Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: More on Canadia's Orwellian 'Online Harms Law'
Followup-To: rec.arts.tv
Date: Sun, 19 May 2024 18:54:30 -0400
Organization: At River's End
Lines: 182
Message-ID: <v2dvv5$3jq72$1@dont-email.me>
References: <atropos-7BE517.16123718052024@news.giganews.com> <20240518194548.00000649@example.com> <atropos-4719EC.20282118052024@news.giganews.com>
Reply-To: Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 00:54:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dba2d83b92d1c351b30caadec1e0db08";
	logging-data="3795170"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18I7EcOOrYIRYbdOPn+UH6z"
User-Agent: KNode/4.3.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qbnIZg5UiIFvKFuMfi4YINEu+T0=
Bytes: 9264

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.

For sure, if it does pass and is enforced, there will
be a lot of people injured by bogus charges until a
court overturns it. 

And I *really* think handing it over to the Human 
Rights Tribunal is a red flag, given the really poor 
track record that Tribunal has already shown since 
its inception.

What a mess! And what a sword to hold over the heads
of just about any Canadian who interacts with the
Internet.

========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========