New Canadian 'online harms' bill to make online hate punishable up to life in prison

[jmccr8]

Well I know me and none of this will affect my freedoms in any way as I don't do hate speech or spent time enticing people online

[psyche101]

On 3/1/2024 at 6:10 PM, DieChecker said:

Yeah, Kittens cleared that up pages ago for me.

 

On 3/1/2024 at 6:10 PM, DieChecker said:

Soooo... On the off chance Joe goes crazy at some point, no one should have any guns?

Joe's neighbor Jeff, similarly, because Joe might go crazy some day, he also can not own guns.

Everyone with an hours drive, should not be allowed a gun, because Joe might someday go crazy.

Its safer, right?

Out of curiosity, what kind of regulation would prevent solid citizen Joe from owning a gun when he go crazy? Hes not a criminal. Never had a known mental issue. Is doing well at work...

Point taken.

The point taken was the reason for the scenario

The point illustrates if you have no need for a gun you shouldn't have one. Yes, Joe shouldn't have had one to begin with as he had no specific need for one. 

On 3/1/2024 at 6:10 PM, DieChecker said:

So if a media outlet, or social media platform, was allowing misuse, you'd be ok with punishing them, up to and including banning the site?

Yes, you would not? If so why not? 

On 3/1/2024 at 6:10 PM, DieChecker said:

You've also advocated for mass mandatory turn in. Yeah? As Australia did...

Most guns were banned under the NFA, right? Semiautomatic rifles and pistols, and pump shotguns.

The amnesty turn ins were voluntery, but the guns had effectively been banned. Which is why the turn in was so effective.

I advocate for it but it wouldn't work there because gun culture. People are indoctrinated to believe it's a right so there's that to overcome first. National brainwashing. 

On 3/1/2024 at 6:10 PM, DieChecker said:

Banning something is just another form of regulation. 

If it were they wouldn't have different definitions. 

On 3/1/2024 at 6:10 PM, DieChecker said:

Oh, I dont remember doing that, unless I was just heing a smart-ass.

Sounds more like AT to me. We posted a lot in the same gun threads.

Perhaps.

Not AT, he is more likely to attack the entire country and it's Citizens. I assume he never intends to visit here. He wouldn't be received well. 

I guess that is why you get my attention in these threads. You advocate for guns often anywhere. 

On 3/1/2024 at 6:10 PM, DieChecker said:

Yeah, i already agreed with this pages ago after discussion with Kittens.

 

On 3/1/2024 at 6:10 PM, DieChecker said:

Yeah. Ive often said the Afghan War should have been a Hit-and-Leave. Destroy some infrastructure, destroy the Al'Quida bases, and move on. Doing the "peacekeeping" there was always a big mistake.

Iraq War 2 shouldn't have happened at all. 

But it's history now. I'd be surprised if anyone thought the end result was a win in any way. Israel is just cutting straight through human shields. I reckon they learned a great deal from that conflict. Looking worse by the day but they don't care. 

[psyche101]

On 3/1/2024 at 5:58 AM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

 

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

On 2/29/2024 at 6:08 PM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

I and others here have already made it clear that it does not. Speech that offends or hurts people's feelings is protected.

Great, as long as I can still call someone a Whiny little b***h without fear of life imprisonment.

[+joc]

43 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I advocate for it but it wouldn't work there because gun culture. People are indoctrinated to believe it's a right so there's that to overcome first. National brainwashing. 

One small problem with that paragraph.  We have not been 'indoctrinated' to believe it is a right to own fire arms.  It IS a right.  Guaranteed by the Constitution.  That's not brain washing.  The problems we face because of mass shootings have little to do with guns, and everything to do with how our own justice system has let society down by not adequately applying justice.  Something happened over the last 45 years and it wasn't the exorbitant increase in the number of guns.

Edited March 4 by joc

[Kittens Are Jerks]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The point illustrates if you have no need for a gun you shouldn't have one. Yes, Joe shouldn't have had one to begin with as he had no specific need for one. 

But but ...

[Kittens Are Jerks]

5 hours ago, joc said:

One small problem with that paragraph.  We have not been 'indoctrinated' to believe it is a right to own fire arms.  It IS a right.  Guaranteed by the Constitution.  That's not brain washing.  The problems we face because of mass shootings have little to do with guns, and everything to do with how our own justice system has let society down by not adequately applying justice.  Something happened over the last 45 years and it wasn't the exorbitant increase in the number have guns.

The problems you face because of mass shootings have nothing to do with your justice system, and everything to do with your country's gun safety policies. The fact that fewer people die by gun violence in states where officials  have taken action to pass gun safety laws, is evidence of this.

[+joc]

3 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

The problems you face because of mass shootings have nothing to do with your justice system, and everything to do with your country's gun safety policies. The fact that fewer people die by gun violence in states where officials  have taken action to pass gun safety laws, is evidence of this.

I know you believe this.  But the fact is, when I was a kid, we had no gun laws...and we had no mass shootings.  Lot's of guys and girls drove their pick-ups to high school with a rifle hanging in the back window.  When I was a kid we had mock shoot outs all the time.  With toy guns.  We didn't grow up and decide to go kill a bunch of people.  Vietnam changed a lot of things.  But the justice system somewhere along the line started trying to figure out why the bad people were bad and they started showing mercy and leniency on them.  Plus, the justice department and law enforcement didn't realize the problem with drugs and cartels until it was too late.  There are a lot of factors involved...but gun laws or lack of them is not the problem nor the solution.

[Doug1066]

On 2/29/2024 at 4:28 PM, acidhead said:

Meanwhile in Canada... 

🤣 

 

 

I visited Vancouver once.  The lead item on the news was a problem pothole.  Oh, to live in a country where a pothole is the biggest problem anybody can think of.

Doug

[Doug1066]

18 minutes ago, joc said:

But the fact is, when I was a kid, we had no gun laws...and we had no mass shootings. 

When were you a kid?

The first one I remember was the clock tower shooting at the University of Texas in 1966.  https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-Tower-shooting-of-1966

The shooter was scheduled to take a bunch of Explorer Scouts to Philmont a few weeks later.

Next was the National Guard murders at Kent State in 1970.

And we had lots of gun laws then.

Doug

Edited March 4 by Doug1066

[acidhead]

4 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

I visited Vancouver once.  The lead item on the news was a problem pothole.  Oh, to live in a country where a pothole is the biggest problem anybody can think of.

Doug

There was probably 5-10 city workers standing around watching as one city worker was actually filling the hole. 

🤣

[Doug1066]

53 minutes ago, acidhead said:

There was probably 5-10 city workers standing around watching as one city worker was actually filling the hole. 

🤣

That was in 1999.  I don't remember that far back.

 

Did you hear?  The Japanese have invented a new device that will save the Highway Department millions?  It's a shovel that holds itself up.

Doug

[psyche101]

23 hours ago, joc said:

One small problem with that paragraph.  We have not been 'indoctrinated' to believe it is a right to own fire arms.  It IS a right.  Guaranteed by the Constitution.  That's not brain washing.  The problems we face because of mass shootings have little to do with guns, and everything to do with how our own justice system has let society down by not adequately applying justice.  Something happened over the last 45 years and it wasn't the exorbitant increase in the number of guns.

Actually Joc, you all have. It's why gun culture is unique to America. As I noted earlier, Sharia says it's gods law to murder a daughter is she is seen in public unaccompanied by a male relative. They can do the same and point at laws written by god interpreted by men which they no doubt see as far superior to your constitution as it is allegedly approved by the very highest of powers. You can stone a child to death because the law says so. It's not "right" though regardless of the interpretation. I get it's written in the constitution but I don't believe that the constitution is better than Sharia law in that respect. It foster's beliefs. It's not a document made to accept a changing world or tackle modern aspects of today world 

Guns, people, mental health, video games, are all "different" today to what they were when the constitution was written. It's a different world. People can blame different things all day long but at the end of the day it's the same problem. Other countries have well illustrated that in today's world that regulations are the answer to a better way. Indoctrination and seeing a privilege as a right are a roadblock to a better way. 

Yes, something has changed. Agreeing on what is irrelevant when there's no motivation to better the situation. 

[+joc]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Actually Joc, you all have. It's why gun culture is unique to America. As I noted earlier, Sharia says it's gods law to murder a daughter is she is seen in public unaccompanied by a male relative. They can do the same and point at laws written by god interpreted by men which they no doubt see as far superior to your constitution as it is allegedly approved by the very highest of powers. You can stone a child to death because the law says so. It's not "right" though regardless of the interpretation. I get it's written in the constitution but I don't believe that the constitution is better than Sharia law in that respect. It foster's beliefs. It's not a document made to accept a changing world or tackle modern aspects of today world 

Guns, people, mental health, video games, are all "different" today to what they were when the constitution was written. It's a different world. People can blame different things all day long but at the end of the day it's the same problem. Other countries have well illustrated that in today's world that regulations are the answer to a better way. Indoctrination and seeing a privilege as a right are a roadblock to a better way. 

Yes, something has changed. Agreeing on what is irrelevant when there's no motivation to better the situation. 

Be glad you are in Australia dude! America is a weird place to be right now!  Word!

Edited March 5 by joc

[psyche101]

21 minutes ago, joc said:

Be glad you are in Australia dude! America is a weird place to be right now!  Word!

Always room for you bud. Head down if it gets too weird. 

[+joc]

23 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

When were you a kid?

The first one I remember was the clock tower shooting at the University of Texas in 1966.  https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-Tower-shooting-of-1966

The shooter was scheduled to take a bunch of Explorer Scouts to Philmont a few weeks later.

Next was the National Guard murders at Kent State in 1970.

And we had lots of gun laws then.

Doug

 Soon after I started first grade President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Of course, other than that, my knowledge of national news was quite limited.  But I do remember the shooting in 1966 and of course Kent State in 1970. But like I said, those were the two decades where sleepy giant America began to awaken to the nightmare of bad people with guns.  Bad times those two decades were.  

[Antigonos]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Always room for you bud. Head down if it gets too weird. 

Not a bad idea.

[simplybill]

More US citizens would support tighter gun controls if our government would prove to us that the government’s efforts are sufficient to protect us citizens. The 60-year-old “War on Drugs” has failed miserably. Illegal immigration efforts have failed miserably. Our government has failed to disrupt the China-to-Cartels-to-US  pipeline that supplies the drugs that enrich the crime organizations. 
 

“Drug overdoses claimed more American lives than did vehicle crashes or firearm-related incidents, combined, in 2021, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While there were 45,404 motor vehicle traffic deaths and 48,830 firearm deaths in 2021, 106,699 Americans died from drug overdoses or poisonings.”

https://www.getsmartaboutdrugs.gov/news-statistics/2023/05/11/more-drug-overdose-deaths-combined-vehicle-and-firearm-related-deaths

[+OverSword]

So in Canada they are talking about laws to imprison people for life for posting the wrong thing on the internet but the thread about it devolves into a thread about guns in the USA.  Alrighty then .  That happened because some people can be told to watch out where they are stepping and will look back at you and ask why as they fall into a ditch.

[simplybill]

36 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That happened because some people can be told to watch out where they are stepping and will look back at you and ask why as they fall into a ditch.

 People don’t seem to understand that we now live in a global community with instant communication, and every political move is studied and evaluated by the bad actors in the world in the same way that narcissists search for weaknesses in their victims. Government control of speech, and gun control and/or gun confiscation, are the first targets.  
In the world we live in now, the supposed limits of the Canadian legislation will expand, and the threats of life imprisonment will be another way to intimidate citizens into compliance with the Government’s approved opinions. It’s happening everywhere. 
 

[Cisco2024]

Personally this is a fantastic idea.  What so many fools on both sides do not ever consider is eventually empires fall, and the rules and regulations they have created to propagate their control will be used on them with the same vigor and animosity they used themselves. 

[+DieChecker]

On 3/4/2024 at 5:45 AM, Doug1066 said:

When were you a kid?

The first one I remember was the clock tower shooting at the University of Texas in 1966.  https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-Tower-shooting-of-1966

The shooter was scheduled to take a bunch of Explorer Scouts to Philmont a few weeks later.

Next was the National Guard murders at Kent State in 1970.

And we had lots of gun laws then.

Doug

I thought Kent State was when the National Guard shot people when someone jumped the gun... literally. A fail in leadership.

Gee... I didnt know it was a citizen wrongfully using a firearm. Like was being discussed.

Or, maybe its being suggested the National Guard not be issued weapons?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Quote

In the succeeding years, many in the anti-war movement have referred to the shootings as "murders", although no criminal convictions were obtained against any National Guardsman.

The "fix" must have been in, as these mass shooters got off scot free... (sarcasm).

[acidhead]

Another, meanwhile in Canada.... 

 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

What is the name of this thread psyche?

From the first article link posted in the original post:

It also amends the Criminal Code to create a new standalone hate crime offence that would allow penalties up to life imprisonment to deter hateful conduct, as well as raise the maximum punishments for hate propaganda offences from five years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide.

The 'from five years to life imprisonment' is mostly meant as a deterrent. To get a life sentence, one would have to be dangerously extreme to deserve it. Content inciting extreme violence/genocide and or promoting terrorism should face severe penalties. The fact that some of you here have your knickers in a knot over it is mind boggling.

[+OverSword]

One more.  My issue is that there are items on the list of bullet points that can be left up to interpretation.  Protecting children?  Sure.  Judging hate?  Nope.