Online Harms Bill

[Dougie93]

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Canada needs a constitutional revamp or we simply need something more like the Bill of Rights.  Our government is out of control trying to find behind the scenes dictatorial methods of erasing opposition.

but the ruling elites simply ignore the constitution

and they appoint cronies to the judiciary, who will rubber stamp any legislation no matter how ludicrous

and it doesn't matter who you vote for, because the opposition is not opposed to massive government overreach

it's two factions of the same elite class, both inclined to abridge the constitution, just for differing imperatives

the Conservatives have their own version of the Online Harms Bill

they don't oppose Bill 23 in theory, they simply want to amend it slightly at the margins

[OftenWrong]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but the ruling elites simply ignore the constitution

and they appoint cronies to the judiciary, who will rubber stamp any legislation no matter how ludicrous

and it doesn't matter who you vote for, because the opposition is not opposed to massive government overreach

it's two factions of the same elite class, both inclined to abridge the constitution, just for differing imperatives

the Conservatives have their own version of the Online Harms Bill

they don't oppose Bill 23 in theory, they simply want to amend it slightly at the margins

That's why

we'll eventually reach a point 

where the system is no longer legitimate

where there is no more democracy

justice subverted

then it's torches by night

then people themselves must rise

to arms, to arms

[Aristides]

No one gets a maximum sentence for anything in this country.

[Dougie93]

39 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

That's why

we'll eventually reach a point 

where the system is no longer legitimate

where there is no more democracy

justice subverted

then it's torches by night

then people themselves must rise

to arms, to arms

except I am a Burkean counterrevolutionary conservative

in that Edmund Burke asserted that while revolutions might become inevitable

they none the less resulted in catastrophe

to wit, if the status quo was overthrown, that would likely result in more totalitarianism not less

in fact, the elites seem to be deliberately provoking these ends, in order to consolidate their impunity

furthermore, I am bound by solemn oath taken in the face of God Himself

beneath the laid up Colours with my hand on the King James Bible

to defend and uphold the British Crown in North America

come what may, unto to death as necessary

so I cannot rise against the Westminster Parliament under any circumstances

all I can do is sing of the Good News

and hope that there are still Loyalists left in this land

whom are willing to go into harms way

to engage in passive non violent resistance, by Section 2 of the Charter of Rights & Freedoms

holding the cross high, until the usurpers cut us down in our tracks

nec aspera terrent : no fears on earth

 

[Zeitgeist]

Part of the anti-free speech bill includes arbitrary detaining of individuals on the basis that they might say something hateful.  This bill is creepy in the extreme.  We have to allow so-called hate speech anyway if we want to protect free speech.  You can’t criminalize an emotion or its expression unless people are threatened with violence, blackmail, etc.  This should be obvious.  There’s no legal requirement not to be offended.  We used to understand this.

“One of the more overlooked aspects of the Liberals’ just-proposed Online Harms Bill is that it would empower judges to detain Canadians merely on the suspicion that they’re going to say something hateful online. A new category of peace bond proposed by the bill would “allow a judge to impose conditions on an individual where there are reasonable grounds to fear that they will commit a hate propaganda offence or hate crime,” according to a Trudeau government backgrounder. The peace bond would not need “evidence that an offence has actually been committed,” as it is “a preventative measure to protect all people.”

National Post

Edited February 29 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

35 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Part of the anti-free speech bill includes arbitrary detaining of individuals on the basis that they might say something hateful.  This bill is creepy in the extreme.  We have to allow so-called hate speech anyway if we want to protect free speech.  You can’t criminalize an emotion or its expression unless people are threatened with violence, blackmail, etc.  This should be obvious.  There’s no legal requirement not to be offended.  We used to understand this.

Canada literally imposing a Pre-Crime regime

but see how this is the downfall of our civilization in progress therein

as that is so extreme and in contravention of liberal democracy

that it could only be part of a catastrophe at the level of societal collapse itself

not going to happen

 we could only reach this point now, if the catastrophe had already happened

to wit, this is not the bomb, this is the fallout from the bomb having already gone off

I would suggest that the bomb went off in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis

that was when the elites blew the world up

we are simply experiencing the wake of it now

the consequences of the elites losing all legitimacy, yet still clinging to power by draconian tyranny

they obviously realize that things are going to get much worse

at some point inciting widespread revolt

so they are preparing their legislative bunkers in preparation for

if you talk to the average Joe on the street

they will likely say that they hate Trudeau or what have you

but they still don't grasp how dire the situation is

that the entire economy is a massively inflated debt bubble on an unprecedented scale

which will inevitably have to burst in the not too distant future

resulting in a deflationary spiral which will exceed the scale of the Great Depression

the elites however, are quite obviously aware that the spiral has already begun

so they are already laying the groundwork to try to deflect the reaction unto various scapegoats

"Online Harms" and "Hate Speech" are really just euphemisms for "dissenting against the elites"

when the sh*t truly hits the fan, in the next global financial crisis

and the middle class starts ending up bankrupt and homeless in the streets en masse

the powers that be will attempt to shut the internet down

they will start locking people out, Chinese Communist style, rendering us into internal exile

Edited February 29 by Dougie93

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Part of the anti-free speech bill includes arbitrary detaining of individuals on the basis that they might say something hateful.  This bill is creepy in the extreme.  We have to allow so-called hate speech anyway if we want to protect free speech.  You can’t criminalize an emotion or its expression unless people are threatened with violence, blackmail, etc.  This should be obvious.  There’s no legal requirement not to be offended.  We used to understand this.

“One of the more overlooked aspects of the Liberals’ just-proposed Online Harms Bill is that it would empower judges to detain Canadians merely on the suspicion that they’re going to say something hateful online. A new category of peace bond proposed by the bill would “allow a judge to impose conditions on an individual where there are reasonable grounds to fear that they will commit a hate propaganda offence or hate crime,” according to a Trudeau government backgrounder. The peace bond would not need “evidence that an offence has actually been committed,” as it is “a preventative measure to protect all people.”

National Post

Man - it's just the absolute worst kind of law there is. He's trying to get all his authortarian licks in before he gets punted

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

 This bill is creepy in the extreme.

I would use the word ominous

because when you see supposedly "liberal" governments

trying to sneak this sort of extreme legislation past a naive public

it shows that they are very afraid

they clearly think something very bad is going to happen, which will make the public into a dire threat to them

[Zeitgeist]

41 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada literally imposing a Pre-Crime regime

but see how this is the downfall of our civilization in progress therein

as that is so extreme and in contravention of liberal democracy

that it could only be part of a catastrophe at the level of societal collapse itself

not going to happen

 we could only reach this point now, if the catastrophe had already happened

to wit, this is not the bomb, this is the fallout from the bomb having already gone off

I would suggest that the bomb went off in the 2008 Global Financial Crisis

that was when the elites blew the world up

we are simply experiencing the wake of it now

the consequences of the elites losing all legitimacy, yet still clinging to power by draconian tyranny

they obviously realize that things are going to get much worse

at some point inciting widespread revolt

so they are preparing their legislative bunkers in preparation for

if you talk to the average Joe on the street

they will likely say that they hate Trudeau or what have you

but they still don't grasp how dire the situation is

that the entire economy is a massively inflated debt bubble on an unprecedented scale

which will inevitably have to burst in the not too distant future

resulting in a deflationary spiral which will exceed the scale of the Great Depression

the elites however, are quite obviously aware that the spiral has already begun

so they are already laying the groundwork to try to deflect the reaction unto various scapegoats

"Online Harms" and "Hate Speech" are really just euphemisms for "dissenting against the elites"

when the sh*t truly hits the fan, in the next global financial crisis

and the middle class starts ending up bankrupt and homeless in the streets en masse

the powers that be will attempt to shut the internet down

they will start locking people out, Chinese Communist style, rendering us into internal exile

I hope there’s an alternative to a severe depression/crisis, because I have no doubt that said crisis will be the excuse for more tyrannical stuff.  We’ve explored the potential torments at length and been accused of being “conspiracy theorists”, “alt right” or some other dismissive disparagement: digital currency with access tied to social credit scores, more pandemic-style restrictions on movement, social gatherings, etc.

Trudeau seems to be the poster child for these top-down dystopian “safety” measures, but we’ve seen governments of all political stripes in the West fold up constitutional rights in short order when the UN, IMF, WEF or some other unaccountable world organization sends the script and marching orders to political leaders.

The “Online Harm Bill” is just the latest nail in the coffin.  I hold out hope that this creepy new world of altering bodies and helping people kill themselves, canceling people for critical thinking, flooding schools with alternative lifestyle imagery, and other pagan experimentation will pass as people realize how self-destructive all this is in a society with an already dismal birth rate, but I’m not sure people have the wherewithal to undo the brainwashing and legislation.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I hope there’s an alternative to a severe depression/crisis, because I have no doubt that said crisis will be the excuse for more tyrannical stuff.

I simply do the math

in that there is four times as much debt as there is productivity

and the prices of everything are exponentially inflated therein

a bubble so big that it actually dwarfs the Roaring Twenties several times over

then I watch what the elites are doing, how they are behaving

then I logically extrapolate from there

[Dougie93]

14 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

The “Online Harm Bill” is just the latest nail in the coffin.  I hold out hope that this creepy new world of altering bodies and helping people kill themselves, canceling people for critical thinking, flooding schools with alternative lifestyle imagery, and other pagan experimentation will pass as people realize how self-destructive all this is in a society with an already dismal birth rate, but I’m not sure people have the wherewithal to undo the brainwashing and legislation.

well since 2008,

the elites were staving off the Occupy Wall Street revolt by handing out newly printed fiat currency

but this inflation of the money supply is inflation

so now that is starting wreck things in of itself

so the parallel track has always been Woke

when the elites can no longer keep the population docile by money printing

they switch to divide and conquer Identity Politics

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

well since 2008 the elites were staving off the Occupy Wall Street revolt by handing out newly printed fiat currency

but this inflation of the money supply is inflation

so now that is starting wreck things in of itself

so the parallel track has always been Woke

when the elites can no longer keep the population docile by money printing

they switch to divide and conquer Identity Politics

Classic divide and conquer Machiavelli.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Classic divide and conquer Machiavelli.

indeed

what the elites slyly determined

was that there was a new religion, a satanic pagan cult rising at the margins

so they jumped on board and started amplifying it

knowing full well that the general population would find it to be obviously absurd

but that's how totalitarianism works

you impose the absurd, as a loyalty test, to determine who are the probable dissenters

then you impose draconian measures upon any who dissent in the slightest

to send a message to the rest not to dare

[Zeitgeist]

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

indeed

what the elites slyly determined

was that there was a new religion, a satanic pagan cult rising at the margins

so they jumped on board and started amplifying it

knowing full well that the general population would find it to be obviously absurd

but that's how totalitarianism works

you impose the absurd, as a loyalty test, to determine who are the probable dissenters

then you impose draconian measures upon any who dissent in the slightest

to send a message to the rest not to dare

Dark but true.  That’s exactly what’s happening. 

[Dougie93]

13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Dark

the road to Calvary will keep the dark at bay

the Light over Damascus

you dive like an avenging angel into the darkness

to rescue lost souls in the pagan wilderness of thorns

you save yourself, then another, then another, one at a time

not by preaching nor bible thumping per se

but by example

you find the salt of the earth people wandering in distress

and you treat them well, with love, care & respect, as the sacred individuals whom they are

courage is contagious

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Part of the anti-free speech bill includes arbitrary detaining of individuals on the basis that they might say something hateful. 

“One of the more overlooked aspects of the Liberals’ just-proposed Online Harms Bill is that it would empower judges to detain Canadians merely on the suspicion that they’re going to say something hateful online.

National Post

Not exactly, the National Post is making this sound like a thought crime - it's hyperbole, like calling a Pineapple Express an Atmospheric River.

Get a grip.

A judge would be empowered to order a peace bond against posting something hateful online.

You wouldn't be detained until you went against the peace bond.

In the meantime you'd be perfectly free to say anything you like as well as pursue legal means to have the bond lifted or never placed on you in the first place. Good luck I guess if you have a history of posting hateful material in the past.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Not exactly, the National Post is making this sound like a thought crime - it's hyperbole, like calling a Pineapple Express an Atmospheric River.

Get a grip.

A judge would be empowered to order a peace bond against posting something hateful online.

You wouldn't be detained until you went against the peace bond.

In the meantime you'd be perfectly free to say anything you like as well as pursue legal means to have the bond lifted or never placed on you in the first place. Good luck I guess if you have a history of posting hateful material in the past.

Why is it okay to prevent people from expressing hateful stuff?  Sure, most people don’t like hearing it, but that’s the price of free speech, and it’s a price worth paying.  That’s not the same thing as threatening physical harm or extorting, etc.  Saying mean things has to be okay or we have an ever expanding definition and biased interpretations of “hateful”.   For example, I find lederhosen offensive.  Can the judge detain such yodellers or post a bond against such crimes of haberdashery?

[I am Groot]

On 2/29/2024 at 4:54 PM, Zeitgeist said:

Why is it okay to prevent people from expressing hateful stuff?

It can be made to sound reasonable. Except in this day and age the term 'hate' is used for almost any opposition to the far-left identity agenda. You can be termed guilty of hate for almost anything these days. I was permanently bounced from a group elsewhere for 'hate' because I dared to point out in a discussion of the highest crime areas in Canada that the areas with the highest crime rates were those near native reserves.

Which is an absolute fact.

But under this legislation, truth is not a defense. I could be charged just for saying that online.

Edited March 22 by I am Groot

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. It can be made to sound reasonable.
2. But under this legislation, truth is not a defense. I could be charged just for saying that online.

1. Agreed.  It can also be made to sound draconian.  The fact that there is inadequate understanding from "the" public and "the" errors is somewhat the fault of those reviewing the details, and somewhat related to how the public reviews such things but the fault is PRIMARILY and most importantly on the government IMO.  

For the public to get a better understanding of complex legal issues, we need to rediscover our humility.  The fact is that "the" public can't be expected to:

1- Read a 150 page legal document - not even to speak of UNDERSTANDING it
2- Doesn't have any trusted public intellectuals to explain such things
3- Doesn't know how to find such people
4- If they were able to, they would be in the habit of trusting a single opinion on such things.

The liberal world was highly confused by Margaret Atwood's sharp comments on the legislation, but that itself was based on a single article.  There are indeed strange new aspects of this bill - like a "restraining order" type block on expressing ones opinion and the government already lost the trust of the people awhile ago so that clause is fraught.

2. Truth hasn't been a defense for awhile.  People on here regularly attack folks also for making true comments about whiteness.  My points from 1, above, point to the need to rebuild structures to support dialogue.

[I am Groot]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

For the public to get a better understanding of complex legal issues, we need to rediscover our humility.  The fact is that "the" public can't be expected to:

1- Read a 150 page legal document - not even to speak of UNDERSTANDING it
2- Doesn't have any trusted public intellectuals to explain such things
3- Doesn't know how to find such people
4- If they were able to, they would be in the habit of trusting a single opinion on such things.

The only medium for obtaining such information, such opinions, such judgments from those we presume to know better than us is the media, both mainstream and online. And much of it is suspect due to ideological preferences. But it's all we have.

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Truth hasn't been a defense for awhile.  People on here regularly attack folks also for making true comments about whiteness.  My points from 1, above, point to the need to rebuild structures to support dialogue.

It has been a defense in law, though. I might be banned from some group by an obnoxious woke moderator but I can't be brought before some government body for saying something true. But under this law, I can be. Which means it will be a huge deterrent to anyone having that dialogue you want on key social issues unless they approach that dialogue from the far left.

Edited March 22 by I am Groot

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, I am Groot said:

1. The only medium for obtaining such information, such opinions, such judgments from those we presume to know better than us is the media, both mainstream and online. And much of it is suspect due to ideological preferences. But it's all we have.

2. It has been a defense in law, though. 

3. Which means it will be a huge deterrent to anyone having that dialogue you want on key social issues unless they approach that dialogue from the far left.

1. There is plenty of media that is trustworthy enough to use as a platform.  Plenty.  But I haven't seen any that have taken this approach.  Not that there haven't been, but... maybe I will look for one.
2. Doesn't really work for hate speech.  I can't see anybody going to a judge and saying "See, Judge ?  The Jews actually DO control the world..." 
3. This is the problem of bubbles.   Getting some objective information, as I outlined, should draw people out of their bubbles and leave social media to go where it's already headed, ie. back to cat and baby pics...

[Zeitgeist]

53 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It can be made to sound reasonable. Except in this day and age the term 'hate' is used for almost any opposition to the far-left identity agenda. You can be termed guilty of hate for almost anything these days. I was permanently bounced from a group elsewhere for 'hate' because I dared to point out in a discussion of the highest crime areas in Canada that the areas with the highest crime rates were those near native reserves.

Which is an absolute fact.

But under this legislation, truth is not a defense. I could be charged just for saying that online.

That’s how tyranny gets entrenched, when facts are banned for being construed as hateful.  

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The only medium for obtaining such information, such opinions, such judgments from those we presume to know better than us is the media, both mainstream and online. And much of it is suspect due to ideological preferences. But it's all we have.

Following up - I listened to quite a few pieces on this.  This was one that stuck out:

-David Fraser is an acclaimed tech and privacy lawyer at the Schulich school of law.  No political axe to grind.  The other pieces I found were from CTV News - a panel with communications directors from all 3 parties... so, no.  

He went through it and doesn't think much of the bill, but I couldn't find much on the Human Rights angle.  He leaves it to 28:40.  Most of the analysis is about the protecting children angle.   He thinks the bill is weak but - have a look.  It doesn't seem draconian, except that he thinks pieces of it won't withstand constitutional challenge.

Have a look and see if you find other quality criticisms.  They are out there.


 

 

[I am Groot]

It was interesting, though it dealt almost entirely with the underage sex pics and revenge porn aspect of the bill. What he talked about was bad enough, though. The idea some government agency can just send people into your business any time they want, without warning, without a warrant, and seize anything they feel they should is outrageous. The requirement for the social media companies to record and catalogue every take-down request and report they get, along with their response, and submit regular reports sounds like it would be quite costly. And the social media companies are supposed to fund this government organization too? How many will just shut Canada out? 

I found this about the second part of the bill, the hate part, and it's just as ridiculous. It makes me think this bill was never intended to pass constitutional muster but is just virtue signaling by the Trudeau government. It's a conservative leaning organization but the bare particulars it gives are clear enough.

 

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

 

I found this about the second part of the bill, the hate part, and it's just as ridiculous. It makes me think this bill was never intended to pass constitutional muster but is just virtue signaling by the Trudeau government. It's a conservative leaning organization but the bare particulars it gives are clear enough.

 

The person doesn't introduce themselves and, pretty early on, says in my view.... But who are they?