Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

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


Kittens Are Jerks

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

Years ago when I first posted a thread about this legislation many Canadians here largely thought I was being stupid for worrying this is an attack on free speech and a weapon for the government to use against unpopular opinion.  If you don't fight this Canada, then you deserve this.

Bill C-36 seeks to, among other things, combat online 'hatred' (not unpopular opinion in general) and proposes to add a definition of 'hatred to section 39 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, “hatred” would be defined as “the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain.” From the article cited below:

This language echoes the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “hatred” in Whatcott, where the Court noted that “‘hatred’… is to be interpreted as being restricted to those extreme manifestations of emotion described by the words ‘detestation’ and ‘vilification’. This wording is important as it limits the application of section 319 of the Criminal Code to a very small category of expression. In other words, it prevents section 319 from applying to expression that is “repugnant and offensive” but does not rise to the “level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects. By limiting the application of this law to only the most extreme and harmful speech, Bill C-36 attempts to ensure that section 319 of the Criminal Code infringes individuals’ freedom of expression as little as possible.

https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2021/08/combating-online-hate-yes-your-tweet-could-be-considered-hate-speech/?print=print

In other words, Bill C-36 seeks to target the most egregious and clear forms of hate speech.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

Can that be decided before any violence or terrorism is performed?  Are there preset standards?  Is it up to interpretation?

Yes it can, and will be decided, before any violence is performed. And yes, there are safeguards in place to prevent too many frivolous cases to proceed against citizens. Currently hate speech receives protection under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees individuals’ freedom of expression. However, under section 1 of the Charter, if the violation can be demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit on free expression, it will be constitutional. If Bill C-36 is passed into law, it will then be up to the courts to determine its constitutionality.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, OverSword said:

Do you think for one second this bill would not have been used to silence Jordan Peterson years ago?  I'm sure it would have been.  I'm sure he was a primary consideration when it was authored.  The left love to say language is violence.  It is not.

Surely you're not serious. No, no and no. Peterson is not so influential as to be on the minds of the majority of Canadians, let alone our government. Whilst many find what he has to say utterly despicable, his opinions are protected under the Charter. He was, however, taken to court by the College of Psychologists of Ontario on complaints of professional misconduct (for making public statements that they deemed unprofessional). The court ruled that Peterson had to choose between undergoing social media sensitivity training, or lose his medical license.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I hope they can explicitly spell out what "hate", and "violence", are.

We had a LGBTQ person at work who was pushing that "looking" at them, even with no expression, was hate and violence. It didn't fly with HR. But in many other settings, it very well might become the rule.

Yes, hate is specifically being defined. Violence is violence, and easier to define. Merely 'looking' at someone is not a crime here. One is also free to say they hate the LGBTQ community. Whilst it's not a nice thing to say, it's protected speech under Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I was drawing a parallel. Where if we are taking something, such as the right to bear arms, from everyone, due to a tiny fraction of bad guys. Then isn't it hypocritical to not ban an internet platform if it is used by bad guys, even if almost everyone uses it correctly?

Answer... It is.

Regardless, I'd favor protecting kids, I simply want the specific language saying that in the bill/law. So it can't be used to censor political opponents and opposing social/political viewpoints. 

So you have dropped the banned label? 

The things the law protects are things that normal people expect. It's stopping abnormal people from using social media in a nefarious way. 

I can't see why people would be opposed to it unless they are regular abusers who target young or fragile people and wish to remain hidden.

The way I see it, protesting these laws is more protecting the bad elements as normal people don't even think about that which this law applies to.

It's a bit ridiculous to refuse any new laws because dat ebil gubbermint is a fear. That's paranoia to a point that affects community safety. 

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Doesnt that "personal responsibility" arguement equally apply to guns?

How so. People don't own social media companies do they. They use them

What I read is that those companies will be liable for poor moderation. 

From the government release in the OP:

It would hold online platforms, including livestreaming and adult content services, accountable for the design choices made that lead to the dissemination and amplification of harmful content on their platforms and ensure that platforms are employing mitigation strategies that reduce a user’s exposure to harmful content.

So it would be more like holding Smith and Wesson liable for a murder. Which quite frankly I wouldn't be opposed to. 

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I believe it does. There is an estimated 400 million guns in the US, and over 100 million gun owners. 

Roughly 120,000 people per year get shot (injured or killed). So that's roughly 0.1% of the gun owning population. Though to be more fair, some of those are multiple people shot by a single weapon. But still around 0.1% I'd say.

I read find it hard to believe that the figure is proportional considering criminal activity. The higher number is more likely due to the nutters stockpiling. Does the figure include military and police? And their kills? 

The problem here is that you think guns are a right, nor a privilege. Indoctrination. I can't imagine how America would react if a foreign nation came in and killed 120,000 people. It would be like world war three, but it's perfect ok to kill each other in those numbers every year. It's considered a right to do so. And therefore you have the most well armed criminals in the western world and more deaths as well as the crown of the school shooting capital of the world. 

And people insist that's just fine. 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMfz-7Xj7x5zwgDN7ZInU

America is bizarro world.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Yes, hate is specifically being defined. Violence is violence, and easier to define. Merely 'looking' at someone is not a crime here. One is also free to say they hate the LGBTQ community. Whilst it's not a nice thing to say, it's protected speech under Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Good. That all I was asking for.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, and-then said:

The problem with these are the latitude that officials have in which to use their discretion.  Yes, it will definitely be politicized, just as everything else is today.  Few things would motivate this old codger to protest in the streets but something like this in the US would definitely do it.  When you begin allowing any government the ability to take away your liberty based on subjective interpretations of laws that are meant to "protect", you are traveling a very dangerous path, IMO.

Those are just areas that will be covered, the language of the legislation will be quite specific. Once Bill C-36 is passed, it will still be subject to review by the courts to ensure that it does not infringe on free speech as it's protected under the Charter.

Will it become politicized? If it does, it will be minimal. Political polarization here is nowhere near that of the US.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

So this stupid **** lets his spawn run around online unsupervised and expects the govt. to police it for him

Canadian Justice Minister Arif Virani provided what I think is the best response to your comment. He stated:

For too long, we have tolerated a system where online platforms have offloaded their responsibilities onto parents, expecting them to protect their kids from harms that platforms create or amplify. Platforms have a duty to remove harmful content that exploits children and we are creating the mechanism to make that happen.

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2024/02/27/online-hate-speech-must-not-become-political-yo-yo-anti-hate-expert-warns/

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Points 5 and 6 are too vague and could be applied and construed in many different ways depending upon a government agenda 

As I've mentioned, those are just categories. Bill C-36 is still somewhat of a work in progress and the specifics will be spelled out in detail.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Electric Scooter said:

Thats the most disgusting proposed legislation I have ever seen in Canada.

Its amounts to an Enabling Act, as the government can misuse it to lock up the political opposition and their supporters for life. 

Since when was proposed legislation protecting children and others online disgusting? Furthermore, I'd like to remind you that this is Canada, not Russia, not North Korea, not China.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

So you have dropped the banned label? 

I didn't mean ban this law. I meant things it could be used to ban.

Such as an App, or website, which was being used wrongly by a tiny minority.

I meant things a politician, or anyone with enough money to file a lawsuit,  with few scruples, might use to advantage against a protected group, or against any opposing entity.

Quote

It's a bit ridiculous to refuse any new laws because dat ebil gubbermint is a fear. That's paranoia to a point that affects community safety.

Do you believe Trump misused government powers?

Muslim Ban... Remain in Mexico... Ended DACA... Pulled out of Paris Accords... Pulled out of Iran Deal... Used covid to refuse asylum seekers...

But there's no way someone like that could misuse this legislation, if it had vague language... Right?

He'd never use internet safety tools to discredit, or disable, his opponents. Right?

i didnt say refuse the law. I was asking that it spell out definitions to avoid vague language. 

Quote

What I read is that those companies will be liable for poor moderation. 

From the government release in the OP:

It would hold online platforms, including livestreaming and adult content services, accountable for the design choices made that lead to the dissemination and amplification of harmful content on their platforms and ensure that platforms are employing mitigation strategies that reduce a user’s exposure to harmful content.

So it would be more like holding Smith and Wesson liable for a murder. Which quite frankly I wouldn't be opposed to. 

So blame the people making the tools. Not those who misuse them? I can see the arguement, in as far as "make it safer". 

Quote

I read find it hard to believe that the figure is proportional considering criminal activity. The higher number is more likely due to the nutters stockpiling.

Considering criminal activity? In what way? The US is just a wild west of shootouts on every street corner? 

Quote

Does the figure include military and police? And their kills?

I believe it dies. Includes everyone in the US.

Quote

The problem here is that you think guns are a right, nor a privilege. Indoctrination.

Because it is a right.

Do you have a right to free speech? How do you know you do? 

It is in our Constitution as a right. And has been tried many times by conservative, and liberal, Supreme Courts, and found to be a right every time.

Quote

 I can't imagine how America would react if a foreign nation came in and killed 120,000 people.

Well only 16,000 were murdered. 26,000 were suicide. And the others were injuries to one degree or another. It's roughly the same number killed in automobile accidents, and we tolerate that too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I didn't mean ban this law. I meant things it could be used to ban.

Such as an App, or website, which was being used wrongly by a tiny minority.

I meant things a politician, or anyone with enough money to file a lawsuit,  with few scruples, might use to advantage against a protected group, or against any opposing entity.

Do you believe Trump misused government powers?

Muslim Ban... Remain in Mexico... Ended DACA... Pulled out of Paris Accords... Pulled out of Iran Deal... Used covid to refuse asylum seekers...

But there's no way someone like that could misuse this legislation, if it had vague language... Right?

He'd never use internet safety tools to discredit, or disable, his opponents. Right?

i didnt say refuse the law. I was asking that it spell out definitions to avoid vague language. 

So blame the people making the tools. Not those who misuse them? I can see the arguement, in as far as "make it safer". 

Considering criminal activity? In what way? The US is just a wild west of shootouts on every street corner? 

I believe it dies. Includes everyone in the US.

Because it is a right.

Do you have a right to free speech? How do you know you do? 

It is in our Constitution as a right. And has been tried many times by conservative, and liberal, Supreme Courts, and found to be a right every time.

Well only 16,000 were murdered. 26,000 were suicide. And the others were injuries to one degree or another. It's roughly the same number killed in automobile accidents, and we tolerate that too.

Self entitled like typing detected. Look to your own. Your opinion means nothing to us. It was Trump et al who started this mess by encouraging violence, bullying, lying, and a host of other illegal acts.

Now Canada's deplorables are crawling out of the woodwork, and following suit.

We don't want to be you. Get it?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to New Canadian 'online harms' bill to make online hate punishable up to life in prison
45 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Do you have a right to free speech? How do you know you do? 

In Canada, freedom of speech is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically in section 2(b) — freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

We don't want to be you. Get it?

We not only don't want to be like them, we're not like them. And that's part of the problem with discussions like this. We all have a propensity to project our experiences, culture and beliefs. The irony in this instance is that our free speech principles are very much like those of the US, and our free speech protections just as robust. Whilst some members here might deem our hate laws 'scary' and an infringement on our rights, they are nowhere near that in practice.

Edited by Kittens Are Jerks
Minor addition.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, OverSword said:

That's because this is a pathway to holding more power and control, every bureaucrats dream.

it's also because many politicians and law enforcement agents are themselves grown-ass-children, a fact i didn't fully appreciate most of my life. i have a naive tendency to dismiss cliches. but i've been confronted with how true they've been and now i have to constantly battle that tendency in order to see other people's motives more clearly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

What a lame answer, hypocrite. So guns are more important than children, right?

it's often assumed by people that gun laws will solve school shootings and then accusations are made that people don't care about children or guns are more important. can you consider that proposed gun laws won't solve school shootings? and if not, can you consider that some people think gun laws won't solve school shootings and that they want legitimate alternative solutions? can you consider that it's not that people don't care, it's that they believe in a different solution? think they are wrong, fine. but accuse them of evil and expose your own limitations. it's a manipulative tactic that doesn't work, and i'd propose that many people (maybe not you ) who use that tactic know fully well it doesn't work and simply do it because it makes them feel superior, even though it also avoids real solutions. i'd argue someone like that might actually be contributing to evil. so if that's not you (and i don't think it is), don't let it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

it's often assumed by people that gun laws will solve school shootings and then accusations are made that people don't care about children or guns are more important. can you consider that proposed gun laws won't solve school shootings? and if not, can you consider that some people think gun laws won't solve school shootings and that they want legitimate alternative solutions? can you consider that it's not that people don't care, it's that they believe in a different solution? think they are wrong, fine. but accuse them of evil and expose your own limitations. it's a manipulative tactic that doesn't work, and i'd propose that many people (maybe not you ) who use that tactic know fully well it doesn't work and simply do it because it makes them feel superior, even though it also avoids real solutions. i'd argue someone like that might actually be contributing to evil. so if that's not you (and i don't think it is), don't let it be.

Guns are legal in Canada, but gun laws are stricter than they are in the US. We've had a total of about eight school shootings in our entire history, whereas the US has had almost twice as many just this year alone. Granted there are more people and guns in the US but the following statistics should still be quite sobering.

SWKxBdk.png

Source: https://www.cnn.com/us/school-shootings-fast-facts-dg/index.html

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Guns are legal in Canada, but gun laws are stricter than they are in the US. We've had a total of about eight school shootings in our entire history, whereas the US has had almost twice as many just this year alone. Granted there are more people and guns in the US but the following statistics should still be quite sobering.

SWKxBdk.png

Source: https://www.cnn.com/us/school-shootings-fast-facts-dg/index.html

 

i applaud you for actually taking up a real argument. i absolutely think gun laws should be considered for effectiveness. but i do see a myopic, narrowly focused agenda when focused on gun laws. i happen to think school security can be improved to practically eliminate mass shootings at schools. this would negatively effect fewer people and positively effect the same number of people. which to me leads to a more utilitarian argument. there are also many other variables to consider. i have kids in american public school. i have great interest in protecting them. i also live in an area with loose gun laws and people all around me have guns. i honestly don't believe my kids are any safer with a change to gun laws. i do think they can be made safer though and i'd love to entertain those options. my main obstacle to improvement is actually the people who seem to only advocate one "solution" though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

And they’ll apply it to only people they don’t like. 
Expect anyone posting pro-Israel content to get an allegation. 
Expect anyone posting “only two genders” to get an allegation. 
And once the other party is in power, expect the reverse, jt’ll be applied to anyone posting pro-Palestine content etc etc. 

they’ve given a new cudgel to Big Brother. 

I notice a certain cynicism in your words.

That's one problem we will be having as Americans.  A large part of our MAGA population does not believe there is any such thing as an honest person, dedicated to doing the best he can for his fellow citizens.

Most public servants are just that:  public servants.  You're an insult to those people.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Lol, they tried to shut down Toronto. They were parroting your model. We don't want to be you. Looks like you've fully embraced the hate. 

You own courts are the ones that said the government actions against the protesters was illegal.  Keep up. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

What a lame answer, hypocrite. So guns are more important than children, right?

Read it again liar, that is not what I said.  Rights are more important than individuals lives.  People die to defend American rights all over the globe and have for 250 years

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Are you implying that this has no effect on suicide through online bullying or that it simply does not happen? 

I'm not implying anything I'm saying that they invoke children to gain sympathy for what has too large a potential to be abused to censor unpopular thought.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Has that changed? 

I have one arguing it with me so far and likes from a bunch of others so yes.

edit: correction, two. :D

Edited by OverSword
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

“the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than dislike or disdain.

So up to interpretation.  My problem with that is who may interpret it.  If it's conservatives interpreting it against minorities fighting for equality or recognition how will you feel about it then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Yes it can, and will be decided, before any violence is performed. And yes, there are safeguards in place to prevent too many frivolous cases to proceed against citizens. Currently hate speech receives protection under section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees individuals’ freedom of expression. However, under section 1 of the Charter, if the violation can be demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit on free expression, it will be constitutional. If Bill C-36 is passed into law, it will then be up to the courts to determine its constitutionality.

So this bill basically gives the government the right to decide someone has exceeded otherwise free speech.  And you don't see a problem with that?  As I said in my first post, if Canadians do not fight this tool that can be used as a wedge to violate free speech rights then they deserve this new law.  It will be a very sad day imo.

Edited by OverSword
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.