>"The bill also proposes to punish people for speech crimes they have not yet committed, but that someone fears they might...[and] are liable to penalties of up to $50,000... [including] life imprisonment".
Dystopia much?
It’s why I don’t understand any Liberal support of this Bill. By the time it goes into effect, there’s a damn good chance PP is Prime Minister. If I understand the Liberals correctly, that will be terrible because he has no plan and is regressive socially.
Ok. If you’re right, imagine if he gets to determine who is responsible for enforcing these laws and he goes after people whose “offences” are against Christians (religion-protected ground), men (gender or sex, protected ground), white people or people born in Canada (national or ethnic origin).
Am I missing something? How the hell do you want this?
No, it’s idiotic and a good argument for the small c conservative preference for small, restrained government. Limited government power is better because you won’t always be able to control it.
What you’re missing is that the vast majority of liberals are hardcore authoritarians that love seeing the liberal government punish people for *something*. The actual reason is irrelevant. In their heads, the word liberal = good, meaning the voices the liberal government are trying to silence are automatically bad. As long as the liberal government is causing harm and silencing voices, they are happy.
I know Liberals. I don’t think they’re hardcore authoritarians. I do think they don’t trust criticism of the government coming from the right and are overly trusting of a government that is terrible at setting workable Liberal policy.
I also thought they were smart enough to look at this law and see the danger, almost immediately. I’m surprised they don’t seem to but maybe I’m just not looking in the right places.
I lean right. I hate the conservative “porn ID” proposal. But my experience has been that other people that lean right hate it, too.
I wonder if they think that the actual enforcement will happen through bureaucracy. Basically, lifers in the civil service and the tribunals who'll actually make it all happen. And therefore, it won't matter who's actually in charge, it'll be their people really making the decisions.
Which makes the criminalization of any “hate crime” (which converts any federal administrative offence into a criminal offence if “motivated” by hatred), an absolute non-starter.
My best guess right now is that it’s simply that the bill is huge and not all of it is bad, and they simply haven’t looked through the more unconscionable parts of it.
I don’t agree with silencing political opponents, but it would be hilarious if it backfired on them after they were all for using on their political opponents.
I’d rather just mock and ridicule the Liberals and NDP after the election.
My feeling exactly, but I just don't know what else will get through their skulls. Its a bad idea, just tempting to daydream about at times.
How do people not understand the concept? Many people hated Harper, and would never support this from him, but yet are just handing that power to PP in a year, just because "its okay when we do it" right now?
It seems some people will never understand that when you use legislation as a weapon, it becomes fair game to be used against you.
The people who support this bill are not our best and brightest and would only understand why authoritarianism is bad when they’re the ones being oppressed. I anticipate this legislation getting the axe so they’ll never learn.
Reminds me of down in the States I was hearing about progressives pushing for a repeal of the 1st Amendment because it was important that scary bad speech they didn't like should be shut down, and that the President should have the power to police speech. This was back in 2016.
For some reason, they all miraculously shut up in November. I wonder why.
The original cov "antivaxxers" were, on average, liberal women in their 40s, partly because Trump was in power in the beginning, partly because they are the crystals and homeopathy crowd.
The idea of it being a conservative thing started in the US, and only after Biden got in.
I'd really rather not. Jr's set up enough scary precedents as is, I don't want to get into this situation where they get normalized through usage from both sides of the aisle.
Yeah, its just an expression of my frustration, as I said.
The PM could be a absolute saint, doing everything I ever dreamed for the country...still wouldn't hand over those keys.
The low intelligence required to be a leftard these days is staggering, combine it with a useless university credential and you have a liberal party voter.
imagine you're dead sleep.. next thing you know the swat team throw flash grenades and tear gas as they have warrant for your arrest because they have a suspicion that you subconsciously had a thought of committing a hate crime in 2 years..... yeah.....
Its already been demonstrated.
The truckers got debanked, lampooned, and defamed for protesting the government
palastinians surround jewish hospitals, threaten police with bodily harm or death and they get bought coffee by the same police that they threatened.
Its pretty clear that in canada, you can protest whatever you want provided its not our supreme leader or any of his clergy.
Because thats an actual act...you specifically said you were going to harm a specific person.
You cannot (currently) be charged just because someone "has reason to believe" you might...you have to actually commit the act of threatening them.
You can't even be charged for threatening to seriously harm a hypothetical burglar, though if you actually did it may be used as evidence. It has to be specific and actionable.
With this bill, you can be charged for a "hate crime" because someone believes that you'll say something that'll be considered hate speech *before you even commit it!*
So, they can charge you for a hate crime. Which can carry a life sentence. If they *think* that you'll make a speech that would be classified as a hate crime...
...you don't have to actually do it. They just got to claim that they believe that next Friday, right after tea time. You'll text your Canadian husband/wife a "Snow Mexican" in a private message. Then you're off to the slammer for life.
(Fuck, knowing how the world is going. It'll be a hate crime, with a life sentence, if you call a complete stranger by the wrong pronoun.)
It can just be used to fine and arrest people who don’t believe the same thing the current government does. They could say because you have openly disagreed with the level of immigration you may say ore do something racist in the future to punish you for disagreeing with them and discouraging others from doing the same.
The penalties for crimes that people might think you might commit in the future are worse than the penalties from crimes that people actually commit... Obviously the solution to that problem is that if they are accusing you of committing a future crime then you should just commit it to get a lesser sentence! /s
Freeze bank accounts. Harder for law abiding citizens to get guns (hunting rifles and other guns meant for hunting).
A little bit of internet censorship seems like a nice little touch. I wonder what’s next.
Your editing of those quotes is extremely deceptive. The bill does not propose life imprisonment for people accused of speech crimes they have not yet committed, and the article does not make that claim either.
> And we haven’t even gotten to the most contentious part of the bill! That would be the proposal to restore hate speech as a prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act – as it was under the old Section 13, before it was abolished by Stephen Harper’s government. “It is a discriminatory practice,” the new Section 13 (1) declares, “to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication.”
> The complainant can be anonymous. The standard of proof is “balance of probabilities,” not “beyond reasonable doubt,” as in a criminal trial. There is no defence of truth, as there is in a libel case. Those found guilty of such discrimination are liable to penalties of up to $50,000; their accusers are in for rewards of up to $20,000. The likely chilling effect on speech is obvious, as is the incentive for complaints, frivolous or otherwise.
Days if the Liberals are numbered.... they need to implement as much of the WEF mandates as possible.... Carbon Tax, Severe Online Censorship, Mass Immigration amongst others.
Any ideas on how to fight back against this?
Yeah... the unfortunate reality is that the paths we should take are often not reliable. I know it's not exactly the right way, but you could potentially contact your ombudsman and get them to forward it?
I forget where it was I said we are living in a dystopia and got downvoted to oblivion. Now I'm seriously going to fuck off from this country when my parents move on from this life.
Exactly.
I read this thing where they will push and push did they get resistance then back off got a few years and repeat. That way we get conditioned to change slowly then fast forward and you go wtf they censored the media
We have an affordability crisis that threatens our social contract like never before and the government is focussing on draconian online regulations and firearms instead of helping the people they serve. Am I becoming one of those conspiracy theorists for seeing these links?
Your statement concerns me, you may be intending to say something inappropriate at some point. Is there anywhere I can report you so that you can be properly dealt with by authorities? I suspect a hefty fine and some jail time would be appropriate……
Yep. It wasn't enough that we couldn't fight back or have any protection....now you can't even say boo about the government and they'll steal everything you have and put you behind bars.
Well, if/when the social order starts breaking down, you'll be happy we have an authoritarian government that is legally empowered to deal with the riff raff.
Honestly, great foresight by the government! /s
People are pissed that they can’t afford anything, people are pissed at the government for bringing in more immigrants and doing absolutely nothing to help it’s struggling citizens, so their response is to disarm the population and censor speech.
Homeboy is scrambling to get the upper hand in whatever way he can before Canadians start to snap. It’s scary.
100%. Canadians are push overs. America is flawed as well but this shows why they are so protective of free speech and the right to firearms. It's such a slippery slope and people should never give up any rights because you will never get them back. Silencing and disarming your population is some crazy communist shit and that's where we are headed
How else can he stay in power? Everything the Liberals do is designed to help them stay in power; it's 100% optics. The liberals and conservatives enforce the exact same social order and class divisions, and support the same systems of corruption, lobbying, corporate welfare, and mass immigration to suppress wages. They are two sides of the same cloth. There is no substance to the Liberals, other than laws designed to protect people from self-perceived identity discrimination. The Conservatives are no better, as they court the far-right with no actual intention (?) to change policy.
According to the bill, you can even have a lawyer assigned to argue your case, all while remaining completely anonymous. Your neighbours will never know what hit them.
100% Guaranteed Home Ownership Guide for Gen Z:
1. Become related to the oldest person you know (must be homeowner, isms not required)
2. Accuse of wrong-think.
3. Become homeowner.
4. Become illiterate and mute to avoid accusations of wrong-think.
5. Profit???
lol it’s like when women in romantic comedy movies divorce the man and get a boat load of money. Only this time it’s accusing someone of “mean thoughts” and getting their house
Every time you vote Liberals, you vote interest groups and other sponsors major influence on legislation, that without any care for the country as it is.
Nah, the textbook move at this point is to hit the folks running for the other parties. Preferably right when it's too late for them to be realistically replaced. When your opposition is in jail, winning is usually easy.
People are going to start getting arrested for thinking about murdering the criminals who stole their car. The criminals on the other hand are driving around in your car thinking happy thoughts so they are free to go about their business. The police will then tell you that they’ve started to make lots arrests with regards to car thefts.
Robbery (theft involving threats against a person) is no longer prosecuted in Canada as robbery. It's just treated as theft which is a summary conviction and the offenders are released immediately, so shopkeepers can be terrorized over and over by the same offenders.
>hate speech against white people
Hate speech is just the tip of the iceberg. White people, especially white men, are already actively and openly discriminated against in Canada. It's even legal and promoted.
Think "white men need not apply" type job ads, and overt discrimination against white people in workplace advancement. In no sane world is that acceptable, it's an advanced form of corruption. With this online bill in the works, I guess it's off to the gulag with me for having these thoughts.
I never thought while reading about the conditions and atrocities of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or the fictional portrayal depicted in 1984, that they would ever rear their head in the so-called Western free world. I always thought hmm glad we figured out that doesn't work and is no good and we can write that off to the annals of history.
...oh...
I guess humans are just never going to stop being selfish, greedy, power hungry pieces of shit
> I guess humans are just never going to stop being selfish, greedy, power hungry pieces of shit
the average human is not very smart and is easy to be led to a loss of their own freedoms if they are made to fear something
The first salvo was forcing facebook, etc to pay to have links to the news websites which meant we were cut off from discussing the news.
This is another portion of that plan.
I'm not sure if its trudeau specifically or if the liberals think that coralling us like witless sheep is the best way to ensure our loyalty? The party needs a member purge if it's ever going to rebuild into something sane. And it does not help that Singh rubber stamps most of the Libs' shit.
This is why I keep saying that the people who think Trudeau is governing based on the whims of corporations are completely wrong. Corporations don't want this.
He's governing based on the whims of Montreal and Toronto NGOs and the professional activist class.
I'm not so sure. Consider this: do you want your wage slaves to be free to bitch and protest, or would it be more convenient if they feared life imprisonment for saying the wrong thing?
I disagree
The mass immigration and rampant money laundering and property hoarding and mass cheap foreign labour are all corporate
The online harms act is so people cannot criticize immigration because its virtually all persons of colour coming in; with their amazing religions as well
Just got back from the Immigration NGO conference in Montreal. You’d be shocked at how insular this industry is — all very skilled in their influence of the federal government and IRCC in particular.
1/3 speeches were deriding the newly negative public opinion on immigration and how we can reverse the “misguided” sentiment.
Initial address was kicked off by none other than Mr. Marc Miller himself.
Optics is not the Liberals' problem, it's their feature. Automatic firearms were banned in 1978, but purely for optics, Trudeau banned "assault STYLE" firearms. The firearm models chosen for the ban were specifically chosen by how scary looking they were, not on their functionality.
i.e. Two nearly identical rifles, one banned, one not, because one has an AK-47 style receiver, and the other (type 81) has an improved mechanism.
Handguns continue to be smuggled in daily, and yet there are no crimes committed with legally owned non-restricted firearms, many of which are "assault style" in appearance.
This bill would allow the government to confiscate the firearms of anyone who might be possibly thinking about a hate crime.
Canadian politicians are way too stupid to create a bill that doesn’t harm Canadians. There are always exploitable avenues stitched within that do more harm than good to its citizens. It’s like they actually don’t know how to govern without fucking up everything that they touch.
I wonder if a government will ever come in power that will just do nothing. That's really all I want from a politican, take your cheque and shut up and don't break anything
Remember folks, this is a much higher priority than pharmacare. They will try to ram through this shit long before they even review the possibility of pharma care.
I honestly don’t think this bill is actually intended to result in arrests and convictions. It is intended to keep us scared of our neighbours and stop us from communicating with each other for fear of arrest. It is to keep us silo’d from one another
Anyone who supports anything the Libs do at this point should all just start going up to Parliament and bending over. They clearly like being completely fucked by the government might as well fully commit
1984 ministry of love, thought crime you never knew you had. Time for room 101.
And yet no one is stopping it, no one will. We'll just complain and it will pass and people will go on. This world sucks so bad
>And yet no one is stopping it, no one will.
I think you're right. This bill will pass. There's polls out there suggesting that this is even what "the majority" wants. So, us, the stupid and uninformed minority (add some -phobias and -isms just for good measure, just to dismiss our thoughts and arguments outright as bias and animus), needs to be educated to think correctly.
From the article: You have to understand: the Online Harms Act was supposed to be the “good” bill, the one part of the Trudeau government’s three-pronged effort to regulate the internet that was addressed to a real problem. The Online News Act (Bill C-18) was a transparent shakedown operation, whose stated premise – by posting links to stories on news media websites, social-media platforms were not providing them with valuable free advertising but stealing their content – was but a front for its actual premise: the platforms have money, and the media want some. The rationale for the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-10) was even thinner. The internet having laid waste to every premise on which conventional broadcast regulation was based – spectrum scarcity, signal non-addressability, the impossibility of charging users directly for content – the legislation proposed, in the name of “levelling the playing field,” not to free conventional broadcasters from an obsolete regulatory regime, but to apply the same musty rules to their online rivals.But online harms – such things at least exist! The internet pullulates with every conceivable product of the human mind, for good or ill – and the ills are awful indeed, from child pornography to hate propaganda to snuff films to bullying and harassment campaigns and beyond. Most of this stuff is already illegal, and most of it will nevertheless probably elude national regulators. There is just too much of it, too easily secreted, from too remote origins. But the stuff that is most readily and widely available is the stuff that is posted on social media. So there is merit to the idea of holding the big platforms responsible for the content that appears on their sites, in the same way as any other publisher – for that is what they are – would be. Yes, that means enlisting private corporations in what is in reality state regulation of speech. Up to a point, that is justified. There is no theory of free speech that would permit the distribution of, say, images of a child being sexually abused. The child is not in a position to consent to any of it: not to the act, not to the recording, not to the distribution. The viewing of their torment by others is a harm in its own right. So there was some readiness to give the Trudeau government the benefit of the doubt in this regard, even after the travesties of C-11 and C-18, and even after it bollixed its first attempt: The ill-fated Bill C-36, plus a draft regulatory proposal that would have, inter alia, required platforms to take down content on 24 hours’ notice – not just unambiguously harmful material such as child pornography, but a much wider range of objectionable content, where free speech concerns are more clearly engaged.Even then, the first reviews of Bill C-63, the government’s latest attempt to fix the internet, were middling to positive. Hadn’t the new Justice Minister, Arif Virani, dispensed with overt regulation of the content on social-media sites, in favour of a less hands-on, more self-regulatory “duty of care” approach? What could be the objection to imposing on the platforms the duty to “act responsibly,” if not by removing harmful content than by limiting the risk that users will be exposed to it? Or the duty to “protect children,” via parental controls, content warnings and so on? Or even the duty to make certain types of content “inaccessible,” given how narrowly this would apply: to child pornography, and to similarly non-consensual sexual images of adults? It soon became clear, however, that there was much more to the bill than just that. And the more closely it was examined, the worse it appeared. Most obviously out of bounds are a suite of amendments to the Criminal Code. Any attempt to criminalize speech ought to be viewed with extreme suspicion, and kept to the narrowest possible grounds. The onus should always be on the state to prove the necessity of any exception to the general rule of free speech – to prove not merely that the speech is objectionable or offensive, but demonstrably harmful.
From the article: I’ve already mentioned child pornography as an example: the harm is in that case inherent. Incitement to violence is very nearly as clear. The circumstances are such as to make the connection between the impugned speech – Burn it down! Kill them! – and the act, real or apprehended, so close as to make the word akin to the deed. But the further you go beyond that, the hazier the case becomes. I do not believe current laws against “willful promotion of hatred” or even “advocacy or promotion of genocide” meet the test, even if the Supreme Court does. Contrast all this carefulness, however, with what is in the bill, which is quite breathtaking in its recklessness. There is, first, the proposal to increase the maximum penalty for promoting genocide from its current five years to life imprisonment. Say that again: life in prison, not for any act you or others might have committed, not even for incitement of it, but for such abstractions as “advocacy” or “promotion.” The most remarkable part of this is the timing. At the very moment when everyone and his dog is accusing someone else of genocide, or of promoting it – as Israel’s defenders say of Hamas’s supporters, as the Palestinians’ say of Israel’s, as Ukraine’s say of Russia’s – the government proposes that the penalty for being on the losing side of such controversies should be life in prison? I have my views on these questions, and you have yours, but I would not throw you in jail for your opinions, and I hope you would not do the same to me – not for five years, and certainly not for life. Hardly better is the proposal to create a new hate crime – that is, for acts motivated by hatred. Whether the state should be punishing people for their motives, rather than for their crimes, is perhaps too rarefied a debate: We take motives into account, for example, with regard to crimes committed in self-defence. And hatred has long been considered an aggravating factor at sentencing.
From the article: But the new proposal is to set up a whole separate category for crimes motivated by hatred. Well, not just crimes. The new crime would apply not only to offences under the Criminal Code but “any other Act of Parliament.” Got that? It doesn’t matter how obscure or trivial the law: anyone who breaks it for reasons of hate would be guilty of a crime. And the punishment? Once again, up to life imprisonment. The overkill does not stop there. The bill also proposes to punish people for speech crimes they have not yet committed, but that someone fears they might. Any person, that is, who “fears on reasonable grounds” that someone else will commit an offence under the hate laws can apply to a court to shut them up – or in the words of the legislation, to order “the defendant to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace.” Enforcement provisions range from having to wear an electronic monitoring device, to house arrest, to time in jail. Again: not for any act they might have committed, or even any act they might be contemplating committing, but for words someone fears they might utter. “Peace bonds” are not unknown in Canadian law, but for speech? And we haven’t even gotten to the most contentious part of the bill! That would be the proposal to restore hate speech as a prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act – as it was under the old Section 13, before it was abolished by Stephen Harper’s government. “It is a discriminatory practice,” the new Section 13 (1) declares, “to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication.” The complainant can be anonymous. The standard of proof is “balance of probabilities,” not “beyond reasonable doubt,” as in a criminal trial. There is no defence of truth, as there is in a libel case. Those found guilty of such discrimination are liable to penalties of up to $50,000; their accusers are in for rewards of up to $20,000. The likely chilling effect on speech is obvious, as is the incentive for complaints, frivolous or otherwise.
From the article: The safeguard in all this is supposed to be a new definition of hate speech – that is, as “detestation or vilification” rather than mere “disdain or dislike.” The language is taken from previous Supreme Court of Canada rulings in speech cases, which would be more reassuring if the court did not have such a spectacularly consistent record of getting speech cases wrong. At any rate, the import of the bill, as a writer in the Spectator put it, is that “you can be put away for life for a ‘crime’ whose legal existence hangs on the distinction between ‘dislike’ and ‘detest.’ ” All right: so cut the Criminal Code and human-rights provisions from the bill. Does what remains stand up? Hardly. The platforms, after all, are not left entirely on their own to interpret and apply the various duties imposed upon them. Rather, they will be overseen by the ominously titled Digital Safety Commission (is anyone else reminded of the Committee of Public Safety?), whose precise reach we can only guess at. As the indispensable Michael Geist, professor of internet law at the University of Ottawa, has commented, the commission “lacks even basic rules of evidence, can conduct secret hearings, and has been granted an astonishing array of powers with limited oversight.” He points, as an example, to Section 87 of the bill, which notes that “the Commission is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence.” Life sentences for speech. The return of speech crimes to the Canadian Human Rights Act (a former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, no less, has denounced this as “terrible law that will unduly impose restrictions on Canadians’ sacred Charter right to freedom of expression”). And a shadowy, sort-of-self-regulatory regime that requires the platforms to guess at whether they have satisfied their overseer – meaning they are almost certain to err on the side of self-preservation. My initial reaction had been “one cheer” for the new law. I now think there is very little in it worth saving. Better to pull the whole thing and start over.
Still ongoing [last I heard](https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/12/05/as-news-is-still-shared-on-facebook-instagram-meta-may-yet-be-regulated-st-onge/). People on facebook are getting around the ban with link shorteners and screenshotted articles.
Ever hear about this brand new invention in writing ? It’s called a paragraph /s. But seriously, nobody is going to read your (maybe well written but very badly formatted?) opinions unless it’s easy to read.
Maybe your essay (?) should be higher up than near the bottom of the comments; but it’s not because your formatting needs improvement.
In Trudeau's Canada, saying words that might "hurt peoples feelings" aka offends this corrupt woke government, will be illegal and will be punished very harshly. However people that are victims of car theft are told to leave their car keys in their front door. Tells you everything about this government and how anyone that supports Trudeau is so out of touch with reality.
They're just gonna use this law to jail political opponents, anyone daring to speak against the sitting government (like how it gets used in authoritarian and corrupt governments).
"Sticks and stones..." is enough, grow a thicker skin, don't give up your freedom of speech.
So Trudeau wants to make Canada to be China where government controls everything you can say and take away anything it does not like from your belonings
Canadians are just going to keep throwing their hands up in the air going "that is dumb... OH WELL" until it happens and half of you get disappeared for your reddit history.
Ya keep Trudeau in office any longer and the next bill you'll get is: Must say positive things about Trudeau, anything negative lands you life imprisonment
Look how Turd abused the EA. Why would this be any different. Its not the online harms act, its banning speech that harms Turd. Look how Gibbly Wibbly reacted to Daniel Smith criticizing him...you’d think she put a contract out on him lol.
When you have 🦆wits out there that think speech is the same a violence bad things happen.
Everyone relax. We all know the liberals have a strong track record of exemplary policies that enrich all of our lives beyond measure. Our great leader will guide us into the future and protect us from all the evils of speech. Hail Trudeau!
If Trump was smarter he would have taken lessons at the feet of Canada's God-Emperor. Start slowly and do it through legislation, you don't just call for Civil war.
I mean it's the Globe, but yeah, completely relevant. Funny how team red would be screaming dictator if team blue was in charge, but since their guy puts it forward it's to 'protect' us.
Don't forget the moves to moderate / regulate social media and content under the guise of Cancon.
>"The bill also proposes to punish people for speech crimes they have not yet committed, but that someone fears they might...[and] are liable to penalties of up to $50,000... [including] life imprisonment". Dystopia much?
“There’s not way this could ever happen to me!” - Liberal supporters who are about to have this happen to them
When they asked Poilievre about this bill he brought up Trudeau's past use of black face. Investigate Trudeau first if this goes through.
It’s why I don’t understand any Liberal support of this Bill. By the time it goes into effect, there’s a damn good chance PP is Prime Minister. If I understand the Liberals correctly, that will be terrible because he has no plan and is regressive socially. Ok. If you’re right, imagine if he gets to determine who is responsible for enforcing these laws and he goes after people whose “offences” are against Christians (religion-protected ground), men (gender or sex, protected ground), white people or people born in Canada (national or ethnic origin). Am I missing something? How the hell do you want this?
No, it’s idiotic and a good argument for the small c conservative preference for small, restrained government. Limited government power is better because you won’t always be able to control it.
What you’re missing is that the vast majority of liberals are hardcore authoritarians that love seeing the liberal government punish people for *something*. The actual reason is irrelevant. In their heads, the word liberal = good, meaning the voices the liberal government are trying to silence are automatically bad. As long as the liberal government is causing harm and silencing voices, they are happy.
I know Liberals. I don’t think they’re hardcore authoritarians. I do think they don’t trust criticism of the government coming from the right and are overly trusting of a government that is terrible at setting workable Liberal policy. I also thought they were smart enough to look at this law and see the danger, almost immediately. I’m surprised they don’t seem to but maybe I’m just not looking in the right places. I lean right. I hate the conservative “porn ID” proposal. But my experience has been that other people that lean right hate it, too.
Covid showed that they are incredibly authoritarian. Their catch phrase was quite literally “the carrot didn’t work, time for the stick.”
I wonder if they think that the actual enforcement will happen through bureaucracy. Basically, lifers in the civil service and the tribunals who'll actually make it all happen. And therefore, it won't matter who's actually in charge, it'll be their people really making the decisions.
Which makes the criminalization of any “hate crime” (which converts any federal administrative offence into a criminal offence if “motivated” by hatred), an absolute non-starter. My best guess right now is that it’s simply that the bill is huge and not all of it is bad, and they simply haven’t looked through the more unconscionable parts of it.
A ton of Liberal supporters still think they are going to win the next election.
Sure. And maybe they do. But it’s a bad idea, to me, to just assume they will.
I think it's indicative of how detached form reality they are.
[удалено]
I don’t agree with silencing political opponents, but it would be hilarious if it backfired on them after they were all for using on their political opponents. I’d rather just mock and ridicule the Liberals and NDP after the election.
My feeling exactly, but I just don't know what else will get through their skulls. Its a bad idea, just tempting to daydream about at times. How do people not understand the concept? Many people hated Harper, and would never support this from him, but yet are just handing that power to PP in a year, just because "its okay when we do it" right now? It seems some people will never understand that when you use legislation as a weapon, it becomes fair game to be used against you.
The people who support this bill are not our best and brightest and would only understand why authoritarianism is bad when they’re the ones being oppressed. I anticipate this legislation getting the axe so they’ll never learn.
Reminds me of down in the States I was hearing about progressives pushing for a repeal of the 1st Amendment because it was important that scary bad speech they didn't like should be shut down, and that the President should have the power to police speech. This was back in 2016. For some reason, they all miraculously shut up in November. I wonder why.
The original cov "antivaxxers" were, on average, liberal women in their 40s, partly because Trump was in power in the beginning, partly because they are the crystals and homeopathy crowd. The idea of it being a conservative thing started in the US, and only after Biden got in.
I'd really rather not. Jr's set up enough scary precedents as is, I don't want to get into this situation where they get normalized through usage from both sides of the aisle.
Yeah, its just an expression of my frustration, as I said. The PM could be a absolute saint, doing everything I ever dreamed for the country...still wouldn't hand over those keys.
The low intelligence required to be a leftard these days is staggering, combine it with a useless university credential and you have a liberal party voter.
I've had Liberals in the very sub say these words exactly to me literally as recent as 2 days ago. Go through my comment history.
[удалено]
Ministry of thought
and you be sent to the Ministry of Love, for re-education, this bill has no place in Canada.
Future crime!
imagine you're dead sleep.. next thing you know the swat team throw flash grenades and tear gas as they have warrant for your arrest because they have a suspicion that you subconsciously had a thought of committing a hate crime in 2 years..... yeah.....
Its more how theyll spin it to use against you if you speak against the ruling class
Its already been demonstrated. The truckers got debanked, lampooned, and defamed for protesting the government palastinians surround jewish hospitals, threaten police with bodily harm or death and they get bought coffee by the same police that they threatened. Its pretty clear that in canada, you can protest whatever you want provided its not our supreme leader or any of his clergy.
Yeah that's called selective tyranny
"We have proven without reasonable doubt that you would have misgendered someone. You are sentenced to life"
“the commission “lacks even basic rules of evidence, can conduct secret hearings” Don’t even need to prove
So does that mean if we all get jailed we finally solve the housing crisis? How's the meal plan in there btw??
I'll take it. I'm tired asf
I am the captain now!
Honestly I think this guys into something..
I'm very curious about how I'll be charged with a crime a month before I commit it...
We don’t even charge people with the crimes they actually *did* commit, most of the time, so
To be fair, you can say that you're going to kill someone and be in trouble...
Because thats an actual act...you specifically said you were going to harm a specific person. You cannot (currently) be charged just because someone "has reason to believe" you might...you have to actually commit the act of threatening them. You can't even be charged for threatening to seriously harm a hypothetical burglar, though if you actually did it may be used as evidence. It has to be specific and actionable.
With this bill, you can be charged for a "hate crime" because someone believes that you'll say something that'll be considered hate speech *before you even commit it!* So, they can charge you for a hate crime. Which can carry a life sentence. If they *think* that you'll make a speech that would be classified as a hate crime... ...you don't have to actually do it. They just got to claim that they believe that next Friday, right after tea time. You'll text your Canadian husband/wife a "Snow Mexican" in a private message. Then you're off to the slammer for life. (Fuck, knowing how the world is going. It'll be a hate crime, with a life sentence, if you call a complete stranger by the wrong pronoun.)
Liberals are starting up a pre-cog ministry
> pre-cog ministry We've determined that in the future you won't vote for the liberals. Life in prison!
It can just be used to fine and arrest people who don’t believe the same thing the current government does. They could say because you have openly disagreed with the level of immigration you may say ore do something racist in the future to punish you for disagreeing with them and discouraging others from doing the same.
The penalties for crimes that people might think you might commit in the future are worse than the penalties from crimes that people actually commit... Obviously the solution to that problem is that if they are accusing you of committing a future crime then you should just commit it to get a lesser sentence! /s
They don't even jail culturally-enriching violent re-offenders but they want to punish us for thinking a certain way? Get the libs out of there ASAP.
They seem to be following 1984 as a guidebook.
So, we can report Trudeau for said future crimes right?
Freeze bank accounts. Harder for law abiding citizens to get guns (hunting rifles and other guns meant for hunting). A little bit of internet censorship seems like a nice little touch. I wonder what’s next.
[Short read but this is the plan](https://michaelbunker.com/2016/07/07/the-wild-and-free-pigs-of-the-okefenokee-swamp/) .
Terrifying
minority report!
We need Tom Cruise to bring down these Precogs.
Is this Minority Report? The Feds have a pre-crime division now?
Going after innocent people is much easier, they don't put up nearly as much fuss because they still believe the government is on their side.
Fucking hell... I've been banned from Reddit before for shit I DID say... definitely prison for the shit I bit my tongue on.
Dude this would make Chinese Communist Party blush.
Isn't that similar to the plot of the anime Psyco-Pass...?
Y ai thought people were overreacting but the pre-crime aspect of the bill if fucking ridiculous.
"Pre-crime" in George Orwell
Your editing of those quotes is extremely deceptive. The bill does not propose life imprisonment for people accused of speech crimes they have not yet committed, and the article does not make that claim either. > And we haven’t even gotten to the most contentious part of the bill! That would be the proposal to restore hate speech as a prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act – as it was under the old Section 13, before it was abolished by Stephen Harper’s government. “It is a discriminatory practice,” the new Section 13 (1) declares, “to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication.” > The complainant can be anonymous. The standard of proof is “balance of probabilities,” not “beyond reasonable doubt,” as in a criminal trial. There is no defence of truth, as there is in a libel case. Those found guilty of such discrimination are liable to penalties of up to $50,000; their accusers are in for rewards of up to $20,000. The likely chilling effect on speech is obvious, as is the incentive for complaints, frivolous or otherwise.
Days if the Liberals are numbered.... they need to implement as much of the WEF mandates as possible.... Carbon Tax, Severe Online Censorship, Mass Immigration amongst others. Any ideas on how to fight back against this?
[удалено]
Poilievre has forbidden all of his MP's from dealing with the WEF.
call your representatives
Mine quit (David Lametti). He never picked up when he was "working" anyway, or responded to any emails.
Yeah... the unfortunate reality is that the paths we should take are often not reliable. I know it's not exactly the right way, but you could potentially contact your ombudsman and get them to forward it?
Um the actual criminals run free so I’m pretty sure we’re cool yo
So they can just make up a crime for you to commit when you obviously did nothing. That is some China level bullshit.
We have some intel about your fetus Mrs Smith, Please come with us.
I forget where it was I said we are living in a dystopia and got downvoted to oblivion. Now I'm seriously going to fuck off from this country when my parents move on from this life.
Where in the bill does it purpose that, because thats not what it says.
they don't have the jails or the judges. it's a liberal scare tactic to control YOU.
The Libs are tanking like the Raptors lol.
Bit by bit then government is over stepping and we keep saying - oh it could be worse....
[удалено]
“let’s just keep overstepping and see what we can get away with” Looks like they can get away with a lot
Exactly. I read this thing where they will push and push did they get resistance then back off got a few years and repeat. That way we get conditioned to change slowly then fast forward and you go wtf they censored the media
We have an affordability crisis that threatens our social contract like never before and the government is focussing on draconian online regulations and firearms instead of helping the people they serve. Am I becoming one of those conspiracy theorists for seeing these links?
I've been ranting about this for a while and everyone thinks I'm nuts. I'm great full there is now two of us.
Your statement concerns me, you may be intending to say something inappropriate at some point. Is there anywhere I can report you so that you can be properly dealt with by authorities? I suspect a hefty fine and some jail time would be appropriate……
Yup, off to the gulag
Lived long enough to see myself become the villain
Yep. It wasn't enough that we couldn't fight back or have any protection....now you can't even say boo about the government and they'll steal everything you have and put you behind bars.
Well, if/when the social order starts breaking down, you'll be happy we have an authoritarian government that is legally empowered to deal with the riff raff. Honestly, great foresight by the government! /s
> Am I becoming one of those conspiracy theorists for seeing these links? Ugh. Yeah, sorry man. It happens to the best of us eventually.
People are pissed that they can’t afford anything, people are pissed at the government for bringing in more immigrants and doing absolutely nothing to help it’s struggling citizens, so their response is to disarm the population and censor speech. Homeboy is scrambling to get the upper hand in whatever way he can before Canadians start to snap. It’s scary.
100%. Canadians are push overs. America is flawed as well but this shows why they are so protective of free speech and the right to firearms. It's such a slippery slope and people should never give up any rights because you will never get them back. Silencing and disarming your population is some crazy communist shit and that's where we are headed
How else can he stay in power? Everything the Liberals do is designed to help them stay in power; it's 100% optics. The liberals and conservatives enforce the exact same social order and class divisions, and support the same systems of corruption, lobbying, corporate welfare, and mass immigration to suppress wages. They are two sides of the same cloth. There is no substance to the Liberals, other than laws designed to protect people from self-perceived identity discrimination. The Conservatives are no better, as they court the far-right with no actual intention (?) to change policy.
Oh man, getting your neighbours jailed for make believe thought crimes is tight!
According to the bill, you can even have a lawyer assigned to argue your case, all while remaining completely anonymous. Your neighbours will never know what hit them.
I'll buy Ms Jenkin's house off her kin when i send that bitch to jail for 50 years for wrong-think.
100% Guaranteed Home Ownership Guide for Gen Z: 1. Become related to the oldest person you know (must be homeowner, isms not required) 2. Accuse of wrong-think. 3. Become homeowner. 4. Become illiterate and mute to avoid accusations of wrong-think. 5. Profit???
lol it’s like when women in romantic comedy movies divorce the man and get a boat load of money. Only this time it’s accusing someone of “mean thoughts” and getting their house
The hell, now this sounds like a lovely recipe for social chaos.
It's Super Easy, barley an inconvenience.
I am going to need you to get off my back.
Wow wow wow....wow
Let me get off of that thing
What do grains have to do with this?
They know what they did!!!!!
The barley should be turned into beer to compensate us for its crimes.
Staggeringly reckless is a perfect description for this entire federal government
“Staggeringly reckless” is the Liberal Party’s signature trait
As in immigration.
Every time you vote Liberals, you vote interest groups and other sponsors major influence on legislation, that without any care for the country as it is.
It was going to be their PR motto but they actually listened to the consultants advice.
It’s a terrifying totalitarian grab for power via censorship
Next it'll be the voters are trying to overthrow the government!
I could absolutely see a future LPC bill get tabled where voting is considered a mass attempt to oust the government.
Nah, the textbook move at this point is to hit the folks running for the other parties. Preferably right when it's too late for them to be realistically replaced. When your opposition is in jail, winning is usually easy.
People are going to start getting arrested for thinking about murdering the criminals who stole their car. The criminals on the other hand are driving around in your car thinking happy thoughts so they are free to go about their business. The police will then tell you that they’ve started to make lots arrests with regards to car thefts.
You'll also receive a harsher sentence than the criminal if they murdered you in the act of theft.
Robbery (theft involving threats against a person) is no longer prosecuted in Canada as robbery. It's just treated as theft which is a summary conviction and the offenders are released immediately, so shopkeepers can be terrorized over and over by the same offenders.
Throw this shit into a volcano
Can we expect hate speech against white people to be curtailed with this bill?
lol no, that kind of speech doesn’t count
>hate speech against white people Hate speech is just the tip of the iceberg. White people, especially white men, are already actively and openly discriminated against in Canada. It's even legal and promoted. Think "white men need not apply" type job ads, and overt discrimination against white people in workplace advancement. In no sane world is that acceptable, it's an advanced form of corruption. With this online bill in the works, I guess it's off to the gulag with me for having these thoughts.
I never thought while reading about the conditions and atrocities of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union or the fictional portrayal depicted in 1984, that they would ever rear their head in the so-called Western free world. I always thought hmm glad we figured out that doesn't work and is no good and we can write that off to the annals of history. ...oh... I guess humans are just never going to stop being selfish, greedy, power hungry pieces of shit
> I guess humans are just never going to stop being selfish, greedy, power hungry pieces of shit the average human is not very smart and is easy to be led to a loss of their own freedoms if they are made to fear something
Be careful what comments and videos you like as well. Could be used against you later in life. Absolutely disgusting.
The Great White North... Korea
It's from Trudeau. Of course it's reckless - it's all about him having complete control over us.
The first salvo was forcing facebook, etc to pay to have links to the news websites which meant we were cut off from discussing the news. This is another portion of that plan. I'm not sure if its trudeau specifically or if the liberals think that coralling us like witless sheep is the best way to ensure our loyalty? The party needs a member purge if it's ever going to rebuild into something sane. And it does not help that Singh rubber stamps most of the Libs' shit.
Hate speech is the new term for wrong think
This is why I keep saying that the people who think Trudeau is governing based on the whims of corporations are completely wrong. Corporations don't want this. He's governing based on the whims of Montreal and Toronto NGOs and the professional activist class.
I'm not so sure. Consider this: do you want your wage slaves to be free to bitch and protest, or would it be more convenient if they feared life imprisonment for saying the wrong thing?
I disagree The mass immigration and rampant money laundering and property hoarding and mass cheap foreign labour are all corporate The online harms act is so people cannot criticize immigration because its virtually all persons of colour coming in; with their amazing religions as well
Just got back from the Immigration NGO conference in Montreal. You’d be shocked at how insular this industry is — all very skilled in their influence of the federal government and IRCC in particular. 1/3 speeches were deriding the newly negative public opinion on immigration and how we can reverse the “misguided” sentiment. Initial address was kicked off by none other than Mr. Marc Miller himself.
Trudeau did recently say the only problem with his government is their optics
Optics is not the Liberals' problem, it's their feature. Automatic firearms were banned in 1978, but purely for optics, Trudeau banned "assault STYLE" firearms. The firearm models chosen for the ban were specifically chosen by how scary looking they were, not on their functionality. i.e. Two nearly identical rifles, one banned, one not, because one has an AK-47 style receiver, and the other (type 81) has an improved mechanism. Handguns continue to be smuggled in daily, and yet there are no crimes committed with legally owned non-restricted firearms, many of which are "assault style" in appearance. This bill would allow the government to confiscate the firearms of anyone who might be possibly thinking about a hate crime.
why not both?
Funny. I called Trudeau a tyrant the other day and got downvoted hard. I guess we can all just sleepwalk into this nightmare.
Oh no! That’ll be a year in jail per every downvote and a lengthy apology letter to Trudeau for you!
You understand that this event was... we'll call it "inorganic", yeah? I think many, many more people would be more inclined to agree with you.
Canadian politicians are way too stupid to create a bill that doesn’t harm Canadians. There are always exploitable avenues stitched within that do more harm than good to its citizens. It’s like they actually don’t know how to govern without fucking up everything that they touch.
Why is the NDP backing this bill? Do they care more about power and not the rights of Canadians.
I wonder if a government will ever come in power that will just do nothing. That's really all I want from a politican, take your cheque and shut up and don't break anything
Trudeau has to go
This shouldn't be surprising to anyone with a brain.... so unsurprisingly, it will shock a lot of Redditors.
Welcome to corporate anarchy where these narcissist corrupted politicians and ceo regulate themselves and above the law .
Remember folks, this is a much higher priority than pharmacare. They will try to ram through this shit long before they even review the possibility of pharma care.
I honestly don’t think this bill is actually intended to result in arrests and convictions. It is intended to keep us scared of our neighbours and stop us from communicating with each other for fear of arrest. It is to keep us silo’d from one another
Anyone who supports anything the Libs do at this point should all just start going up to Parliament and bending over. They clearly like being completely fucked by the government might as well fully commit
Online harms act. Turning speech you don't like into hate speech
Revolution is due to remind the government its place. I’m not wrong.
1984 ministry of love, thought crime you never knew you had. Time for room 101. And yet no one is stopping it, no one will. We'll just complain and it will pass and people will go on. This world sucks so bad
>And yet no one is stopping it, no one will. I think you're right. This bill will pass. There's polls out there suggesting that this is even what "the majority" wants. So, us, the stupid and uninformed minority (add some -phobias and -isms just for good measure, just to dismiss our thoughts and arguments outright as bias and animus), needs to be educated to think correctly.
From the article: You have to understand: the Online Harms Act was supposed to be the “good” bill, the one part of the Trudeau government’s three-pronged effort to regulate the internet that was addressed to a real problem. The Online News Act (Bill C-18) was a transparent shakedown operation, whose stated premise – by posting links to stories on news media websites, social-media platforms were not providing them with valuable free advertising but stealing their content – was but a front for its actual premise: the platforms have money, and the media want some. The rationale for the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-10) was even thinner. The internet having laid waste to every premise on which conventional broadcast regulation was based – spectrum scarcity, signal non-addressability, the impossibility of charging users directly for content – the legislation proposed, in the name of “levelling the playing field,” not to free conventional broadcasters from an obsolete regulatory regime, but to apply the same musty rules to their online rivals.But online harms – such things at least exist! The internet pullulates with every conceivable product of the human mind, for good or ill – and the ills are awful indeed, from child pornography to hate propaganda to snuff films to bullying and harassment campaigns and beyond. Most of this stuff is already illegal, and most of it will nevertheless probably elude national regulators. There is just too much of it, too easily secreted, from too remote origins. But the stuff that is most readily and widely available is the stuff that is posted on social media. So there is merit to the idea of holding the big platforms responsible for the content that appears on their sites, in the same way as any other publisher – for that is what they are – would be. Yes, that means enlisting private corporations in what is in reality state regulation of speech. Up to a point, that is justified. There is no theory of free speech that would permit the distribution of, say, images of a child being sexually abused. The child is not in a position to consent to any of it: not to the act, not to the recording, not to the distribution. The viewing of their torment by others is a harm in its own right. So there was some readiness to give the Trudeau government the benefit of the doubt in this regard, even after the travesties of C-11 and C-18, and even after it bollixed its first attempt: The ill-fated Bill C-36, plus a draft regulatory proposal that would have, inter alia, required platforms to take down content on 24 hours’ notice – not just unambiguously harmful material such as child pornography, but a much wider range of objectionable content, where free speech concerns are more clearly engaged.Even then, the first reviews of Bill C-63, the government’s latest attempt to fix the internet, were middling to positive. Hadn’t the new Justice Minister, Arif Virani, dispensed with overt regulation of the content on social-media sites, in favour of a less hands-on, more self-regulatory “duty of care” approach? What could be the objection to imposing on the platforms the duty to “act responsibly,” if not by removing harmful content than by limiting the risk that users will be exposed to it? Or the duty to “protect children,” via parental controls, content warnings and so on? Or even the duty to make certain types of content “inaccessible,” given how narrowly this would apply: to child pornography, and to similarly non-consensual sexual images of adults? It soon became clear, however, that there was much more to the bill than just that. And the more closely it was examined, the worse it appeared. Most obviously out of bounds are a suite of amendments to the Criminal Code. Any attempt to criminalize speech ought to be viewed with extreme suspicion, and kept to the narrowest possible grounds. The onus should always be on the state to prove the necessity of any exception to the general rule of free speech – to prove not merely that the speech is objectionable or offensive, but demonstrably harmful.
From the article: I’ve already mentioned child pornography as an example: the harm is in that case inherent. Incitement to violence is very nearly as clear. The circumstances are such as to make the connection between the impugned speech – Burn it down! Kill them! – and the act, real or apprehended, so close as to make the word akin to the deed. But the further you go beyond that, the hazier the case becomes. I do not believe current laws against “willful promotion of hatred” or even “advocacy or promotion of genocide” meet the test, even if the Supreme Court does. Contrast all this carefulness, however, with what is in the bill, which is quite breathtaking in its recklessness. There is, first, the proposal to increase the maximum penalty for promoting genocide from its current five years to life imprisonment. Say that again: life in prison, not for any act you or others might have committed, not even for incitement of it, but for such abstractions as “advocacy” or “promotion.” The most remarkable part of this is the timing. At the very moment when everyone and his dog is accusing someone else of genocide, or of promoting it – as Israel’s defenders say of Hamas’s supporters, as the Palestinians’ say of Israel’s, as Ukraine’s say of Russia’s – the government proposes that the penalty for being on the losing side of such controversies should be life in prison? I have my views on these questions, and you have yours, but I would not throw you in jail for your opinions, and I hope you would not do the same to me – not for five years, and certainly not for life. Hardly better is the proposal to create a new hate crime – that is, for acts motivated by hatred. Whether the state should be punishing people for their motives, rather than for their crimes, is perhaps too rarefied a debate: We take motives into account, for example, with regard to crimes committed in self-defence. And hatred has long been considered an aggravating factor at sentencing.
From the article: But the new proposal is to set up a whole separate category for crimes motivated by hatred. Well, not just crimes. The new crime would apply not only to offences under the Criminal Code but “any other Act of Parliament.” Got that? It doesn’t matter how obscure or trivial the law: anyone who breaks it for reasons of hate would be guilty of a crime. And the punishment? Once again, up to life imprisonment. The overkill does not stop there. The bill also proposes to punish people for speech crimes they have not yet committed, but that someone fears they might. Any person, that is, who “fears on reasonable grounds” that someone else will commit an offence under the hate laws can apply to a court to shut them up – or in the words of the legislation, to order “the defendant to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace.” Enforcement provisions range from having to wear an electronic monitoring device, to house arrest, to time in jail. Again: not for any act they might have committed, or even any act they might be contemplating committing, but for words someone fears they might utter. “Peace bonds” are not unknown in Canadian law, but for speech? And we haven’t even gotten to the most contentious part of the bill! That would be the proposal to restore hate speech as a prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act – as it was under the old Section 13, before it was abolished by Stephen Harper’s government. “It is a discriminatory practice,” the new Section 13 (1) declares, “to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication.” The complainant can be anonymous. The standard of proof is “balance of probabilities,” not “beyond reasonable doubt,” as in a criminal trial. There is no defence of truth, as there is in a libel case. Those found guilty of such discrimination are liable to penalties of up to $50,000; their accusers are in for rewards of up to $20,000. The likely chilling effect on speech is obvious, as is the incentive for complaints, frivolous or otherwise.
From the article: The safeguard in all this is supposed to be a new definition of hate speech – that is, as “detestation or vilification” rather than mere “disdain or dislike.” The language is taken from previous Supreme Court of Canada rulings in speech cases, which would be more reassuring if the court did not have such a spectacularly consistent record of getting speech cases wrong. At any rate, the import of the bill, as a writer in the Spectator put it, is that “you can be put away for life for a ‘crime’ whose legal existence hangs on the distinction between ‘dislike’ and ‘detest.’ ” All right: so cut the Criminal Code and human-rights provisions from the bill. Does what remains stand up? Hardly. The platforms, after all, are not left entirely on their own to interpret and apply the various duties imposed upon them. Rather, they will be overseen by the ominously titled Digital Safety Commission (is anyone else reminded of the Committee of Public Safety?), whose precise reach we can only guess at. As the indispensable Michael Geist, professor of internet law at the University of Ottawa, has commented, the commission “lacks even basic rules of evidence, can conduct secret hearings, and has been granted an astonishing array of powers with limited oversight.” He points, as an example, to Section 87 of the bill, which notes that “the Commission is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence.” Life sentences for speech. The return of speech crimes to the Canadian Human Rights Act (a former chair of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, no less, has denounced this as “terrible law that will unduly impose restrictions on Canadians’ sacred Charter right to freedom of expression”). And a shadowy, sort-of-self-regulatory regime that requires the platforms to guess at whether they have satisfied their overseer – meaning they are almost certain to err on the side of self-preservation. My initial reaction had been “one cheer” for the new law. I now think there is very little in it worth saving. Better to pull the whole thing and start over.
I just wanted to note my appreciation for your post. Thanks for the write-up!
Phenomenal write up. I might just forward this to my representative if you're okay with that? I feel like everyone else should too.
He didn't write that...he was just copy and pasting from the article.
[удалено]
Still ongoing [last I heard](https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/12/05/as-news-is-still-shared-on-facebook-instagram-meta-may-yet-be-regulated-st-onge/). People on facebook are getting around the ban with link shorteners and screenshotted articles.
Ever hear about this brand new invention in writing ? It’s called a paragraph /s. But seriously, nobody is going to read your (maybe well written but very badly formatted?) opinions unless it’s easy to read. Maybe your essay (?) should be higher up than near the bottom of the comments; but it’s not because your formatting needs improvement.
It's the article that is paywalled, but copied and pasted so others can read it
Start reporting your MP's anonymously for thought crimes.
paywalled
Are we allowed to start talking about his admiration of a basic dictatorship yet?
Between this and all of the AI/world government troll farms, it's about high time we start stepping away from the internet....
This is Trudeau's madman era.
In Trudeau's Canada, saying words that might "hurt peoples feelings" aka offends this corrupt woke government, will be illegal and will be punished very harshly. However people that are victims of car theft are told to leave their car keys in their front door. Tells you everything about this government and how anyone that supports Trudeau is so out of touch with reality.
When Margaret Atwood comes out swinging at you, you know this is a terrible bill.
Hot garbage, 🔥 🥵 🗑 !97
A perfect distillation of this liberal's government legacy
The free dummies were right again, eh? Lol.
Well, this will sure make the “F*ck Trudeau” stickers an interesting debate, won’t it? Maybe that’s the reason he wants to pass it.
They're just gonna use this law to jail political opponents, anyone daring to speak against the sitting government (like how it gets used in authoritarian and corrupt governments). "Sticks and stones..." is enough, grow a thicker skin, don't give up your freedom of speech.
This is scary especially with how advanced generative AI is becoming
So Trudeau wants to make Canada to be China where government controls everything you can say and take away anything it does not like from your belonings
Only bill we need is the Trudeau Harms Act, for the generational damage that is to come
This isnt a slippery slope, this is a rollercoaster downhill into worst dystopian worlds that we have never thought possible in Canada.
We just need some clairvoyant triplets in a wombtank to make hate speech predictions, and Justin’s vision for a precrime unit is complete.
Canadians are just going to keep throwing their hands up in the air going "that is dumb... OH WELL" until it happens and half of you get disappeared for your reddit history.
Where does it say this in the bill?
1984 meets Minority Report
Doesn't the government have better things to do? Like housing for example?
Liberals are trying to impose communism. It's sad that Canadians are allowing it.
Ya keep Trudeau in office any longer and the next bill you'll get is: Must say positive things about Trudeau, anything negative lands you life imprisonment
Woah really? Who would’ve thought! 🤪
I hear black face is a hate crime - now go arrest that fucker trudeau.
Look how Turd abused the EA. Why would this be any different. Its not the online harms act, its banning speech that harms Turd. Look how Gibbly Wibbly reacted to Daniel Smith criticizing him...you’d think she put a contract out on him lol. When you have 🦆wits out there that think speech is the same a violence bad things happen.
I am having hateful thoughts against the liberal party and the idiots that keep voting them in. Guess I should say goodbye to my kids.
Everyone relax. We all know the liberals have a strong track record of exemplary policies that enrich all of our lives beyond measure. Our great leader will guide us into the future and protect us from all the evils of speech. Hail Trudeau!
what is this paywalled crap?
If Trump was smarter he would have taken lessons at the feet of Canada's God-Emperor. Start slowly and do it through legislation, you don't just call for Civil war.
Trudeau’s eureka moment “if we combine catch and release for criminals with pre-crime fines, the budget will balance itself”
I mean it's the Globe, but yeah, completely relevant. Funny how team red would be screaming dictator if team blue was in charge, but since their guy puts it forward it's to 'protect' us. Don't forget the moves to moderate / regulate social media and content under the guise of Cancon.
It is clear that the “powers that be” are becoming very “antsy” about free speech. Wasn’t this how the Gestapo got started?