e0c23ecd   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, can.general, soc.culture.canada   
   XPost: can.politics, soc.rights.human   
   From: julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   On 05/03/2024 19:34, David Dalton wrote:   
   > On Mar 5, 2024, Julian wrote on alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   > (in article ):   
   >   
   >> There’s a way of getting children to eat something they dislike –   
   >> medicine, for example – where you bury the goods in a spoonful of jam.   
   >> Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are trying this method with their Online Harms   
   >> Bill C-63. But it may not go down as well as they hoped.   
   >>   
   >> The stated intent of the Bill is something every decent person supports:   
   >> protecting children from online victimisation. Yet behind this noble aim   
   >> lurks the thought police.   
   >>   
   >> This is no exaggeration. This legislation authorises house arrest and   
   >> electronic tagging for a person considered likely to commit a future   
   >> crime. It’s right there in the text: 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   
   >> tagging, mandatory drug testing and communication bans. Failure to   
   >> cooperate nets you an additional year in jail. If that’s not   
   >> establishing a thought police, I don’t know what is.   
   >>   
   >> What is a hate crime? According to the Bill, it is a communication   
   >> expressing ‘detestation or vilification.’ But, clarified the government,   
   >> this 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.’   
   >>   
   >> Despite this Trudeau claims to stand against authoritarianism.   
   >>   
   >> The Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson says that under   
   >> Bill C-63, his criminalisation would be a certainty. The legislation   
   >> appears to apply retroactively, meaning you can be hauled up before the   
   >> Human Rights Tribunal for any material you’ve left online, regardless of   
   >> its posting date. Anonymous accusations and secret testimony are   
   >> permitted (at the tribunal’s discretion). Complaints are free to file,   
   >> and an accuser, if successful, can hope to reap up to a $20,000 payout,   
   >> with up to another $50,000 going to the government.   
   >>   
   >> Hold on, you may be thinking, what does all this have to do with   
   >> protecting children online? So far it seems more geared towards   
   >> protecting the Liberal government online. There is in fact a section   
   >> that requires social media companies to establish plans to protect   
   >> users, including children. But if you’re getting your hopes up, prepare   
   >> to have them dashed.   
   >>   
   >> All the social media companies are going be supervised by a brand-new   
   >> government body called the Digital Safety Commission. The Digital Safety   
   >> Commission can, without oversight, require companies to block access to   
   >> anycontent, conduct investigations, hold secret hearings, require the   
   >> companies to hand over specific content, and give all data collected to   
   >> third-party researchers accredited by the Commission. All data. Any   
   >> content. No oversight.   
   >>   
   >> Does that sound crazy? There’s more.   
   >>   
   >> 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) in situations where material victimising a child   
   >> could spread quickly across the Internet. What that means in effect is   
   >> that the Digital Safety Commission is not accountable and does not have   
   >> to justify its actions. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says   
   >> in its sharply worded critique of the Bill, it endows government   
   >> appointees with vast authority ‘to interpret the law, make up new rules,   
   >> enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury and executioner.’   
   >>   
   >> Is it possible, that in the beautiful and once civilized country of   
   >> Canada, leading politicians seriously want to punish people for crimes   
   >> they might (but actually haven’t) committed? Canada already has a law   
   >> that criminalises conspiracy, and another law criminalising threats—so   
   >> we’re not talking about someone who is planning murder or terrorism.   
   >> Then who are we talking about? People who read the wrong websites?   
   >> People who didn’t get vaccinated? People who criticise the government?   
   >> People who go to church and believe certain types of immorality will   
   >> send you to hell?   
   >>   
   >> There’s something Trudeau and his minions don’t seem to realise. With   
   >> the Online Harms Bill, as with the reckless invocation of the   
   >> Emergencies Act and the debanking of protestors, they are making a   
   >> mockery of the rule of law and of the public order they are sworn to uphold.   
   >>   
   >> Jane Stannus   
   >   
   > I have added some other groups where people might like to comment.   
   > But if so, please leave in alt.buddha.short.fat.guy as well, since that   
   > is where the thread has originated.   
      
   I only remove posts if I notice a spelling or grammar error.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)