Re: More on Canadia's Orwellian 'Online Harms Law'

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
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
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.
>

That's the most frightening aspect of it. The tribunals
(there is a federal one and separate ones for each
province and territory so 14 in all) are not my idea of
fair and reasonable bodies.
 

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

I suspect that's the whole point of the legislation: scare
the crap out of anyone who might hold a controversial view
about ANYTHING to the point that they decide to shut up
rather than speak up for fear of having their lives
ruined.
 

Nyssa, who is glad that she is living south of the
border with the protections of the Bill of Rights
and the rest of the US Constitution protecting her
 

 
I truly envy the freedoms you have down there.  I wish I
knew how we could import the same or better to this
increasingly authoritarian country. Merely electing the
Conservatives to replace the Liberals for a while is not
going to be enough. We need to strengthen our rights and
freedoms so that government can't arbitrarily gut them on
a whim.
 
 

Trudeau the Elder had the opportunity when the constitution
was (re)patriated, but blew it. He could have easily adapted
the US Bill of Rights as a model for crafting one for all
Canadians, but instead, spent time bribing Quebec in order
to get them to sign off on the mess that resulted in too
many cooks in the kitchen...plus the UK Parliament's
tuppence in the form of Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet's
haggling.

Keeping the uneven proportional representation of the
Senate was another blooper, and just more bribery for
the Maritimes and Quebec to sign off on it.

For anyone (other than the Canadians who lived through
the process) interested in the details of the new, but
not improved, Canadian constitution and how/why the
UK parliament was involved can pick up a copy of "The
Battle of London" which plows through the dirty details
and the political games people played through the process.

Nyssa, who was rolling her eyes at some of the details
including the fantasy that Trudeau the Elder apparently
held dear of the entirely of Canada becoming totally
and completely bilingual (even in Quebec!)