On Mar 5, 2024, Julian wrote on alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
(in article <us7chv$3ql25$1@dont-email.me>):

> There’s a way of getting children to eat something they dislike –
> medicine, for example – where you bury the goods in a spoonful of jam.
> Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are trying this method with their Online Harms
> Bill C-63. But it may not go down as well as they hoped.
>
> The stated intent of the Bill is something every decent person supports:
> protecting children from online victimisation. Yet behind this noble aim
> lurks the thought police.
>
> This is no exaggeration. This legislation authorises house arrest and
> electronic tagging for a person considered likely to commit a future
> crime. It’s right there in the text: 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. If that’s not
> establishing a thought police, I don’t know what is.
>
> 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.’
>
> Unfortunately, the government didn’t think to include a graduated scheme
> setting out the relative acceptability of the words ‘offend,’ ‘hurt,’
> ‘humiliate,’ ‘discredit,’ ‘dislike,’ ‘disdain,’ ‘detest,’
> and ‘vilify.’
> Under Bill C-63, you can be put away for life for a ‘crime’ whose legal
> existence hangs on the distinction between ‘dislike’ and ‘detest.’
>
> Despite this Trudeau claims to stand against authoritarianism.
>
> The Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson says that under
> Bill C-63, his criminalisation would be a certainty. The legislation
> appears to apply retroactively, meaning you can be hauled up before the
> Human Rights Tribunal for any material you’ve left online, regardless of
> its posting date. Anonymous accusations and secret testimony are
> permitted (at the tribunal’s discretion). Complaints are free to file,
> and an accuser, if successful, can hope to reap up to a $20,000 payout,
> with up to another $50,000 going to the government.
>
> Hold on, you may be thinking, what does all this have to do with
> protecting children online? So far it seems more geared towards
> protecting the Liberal government online. There is in fact a section
> that requires social media companies to establish plans to protect
> users, including children. But if you’re getting your hopes up, prepare
> to have them dashed.
>
> All the social media companies are going be supervised by a brand-new
> government body called the Digital Safety Commission. The Digital Safety
> Commission can, without oversight, require companies to block access to
> anycontent, conduct investigations, hold secret hearings, require the
> companies to hand over specific content, and give all data collected to
> third-party researchers accredited by the Commission. All data. Any
> content. No oversight.
>
> Does that sound crazy? There’s more.
>
> The ostensible purpose of putting the Commission (and not the ordinary
> police) in charge is so that it can act informally and quickly (i.e.
> without a warrant) in situations where material victimising a child
> could spread quickly across the Internet. What that means in effect is
> that the Digital Safety Commission is not accountable and does not have
> to justify its actions. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says
> in its sharply worded critique of the Bill, it endows government
> appointees with vast authority ‘to interpret the law, make up new rules,
> enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury and executioner.’
>
> Is it possible, that in the beautiful and once civilized country of
> Canada, leading politicians seriously want to punish people for crimes
> they might (but actually haven’t) committed? Canada already has a law
> that criminalises conspiracy, and another law criminalising threats—so
> we’re not talking about someone who is planning murder or terrorism.
> Then who are we talking about? People who read the wrong websites?
> People who didn’t get vaccinated? People who criticise the government?
> People who go to church and believe certain types of immorality will
> send you to hell?
>
> There’s something Trudeau and his minions don’t seem to realise. With
> the Online Harms Bill, as with the reckless invocation of the
> Emergencies Act and the debanking of protestors, they are making a
> mockery of the rule of law and of the public order they are sworn to uphold.
>
> Jane Stannus

I have added some other groups where people might like to comment.
But if so, please leave in alt.buddha.short.fat.guy as well, since that
is where the thread has originated.

--
David Dalton dalton@nfld.com https://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
https://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
“And the cart is on a wheel; And the wheel is on a hill;
And the hill is shifting sand; And inside these laws we stand" (Ferron)

On 05/03/2024 19:34, David Dalton wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2024, Julian wrote on alt.buddha.short.fat.guy
> (in article <us7chv$3ql25$1@dont-email.me>):
>
>> There’s a way of getting children to eat something they dislike –
>> medicine, for example – where you bury the goods in a spoonful of jam.
>> Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are trying this method with their Online Harms
>> Bill C-63. But it may not go down as well as they hoped.
>>
>> The stated intent of the Bill is something every decent person supports:
>> protecting children from online victimisation. Yet behind this noble aim
>> lurks the thought police.
>>
>> This is no exaggeration. This legislation authorises house arrest and
>> electronic tagging for a person considered likely to commit a future
>> crime. It’s right there in the text: 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. If that’s not
>> establishing a thought police, I don’t know what is.
>>
>> 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.’
>>
>> Unfortunately, the government didn’t think to include a graduated scheme
>> setting out the relative acceptability of the words ‘offend,’ ‘hurt,’
>> ‘humiliate,’ ‘discredit,’ ‘dislike,’ ‘disdain,’ ‘detest,’
>> and ‘vilify.’
>> Under Bill C-63, you can be put away for life for a ‘crime’ whose legal
>> existence hangs on the distinction between ‘dislike’ and ‘detest.’
>>
>> Despite this Trudeau claims to stand against authoritarianism.
>>
>> The Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson says that under
>> Bill C-63, his criminalisation would be a certainty. The legislation
>> appears to apply retroactively, meaning you can be hauled up before the
>> Human Rights Tribunal for any material you’ve left online, regardless of
>> its posting date. Anonymous accusations and secret testimony are
>> permitted (at the tribunal’s discretion). Complaints are free to file,
>> and an accuser, if successful, can hope to reap up to a $20,000 payout,
>> with up to another $50,000 going to the government.
>>
>> Hold on, you may be thinking, what does all this have to do with
>> protecting children online? So far it seems more geared towards
>> protecting the Liberal government online. There is in fact a section
>> that requires social media companies to establish plans to protect
>> users, including children. But if you’re getting your hopes up, prepare
>> to have them dashed.
>>
>> All the social media companies are going be supervised by a brand-new
>> government body called the Digital Safety Commission. The Digital Safety
>> Commission can, without oversight, require companies to block access to
>> anycontent, conduct investigations, hold secret hearings, require the
>> companies to hand over specific content, and give all data collected to
>> third-party researchers accredited by the Commission. All data. Any
>> content. No oversight.
>>
>> Does that sound crazy? There’s more.
>>
>> The ostensible purpose of putting the Commission (and not the ordinary
>> police) in charge is so that it can act informally and quickly (i.e.
>> without a warrant) in situations where material victimising a child
>> could spread quickly across the Internet. What that means in effect is
>> that the Digital Safety Commission is not accountable and does not have
>> to justify its actions. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says
>> in its sharply worded critique of the Bill, it endows government
>> appointees with vast authority ‘to interpret the law, make up new rules,
>> enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury and executioner.’
>>
>> Is it possible, that in the beautiful and once civilized country of
>> Canada, leading politicians seriously want to punish people for crimes
>> they might (but actually haven’t) committed? Canada already has a law
>> that criminalises conspiracy, and another law criminalising threats—so
>> we’re not talking about someone who is planning murder or terrorism.
>> Then who are we talking about? People who read the wrong websites?
>> People who didn’t get vaccinated? People who criticise the government?
>> People who go to church and believe certain types of immorality will
>> send you to hell?
>>
>> There’s something Trudeau and his minions don’t seem to realise. With
>> the Online Harms Bill, as with the reckless invocation of the
>> Emergencies Act and the debanking of protestors, they are making a
>> mockery of the rule of law and of the public order they are sworn to uphold.
>>
>> Jane Stannus
>
> I have added some other groups where people might like to comment.
> But if so, please leave in alt.buddha.short.fat.guy as well, since that
> is where the thread has originated.

I only remove posts if I notice a spelling or grammar error.