The Liberals' "Online Harms" bill will crush online dissent to social justice issues

[I am Groot]

The bill - C63, is supposedly aimed at porn. Another of those "We must protect the chiillldreeeeen" type bills that are largely useless. But it also contains amendments to the criminal code and allows cost-free, anonymous complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal against any online article they disapprove of. It will be an incredible weapon in the hands of social justice zealots, who will be able to launch multiple complaints at no cost against anyone arguing against any of their sacred issues. And it will be up to that person or organization to get a lawyer to define themselves. Meanwhile, the complainant has no cost and can remain anonymous.

From a man who headed the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, we get this warning:

The Liberal government’s proposed Bill C-63, the online harms act, is terrible law that will unduly impose restrictions on Canadians’ sacred Charter right to freedom of expression. That is what the Liberals intend. By drafting a vague law creating a draconian regime to address online “harms,” they will win their wars without firing a bullet.

The consequences for violating the law are so severe that it should be expected that hardly anyone would risk violating it. Even news media organizations and big tech companies should be expected to avoid the risk. In this moment when we need it the most, robust political discourse in Canada could disappear with a whimper.

Under the current law, you have to be a complainant to receive a remedy from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Under the proposed new powers, the tribunal will be able to award $20,000 to “any victim identified” in a communication deemed to be hate speech. How many victims might be identified if the hate speech is posted online? Is everyone who sees a hate speech message a victim?

I chaired the CHRT. It has no business policing 'hate speech' | National Post

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-harmful-online-content

[Zeitgeist]

Increasingly it seems that our society would be leaps and bounds ahead if our Feds stopped governing and drafting new legislation several years ago.  All of these bills are so obviously bad that it would be better to have stopped passing bills altogether than to attempt even to modify these bills.

Our next government needs to drop the activism and get the basics right.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Increasingly it seems that our society would be leaps and bounds ahead if our Feds stopped governing and drafting new legislation several years ago.  All of these bills are so obviously bad that it would be better to have stopped passing bills altogether than to attempt even to modify these bills.

Our next government needs to drop the activism and get the basics right.

The problem is that a lot of people want this. They think it's great to be able to silence people who have "bad" thoughts.

Polling indicates that there's strong levels of support.

So what the next gov't REALLY needs to do is abuse the law horribly.  Anyone who disparages or discriminates against someone because they're conservative pays a 20,000 dollar fine or does jail time for each person they offend.   Saying parents don't have rights is a hate crime and is genocide. Anyone calling someone a chud shall be hunted and shot on sight

When people on teh left realize that anything they use against others will eventually be used against them - then they'll realize how important it is to respect EVERYONE"S rights.

[Legato]

You can't use "left" and "respect" in the same sentence. Must now report you to HRC.🙂

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, Legato said:

You can't use "left" and "respect" in the same sentence. Must now report you to HRC.🙂

ohhhh yeaaaahhh .... that explains the blackhawk circling overhead.  (sorry - helicopter of colour.)

[I am Groot]

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The problem is that a lot of people want this. They think it's great to be able to silence people who have "bad" thoughts.

Polling indicates that there's strong levels of support.

No. Most people aren't aware of just how complex it is. They just hear that it will protect children from porn and think that's a good thing. And if it makes it harder for adults to get porn, well, who cares about those perverts anyway? They also have no idea, if they even know about the hate speech portion of the bill, how illiquid and undefined the description of 'hate' is. 

[herbie]

Good. Exterminate the "social justice is bad" crowd.

[Legato]

57 minutes ago, herbie said:

Good. Exterminate the "social justice is bad" crowd.

Hate speech. Another call to HRC needed

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

No. Most people aren't aware of just how complex it is. They just hear that it will protect children from porn and think that's a good thing. And if it makes it harder for adults to get porn, well, who cares about those perverts anyway? They also have no idea, if they even know about the hate speech portion of the bill, how illiquid and undefined the description of 'hate' is. 

Maybe - but either way the libs are using it as an excuse to barrel forward

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Good. Exterminate the "social justice is bad" crowd.

Ooooo - calling for genocide, that's a lifetime prison sentence buckko

[Perspektiv]

7 hours ago, herbie said:

Good. Exterminate the "social justice is bad" crowd.

Social justice warriors or slacktivism is bad. Its out of touch.

Of course one needs social progress. It shouldn't be based on the destruction of institutions to do so.

[Venandi]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

When people on teh left realize that anything they use against others will eventually be used against them - then they'll realize how important it is to respect EVERYONE"S rights.

IMO, that concept should be front and centre in the minds of everyone but unfortunately it takes time to gain the required experience.

As it stands now though, I fear the see-saw effect resulting from future changes in government will serve to prolong the current agony as every new government campaigns on undoing the actions of their predecessors..

Only now (IMO) are liberal voters starting to see the predictable effects of getting what they voted for and they need more experience to drive these lessons home. 

Seems to me that narrative (as opposed to opinion) can only be refined by painful experience and I can't think of a better example than the madness behind defunding the police. 

 

 

Edited March 14 by Venandi

[I am Groot]

13 hours ago, herbie said:

Good. Exterminate the "social justice is bad" crowd.

Herbie, you have inspired me. I'm going to start a new topic dedicated to you.

[Zeitgeist]

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Social justice warriors or slacktivism is bad. Its out of touch.

Of course one needs social progress. It shouldn't be based on the destruction of institutions to do so.

Social justice and progress are good things.  The problem is that some of the work taking place under the auspices of social justice and progress are actually top-down oppressive, economically damaging, and the opposite of justice.  That’s why we have to be very careful to look at the details of policies and potential unintended consequences.

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Social justice and progress are good things.  The problem is that some of the work taking place under the auspices of social justice and progress are actually top-down oppressive, economically damaging, and the opposite of justice.  That’s why we have to be very careful to look at the details of policies and potential unintended consequences.

True. It's  always worth remembering the nazi's considered their policies to be socially just and progressive. The devil tends to be in the details.

[Zeitgeist]

53 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

True. It's  always worth remembering the nazi's considered their policies to be socially just and progressive. The devil tends to be in the details.

Exactly.  The Nazis claimed they were purifying humanity through eugenics.  We see similar language used to by those who seek to purify the planet through climate policies or those who are willing to maim kids to assert the will to immediate and unlimited self-identity. We actually see straight up Nazi antisemitism in the wish to eliminate the “settler colonialists” in Israel. Indigenous activism gets this way in the efforts to give preferential treatment to “First Nations”, as though such people are better than others and never invaded or occupied places where people lived.

I understand the idea behind the Prime Directive in Star Trek not to interfere with other cultures and nations, because forms of social justice often result in recriminations, no matter how apparently helpful people are.  The progressives thought they were giving literacy, opportunities, and salvation to the Indigenous through residential schools.  Now they are hated for it by today’s progressives.

Sir John A. MacDonald is also hated by progressives today for talking about not giving food and shelter to Indigenous because it would make them dependent and interfere with their way of life.

Context and details are everything.  It’s so easy to judge the past through today’s lenses. Often the people who do so fail to understand how much worse conditions could’ve been had other courses of action been taken.

I learned a long time ago when I was doing development work in a developing country that our organization was dangling a carrot of Western lifestyles and consumption in front of the locals, that I was creating envy where people had been relatively content. How helpful were we really?

Not all is as it seems, which is all the more reason to keep speech free, so that issues can be openly discussed, warts and all. Be wary of attempts to penalize people for offending people.

Edited March 14 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The progressives thought they were giving literacy, opportunities, and salvation to the Indigenous through residential schools.  Now they are hated for it by today’s progressives.

Sir John A. MacDonald is also hated by progressives today for talking about not giving food and shelter to Indigenous because it would make them dependent and interfere with their way of life.

With some people no matter WHAT you do or don't do - you were wrong

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Not all is as it seems, which is all the more reason to keep speech free, so that issues can be openly discussed, warts and all. Be wary of attempts to penalize people for offending people.

I agree but you're too late.  We already penalize people for offending people. That's built in to our system now.

[Zeitgeist]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

With some people no matter WHAT you do or don't do - you were wrong

I agree but you're too late.  We already penalize people for offending people. That's built in to our system now.

It makes Canada a weaker democracy. Hopefully people begin to see it and overturn the policies.

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It makes Canada a weaker democracy. Hopefully people begin to see it and overturn the policies.

Unfortunately at the moment people are fine with a weaker democracy provided the parts being made weaker are ones they don't agree with. Look at the covid restrictions, or the use of the emergency act and it's support, or a number of other examples.

If the day comes when the loss of these rights inconveniences them - then they'll care.

[Michael Hardner]

24 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Hopefully people begin to see it and overturn the policies.

The poster you're responding to is repeating a falsehood, and confusing harassment with legal sanctions against insults.  Go ahead and call people whatever you like.  You'll be fine.

People need to take a breath.  When Poilievre gets elected he won't be able to make any changes on the scale necessary to change how these things are happening.

But I'll bet good money these hyperbolic complaints... will cease.  Suddenly, Canada will be a harmonic and just land.

Mark my words.

[CdnFox]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

The poster you're responding to is repeating a falsehood, and confusing harassment with legal sanctions against insults.  Go ahead and call people whatever you like.  You'll be fine.

People need to take a breath.  When Poilievre gets elected he won't be able to make any changes on the scale necessary to change how these things are happening.

But I'll bet good money these hyperbolic complaints... will cease.  Suddenly, Canada will be a harmonic and just land.

Mark my words.

Well we know that's a lie Mike. Don't we. In fact i posted numerous court and tribunal cases where the judge very directly and expressly said otherwise.

You may be a complete lying sack of shit mike, but i'll give you this - you're consistent.  

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The poster you're responding to is repeating a falsehood, and confusing harassment with legal sanctions against insults.  Go ahead and call people whatever you like.  You'll be fine.

People need to take a breath.  When Poilievre gets elected he won't be able to make any changes on the scale necessary to change how these things are happening.

But I'll bet good money these hyperbolic complaints... will cease.  Suddenly, Canada will be a harmonic and just land.

Mark my words.

The Conservatives will blow it eventually, which is why we need term limits, at least for the PMO.

[herbie]

7 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Herbie, you have inspired me. I'm going to start a new topic dedicated to you.

Goods. Sort of a re-education camp for fascists and chuds to vent in.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, herbie said:

Goods. Sort of a re-education camp for fascists and chuds to vent in.

I'm sure that's how the voices in your head will explain it  

[taxesanddeath]

There is no hate speech from the libs or SJWs, only conservatives with wicked tongue. It seems who controls the media controls the narrative, 

[Black Dog]

5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Sir John A. MacDonald is also hated by progressives today for talking about not giving food and shelter to Indigenous because it would make them dependent and interfere with their way of life.

See, this is why you need to get out of your right wing information bubble and actually listen to what centre-left people actually believe. Hell, even just read history because then you'd know that MacDonald didn't withhold food from Indigenous people to prevent them from being dependent on the government, but to force them onto reserves where they would become dependent on government handouts.