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

[Kittens Are Jerks]

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

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.

I repeat (for the umpteenth time) those bullets points are just an outline of areas that will be addressed. Why are you so concerned about the bullet point that mentions 'fomenting hate"? Seriously, how difficult is it to define hatred?

Racist, misogynistic, homophobic (and other) individuals have managed to find niches online that can reinforce their views and rouse them to violence. Indeed, online hate speech has been linked to an increase in violence, including mass shootings and lynchings. Yet it troubles you that such extreme might be punished. I can assure you our courts view hate speech in a narrow sense and will pursue only the most extreme cases. The bill has made it very clear that a statement that "discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends" will not be considered promoting or inciting hatred.

[qxcontinuum]

Agree with the few points except the hashing. 

Every democratic protest can be hindered by trolls as we have seen antifa or proud boys doing in Toronto, which can then lead to organizers arrested and fear of exercising constitutional rights. This type of laws are the start of tyranny, communism and fascism. Everything the world leaders are doing since 2019 onwards is nothing but adding set of laws aiming at population control.  Those of us who lived in former communist countries can snif away bs from 100 miles. We have seen how liberties are taken little by little. It doesnt happen overnight.  LIberals are totalitarians, they need laws desperately to keep themselves in power.  They don't give a shot on the good will of citizens cause if they truly do they should hurt bankers, corporations and real criminals 

Edited March 6 by qxcontinuum

[Kittens Are Jerks]

7 hours ago, qxcontinuum said:

Every democratic protest can be hindered by trolls as we have seen antifa or proud boys doing in Toronto, which can then lead to organizers arrested and fear of exercising constitutional rights. This type of laws are the start of tyranny, communism and fascism. Everything the world leaders are doing since 2019 onwards is nothing but adding set of laws aiming at population control.  Those of us who lived in former communist countries can snif away bs from 100 miles. We have seen how liberties are taken little by little. It doesnt happen overnight.  LIberals are totalitarians, they need laws desperately to keep themselves in power.  They don't give a shot on the good will of citizens cause if they truly do they should hurt bankers, corporations and real criminals

Your comments contain no logic whatsoever.

Laws that are the start of 'tyranny, communism and fascism' would not at all be concerned with protecting minority groups. If anything, they would target not just those groups, but every other group that might stand in the way of their objectives, including bankers and corporations. They would exacerbate, not quell, hate that aligns with their ideology.

As for people who have lived in former Communist countries, I would think that they would welcome laws that protect people from acts of violence.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

7 hours ago, Michelle said:

For someone who is as verbally abusive as he is here I'm surprised he's agreeing with this new law. But then again he doesn't live in Canada. They'd not only jail him but ban him from the internet for life. Maybe even take his birthday away. 

Nah, he's safe. And if it helps you breathe easier, so are people who join a discussion for no other reason than to denigrate another participant(s).

[itsnotoutthere]

We all know what the intention is with this & where it is heading, it's already happening in the UK. :-

https://thenewconservative.co.uk/sam-melia-the-gaslighting-of-britain/

Edited March 6 by itsnotoutthere

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Let's keep things civil please folks.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

30 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

We all know what the intention is with this & where it is heading, it's already happening in the UK. :-

https://thenewconservative.co.uk/sam-melia-the-gaslighting-of-britain/

Zero tolerance for people who incite racial hatred? Oh no! ... said no decent person ever.

How can anyone (aside from those who agree with this man's views) be upset that he was given a two year prison sentence for encouraging racially-aggravated criminal damage? Is the right to spew violent hatred more important than the rights of the people it targets?

What about the latter group's right to protection? What about the general public's right to safety?

The article you posted is littered with emotionally charged language and logical fallacies. Interesting also that it also attempts to deflect from what this man did by pointing to other cases, whilst also failing to mention the damaging details about him. But hey, I'm happy to fill in the blanks:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-far-right-organiser-found-guilty-intent-stir-racial-hatred-through

Not only was this man sentenced to two years, he was also probably forced to take his poster of Hitler down. My heart bleeds.

[itsnotoutthere]

1 hour ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Zero tolerance for people who incite racial hatred? Oh no! ... said no decent person ever.

How can anyone (aside from those who agree with this man's views) be upset that he was given a two year prison sentence for encouraging racially-aggravated criminal damage? Is the right to spew violent hatred more important than the rights of the people it targets?

What about the latter group's right to protection? What about the general public's right to safety?

The article you posted is littered with emotionally charged language and logical fallacies. Interesting also that it also attempts to deflect from what this man did by pointing to other cases, whilst also failing to mention the damaging details about him. But hey, I'm happy to fill in the blanks:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/updated-sentence-far-right-organiser-found-guilty-intent-stir-racial-hatred-through

Not only was this man sentenced to two years, he was also probably forced to take his poster of Hitler down. My heart bleeds.

Ah so we've eventually come to the point where we imprison for thought crime. Hmm... only a matter of time I suppose, the marxist utopia creeps ever nearer.

:- "The stickers ranged from the mundane, ‘Reject white guilt’; the controversial, ’It’s OK to be white’ (hate speech according to the Old Bill)"

:- "the prosecution confirmed Melia’s views were ‘not illegal in themselves"

:- "the Crown Prosecution Service talked of little other than ‘ideology’, arguing that the stickers police found in his wallet were evidence of ‘views of a nationalist nature"  OH MY GOD!

"The judge’s insistence on a custodial sentence apparently arose from the need ‘to act as a deterrent’, within ‘a particularly sensitive social climate’. In other words, Joe Public beware: ‘Stop noticing what the authorities are doing, what we aren’t doing and what we’re allowing to happen, and we might just allow you to keep your liberty!"

So from your reply I can assume that you are a big fan of imprisoning somebody for having thoughts like ‘Reject white guilt’ or  ’It’s OK to be white’. even though no actual crime was committed. If you like, as a bit of balance I can post a video of a middle eastern looking gentleman waving a swastica flag during a pro palastinian (anti Israel) protest with the police looking on showing little interest. How about that for "Zero tolerance for people who incite racial hatred?"

 

p.s. "the Crown Prosecution Service talked of little other than ‘ideology’, arguing that the stickers police found in his wallet were evidence of ‘views of a nationalist nature"  We have a party running Scotland called the SNP - The Scottish Nationalist Party, Should they all be in prison for their 'ideology?

 

Edited March 6 by itsnotoutthere

[simplybill]

41 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

How can anyone (aside from those who agree with this man's views) be upset that he was given a two year prison sentence for encouraging racially-aggravated criminal damage? Is the right to spew violent hatred more important than the rights of the people it targets?

 

I’m upset because the 2-year prison sentence given to Sam Melia is grossly unjust. When compared to the sentence given to the women who openly supported the Hamas attack on Israel, it’s obvious that the UK government is unfairly coddling one group over another. 

”By displaying these images, a week after attacks had been carried out involving the use of paragliders, the prosecution said there would be a reasonable suspicion that the women were celebrating the action taken by Hamas, and therefore supporting that proscribed organisation. During the trial, the prosecution was able to prove that the three women were acting deliberately, and knew they were wearing or displaying the images at the protest.Today at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, all three women were found guilty of carrying or displaying an article in a public place in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion that they were supporting Hamas”. 

“They were each handed a 12-month conditional discharge…”

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/three-women-convicted-displaying-paraglider-stickers-london-protest

 

[Michelle]

2 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Nah, he's safe. And if it helps you breathe easier, so are people who join a discussion for no other reason than to denigrate another participant(s).

He offended me. Who are you to say what was said was not hurtful? People have said horribly awful things to me, including this particular person, about not wanting trans in women's sports. It's entirely someone's opinion whether a person runs afoul of what constitutes "online harm". I consider constant name calling and denigrating people for their opinions "online harm"

[+OverSword]

14 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Seriously, how difficult is it to define hatred?

Racist, misogynistic, homophobic (and other) individuals have managed to find niches online that can reinforce their views and rouse them to violence. Indeed, online hate speech has been linked to an increase in violence, including mass shootings and lynchings. Yet it troubles you that such extreme might be punished. I can assure you our courts view hate speech in a narrow sense and will pursue only the most extreme cases. The bill has made it very clear that a statement that "discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends" will not be considered promoting or inciting hatred.

So all the things you just listed above can not be punished as hate?  Then what is the point of regulating hate?  If the word hate were left entirely off the bill I have no issue.  But it's on and sooner or later definitions, circumstances, perceptions, will shift and a something interpreted as racist or homophobic, or insert taboo here will be punished under hate.  It's too much of a crack in the window. That's my opinion.

[WVK]

16 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So all the things you just listed above can not be punished as hate?  Then what is the point of regulating hate?  If the word hate were left entirely off the bill I have no issue.  But it's on and sooner or later definitions, circumstances, perceptions, will shift and a something interpreted as racist or homophobic, or insert taboo here will be punished under hate.  It's too much of a crack in the window. That's my opinion.

Would hate crime legislation be applied equally to all races?

[Kittens Are Jerks]

2 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Ah so we've eventually come to the point where we imprison for thought crime. Hmm... only a matter of time I suppose, the marxist utopia creeps ever nearer.

The mind readers are coming to get us. Be afraid, be very afraid.. said no rational person ever.

2 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

:- "The stickers ranged from the mundane, ‘Reject white guilt’; the controversial, ’It’s OK to be white’ (hate speech according to the Old Bill)"

:- "the prosecution confirmed Melia’s views were ‘not illegal in themselves"

I wouldn't call some of the stickers mundane. In addition to the slogans you posted, there were others such as “Reject white guilt”, “Why are Jews censoring free speech?", "Antisemitism is caused by Semitism", “We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066”, "They seek conquest, not asylum", and “Mass immigration is white genocide”. Melia was, as the prosecutor noted, “careful to ensure that actions taken in support of what are ultimately racially offensive perspectives are somehow dressed up in a veneer of legitimacy”. Yet how can anyone be so daft as to not see that these stickers were racially motivated and designed to incite?

2 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

So from your reply I can assume that you are a big fan of imprisoning somebody for having thoughts like ‘Reject white guilt’ or  ’It’s OK to be white’. even though no actual crime was committed. If you like, as a bit of balance I can post a video of a middle eastern looking gentleman waving a swastica flag during a pro palastinian (anti Israel) protest with the police looking on showing little interest. How about that for "Zero tolerance for people who incite racial hatred?"

There was nothing in my reply that suggested I was in favour of someone being arrested for their thoughts, or offensive opinions for that matter. Whilst Melia's thoughts and opinions may not have violated the law, his actions did. He went well beyond just waving an offensive flag. He participated, in and encouraged, the posting of incendiary, racially-charged, stickers all over the place including near primary schools.

It's well established that he's a fascist, racist, and anti-Semite dead-set on adding fuel to an already burning fire, and yet you and others here choose to instead paint him as a victim of an anti-white tyranny.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

3 hours ago, simplybill said:

I’m upset because the 2-year prison sentence given to Sam Melia is grossly unjust. When compared to the sentence given to the women who openly supported the Hamas attack on Israel, it’s obvious that the UK government is unfairly coddling one group over another. 

The two crimes are vastly different in nature and scope. Do I need to point out which of the two was the most egregious? Suggesting the difference in sentences is because one group was coddled is downright ludicrous.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

So all the things you just listed above can not be punished as hate?  Then what is the point of regulating hate?  If the word hate were left entirely off the bill I have no issue.  But it's on and sooner or later definitions, circumstances, perceptions, will shift and a something interpreted as racist or homophobic, or insert taboo here will be punished under hate.  It's too much of a crack in the window. That's my opinion.

You took my comments out of context. Furthermore, I explained why some regulations were necessary in that very same post.

[Myles]

3 hours ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Ah so we've eventually come to the point where we imprison for thought crime. Hmm... only a matter of time I suppose, the marxist utopia creeps ever nearer.

:- "The stickers ranged from the mundane, ‘Reject white guilt’; the controversial, ’It’s OK to be white’ (hate speech according to the Old Bill)"

:- "the prosecution confirmed Melia’s views were ‘not illegal in themselves"

:- "the Crown Prosecution Service talked of little other than ‘ideology’, arguing that the stickers police found in his wallet were evidence of ‘views of a nationalist nature"  OH MY GOD!

"The judge’s insistence on a custodial sentence apparently arose from the need ‘to act as a deterrent’, within ‘a particularly sensitive social climate’. In other words, Joe Public beware: ‘Stop noticing what the authorities are doing, what we aren’t doing and what we’re allowing to happen, and we might just allow you to keep your liberty!"

So from your reply I can assume that you are a big fan of imprisoning somebody for having thoughts like ‘Reject white guilt’ or  ’It’s OK to be white’. even though no actual crime was committed. If you like, as a bit of balance I can post a video of a middle eastern looking gentleman waving a swastica flag during a pro palastinian (anti Israel) protest with the police looking on showing little interest. How about that for "Zero tolerance for people who incite racial hatred?"

 

p.s. "the Crown Prosecution Service talked of little other than ‘ideology’, arguing that the stickers police found in his wallet were evidence of ‘views of a nationalist nature"  We have a party running Scotland called the SNP - The Scottish Nationalist Party, Should they all be in prison for their 'ideology?

 

this type of stuff is why this law is wrong.  It is Ok to bully white people, but if they reject the accusations they are accused of hate.

[+OverSword]

9 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

You took my comments out of context. Furthermore, I explained why some regulations were necessary in that very same post.

I have made my opinion about the wrongheadedness of this bill known and explained why I believe that.  Nothing you can post will change that opinion because freedom of speech is probably the most important right a human can have, it gives a path to every other freedom.  This bill has the potential to undermine that in my opinion. The risk it will undermine that freedom, in my opinion, is not worth taking.  You are free to disagree, why aren't I?

[Kittens Are Jerks]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I have made my opinion about the wrongheadedness of this bill known and explained why I believe that.  Nothing you can post will change that opinion because freedom of speech is probably the most important right a human can have, it gives a path to every other freedom.  This bill has the potential to undermine that in my opinion. The risk it will undermine that freedom, in my opinion, is not worth taking.  You are free to disagree, why aren't I?

Who said you weren't free to disagree? A challenge to your opinion in no way means you're not entitled to have it.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

3 hours ago, Michelle said:

He offended me. Who are you to say what was said was not hurtful? People have said horribly awful things to me, including this particular person, about not wanting trans in women's sports. It's entirely someone's opinion whether a person runs afoul of what constitutes "online harm". I consider constant name calling and denigrating people for their opinions "online harm"

Who am I to say what was not hurtful? I didn't.

I agree that constant name calling and denigrating people is a form of online harm. I can understand why you are upset with what transpired, but am also certain the other person felt equally offended.  If there is a next time, just report it. The very few times I've reported an offensive comment, it was removed immediately and that was that. No fuss, no muss. I realized a long time ago that I don't have to attend every online fight I've been invited to.

[simplybill]

50 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

The two crimes are vastly different in nature and scope. Do I need to point out which of the two was the most egregious? 

From the article:

“The fact that these images were being displayed in the context of a protest opposing the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks demonstrates a glorification of the actions taken by [Hamas].

I consider that to be much more egregious than a sticker that says  “It’s okay to be white”. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

Edited March 6 by simplybill
Clarification

[Kittens Are Jerks]

7 minutes ago, simplybill said:

From the article:

“The fact that these images were being displayed in the context of a protest opposing the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks demonstrates a glorification of the actions taken by [Hamas].

Much more egregious than a sticker that says  “It’s okay to be white”. Wouldn’t you agree?

As someone who's Jewish, I of course don't appreciate the glorification of Hamas and its actions, and fully agree with the counter-terrorism official who described those images as “celebrating the use of paragliders as a tactic to breach the Gaza/Israel border, and creates a risk of encouraging others to support Hamas." Hence the reason why the women were arrested, found guilty, and handed a 12-month conditional discharge.

Was what they did more egregious than what that guy did?

Whilst just as offensive, the three women sporting paragliding images, do not (in my opinion) represent the same threat level the other guy does. His stickers, as I illustrated earlier, consisted of slogans that went well beyond "it's okay to be white." They specifically targeted Jews and immigrants, among others, and although they did not explicitly call for action against those groups, it was implicit. He not only belongs to a racist organization, his racist campaign has been ongoing both online and in the streets for quite some time. Indeed, he has a long history of hate.

[DayoOlabisi]

On 2/29/2024 at 12:51 AM, Golden Duck said:

If you're talking about your personal experience, that's fine.  I'm guessing you saw an exceptional circumstance from your side.

Some famous cases from Australia include:

. Mick Young and the Colour TV

. Australian Customs v Midford

. Skywest Aviation

. Human Sevices and Robodebt

. Sports-rorts

In some of these cases the Government Auditor picked up malpractice. Others, went through a standard process but escalated.

I've given examples at a Federal Government Level.  I think you are talking about local government.  I would suggest there is more opportunity for corruption in smaller organisations.

i have experience at the local, state and federal levels. actually, contrary to your guess i would say the least problems with public servants come at the local level. at the state and federal levels i find that decisions are most often not "reviewed" or not even known. i have a theory that administration in all fields will eventually serve itself, first. i first noticed it, in fact, in a one-person private business. i found certain policies were tailored to the business owner and not the customers. i then noticed the occurrence of the same in pretty every organization where i had any insight into their function. but in government systems there's often an assumption that the bureaucratic/admin work is about as good as it can be, or that it will take new leadership to change. there's never any direct responsibility to the public. if the decisions become of political interest, that changes. but most admin work isn't of use politically.

as to your point about wrong decision makers being held accountable, i find that the political dichotomy defends against that. if a decision maker is of any political interest, they are defended by their political side and attacks are seen as political attacks. even sometimes all sides will tread lightly in order to not be seen as acting politically when it comes to things like proper process. in explicitly political matters, the spotlight is turned on but the entire ordeal becomes a circus.

so i find that there really isn't structured conflict that results in accountability, but structured conflict that is only political. and if it's not political it is often unnoticed.

[Doug1066]

On 3/5/2024 at 1:53 PM, DieChecker said:

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

The sergeant in charge ordered the guardsmen to shoot.  That's what made it murder and not self-defense.

There's a tape recording that captured his voice.

Doug

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, DayoOlabisi said:

i have experience at the local, state and federal levels. actually, contrary to your guess i would say the least problems with public servants come at the local level. at the state and federal levels i find that decisions are most often not "reviewed" or not even known. i have a theory that administration in all fields will eventually serve itself, first. i first noticed it, in fact, in a one-person private business. i found certain policies were tailored to the business owner and not the customers. i then noticed the occurrence of the same in pretty every organization where i had any insight into their function. but in government systems there's often an assumption that the bureaucratic/admin work is about as good as it can be, or that it will take new leadership to change. there's never any direct responsibility to the public. if the decisions become of political interest, that changes. but most admin work isn't of use politically.

as to your point about wrong decision makers being held accountable, i find that the political dichotomy defends against that. if a decision maker is of any political interest, they are defended by their political side and attacks are seen as political attacks. even sometimes all sides will tread lightly in order to not be seen as acting politically when it comes to things like proper process. in explicitly political matters, the spotlight is turned on but the entire ordeal becomes a circus.

so i find that there really isn't structured conflict that results in accountability, but structured conflict that is only political. and if it's not political it is often unnoticed.

You look to be highlighting the difference between USA and Australia government organisations.  Public servants are supposed to be apolitical talk.  Staff are regularly warned that any political conversations can be perceived as breaching the Code of Conduct.  See the "Sports Rorts" case I mentioned earlier.  It was made public by the Government's own audititor.

We have government auditors and corruption commissions at state and federal level.  The other departments often have internal audit or internal affairs sections.   The conflict is structed both intra and inter departmentally.

The associations that may help defend  the workers, they're unions.

Edited March 6 by Golden Duck

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

So all the things you just listed above can not be punished as hate?  Then what is the point of regulating hate?  If the word hate were left entirely off the bill I have no issue.  But it's on and sooner or later definitions, circumstances, perceptions, will shift and a something interpreted as racist or homophobic, or insert taboo here will be punished under hate.  It's too much of a crack in the window. That's my opinion.

So where is the line? 

Is there such a thing as hate speech in a libertarian ideology? Is abuse even recognised? 

How is a what if more of an immediate concern than groups of people deliberately out to hurt others? Hate groups are here and now. Government control fantasies are very much fantasies and largely based on imaginative ideas like the novel 1984. There's reality and there's fantasy. Some seem to struggle separating them.