Canada's On Line Harms Bill C-63

[cromwell]

The stated intent of the Bill is protecting children from online victimisation. Who could object to that? Very noble, I'm sure. But it also makes real the Thought Police.

Because this legislation authorises house arrest and electronic tagging for a person considered likely to commit a future crime. If a judge believes there are reasonable grounds to ‘fear’ a future hate crime, the as of yet innocent party can be sentenced to house arrest, complete with electronic tagging, mandatory drug testing and communication bans. Failure to cooperate nets you an additional year in jail. This is the thought police.

What is a hate crime? According to the Bill, it is a communication expressing ‘detestation or vilification.’ But, clarified the government, this is not the same as ‘disdain or dislike,’ or speech that ‘discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.’

Whatever that means.

Basically if you say anything that the government doesn't like, i guess that will be "Hate Speech".

I just wonder when this will come to us, because i'm sure that it will.

[Workingman]

What is a hate crime?

Good question. It would appear that if one disagrees with the prevailing "approved" thinking it is "hate".

So, if I am not supportive of a Pride march, that's hate. If I think 'trans' are not the same as non-trans that's also hate. If I think that WLM is equal to BLM, again that's hate. Basically, one section of society, agenda driven and unelected and unregulated, can now decide what I should think otherwise I will be prosecuted and even jailed. This is a dangerous path to walk. What if in the future the tide turns and current hate crimes become acceptable and believers in the old 'approved' ways get jailed? They will not like it.

What is so wrong with having different viewpoints?

1984?

[cromwell]

It's getting that way so far as I can see.

The problem is with Hate Speech that what may be hateful to one person is the truth to another. It's a matter of opinion, perspective, call it what you will, but it isn't an indisputible fact. So "Hate" offences are bad law.

In effect it is one side of the political divide attempting to silence anyone with a contrary opinion.

[Workingman]

It is not so much political as societal and social media driven.

I don't hate Just Stop Oil, but I think that their tag line is wrong: Just Stop 'Burning' Oil would be better. The same goes for Extinction Rebellion. They have a point, but their methods and actions are not persuasive for the majority. However, If I act against them it's "hate" because they are a modern-day Cause célèbre.

Look at what the Palestinian supporters just did to the Balfour painting. Now that's a hate crime as I see it. I sort of agree with their arguments, but not their vandalism. Their action seems to be OK - however, the police are only looking into it. It's on video, the perp is visible, so is the damage. Ah, but it's not hate, its 'democracy'.

[cromwell]

It is not so much political as societal and social media driven.

I suppose that's true. But it's only a small, noisy minority of people doing the driving.
The concerns of most of us are the ordinary day to day stuff; the cost of living - how much is the next gas bill going to be; the state of the roads, the war on the motorist, the levels of immigration or the state of our town centres.
"Hate crime" and the need to suppress it is way down the list of most people's concerns.

[Suff]

I take it you didn't get to the part where it says that if you are convicted of promoting genocide the max term is Life??

Question is who gets to decide what "Genocide" is? Those showing video's of tunnels being destroyed and taking buildings down or those who actually read the ICJ judgement which stated that BOTH Sides should avoid "causing" genocide and should take steps to ensure it doesn't happen. i.e. it is not happening now but don't tip over into it.

The acts of self harm being done in Canada are growing larger.

[Workingman]

I take it you didn't get to the part where it says that if you are convicted of promoting genocide the max term is Life??

Nor me, do you have a link: chapter, para, sentence? I can't find it.

It is not good legislation, but come on!

[Suff]

I was reading it off another site. However, here you are.

From the Parliament and the first reading.

PART 2 
Criminal Code
R.‍S.‍, c. C-46

Amendments to the Act
11 Paragraph (a) of the definition offence in section 183 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (liii):
Start of inserted block
(liii.‍01) section 320.‍1001 (offence motivated by hatred),

End of inserted block
1997, c. 17, s. 9(3)

12 Paragraph 264(4)‍(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) the terms or conditions of an order made Insertion startunderInsertion end section 161 or a recognizance entered into Insertion startunderInsertion end section 810, Insertion start810.‍012Insertion end, 810.‍1 or 810.‍2; or

2019, c. 25, s. 120

13 Subsection 318(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Advocating genocide
318 (1) Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for Insertion startlifeInsertion end.

That is a REALLY big step.

[Workingman]

But people are not promoting genocide. They are disagreeing with the current mores on anything the PTB want to promote: trans rights, abortion, IVF, you name it.

These are not "hate" thoughts, they are just contrary. We are heading down a dangerous path.

Free speech: forget it.

[Suff]

Agree totally. Speak your mind in conflict with an agenda, risk going to jail for life.