed a law giving judges the power to
>put someone under house arrest if they fear they could commit a hate crime.
>
>Critics have warned the draconian bill is an overreach of power and could
>stifle free speech and difficult discussions.
>
>But Canada's justice minister defended the measure, claiming it would be an
>important tool to help protect potential victims.

Who is going to protect the victims of the government putting them
under house arrest for the crime they might commit some day.

>An online harms bill introduced by the Liberals last week proposed a string
>of laws to protect children and prosecute hate crimes.
>
>One of the suggested measures would give judges the ability to put people
>under house arrest who they worry could commit a hate crime in the future.
>The person could also be made to wear an electronic tag if the
>attorney-general requested it.

So the judge is deciding if a person might commit a crime in the
future? Nothing could go wrong with that ability being given to judges
as we know they never make mistakes.

>Arif Virani, the justice minister, said the measures could prove very
>important in restraining the behaviour of someone who might be targeting
>minority groups.

Might being the key word

>"[If] there's a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group
>could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them
>from doing certain things," Mr Virani said.
>
>Preventative measures could include banning the person from being near a
>synagogue or a mosque or restrictions on internet use.

Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.

>He said: "That would help to de-radicalise people who are learning things
>online and acting out in the real world violently-- sometimes fatally."

If they are acting out violently in the real world then there's an
actual basis for putting restrictions in place. That's very different
from what was being suggested earlier in this post.

>Measures proposed in Bill C-63, which was unveiled on 26 February, include
>a new hate speech offence which carries a maximum penalty of life
>imprisonment for the most serious cases.