Life sentences for speech? Pre-crime detention? Ex post facto law? Anonymous accusers? It's all in Justin Trudeau's "Online Harms Bill," a true "threat to democracy"
I got in some hot water a while back for admitting I was relatively unconcerned with Republican villainy these days compared to other worries. This Canada Online Harms Act, whose details I missed earlier (apologies to Public and Yuri Bezmenov!), perfectly embodies the kind of thing that keeps me up at night now.
Whatever else Republicans have been up to, they haven’t been scheduling nuclear bomb runs over the whole concept of individual rights (although they’re trying to catch up with moves like the antisemitism bill). People will focus on the cartoon wokeness of Justin Trudeau’s bill, but that’s not what makes it scary — he’s trying to create a full-blown surveillance state, complete with a giant citizen army of paid snitches, with one stroke. Things not even imaginable a few years ago, like pre-emptive punishment for crimes not even committed or life sentences for what Canada’s former Chief Justice called “some words,” would be reality with this bill. Genuine political dissent would become logistically impossible, and virtual mob rule a certainty.
People misunderstood the content of stories like the Twitter Files to be solely about censorship. The real issue was the creation of huge extrademocratic bureaucracies that use digital levers to manipulate political life and whose growth is difficult-to-impossible to check. The way this bill casually dismisses things like the right to face your accuser or due process or protection from ex post facto law shows the utter contempt for democracy. These ideas have a lot of support in elite circles in America and I’m sorry, they’re operating on a completely different level of scary than something like the Trump movement even. Do people just not believe this stuff is happening, or do they think it’s okay? I don’t get it.
Why don’t you go and debate Matt then? For you young folks that don’t get it — The devil is always in the details. That’s why the law needs to be explicit and not open to loose interpretation. I’m worried about the bill because its intent is not child protection. Think a little deeper. Matt is a distinguished investigative reporter.
The thing is, Canada already has an established (and repeatedly courg-challenged) legal framework for hate speech and hate crimes. These terms are already clearly defined, and laws are free and even supposed to reference other established legislation and legal precedent rather than republish parts of the criminal code over and over again.
So no, the law does not need to be a capsule full of explicit definitions of things that are already well defined in law. It merely needs to make direct reference to those definitions and other relevant legislation.
And based off of those established legislation
“offence motivated by hatred,” in theory any non-criminal offense, as tiny as littering, committed with hateful intent;
is a bizarre twisting of things. The author is either ignorant of Canadian hate laws, while still choosing to report on them, or engaging in purposeful FUD for some reason.
is a bizarre twisting of things. The author is either ignorant of Canadian hate laws, while still choosing to report on them, or engaging in purposeful FUD for some reason.
Well, if hate is defined in Canadian Law, let’s stop making more laws about supposed harms. People need to be responsible for themselves and not have a nanny government telling us what is right. This is getting so ridiculous! Society takes generations to adapt to new customs.
This law is about the government regulating thought and speech. Not my government!
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but Canada has never embraced completely free speech, even with the caveat of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. You might be thinking of laws and a constitution originating a little farther south.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
FFS!
When are these “journalists” (iow, “any twat with an opinion”) going to present a “news story without EXTREME HYPERBOLE”?
How can these “racket.news” clowns even pretend to “have a scoop”?
tl;dr - article written by 9th grade master debater.
Why don’t you go and debate Matt then? For you young folks that don’t get it — The devil is always in the details. That’s why the law needs to be explicit and not open to loose interpretation. I’m worried about the bill because its intent is not child protection. Think a little deeper. Matt is a distinguished investigative reporter.
The thing is, Canada already has an established (and repeatedly courg-challenged) legal framework for hate speech and hate crimes. These terms are already clearly defined, and laws are free and even supposed to reference other established legislation and legal precedent rather than republish parts of the criminal code over and over again.
So no, the law does not need to be a capsule full of explicit definitions of things that are already well defined in law. It merely needs to make direct reference to those definitions and other relevant legislation.
And based off of those established legislation
is a bizarre twisting of things. The author is either ignorant of Canadian hate laws, while still choosing to report on them, or engaging in purposeful FUD for some reason.
Well, if hate is defined in Canadian Law, let’s stop making more laws about supposed harms. People need to be responsible for themselves and not have a nanny government telling us what is right. This is getting so ridiculous! Society takes generations to adapt to new customs.
This law is about the government regulating thought and speech. Not my government!
Hate to break it to you, buddy, but Canada has never embraced completely free speech, even with the caveat of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. You might be thinking of laws and a constitution originating a little farther south.
My apologies for hurting your feelings.
Extend my apologies to Matt as you’re thinking deeper.
I dare you to debate him, but you know you’d lose. I just get so tired of drive by comments like yours, that are posted with so little thought.
Are you 15?
Double dog dare you no take-backsies!
Do you recognize how immature you sound? Or are you oblivious to that part of reality too?
Hey kid, you’re the one who mentioned his debating skill.
Should have known you’d be a debate bro.
It’s the old geezers that don’t get it. Your irrelevance is nigh.
What don’t I get?
When the hyperbole stops getting them attention (which is likely to be never).