e0c23ecd   
   XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, soc.culture.canada, can.politics   
   XPost: soc.rights.human, alt.activism   
   From: dalton@nfld.com   
      
   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.   
      
   --   
   David Dalton dalton@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)   
   https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)   
   “And the cart is on a wheel; And the wheel is on a hill;   
   And the hill is shifting sand; And inside these laws we stand" (Ferron)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)