Canada's 'Online Harms' Bill Would Be an Assault On Free Speech, Civil Liberties Groups Say (torontosun.com) 200
A Toronto Sun columnist writes that two Canadian civil liberties groups are "sounding alarms" about the proposed new Online Harms Act (C-63):
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) say while the proposed legislation contains legitimate measures to protect children from online sexual abuse, cyber-bulling and self-harm, and to combat the spread of so-called "revenge porn," its provisions to prevent the expression of hate are draconian, vaguely worded and an attack on free speech... "[D]on't be fooled," said CCF executive director Joanna Baron. "Most of the bill is aimed at restricting freedom of expression. This heavy-handed bill needs to be severely pared down to comply with the constitution."
Both the CCLA and CCF warn the bill could lead to life imprisonment for someone convicted of "incitement to genocide" — a vague term only broadly defined in the bill — and up to five years in prison for other vaguely defined hate speech crimes. The legislation, for example, defines illegal hate speech as expressing "detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals," while legally protected speech, "expresses dislike or disdain, or ... discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends." The problem, critics warn, will be determining in advance which is which, with the inevitable result that people and organizations will self-censor themselves because of fear of being prosecuted criminally, or fined civilly, for what is actually legal speech.
"Both the CCLA and the CCF say the proposed legislation, known as Bill C-63, will require major amendments before becoming law to pass constitutional muster," according to the columnist.
Some specific complains:
Both the CCLA and CCF warn the bill could lead to life imprisonment for someone convicted of "incitement to genocide" — a vague term only broadly defined in the bill — and up to five years in prison for other vaguely defined hate speech crimes. The legislation, for example, defines illegal hate speech as expressing "detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals," while legally protected speech, "expresses dislike or disdain, or ... discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends." The problem, critics warn, will be determining in advance which is which, with the inevitable result that people and organizations will self-censor themselves because of fear of being prosecuted criminally, or fined civilly, for what is actually legal speech.
"Both the CCLA and the CCF say the proposed legislation, known as Bill C-63, will require major amendments before becoming law to pass constitutional muster," according to the columnist.
Some specific complains:
- The CCF argues that the Bill "would allow judges to put prior restraints on people who they believe on reasonable grounds may commit speech crimes in the future."
- The CCLA adds that the proposed bill also grants authorities "sweeping new search powers of electronic data, with no warrant requirement," according to the Toronto Sun, and also warns about the creation of a government-appointed "digital safety commission" given "vast authority" and "sweeping powers" to "interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury, and executioner."
And in addition, the CCF points out under the proposed rules the Canadian Human Rights Commission "could order fines of up to $50,000, and awards of up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would be anonymous."
"Findings would be based on a mere 'balance of probabilities' standard rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt... The mere threat of human rights complaints will chill large amounts of protected speech."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader sinij for sharing the article.
Oops (Score:4, Insightful)
Kill them all and let God sort them out -> Life in prison.
I think Trump is an awful, horrible, absolutely atrocious waste of oxygen -> Five years in prison.
I hate and will never forgive this person who killed my dog. I hope he rots in hell. -> Also five years in prison.
Hot damn, that law is a mess. What were those terrible politicians thinking when they wrote it?! -> Whaddya know, also five years in prison.
Re: Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
Trudeau was thinking exactly that. Criticize me, 5 years prison.
Re: Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
Trudeau was thinking exactly that. Criticize me, 5 years prison.
Trudeau is thinking vote against me, 5 years in prison.
Stop thinking so shallow and innocent. These damn laws are not a joke, and not intended to be lightly abused.
Re: (Score:2)
"not intended to be lightly abused."
So? just because it is not intended to be abused doesn't mean it won't be abused. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Consider the utter corruption and venality in the Trudeau (and Trump) political machine(s): Do you really think they will not such power for personal motives?
Re: Oops (Score:4, Insightful)
Trudeau was thinking exactly that. Criticize me, 5 years prison.
Who the heck modded that post down? It's the plain truth, Trudeau said he only meets with protester agreeing with him! Also, it's Trudeau bringing us that censorship bill. He also blocks bank account ("de-banking" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]) of people giving money on-line to protester movements he doesn't like and got shit for that from the courts! Hopefully, that bill will ultimately be declared illegal as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Trudeau was thinking exactly that. Criticize me, 5 years prison.
Who the heck modded that post down? It's the plain truth,
Nobody. It was moderated +5 insightful.
The question of interest is, why did you post "who modded that post down" on a post that nobody had modded down? Do you just preemptively attack moderators that you conjecture might at some later point mod the post down?
Re: (Score:2)
Very early in the discussion the moderation went negative, then shot up as more people started voting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I love how many people who don’t live in Canada hate Trudeau. He’s so terrible and yet a new election has never been called.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Oops (Score:3, Informative)
By raising taxes, he has not helped the poorest communities at all. If the poorest would have been helped they would not be protesting the government that requires them to choose between heating and eating.
Re: (Score:3)
choose between heating and eating.
I choose heating, and occasionally hide the h.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you propose funding social programs without taxes?
Re: (Score:2)
By getting all of those freeloaders jobs, and sending them back to work....
At least the majority of them, who are able bodied...
Re: (Score:2)
How do you propose funding social programs without taxes?
They do it mostly by borrowing so future generations will pay for it. He has doubled our national debt during his time in office.
Re: (Score:3)
At least Trudeaus ideas are doable and he has succeeded at helping the poorest people in Canada. Pierre still hasn't explained how he is building everyone a nuclear power plant during his term.
After 8 fucking years, you would think they’re done, not merely “doable”. If he’s so successful, why is Canada so fed up with him?
You know who makes up bullshit terms like “doable”? Lying politicians seeking votes who barely intend to actually DO what is “doable”.
Re:Oops (Score:4, Funny)
So where will all those people who were planning to flee north to escape Trump go now? Venezuela? Palestine? Somalia?
Re: (Score:2)
That's all that's left to them. We all know most self respecting Americans would never go to Europe because #whateverjustnotsocialism
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, we should just invade and take over Mexico.
I mean, we have the people now, we might as well get the land that goes with them too...
Re: (Score:3)
These are the somewhat easy cases. They aren't even the problem. The problem appears when you post "but the native Americans were here first" and it gets rated as hate-speech, or when you post something about China and the big platforms censor you because they want to keep their business there. And once the law has given them a hammer, they'll use it in ways never intended.
Sticks and stones may break my bones (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Doxxing, swatting, and blackmail will never hurt you? These are all examples of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because they are forms of speech that can harm a person.
Re: (Score:2)
> Yes, because they are forms of speech that can harm a person.
Still no. It's not the speech that's persecuted. Like most US laws, it's about the liability. If there is no harm, there is usually no crime to prosecute. Even if there is harm, it's more often civil rather than criminal, eg Doxxing (which is a massive problem if you aren't rich). Just because you have to speak to perform certain crimes, doesn't make the speech itself harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to be conflicted on whether there's harm or not.
Whenever I experience cognitive dissonance, it takes me hours, sometimes days of deep thought and research to resolve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Have I beaten you into submission yet or would you like another?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like how a handful of politicians and their good friends in tech monopolies were able to incite the murder of over 50 people and over two billion dollars in destruction, primarily in poor and minority neighborhoods?
Re: (Score:2)
could completely ruin the fabric of that fake democracy you lot are so proud of.
Never said I was proud of it. In fact these days there's a lot of reasons to be concerned about where it's headed, and what it's promoting to the world.
But I guess if four letter words is your idea of offensive,
Personally, I don't care if others use expletives or not, but there are plenty of people in the US who have a mental breakdown if they hear one.
words when spoken by the right person to the right mob
You mean like mine to your obviously triggered insult filled response?
you think swear words is what I was referring to,
It's called sarcasm, and before you reply, no it wasn't directed at any specific person. It's simply caricature of a type of person with whom
Re: Sticks and stones may break my bones (Score:5, Insightful)
I admit I am an older poster and therefore my perspective is somewhat suspect, but doing our upbringing, we were taught that words do not actually hurt. In fact, the most common play yard refrain was "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!". As we got older, the quote (often attributed to Voltaire): "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." was discussed in our Social Studies courses. This perspective was all a part of our founding documents as codified in the Bill of Rights, under the 1st amendment.
How have we digressed so far that it is expected that our fellow citizens cannot be entrusted in forming their own opinions based on multiple points of view and expressions? Do some really believe that there is only one truth and that we must use the force of government to ensure that the marketplace of ideas is restricted to theirs and theirs alone? If we ever attain their ideal, then we will know that we have finally reached the end game as spelled out in Orwell's cautionary tale, 1984 (which by the way was nearly required reading in U.S. middle schools for us of more senior stature).
Re: Sticks and stones may break my bones (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Sticks and stones may break my bones (Score:4, Interesting)
If you shout "fire" in a crowded area and there isn't one, you may well be prosecuted for any resulting injuries because any reasonable person could have foreseen that such a reckless action would lead to people getting hurt.
The US also has laws putting prior restraint on people, such as state secrets which must not be leaked.
So clearly there are cases where harm is done, or harm is very likely to be done, where restrictions on freedom of speech are considered acceptable in most countries. The real question is, can hate speech do real harm, and what is the threshold for that harm? Someone being upset is probably too low. Someone killing themselves because of bullying or encouragement is usually considered a crime.
Absolutes of either extreme don't make sense. If the hype is to be believed then these rules seem like they go too far, but similar dire predictions have been made about Canadian laws before so I'm inclined to think that there is more to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If law's wording allows for prosecuting someone for something, than it becomes possible. Then you have to hope that either the police sees the law as overreach and don't enforce it, or the courts see it as unreasonable and adopt a very strict interpretation of it. But a politically partisan court like you have in US could easily decide not to do that. Regardless, people will self-censor because there is a possibility, however remote, that they will end up going to jail for a pretty long time for expressing
Re: (Score:2)
If an actual harm or actual crime has happened, and one can show to the court *beyond reasonable doubt* that such harm or crime is impossible to happen without such speech, existing law is already dealing with them in terms of "abet" or "incitement".
Adding extra law on "hate speech" is a tool for censorship, especially towards content exposing lies of the ruling class.
Hate is a rightful emotion. Anyone who criminalize hate is introducing thoughtcrime.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How have we digressed so far that it is expected that our fellow citizens cannot be entrusted in forming their own opinions based on multiple points of view and expressions?
Opinions are not what is considered harmful. We haven't digressed at all, just reflected that unabated speech is in fact not as safe as originally thought.
Incidentally your sticks and stones comment is also patently false, because names do hurt people and there's an entire legal principle in the USA called libel specifically to defend people from the power of words.
Re: (Score:3)
At the end of the day, almost anything can be said about an individual that does not cause provable harm (monetary (and hurting one's feelings is not remotely in this category) and is not knowingly false. Accusing someone of being too short/fat or that someone is a fascist are firmly grounded in the opinion loophole.
Re: (Score:2)
Because truth is no match for fiction. [slashdot.org]
On social media, it's generally ok to spread misinformation, but generally not ok to call someone a liar for it. We've taken political correctness a bit too far. Would you rather be lied to politely, or told the truth harshly?
Re: (Score:2)
I admit I am an older poster and therefore my perspective is somewhat suspect, but doing our upbringing, we were taught that words do not actually hurt.>
Boomer here. This came up just yesterday in a conversation about our son's concerns that his daughter isn't getting enough socialization in her pre-K years. Relevant to this subject was her (the grandchild's) attempts to make new friends. She's just now discovering that not everybody is kind to her. And that's where the subject of this article comes into the conversation. She needs to learn two almost contradictory life skills:
B. that we should be able to i
Re: (Score:3)
I admit I am an older poster and therefore my perspective is somewhat suspect, but doing our upbringing, we were taught that words do not actually hurt. In fact, the most common play yard refrain was "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!". As we got older, the quote (often attributed to Voltaire): "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." was discussed in our Social Studies courses. This perspective was all a part of our founding documents as codified in the Bill of Rights, under the 1st amendment.
Somewhere along the line we woke up and learned that pithy little whiticisms aren't necessarily right.
On a individual level, we've learned that "harm" isn't isolated to physical wounds. Take as example: fraud. It harms its victim without a single punch being thrown. Solely with words you can significantly harm someone. Take as example: blackmail. Crank it up into sextortion, where (usually) teens are cooerced into doing something adult on camera and then pressured into doing more to avoid that origin
Re: (Score:2)
The problem always comes in when who gets to decide what is allowed to be said.
For example, many folks were perturbed by all of the lying concerning the COVID vaccine (i.e. if you get vaccinated, then you won't be able to get COVID, nor will you be able to spread it -- both were absolute promises and therefore both were absolute lies). If the proponents of the vaccine had said the truth, namely that we think it will lesson one's symptoms if one were to be infected by COVID and that while all novel medicines
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So the first part of your quote, totally protected -- even if not true. The second, i.e. conspiracy to commit crimes against fellow citizens, well, not so much...
Re: (Score:2)
Let's try not to deal with hypotheticals....
Since we've not actually say what you said or directed people to do so, can you give some real life example(s)....?
Re: (Score:3)
Pre-crime division goes to Canada (Score:3)
Dumbasses, we already had a movie years ago telling us exactly why this is a horrible idea.
They should have just gone full Orwell, grab anyone with Bad Think brainwash them into loving Trude-- I mean Big Brother and then shoot them in the head.
This whole prison and trials thing is a waste of resources.
Re: (Score:2)
This whole prison and trials thing is a massive revenue machine for government and law.
Fixed that for you. Really don’t have a clue as to the motivation besides mass censorship, do you? C’mon..
Canadas Direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't they say the same thing before, that misgendering someone would send you directly to jail, and it turned out not to be the case?
I really don’t think you’re going to convince many that Canada is just playing around here. Just ask a Canadian trucker who had bank accounts frozen under the OLD laws. Can’t imagine how much more power this gives them to abuse citizens. Perhaps one of the reasons no one went to jail before, was the laws passed before, weren’t quite strong enough. They’re not exactly going in the opposite direction with this update.
An example of expansion might be speaking a bit too factually about global pandemics. Could easily be re-defined as a “hate” crime against the state. Hate speech doesnt have to be obvious, and can change with the political wind. That is why this bill is downright evil.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw some excerpt from the proposed law on this Canadian MP's YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't they say the same thing before, that misgendering someone would send you directly to jail, and it turned out not to be the case?
I really don’t think you’re going to convince many that Canada is just playing around here. Just ask a Canadian trucker who had bank accounts frozen under the OLD laws. Can’t imagine how much more power this gives them to abuse citizens. Perhaps one of the reasons no one went to jail before, was the laws passed before, weren’t quite strong enough. They’re not exactly going in the opposite direction with this update.
An example of expansion might be speaking a bit too factually about global pandemics. Could easily be re-defined as a “hate” crime against the state. Hate speech doesnt have to be obvious, and can change with the political wind. That is why this bill is downright evil.
Yep.
Not that we are far behind them. [wikipedia.org]
But it's a standard part of the playbook, for them to deny what they are doing, even as they do it. "We're not censoring you, you people are just crazy. (Now shut up before we de-platform, sue, or fire you.)"
Re: (Score:3)
Hate speech doesnt have to be obvious, and can change with the political wind.
And even faster than that.
Because it's so ill-defined, practically ANYTHING can be labeled hate speech if you just try hard enough. Heck, the sentence I quoted is obviously hate speech against politicians, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing the trucking blockade to speech is as asinine as comparing being shot in the face to being bumped into carelessly in a corridor.
Your right to speak does not free you from the right of others not to be impeded.
Re: (Score:2)
If I have a right not to be impeded, I want all those antifa/climate people arrested for blocking roads like they should be. Given that it is already illegal. Not that any big penalty is really needed, just removed from the area and processed for a first offence. So they aren't impeding me anymore. Or I guess just make it legal for me to drive on through with a snowplow.
OK, I wouldn't really do that, but I'm not the only one thinking it. Things are going to get real for these people if they keep it up. Ther
Re: (Score:2)
Laws that are vague and highly punishable are always dangerous.
It's more the stifling effect you have on the average person. As a kind of general rule, I do not believe such laws can exist in any area. Unfortunately this does mean that some 'small harms' might continue to exist. But I do think it is a worthy trade off for people to learn how to deal with small harms themselves, to preserve the rest of society.
We can and should count on 'social' rules to deal with the 'small harms'
Whether it is a small fist
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The exact same thing is going on in the US and it is perfect that way! All those MAGA hats should be sent straight to jail and their leaders should be sued into oblivion until they are financially ruined and end up in jail for life! We can't afford any opposition, the stakes are too important!
Re: Pre-crime division goes to Canada (Score:2)
You mean like that guy in Canada that got 6 months jail for âoemisgenderingâ his own child? Get a clue, itâ(TM)s not just theory anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
False. He got jail time for contempt of court.
Re: Pre-crime division goes to Canada (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy really had to work at it.
In this case, "work at it" was protecting his own daughter from medical and clinical psychology malpractice that was clearly doing harm. Like prescribing hormonal treatments that have life-long effects AND have a non-zero chance to cause infertility.
I know you have no children, so it is hard for you to relate, but this courageous father was protecting his kid from child abuse and was willing to take on the system that was stacked against him. He is a hero and everything dad should be.
Re: (Score:3)
In Canada, children of that age have the right to override their parent's wishes, if qualified and licenced doctors agree. It protects them from e.g. religious fanatics who won't allow them to get blood transfusions, or in this case parents that reject medical science.
That's a good thing. Children are not property, they are human beings. As they grow up, they become more and more able to make medical decisions for themselves. Most European countries are like that, the child's medical rights increase with ag
Re: (Score:2)
if qualified and licenced doctors agree.
More like rubber stamp. Considering that you can lose medical license for questioning gender disphoria (Bill C-16) or diagnosing it as something else, there is essentially no checks in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that you can lose medical license for questioning gender disphoria (Bill C-16) .
I misspoke, that is Bill C-4, where under pretense of banning conversion therapy they criminalized not affirming, even in cases when there are clear case of other mental diagnose.
Re: Pre-crime division goes to Canada (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Having actually gone through transition in Canada, I can assure you it's not rubber-stamped. I had about a year of discussion with a specialist, followed by a psychiatric assessment and then two meetings with CAMH.
Re: (Score:2)
Having actually gone through transition in Canada, I can assure you it's not rubber-stamped. I had about a year of discussion with a specialist, followed by a psychiatric assessment and then two meetings with CAMH.
I believe you. I am glad to hear screening was taken seriously in your case. I hope you found what you were looking for.
Personally, I had close a call with this issue. My family is fine, but we had to move and switch schools. I do not hold you personally responsible for what happened, but I see your ideas as facilitating and enabling this. As such, I don't expect we will ever agree on much.
Re: (Score:2)
Children do not have the brain capacity to understand long term effects of any medical decision. This wasn't about rejection of medicine or blood transfusions, this was about the rejection of gender ideology in medicine. Show me in biology where it says humans have more than 2 sexes. She was mentally incompetent to make decisions, both based on age and based on gender dysphoria which is still in the DSM.
Re: (Score:3)
He was not protecting his child. He was harming his child.
Is it possible that that kids is trans? Yes, but astronomically unlikely. She is likely gay and/or autistic. However, all that was done by the establishment is to assume and railroad her into irreversible decisions. He was more likely protecting his child than harming her.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible and likely the kid is trans. These desistance myths are just that.
See here [youtube.com] and here [erininthemorning.com] and here [erininthemorning.com] and here [jamanetwork.com].
Basically, you're peddling debunked bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess it's illegal in Canada, but I'm going to tell you right here that Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy because she is a carrier for BRCA.
Re: (Score:2)
She revealed that information voluntarily.
Re: (Score:2)
Revealing that someone is transgender is relaying details of their private medical history.... merely being a dick by misgendering someone will not get you sent to prison...
You contradict yourself in your own post, as usual.Then again you're also a holocaust denier so there's not really any low you won't stoop to.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off, for the record the holocaust is real.
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoying your purity testing?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Because you were adamant just recently that the modern day holocaust on October 7th didn't happen at all, repeatedly insisting that nobody was raped and mutilated to death despite the overwhelming evidence and witnesses including members of major world governments and almost every major media outlet.
Re: (Score:2)
Claiming that October 7th was a "holocaust" just detracts from the true scale of the actual holocaust. Also, since 2000, Israel has killed more than twice as many Palestinian *children* (not counting adults) as died on October 7th. I say died because it appears Israel killed at least as many as Hamas did.
Re: (Score:2)
The law doesn't indulge alternative medicine in most jurisdictions. Just because he has an erroneous belief is not a licence to invade the child's medical privacy. There are legal means to intervene, which he tried, and got rejected.
Going public was purely to make a martyr of himself when legal means failed, which is why the court handed out a relatively harsh punishment for contempt.
Re: (Score:2)
Why hope? If there's a law which is vague and abusable, it will be abused. And then pushed a few steps further.
How about not passing pre-crime legislation in the first place?
I sometimes disagree with your posts. One might even say I find them hateful because you disagree with me on occasion; it hurts my feelings. I'm in power and you're not, so it's definitely hate speech. Yup! Jail time for Ami!
Now apply that hypothetical to a government you already know will abuse the fuck out of anyone who stands up
Figures (Score:3, Funny)
Gonna Have To Build Another Wall. (Score:2)
Or maybe cycle through some of those old nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
Too generous. Let them have everything above the arctic circle. We will tell them it will be worth billions after the ice melts.
chilling effect (Score:4, Insightful)
The legislation, for example, defines illegal hate speech as expressing "detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals," while legally protected speech, "expresses dislike or disdain, or ... discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends." The problem, critics warn, will be determining in advance which is which, with the inevitable result that people and organizations will self-censor themselves because of fear of being prosecuted criminally, or fined civilly, for what is actually legal speech.
That's how it is done: on one hand big punishment, vague definition on what is punishable and hope everybody will self-censor. If someone won't self-censor, sue and send them before a hostile judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian identity enshittification (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Westminster systems (of law) don't contain constitutional rights and the US-mandated War on Terror made a point of depriving those people of their traditional rights. The Westminster system depends on tradition protecting the people, which a gutless government can, well, gut in the name of 'freedom'.
Re: (Score:3)
False.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of our Constitution, reads:
"2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: [...] (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
I suspect this bill is unconstitutional. In order to make it stick, the government would probably have to invoke the infamous "notwithstanding" clause. This has never been done at the federal level, and I doubt it would be done now.
Bad all around but this is horrifying (Score:4, Interesting)
And in addition, the CCF points out under the proposed rules the Canadian Human Rights Commission "could order fines of up to $50,000, and awards of up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would be anonymous."
If you cannot face your accuser in court, the entire process is a sham.
Canada seems to be preparing to wipe its ass with the very idea of human rights, in the name of human rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada seems to be preparing to wipe its ass with the very idea of human rights, in the name of woke ideology.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Preparing? The government invoked emergency war powers intended for use during the invasion and fall of the country to sent armed cavalry after peaceful civilians who criticised the regime's illegal and unconstitutional actions.
Canada isn't preparing to do anything. They're already a totalitarian state.
Re: (Score:3)
In every democracy, liberty and the rule of law ends up under attack from those in and aspiring to power.
It's not remotely unique to Canada.
Re: (Score:3)
And in addition, the CCF points out under the proposed rules the Canadian Human Rights Commission "could order fines of up to $50,000, and awards of up to $20,000 paid to complainants, who in some cases would be anonymous."
If you cannot face your accuser in court, the entire process is a sham.
Canada seems to be preparing to wipe its ass with the very idea of human rights, in the name of human rights.
They already have. It's called "The not withstanding clause" which basically says that you have no rights. It's already in place. Restricting English in Quebec is one example of it being used under the pretext that French will be lost. Imagine one of the most used languages in the world pretending that they are a minority when they in turn try to eliminate the native American languages.
It's amazing how some define culture. They are completely clueless to the concept. The premier of Quebec even said that "it
chill enough and you don't need laws (Score:3)
There's no objective need for these laws. 99% of online content is now hosted on maybe one or two dozen platforms, and the various moderators, content managers, admins and such wield the censorship and ban hammers much more aggressively than any sane law would ever request.
Add to that the fact that ideology drives many of them, and that on some platforms you risk a ban just for saying "I agree" to an unpopular but perfectly legal posting, and the wet dream of censorship is within arm's reach, with or without new laws.
And also, the usual argument of turning everything toddler-safe just because a toddler may happen to stumble upon it. We don't do that in the real world, because it wouldn't work and it would make everything a complete mess. Why we're trying to do it online is one of the many things that an increase in mental disorders probably explains best.
Instead of regulating speech between consenting adults, maybe we should make a law requiring a minimum proficiency in communications before someone can be an online moderator? A driving license for people whose actions can affect other people?
Genocide now means NOTHING (Score:2)
Having solved all other problems... (Score:2)
This is what happens with runaway incompetent government. They have no ability to solve real problems and they probably have no desire to solve them because doing so takes away motivation to demand reelection votes. They know most people have a short memory and forget that the people they voted for last time didn't do what they said they were going to do. So they go after low-hanging fruit that reinforces their power knowing that the voters can't do anything to stop it. This kind of bill is particularly egr
Stop it before it's too late (Score:2)
(and this was before "think of the children" became widely used)
This bill goes WAY too far. (Score:2)
When it comes to the child protection stuff, it's all smoke and mirrors. The
Re: (Score:3)
"No one wants to take away your freedom of speech", they said.
”Prove it, you worthless piece of shit PM”, the citizens said.
Ironically, seems pretty easy to validate..
Re: (Score:3)