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

[+OverSword]

7 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

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

 

The line was figured out long ago, any speech that is illegal is punishable.  If you feel abused there is usually an ignore button.  If the owner of a private platform wants to moderate this kind of thing good for them.  If the government does then that is a hard no for me.

[qxcontinuum]

13 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

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.

That's not the true narrative. Those unfamiliar with life in former communist nations often perceive reality through distorted news outlets, storytelling, or obscured ideologies prevalent here.

For those of us who endured tyranny, it became a daily global reality. Initially, authorities bolstered policing, granting immense powers while disarming the populace to repell opposition. Subsequently, they strategically gained control over television and press, suppressing freedom of information and journalism through imprisonment and manipulative tactics. Of course there was always reasoning making a lot of people to node and accept the sharade. They introduced faux opposition figures to convey the illusion that no one could rise to power. Gradually, they began seizing assets, implementing forceful vaccinations, enacting laws diminishing ownership and self defwnse and crowd-sourcing everything in the party's name. They brought in minorities offering illusory jobs with equal wages to the working class. When people rebelled they have invoked amendments and rights to call in the army and arest and persecute organizers .

Remarkably, all these elements are unfolding in Canada today.

Edited March 7 by qxcontinuum

[psyche101]

53 minutes ago, OverSword said:

The line was figured out long ago, any speech that is illegal is punishable.  If you feel abused there is usually an ignore button.  If the owner of a private platform wants to moderate this kind of thing good for them.  If the government does then that is a hard no for me.

That line doesn't really work with new technology. There's a number of youth suicides that illustrate that. 

I do feel that certain levels of hate speech are well above that which moderators and the like have in their jurisdiction. Some things require law intervention. Kiddy from fiddler's are a specific target. Moderators shouldn't just have to turn a blind eye and ban someone and they don't have any further authority than that. That's a community threat that requires official intervention.

In that instance the libertarian mindset enables the bad by removing any obstacles and leaves the community at higher risk. I can't see how there's an advantage to what is basically lawlessness. 

Bad people and hate groups seem to benefit from libertarian ideology more than anyone. 

[+OverSword]

32 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That line doesn't really work with new technology. There's a number of youth suicides that illustrate that. 

I do feel that certain levels of hate speech are well above that which moderators and the like have in their jurisdiction. Some things require law intervention. Kiddy from fiddler's are a specific target. Moderators shouldn't just have to turn a blind eye and ban someone and they don't have any further authority than that. That's a community threat that requires official intervention.

In that instance the libertarian mindset enables the bad by removing any obstacles and leaves the community at higher risk. I can't see how there's an advantage to what is basically lawlessness. 

Bad people and hate groups seem to benefit from libertarian ideology more than anyone. 

Kiddy from fiddler? Pretty sure I know what you mean by that. It’s already illegal and probably required to be reported and I already said if this bill was just about protecting kids I would probably back it. The problem I have is regulating hate which could depend on who is running things at the moment as to what constitutes it. Too easily weaponized by those with an agenda.

[psyche101]

27 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Kiddy from fiddler? Pretty sure I know what you mean by that. It’s already illegal and probably required to be reported and I already said if this bill was just about protecting kids I would probably back it. The problem I have is regulating hate which could depend on who is running things at the moment as to what constitutes it. Too easily weaponized by those with an agenda.

Spell check put the from in. Don't know why, didn't see it. 

I don't think defining hate would be difficult. Nor would it be a loose term when defined in an official capacity. 

The problem I see is you are giving advantage to those who need to be policed. Like laws who say someone has to die before police can act. Why offer avenues of violence to hold to gets dealt with down the track?

How would that not be a far more immediate threat that government what ifs? It's happening here and now. Totalitarian threats are way down that ladder. Trump is the US biggest immediate political threat right now and people are falling over themselves to give him that power. 

How could safety parameters be a more serious threat than enabling dangerous criminal behaviour? What indicates it's a more likely and immediate threat? 

What makes a maybe more important than a current issue?

Edited March 7 by psyche101

[+OverSword]

52 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Spell check put the from in. Don't know why, didn't see it. 

I don't think defining hate would be difficult. Nor would it be a loose term when defined in an official capacity. 

The problem I see is you are giving advantage to those who need to be policed. Like laws who say someone has to die before police can act. Why offer avenues of violence to hold to gets dealt with down the track?

How would that not be a far more immediate threat that government what ifs? It's happening here and now. Totalitarian threats are way down that ladder. Trump is the US biggest immediate political threat right now and people are falling over themselves to give him that power. 

How could safety parameters be a more serious threat than enabling dangerous criminal behaviour? What indicates it's a more likely and immediate threat? 

What makes a maybe more important than a current issue?

People saying things on the internet is not dangerous criminal behavior.  Can you say what should be illegal to post that is not already illegal? Make sure it’s something that someone should go to prison and do hard time for.  I would like to say posting something like “all insert race should be killed” but thats nothing you can’t hear people say angrily out loud on the street daily and nobody can do a thing about it. How can you say it’s legal to say where anyone walking by can hear but not legal to type where anyone scrolling through can read? Hate is easily defined but unless it involves action it’s ridiculous to make it unlawful, and the action is already illegal so no need to pass a law.

[qxcontinuum]

55 minutes ago, OverSword said:

People saying things on the internet is not dangerous criminal behavior.  Can you say what should be illegal to post that is not already illegal? Make sure it’s something that someone should go to prison and do hard time for.  I would like to say posting something like “all insert race should be killed” but thats nothing you can’t hear people say angrily out loud on the street daily and nobody can do a thing about it. How can you say it’s legal to say where anyone walking by can hear but not legal to type where anyone scrolling through can read? Hate is easily defined but unless it involves action it’s ridiculous to make it unlawful, and the action is already illegal so no need to pass a law.

To add to this, frequently online people say things they never do in real life of truly believe.  They can be frustrated and under the anonymity provided by internet , they can unleash negative thoughts.

To make it worse,  they made those two points so generic so that it can apply to whomever they want in circumstances they want. For example not so long ago, a photographer was arrested in Ottawa for simply taking pictures of the parliament building ( natural heritage) . Aparently them liberals issued another similar law claiming that such occurrences can present a danger to national security as photographers can alegetedly spy on those insight lol...

They're exactly like the communists from the former soviet union. 

 

Edited March 7 by qxcontinuum

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

People saying things on the internet is not dangerous criminal behavior.  Can you say what should be illegal to post that is not already illegal?

Yes it is.

Yes, personal attacks on normal people who end up dead from online bullying. 

As I have made specific note of several times, this is a new technology and the consequences are now becoming painfully apparent. 

Yes, adults who have bullied teens into suicide walk the streets without consequences. Teens who have bullied peers into suicide get counseling as opposed to punishment. 

 

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Make sure it’s something that someone should go to prison and do hard time for.  

I'm not sure why you don't think this isn't exactly why the law is proposed at all.

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I would like to say posting something like “all insert race should be killed” but thats nothing you can’t hear people say angrily out loud on the street daily and nobody can do a thing about it. How can you say it’s legal to say where anyone walking by can hear but not legal to type where anyone scrolling through can read?

I don't know why that is. Hate speech in public is illegal here. And it's not like it's misused or thrown at every case out there. It's taken very seriously and has to be iron clad for a charge. 

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Here's a recent example of just that here in Australia. A claim of hate speech in public was made. Police investigated the evidence and nobody was charged because nothing could be proven.

Video analysis finds no evidence of 'gas the Jews' being chanted at Sydney Opera House protest, despite witness statements

Saying "yeah, that's what I heard" doesn't stand up in court. 

But the police investigated the hate speech claim in an official capacity. It was dismissed. 

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Hate is easily defined but unless it involves action it’s ridiculous to make it unlawful, and the action is already illegal so no need to pass a law.

Dangerous events have unfolded from speech. Heck, you guys are now famous for your capitol attack on democracy. Claiming just speech isn't a real threat is just not true. The overreach afforded to those who intend to abide laws and people is disproportionate. They get the advantage here. 

At the end of the day, what I said has not changed. The people who benefit from a libertarian view are the ones who need to be policed more than anyone. It's just enabling the worst parts of society. They get more out of the ideology than the rest is society. I can't see that ending in anything but carnage. 

Edited March 7 by psyche101

[Kittens Are Jerks]

5 hours ago, qxcontinuum said:

To make it worse,  they made those two points so generic so that it can apply to whomever they want in circumstances they want. For example not so long ago, a photographer was arrested in Ottawa for simply taking pictures of the parliament building ( natural heritage) . Aparently them liberals issued another similar law claiming that such occurrences can present a danger to national security as photographers can alegetedly spy on those insight lol...

Photographing from a public place in Canada is not considered a danger to national security. Indeed, there is little or no basis for preventing anyone  from taking photos in a public place. There are however, some reasonable limits to this as outlined in Section 162 of the Canadian Criminal Code which prohibits secretly watching, photographing or making a video recording of anyone, at a time or in a place where the person is entitled to expect privacy.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-162-20051101.html

Photography and videos are permitted in the areas of the Parliament Building open to the public. I could not find anything on the Ottawa  incident you mentioned and would like to see a source link for that, as well as for the law 'them liberals' supposedly issued.

6 hours ago, qxcontinuum said:

They're exactly like the communists from the former soviet union. 

You really don't have a clue, do you.

[Kittens Are Jerks]

10 hours ago, qxcontinuum said:

That's not the true narrative. Those unfamiliar with life in former communist nations often perceive reality through distorted news outlets, storytelling, or obscured ideologies prevalent here.

For those of us who endured tyranny, it became a daily global reality. Initially, authorities bolstered policing, granting immense powers while disarming the populace to repell opposition. Subsequently, they strategically gained control over television and press, suppressing freedom of information and journalism through imprisonment and manipulative tactics. Of course there was always reasoning making a lot of people to node and accept the sharade. They introduced faux opposition figures to convey the illusion that no one could rise to power. Gradually, they began seizing assets, implementing forceful vaccinations, enacting laws diminishing ownership and self defwnse and crowd-sourcing everything in the party's name. They brought in minorities offering illusory jobs with equal wages to the working class. When people rebelled they have invoked amendments and rights to call in the army and arest and persecute organizers .

I’m quite familiar with Communist countries having recently worked and lived in one. It’s nowhere near as extreme as the one you described, but yes, there are restrictions on politically sensitive speech, some media censorship, as well as various internet regulations. Otherwise, life there was pretty much like it is in any western country.

10 hours ago, qxcontinuum said:

Remarkably, all these elements are unfolding in Canada today.

None of the elements you’ve outlined above are unfolding in Canada. None.

Frankly, it is beyond me why you or anyone else for that matter, would view legislation designed to combat online content that incites violence, that  incites violent extremism or terrorism, is used to bully a child, that sexually victimizes a child, or that induces a child to harm themselves, is nothing more than a step toward establishing a dictatorship.

Why this has resulted in hysterical paranoia and a mistaken belief that the total loss of our freedoms is imminent is beyond me. Do you not realize just how insanely absurd your claims are?

[simplybill]

2 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

I’m quite familiar with Communist countries having recently worked and lived in one. It’s nowhere near as extreme as the one you described,

@qxcontinuum’s comment is correct. Free speech in Stalin’s Russia was nonexistent, and judging by the recent death of Alexei Navalny,  Putin’s Russia is much the same. The Vietnamese and Chinese governments are notorious for incarcerating dissenters.

 

2 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Why this has resulted in hysterical paranoia and a mistaken belief that the total loss of our freedoms is imminent is beyond me. Do you not realize just how insanely absurd your claims are?

It’s not hysterical paranoia. Those of us who have studied Totalitarianism can plainly see similarities in the government overreach of today and the totalitarian governments of the last century.
 

@OverSword is correct also:

 “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…”  Post #261.

Vaguely worded legislation is subject to exploitation by politicians with a pet agenda.

 

 

Edited March 7 by simplybill

[+OverSword]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Hate speech in public is illegal here.

You could stand on a busy street in Sydney and scream at the top of your lungs  "ALL WHITE COLONIST TRASH SHOULD BE MURDERED ALONG WITH THEIR CHILDREN!!!" and not a damn thing would happen to you.

Edited March 7 by OverSword

[itsnotoutthere]

23 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

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

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?

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.

 

[simplybill]

I was curious about the phrase “criminal damage” listed among Melia’s offenses. I expected to find calls to burn down mosques, or bomb gay bars.

”Essentially, the court found that he had supplied the stickers knowing that the recipients might attach them to other people’s property without permission.”

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/29/even-the-far-right-must-have-the-right-to-free-speech/
 

[+OverSword]

Quote

 

JK Rowling is facing backlash again after deliberately misgendering trans activist India Willoughby.

On Sunday (3 March), Rowling shared a lengthy tirade against the idea of trans women being allowed in female locker rooms, writing: “When men – all men, however they identify – are banned from women's spaces, those who disregard the ban can be challenged, inside the space and out.”

Rowling responded to a Twitter/X user who sent her a video of Willoughby, with the user asking: “Hi Joanne, so you are saying this lady should use the men’s locker room then?!”

In response, Rowling wrote: “You’ve sent me the wrong video. There isn’t a lady in this one, just a man revelling in his misogynistic performance of what he thinks ‘woman’ means: narcissistic, shallow and exhibitionist.”JK Rowling deliberately misgenders trans activist India Willoughby | The Independent

She has now been reported to the police- should be an interesting test case: JK Rowling responds after being reported to police over misgendering broadcaster (msn.com)

 

But not in Canada. This would never happen 

Edited March 7 by OverSword

[DayoOlabisi]

On 3/6/2024 at 3:58 PM, Golden Duck said:

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.

i claim no knowledge of australian governments. i will say that the US is similar in that public servants are supposed to be apolitical and we have auditors at all levels as well. if australia is superior to the US in these ways it is not because of the existence of those particular structures, though they might execute the ideal better.

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, OverSword said:

You could stand on a busy street in Sydney and scream at the top of your lungs  "ALL WHITE COLONIST TRASH SHOULD BE MURDERED ALONG WITH THEIR CHILDREN!!!" and not a damn thing would happen to you.

Yes it would, you would be charged as a public nuisance and then possibly hate speech laws. 

They aren enacted often because your totalitarian fears are entirely unfounded. 

It's a very serious accusation that can't just be thrown about, as you have suggested it can be. 

 

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/is-hate-speech-a-crime-in-australia/

 

Section 18 of the criminal act:

The section make clear that a public act can include:

Causing words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public,
Acts done in a public place, and
Acts done in sight or hearing of people in a public place.
A ‘public place’ is defined as any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission.

 

 

Sounds like Canada's proposal. If Australia is fine, then there's nothing to worry about eh.

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, OverSword said:

But not in Canada. This would never happen 

It's not illegal to report people to police as far as I know. 

Pretty sure it's allowed in America too.

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, simplybill said:

I was curious about the phrase “criminal damage” listed among Melia’s offenses. I expected to find calls to burn down mosques, or bomb gay bars.

”Essentially, the court found that he had supplied the stickers knowing that the recipients might attach them to other people’s property without permission.”

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/29/even-the-far-right-must-have-the-right-to-free-speech/
 

The stickers were offensive and made to affect others. 

No sympathy is deserved. 

Supporting the far right is more damaging to society than allowing far right whackjobs opportunity to damage the community and attack those around them. 

Libertarian ideology is harmful to a functioning community. It enables the worst elements and offers them the advantage. 

[Kittens Are Jerks]

18 hours ago, OverSword said:

You could stand on a busy street in Sydney and scream at the top of your lungs  "ALL WHITE COLONIST TRASH SHOULD BE MURDERED ALONG WITH THEIR CHILDREN!!!" and not a damn thing would happen to you.

You would be charged in Canada as well.

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

        (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

        (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

[Kittens Are Jerks]

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

But not in Canada. This would never happen 

There has been a global surge of online hate campaigns targeting 2SLGBTQIA+ communities, often with life-threatening consequences. Why should individuals in these communities not be protected or allowed to seek recourse?

[Kittens Are Jerks]

21 hours ago, simplybill said:

It’s not hysterical paranoia. Those of us who have studied Totalitarianism can plainly see similarities in the government overreach of today and the totalitarian governments of the last century.

You've not only failed to differentiate between possibility and actuality, you've also failed to understand that limited, seemingly authoritarian actions, by a democracy are sometimes needed to preserve democracy, not endanger it. Whilst a dictatorial government is not committed to the common good or welfare of its citizens, a democratic government is.

Canada is a country with some of the strongest protections of constitutional rights and legal protections in the world, with a solid system of checks and balances on the exercise of political power in place. There are also restraints placed on our criminal laws.

It is practically impossible, for example, to charge and convict someone for what they may be thinking, or thinking of doing, without substantial evidence that they’re thinking of committing a crime or a terrorist act.

Alarmist, knee jerk reactions to minor speech restrictions designed to protect citizens smack of one having read Orwell's 1984 one too many times. But as you claim to have studied totalitarianism, by all means explain with evidence, why you believe Canada is going down that road.

[simplybill]

3 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Alarmist, knee jerk reactions to minor speech restrictions designed to protect citizens smack of one having read Orwell's 1984 one too many times.

When the personal insults begin, it’s an indication that the discussion has ended.
By the way, I’ve never read 1984. 

[+OverSword]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 

 

 

Sounds like Canada's proposal. If Australia is fine, then there's nothing to worry about eh.

There is.

[+OverSword]

5 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

You would be charged in Canada as well.

Public incitement of hatred

319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

        (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

        (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

Tell me when it has happened.