Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their Online
Harms bill is finally ready. One of its features is a life sentence in
prison for hate speech.
. . .
The bastards have slipped the hate speech provisions into a bill that
is primarily about protecting children so the bill is likely to start
with a considerable support given the natural desire of people to
protect their children.
I just hope people will seize on the hate
speech provisions and make distinctions between people who have
principled objections to government policies and proposals and those
who are fomenting genocide. If I'm not allowed to disagree with the >government, then they really HAVE ended freedom of speech in this
country.
Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their Online
Harms bill is finally ready.
One of its features is a life sentence in
prison for hate speech.
Yeah, you read that right: a possible life sentence for hate
speech.
Of course, "hate speech" is not clearly defined and the bill has
not yet had First Reading, let alone been enacted, so it's
anyone's guess what the bill will look like once it's passed. And
make no mistake about it: it's very likely to be passed in some
form or another.
Rhino wrote:
Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their Online
Harms bill is finally ready.
Does it's reach extend to Usenet?
One of its features is a life sentence in
prison for hate speech.
Who defines what is "hate"?
Yeah, you read that right: a possible life sentence for hate
speech.
Scaremongering and posturing by politicians. I doubt anyone would
actually get a life sentence for such offences.
Of course, "hate speech" is not clearly defined and the bill has
not yet had First Reading, let alone been enacted, so it's
anyone's guess what the bill will look like once it's passed. And
make no mistake about it: it's very likely to be passed in some
form or another.
A lot of [so called] democratic countries seem to be jumping on the
"online hate speech" bandwagon with legislation aimed at curtailing
what people can say online. These same countries would criticise
Russia, China and North Korea for their Draconian laws...
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their Online
Harms bill is finally ready. One of its features is a life sentence
in prison for hate speech.
If you tell a joke THAT'S NOT FUNNY, is that an enhancement to the
sentence?
. . .
The bastards have slipped the hate speech provisions into a bill that
is primarily about protecting children so the bill is likely to start
with a considerable support given the natural desire of people to
protect their children.
Logrolling!
I just hope people will seize on the hate
speech provisions and make distinctions between people who have
principled objections to government policies and proposals and those
who are fomenting genocide. If I'm not allowed to disagree with the >government, then they really HAVE ended freedom of speech in this
country.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:26:03 -0000 (UTC)
"Blueshirt" <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Rhino wrote:
Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their Online
Harms bill is finally ready.
Does it's reach extend to Usenet?
Who knows? They don't appear to have published the actual bill.
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:05:13 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their Online
Harms bill is finally ready. One of its features is a life sentence
in prison for hate speech.
If you tell a joke THAT'S NOT FUNNY, is that an enhancement to the >>sentence?
The wokesters don't find ANY joke funny unless perhaps it is one they
tell themselves - and then you can count on it NOT being funny!
. . .
The bastards have slipped the hate speech provisions into a bill that
is primarily about protecting children so the bill is likely to start >>>with a considerable support given the natural desire of people to
protect their children.
Logrolling!
Is that what "logrolling" means? I've heard the term before but was
never clear on what it meant.
. . .
In article <20240226220601.00003293@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:26:03 -0000 (UTC)
"Blueshirt" <blueshirt@indigo.news> wrote:
Rhino wrote:
Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their
Online Harms bill is finally ready.
Does it's reach extend to Usenet?
Who knows? They don't appear to have published the actual bill.
They're using the Pelosi model of legislation: they have to pass it
to know what's in it.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:05:13 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com>:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their Online >>>Harms bill is finally ready. One of its features is a life sentence
in prison for hate speech.
If you tell a joke THAT'S NOT FUNNY, is that an enhancement to the >>sentence?
The wokesters don't find ANY joke funny unless perhaps it is one they
tell themselves - and then you can count on it NOT being funny!
. . .
The bastards have slipped the hate speech provisions into a bill
that is primarily about protecting children so the bill is likely
to start with a considerable support given the natural desire of
people to protect their children.
Logrolling!
Is that what "logrolling" means? I've heard the term before but was
never clear on what it meant.
I have no idea if that's a term in Canada. In America, you put
together legislation with unrelated or barely related topics, not of
which have majority support by themselves, but packaged together, you
might have enough votes to pass the bill.
. . .
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 04:53:05 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:05:13 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their Online >>>>>Harms bill is finally ready. One of its features is a life sentence >>>>>in prison for hate speech.
If you tell a joke THAT'S NOT FUNNY, is that an enhancement to the >>>>sentence?
The wokesters don't find ANY joke funny unless perhaps it is one they >>>tell themselves - and then you can count on it NOT being funny!
. . .
The bastards have slipped the hate speech provisions into a bill
that is primarily about protecting children so the bill is likely
to start with a considerable support given the natural desire of >>>>>people to protect their children.
Logrolling!
Is that what "logrolling" means? I've heard the term before but was
never clear on what it meant.
I have no idea if that's a term in Canada. In America, you put
together legislation with unrelated or barely related topics, not of
which have majority support by themselves, but packaged together, you
might have enough votes to pass the bill.
. . .
I don't think we use that term here - at least I've never heard it used
in our politics - but combining unrelated legislation in the same bill
does get done sometimes via omnibus bills. I'm not aware of them
writing that many omnibus bills though and I don't think they have any >particular term for it, like logrolling.
In this case, they've been a bit clever about it and called the bill
the Online Harms bill.
It's certainly fair to identify calls for genocide on the internet as an >online act but someone taking a purist line on free speech would argue
that even calling for genocide is fine as long as it remains speech and >doesn't veer into action.
It will be very interesting to see how they define "hate". Will I go to
jail for using the word in any and every context? For instance, if I
say I hate sports, will I be deemed to be a confessed hater? What if I
say I hate the government's immigration policies? Or mushrooms? How
will they decide how long I need to go to prison for a given offense?
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 04:53:05 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com>:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:05:13 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com>:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their
Online Harms bill is finally ready. One of its features is a
life sentence in prison for hate speech.
If you tell a joke THAT'S NOT FUNNY, is that an enhancement to the >>>>sentence?
The wokesters don't find ANY joke funny unless perhaps it is one
they tell themselves - and then you can count on it NOT being
funny!
. . .
The bastards have slipped the hate speech provisions into a bill >>>>>that is primarily about protecting children so the bill is likely >>>>>to start with a considerable support given the natural desire of >>>>>people to protect their children.
Logrolling!
Is that what "logrolling" means? I've heard the term before but was >>>never clear on what it meant.
I have no idea if that's a term in Canada. In America, you put
together legislation with unrelated or barely related topics, not of >>which have majority support by themselves, but packaged together,
you might have enough votes to pass the bill.
. . .
I don't think we use that term here - at least I've never heard it
used in our politics - but combining unrelated legislation in the
same bill does get done sometimes via omnibus bills. I'm not aware
of them writing that many omnibus bills though and I don't think
they have any particular term for it, like logrolling.
An omnibus bill is absolutely an example of logrolling. Some of its provisions are absolutely going to be opposed by some in the
legislature, but it gains their support regardless because of other provisions that various members do support.
In this case, they've been a bit clever about it and called the bill
the Online Harms bill.
Nobody calls legislation the Preventing One Form of Harm By
Substituting Another Form of Harm Act.
It's certainly fair to identify calls for genocide on the internet
as an online act but someone taking a purist line on free speech
would argue that even calling for genocide is fine as long as it
remains speech and doesn't veer into action.
I don't quite agree with your interpretation of imminent lawless
action in the Brandenburg test. Threats are speech without First
Amendment protection. The whole point of inflammatory speech before a
wide audience is to cause harm by proxy. Inflammatory speech directed
at an individual could easily cross the line into criminal threat.
It's all on line, so the bad actor doesn't have to confront the
targeted individual in person. It can happen almost instantly upon
having listened to the precursor inflammatory speech.
Can the government prove that the two parties acted in concert with circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? Unlikely, but that
doesn't mean there was no conspiracy and no crime at all.
Even if government cannot punish inflammatory speech or require an on
line platform to do so, the platform can take action on its own. This
is the semantic difference between speech and press: It's the
publisher who enjoys the liberty of a free press. The platform is the publisher, not its individual users.
It will be very interesting to see how they define "hate". Will I go
to jail for using the word in any and every context? For instance,
if I say I hate sports, will I be deemed to be a confessed hater?
What if I say I hate the government's immigration policies? Or
mushrooms? How will they decide how long I need to go to prison for
a given offense?
I thought "hate speech" doesn't require proving the speaker's motive,
just that the listener can claim to have been intimidated.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
In this case, they've been a bit clever about it and called the bill
the Online Harms bill.
Nobody calls legislation the Preventing One Form of Harm By Substituting Another Form of Harm Act.
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:00:42 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 04:53:05 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:05:13 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>>>Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their >>>>>>>Online Harms bill is finally ready. One of its features is a
life sentence in prison for hate speech.
If you tell a joke THAT'S NOT FUNNY, is that an enhancement to the >>>>>>sentence?
The wokesters don't find ANY joke funny unless perhaps it is one
they tell themselves - and then you can count on it NOT being
funny!
. . .
The bastards have slipped the hate speech provisions into a bill >>>>>>>that is primarily about protecting children so the bill is likely >>>>>>>to start with a considerable support given the natural desire of >>>>>>>people to protect their children.
Logrolling!
Is that what "logrolling" means? I've heard the term before but was >>>>>never clear on what it meant.
I have no idea if that's a term in Canada. In America, you put
together legislation with unrelated or barely related topics, not of >>>>which have majority support by themselves, but packaged together,
you might have enough votes to pass the bill.
. . .
I don't think we use that term here - at least I've never heard it
used in our politics - but combining unrelated legislation in the
same bill does get done sometimes via omnibus bills. I'm not aware
of them writing that many omnibus bills though and I don't think
they have any particular term for it, like logrolling.
An omnibus bill is absolutely an example of logrolling. Some of its >>provisions are absolutely going to be opposed by some in the
legislature, but it gains their support regardless because of other >>provisions that various members do support.
You're assuming the bill is going to pass "as is" without any
amendments. But there IS an amending process which could conceivably
alter aspects of the bill or even jettison those parts, or add new
parts.
It then gets considered by the Senate which may request
changes but apparently can't force them to be made. (I've heard of
bills where the Senate wanted changes but the Commons refused, yet the
bill got passed.) That means the hate speech provisions COULD be
changed or even dropped along the way.
. . .
Honestly, I'm torn on these matters. Some speech - like "From the
river to the sea...." - strikes me as so vile that there ought to be
laws against it.
But I can see an argument that says if it is only a
peaceful striving with no intent to inflame people to action - as some
might claim it to be - maybe it needs to be tolerated until it turns
into an actual call for violence. But I really don't believe the people
who chant that slogan are peaceful at heart: they want people to rise
up and drive the Israelis into the sea or at least sell them the arms
so that they can do it themselves.
As another example, the hymn from the Civil Rights days, We Shall
Overcome, could have been seen - and surely was meant by many - to
speak of winning civil rights by persuasion, not as a literal call to
arms to smite the oppressors. Others may well have wanted people to
take up arms to seize those rights by force. I think there was ample
evidence that the Civil Rights activists - black and white - strongly >preferred to get those rights peacefully.
Even if government cannot punish inflammatory speech or require an on
line platform to do so, the platform can take action on its own. This
is the semantic difference between speech and press: It's the
publisher who enjoys the liberty of a free press. The platform is the >>publisher, not its individual users.
Yeah, I can see that a platform like YouTube can block content that has >inflammatory speech on its own initiative in the interest of the
public. It already has a variety of prohibitions: too many in some
cases, at least that's what various content creators say.
Maybe the only way to speak your mind without that kind of censorship
is to be your own publisher, i.e. to set up your own server and put
what you like out there.
But I expect that the people who sell domain names will then be pressured
to cancel your domain name or block access to it. Ultimately, everything >seems to be susceptible to pressure from one government or another.
It will be very interesting to see how they define "hate". Will I go
to jail for using the word in any and every context? For instance,
if I say I hate sports, will I be deemed to be a confessed hater?
What if I say I hate the government's immigration policies? Or
mushrooms? How will they decide how long I need to go to prison for
a given offense?
I thought "hate speech" doesn't require proving the speaker's motive,
just that the listener can claim to have been intimidated.
That's a HORRIBLE thing if it is true. ANYBODY can claim to be
intimidated by ANYTHING and no one can prove that intimidation actually >occurred or was just asserted dishonestly.
For example, I could make the general assertion that I hate rap and some >rapper could claim that this intimidated him from practicing his "art"
and sue me for the trauma he suffered by my intimidating remarks - or
even demand my arrest. It would be very hard to prove that he was just
after a payday or trying to intimidate all rap-haters into shutting up.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
In this case, they've been a bit clever about it and called the bill
the Online Harms bill.
Nobody calls legislation the Preventing One Form of Harm By Substituting >>Another Form of Harm Act.
The reason California is a shoplifter's paradise is because of Prop 47,
which was titled, "The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act". Not the more >accurate "Making Stealing the State's Official Sport Act".
All the idiot voters just saw the title and read no further before
checking YES.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
In this case, they've been a bit clever about it and called the bill >>>the Online Harms bill.
Nobody calls legislation the Preventing One Form of Harm By Substituting >>Another Form of Harm Act.
The reason California is a shoplifter's paradise is because of Prop 47, >which was titled, "The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act". Not the more >accurate "Making Stealing the State's Official Sport Act".
Hah!
All the idiot voters just saw the title and read no further before
checking YES.
I'm sure you are right.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:00:42 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com>:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 04:53:05 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman
<ahk@chinet.com>:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Tue, 27 Feb 2024 02:05:13 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman >>>>><ahk@chinet.com>:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Justin Trudeau's Liberal Party has just announced that their >>>>>>>Online Harms bill is finally ready. One of its features is a >>>>>>>life sentence in prison for hate speech.
If you tell a joke THAT'S NOT FUNNY, is that an enhancement to >>>>>>the sentence?
The wokesters don't find ANY joke funny unless perhaps it is one >>>>>they tell themselves - and then you can count on it NOT being >>>>>funny!
. . .
The bastards have slipped the hate speech provisions into a >>>>>>>bill that is primarily about protecting children so the bill
is likely to start with a considerable support given the >>>>>>>natural desire of people to protect their children.
Logrolling!
Is that what "logrolling" means? I've heard the term before but
was never clear on what it meant.
I have no idea if that's a term in Canada. In America, you put >>>>together legislation with unrelated or barely related topics, not
of which have majority support by themselves, but packaged
together, you might have enough votes to pass the bill.
. . .
I don't think we use that term here - at least I've never heard it
used in our politics - but combining unrelated legislation in the
same bill does get done sometimes via omnibus bills. I'm not aware
of them writing that many omnibus bills though and I don't think
they have any particular term for it, like logrolling.
An omnibus bill is absolutely an example of logrolling. Some of its >>provisions are absolutely going to be opposed by some in the
legislature, but it gains their support regardless because of other >>provisions that various members do support.
You're assuming the bill is going to pass "as is" without any
amendments. But there IS an amending process which could conceivably
alter aspects of the bill or even jettison those parts, or add new
parts.
More likely, anything amended into the bill might be more egregious.
Then you have the poison pill amendment, to try to force your opponent
to vote for something he hates or to force him to vote against the
bill despite provisions in it that he favors.
It then gets considered by the Senate which may request
changes but apparently can't force them to be made. (I've heard of
bills where the Senate wanted changes but the Commons refused, yet
the bill got passed.) That means the hate speech provisions COULD be >changed or even dropped along the way.
I don't know anything about parliamentary procedure specific to
Canada. Can bills originate in the Senate? Can the Senate offer its
own amendment to a Commons bill?
In the United States, an appropriations bill must originate in the
House, otherwise legislation may originate in either chamber.
. . .
Honestly, I'm torn on these matters. Some speech - like "From the
river to the sea...." - strikes me as so vile that there ought to be
laws against it.
That's a call for never-ending war. Even if speech were made illegal,
it doesn't change what people believe.
But I can see an argument that says if it is only a
peaceful striving with no intent to inflame people to action - as
some might claim it to be - maybe it needs to be tolerated until it
turns into an actual call for violence. But I really don't believe
the people who chant that slogan are peaceful at heart: they want
people to rise up and drive the Israelis into the sea or at least
sell them the arms so that they can do it themselves.
They won't go to fight themselves. But their speech might inspire
someone to attack a person they perceive to be a member of the same
ethnic or religious group. Perhaps this violent action by proxy is
what the speaker desired but the speaker and listener didn't act in
concert, making the speech an unprotected criminal threat.
As another example, the hymn from the Civil Rights days, We Shall
Overcome, could have been seen - and surely was meant by many - to
speak of winning civil rights by persuasion, not as a literal call to
arms to smite the oppressors. Others may well have wanted people to
take up arms to seize those rights by force. I think there was ample >evidence that the Civil Rights activists - black and white - strongly >preferred to get those rights peacefully.
Even if government cannot punish inflammatory speech or require an
on line platform to do so, the platform can take action on its own.
This is the semantic difference between speech and press: It's the >>publisher who enjoys the liberty of a free press. The platform is
the publisher, not its individual users.
Yeah, I can see that a platform like YouTube can block content that
has inflammatory speech on its own initiative in the interest of the >public. It already has a variety of prohibitions: too many in some
cases, at least that's what various content creators say.
Maybe the only way to speak your mind without that kind of censorship
is to be your own publisher, i.e. to set up your own server and put
what you like out there.
That's the only way to avail yourself of the civil right of a free
press. That's correct.
But I expect that the people who sell domain names will then be
pressured to cancel your domain name or block access to it.
Ultimately, everything seems to be susceptible to pressure from one >government or another.
We have an indirect example of that, when Cloudflare withdrew its
protection against domains that were running platforms with less
content moderation than Facebook, even though it was long established
that Facebook itself was being used by the most egregious bad actors
and not the newer platforms.
It will be very interesting to see how they define "hate". Will I
go to jail for using the word in any and every context? For
instance, if I say I hate sports, will I be deemed to be a
confessed hater? What if I say I hate the government's immigration >>>policies? Or mushrooms? How will they decide how long I need to go
to prison for a given offense?
I thought "hate speech" doesn't require proving the speaker's
motive, just that the listener can claim to have been intimidated.
That's a HORRIBLE thing if it is true. ANYBODY can claim to be
intimidated by ANYTHING and no one can prove that intimidation
actually occurred or was just asserted dishonestly.
Isn't that the standard your human rights tribunals use, though?
For example, I could make the general assertion that I hate rap and
some rapper could claim that this intimidated him from practicing
his "art" and sue me for the trauma he suffered by my intimidating
remarks - or even demand my arrest. It would be very hard to prove
that he was just after a payday or trying to intimidate all
rap-haters into shutting up.
In article <urkteq$38rn1$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
In this case, they've been a bit clever about it and called the
bill the Online Harms bill.
Nobody calls legislation the Preventing One Form of Harm By
Substituting Another Form of Harm Act.
The reason California is a shoplifter's paradise is because of Prop
47, which was titled, "The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act". Not
the more accurate "Making Stealing the State's Official Sport Act".
All the idiot voters just saw the title and read no further before
checking YES.
In article <url8j8$3ba9t$2@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
In this case, they've been a bit clever about it and called the
bill the Online Harms bill.
Nobody calls legislation the Preventing One Form of Harm By >>Substituting Another Form of Harm Act.
The reason California is a shoplifter's paradise is because of
Prop 47, which was titled, "The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods
Act". Not the more accurate "Making Stealing the State's Official
Sport Act".
Hah!
All the idiot voters just saw the title and read no further before >checking YES.
I'm sure you are right.
Which is why I'm a big proponent of prohibiting legislators from
naming bills and propositions, at least on official government
documents, like ballots. I don't suppose we could legally stop them
from verbally referring to nicknames for legislation, but at least at
the ballot box or legislative record, that nonsense should be banned.
It should just be the bill or prop number, nothing else. No "PATRIOT
Act", no "Cute Puppies and Tiny Tiny Babies Act", none of that crap.
Just SB 109 or AB 32.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:12:39 -0800
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In article <urkteq$38rn1$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
In this case, they've been a bit clever about it and called the
bill the Online Harms bill.
Nobody calls legislation the Preventing One Form of Harm By
Substituting Another Form of Harm Act.
The reason California is a shoplifter's paradise is because of Prop
47, which was titled, "The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act". Not
the more accurate "Making Stealing the State's Official Sport Act".
All the idiot voters just saw the title and read no further before
checking YES.
Yep, just put a little motherhood and apple pie in the title and the
rubes will buy it. Sad but true....
--Requires the title of any revenue-raising ballot measure to include
the word "tax" in its title on the ballot and clearly and unambiguously >describe itself as a tax increase. (E.g., no more calling a massive gas
tax increase "The Safe Roads and Happy Children Initiative".)
--Revenue measures must clearly identify how the money will be spent
before they can qualify for the ballot, which legally locks those funds
down. They can't be transferred to the general fund and spent on
something else.
In <atropos-158ECA.11552127022024@news.giganews.com> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> writes:
[snip]
--Requires the title of any revenue-raising ballot measure to include
the word "tax" in its title on the ballot and clearly and unambiguously >describe itself as a tax increase. (E.g., no more calling a massive gas
tax increase "The Safe Roads and Happy Children Initiative".)
--Revenue measures must clearly identify how the money will be spent
before they can qualify for the ballot, which legally locks those funds >down. They can't be transferred to the general fund and spent on
something else.
How about requiring honest accounting and descriptions of
the costs of labour contracts of gov't employees? For Ex.,
if they're going to list the salary of, oh, a cop or similar
law enforcement officer, use GAAP methods, which wouldn't
be a simple $75k/yr, but also add in the automatic overtime,
the _hefty_ costs of their damn good medical coverage, and,
shudder, also account for their platinum retirement benefits?
In article <20240227142147.00004a21@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 10:12:39 -0800
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In article <urkteq$38rn1$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
In this case, they've been a bit clever about it and called the
bill the Online Harms bill.
Nobody calls legislation the Preventing One Form of Harm By Substituting Another Form of Harm Act.
The reason California is a shoplifter's paradise is because of
Prop 47, which was titled, "The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods
Act". Not the more accurate "Making Stealing the State's Official
Sport Act".
All the idiot voters just saw the title and read no further
before checking YES.
Yep, just put a little motherhood and apple pie in the title and the
rubes will buy it. Sad but true....
You literally have to go into the voting booth with the mindset that
the reptiles in Sacramento, rather than being public servants, are
your enemy. They're literally trying to make your life worse with
their every move and they'll employ dirty tricks like this to induce
you to vote for something that's against your interest and for which
you would never vote if you understood what it really was.
We just had a constitutional amendment ballot measure qualify for
this year's election that would significantly overhaul the taxation
and legislation process in California and put some serious blocks on Sacramento's ability to trick people into voting for tax increases.
(As well as limit the ability of local and county government to
impose taxes.)
--It requires all new taxes passed by the state legislature and local governments to be approved by the voters directly.
--Restores 2/3rds voter approval for all new local special tax
increases.
--Clearly defines what qualifies as a "tax". (No more playing games
by calling taxes "fees" or "surcharges" to evade the law's voter
approval requirement.)
--Requires the title of any revenue-raising ballot measure to include
the word "tax" in its title on the ballot and clearly and
unambiguously describe itself as a tax increase. (E.g., no more
calling a massive gas tax increase "The Safe Roads and Happy Children Initiative".)
--Revenue measures must clearly identify how the money will be spent
before they can qualify for the ballot, which legally locks those
funds down. They can't be transferred to the general fund and spent
on something else.
--Retroactively repeals all tax increases across the state since 2020
and forces them to go back through this new process for approval.
Needless to say, the reptiles in Sacramento are shitting themselves
in outrage and are ginning up a massive PR machine to fight this and
try to convince us not to vote for it. Emperor Gavin himself has gone
to court to try and block it from appearing on the ballot. (Notice
how the ones who are constantly crying about "threats to our
democracy" are the first ones to howl in outrage when the people
actually engage in some democracy?)
I just hope to god that California voters just once wake up out of
their Helsinki Syndrome stupor and do the right thing.
In article <urlpn6$ek8$2@reader1.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
In <atropos-158ECA.11552127022024@news.giganews.com> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> writes:
[snip]
--Requires the title of any revenue-raising ballot measure to
include the word "tax" in its title on the ballot and clearly and >unambiguously describe itself as a tax increase. (E.g., no more
calling a massive gas tax increase "The Safe Roads and Happy
Children Initiative".)
--Revenue measures must clearly identify how the money will be
spent before they can qualify for the ballot, which legally locks
those funds down. They can't be transferred to the general fund
and spent on something else.
How about requiring honest accounting and descriptions of
the costs of labour contracts of gov't employees? For Ex.,
if they're going to list the salary of, oh, a cop or similar
law enforcement officer, use GAAP methods, which wouldn't
be a simple $75k/yr, but also add in the automatic overtime,
the _hefty_ costs of their damn good medical coverage, and,
shudder, also account for their platinum retirement benefits?
The public employee unions would never allow that. Which is why I
oppose the very existence of public employee unions in the first
place.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:48:03 -0800
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In article <urlpn6$ek8$2@reader1.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
In <atropos-158ECA.11552127022024@news.giganews.com> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> writes:
[snip]
--Requires the title of any revenue-raising ballot measure to
include the word "tax" in its title on the ballot and clearly and >unambiguously describe itself as a tax increase. (E.g., no more
calling a massive gas tax increase "The Safe Roads and Happy
Children Initiative".)
--Revenue measures must clearly identify how the money will be
spent before they can qualify for the ballot, which legally locks
those funds down. They can't be transferred to the general fund
and spent on something else.
How about requiring honest accounting and descriptions of
the costs of labour contracts of gov't employees? For Ex.,
if they're going to list the salary of, oh, a cop or similar
law enforcement officer, use GAAP methods, which wouldn't
be a simple $75k/yr, but also add in the automatic overtime,
the _hefty_ costs of their damn good medical coverage, and,
shudder, also account for their platinum retirement benefits?
The public employee unions would never allow that. Which is why I
oppose the very existence of public employee unions in the first
place.
Our public employee unions are pretty strong but Mike Harris brought in
a Sunshine Act that annually publishes the salaries of every public
employee and union employee in Ontario earning over 100K. Year after
year, union executives have been at or near the top of the list, along
with various chief administrators of this and that, like hospitals,
Ontario Hydro, etc. Harris was a Progressive Conservative - with the
emphasis on Conservative! - just like Doug Ford. Strangely enough, the Liberal governments we had after Harris and before Ford did not repeal
the legislation or even change it as far as I know. I suppose the
optics of doing so would have been too "problematic" for them.
You need a law like that. With a bit of luck, your "progressives" would
be too afraid to water it down or repeal it once it was in place, just
as ours seem to be.
I have no idea if that's a term in Canada. In America, you put together >legislation with unrelated or barely related topics, not of which have >majority support by themselves, but packaged together, you might have
enough votes to pass the bill.
I don't think we use that term here - at least I've never heard it used
in our politics - but combining unrelated legislation in the same bill
does get done sometimes via omnibus bills. I'm not aware of them
writing that many omnibus bills though and I don't think they have any >particular term for it, like logrolling.
In this case, they've been a bit clever about it and called the bill
the Online Harms bill. It's certainly fair to identify calls for
genocide on the internet as an online act but someone taking a purist
line on free speech would argue that even calling for genocide is fine
as long as it remains speech and doesn't veer into action.
It will be very interesting to see how they define "hate". Will I go to
jail for using the word in any and every context? For instance, if I
say I hate sports, will I be deemed to be a confessed hater? What if I
say I hate the government's immigration policies? Or mushrooms? How
will they decide how long I need to go to prison for a given offense?
You're assuming the bill is going to pass "as is" without any
amendments. But there IS an amending process which could conceivably
alter aspects of the bill or even jettison those parts, or add new
parts. It then gets considered by the Senate which may request
changes but apparently can't force them to be made. (I've heard of
bills where the Senate wanted changes but the Commons refused, yet the
bill got passed.) That means the hate speech provisions COULD be
changed or even dropped along the way.
More likely, anything amended into the bill might be more egregious.
Then you have the poison pill amendment, to try to force your opponent
to vote for something he hates or to force him to vote against the bill >despite provisions in it that he favors.
Of course not. But governments could pass enforceable laws against
SAYING it. The question is whether they should or if that would be an
overly grievous offense against freedom of speech.
I just hope to god that California voters just once wake up out of their >Helsinki Syndrome stupor and do the right thing.
Honestly, I'm torn on these matters. Some speech - like "From the
river to the sea...." - strikes me as so vile that there ought to be
laws against it.
That's a call for never-ending war. Even if speech were made illegal, it >doesn't change what people believe.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:55:22 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
I just hope to god that California voters just once wake up out of their
Helsinki Syndrome stupor and do the right thing.
So what's the difference between "Helsinki syndrome" (which I've never
heard of before) and "Stockholm syndrome" (which I have) ??
In article <20240227223256.00005a3e@example.com>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:48:03 -0800
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
In article <urlpn6$ek8$2@reader1.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
In <atropos-158ECA.11552127022024@news.giganews.com> BTR1701
<atropos@mac.com> writes:
[snip]
--Requires the title of any revenue-raising ballot measure to
include the word "tax" in its title on the ballot and clearly and
unambiguously describe itself as a tax increase. (E.g., no more
calling a massive gas tax increase "The Safe Roads and Happy
Children Initiative".)
--Revenue measures must clearly identify how the money will be
spent before they can qualify for the ballot, which legally locks
those funds down. They can't be transferred to the general fund
and spent on something else.
How about requiring honest accounting and descriptions of
the costs of labour contracts of gov't employees? For Ex.,
if they're going to list the salary of, oh, a cop or similar
law enforcement officer, use GAAP methods, which wouldn't
be a simple $75k/yr, but also add in the automatic overtime,
the _hefty_ costs of their damn good medical coverage, and,
shudder, also account for their platinum retirement benefits?
The public employee unions would never allow that. Which is why I
oppose the very existence of public employee unions in the first
place.
Our public employee unions are pretty strong but Mike Harris brought in
a Sunshine Act that annually publishes the salaries of every public
employee and union employee in Ontario earning over 100K. Year after
year, union executives have been at or near the top of the list, along
with various chief administrators of this and that, like hospitals,
Ontario Hydro, etc. Harris was a Progressive Conservative - with the
emphasis on Conservative! - just like Doug Ford. Strangely enough, the
Liberal governments we had after Harris and before Ford did not repeal
the legislation or even change it as far as I know. I suppose the
optics of doing so would have been too "problematic" for them.
You need a law like that. With a bit of luck, your "progressives" would
be too afraid to water it down or repeal it once it was in place, just
as ours seem to be.
Public employee unions should either be abolished.
millions to politicians and put them in office, then immediately sit
down across from those same politicians at the negotiating table to work
out their next contract. And they're bargaining with taxpayer money.
So of course you get a situation where the politicians give the unions everything they ask for because the union has bought and paid for them.
Anywhere else, this is the very definition of corruption, but in
California, it's called business as usual and it's the reason California
has a time bomb of unfunded pension mandates looming on the horizon that
no one wants to talk about because it will literally bankrupt the state
when it hits.
On Mar 1, 2024 at 2:22:07 PM PST, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 11:55:22 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
I just hope to god that California voters just once wake up out of their >>> Helsinki Syndrome stupor and do the right thing.
So what's the difference between "Helsinki syndrome" (which I've never
heard of before) and "Stockholm syndrome" (which I have) ??
One is from DIE HARD, the other isn't.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:08:42 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,356,837 |