XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, can.general, can.politics
XPost: soc.rights.human, alt.activism

On Mar 5, 2024, Julian wrote on alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
(in article <us7chv$3ql25$1@dont-email.me>):

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: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)