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: Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: More on Canadia's Orwellian 'Online Harms Law'
Followup-To: rec.arts.tv
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 19:58:19 -0400
Organization: At River's End
Lines: 252
Message-ID: <v2jcep$qrr4$1@dont-email.me>
References: <atropos-7BE517.16123718052024@news.giganews.com> <20240518194548.00000649@example.com> <atropos-4719EC.20282118052024@news.giganews.com> <v2dvv5$3jq72$1@dont-email.me> <20240521155629.00000d9a@example.com>
Reply-To: Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 01:58:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cd7c8edc576856835250f5ab450a7050";
	logging-data="880484"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+GKjORkxerr6+Tu23P7XCu"
User-Agent: KNode/4.3.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nj2/w1RyKiTYyJVKKLgfvSiOUow=
Bytes: 12444

Rhino wrote:

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