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

7 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Surely you're not serious

Surely I am, just pay attention to the timeline and what actions have been taken to curtail him since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

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

God you are naïve.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  There are honest people, but don't think for one minute the ability to shut down free speech won't be abused.  We have case study after case study.  

The problem is that it is easy to label anything you disagree with as hate speech.  Giving ideological government bureaucrats the ability to make that determination is dangerous.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Surely I am, just pay attention to the timeline and what actions have been taken to curtail him since then.

Oh for crying out loud, enough with Peterson already. He is a nobody and a nothing to everyone but the incel community and others of similar ilk. I can assure you that the Canadian government would not go through legislative and legal hoops in the hope of capturing one lousy jerk.

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

34 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

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

whoa that's not my experience working very closely with "public servants" in recent years. people are people, and people are tempted by the ill-advised. why would they stop acting like people just because of their particular job? in fact, a particular job might particularly appeal to certain types of people. i believe it's been claimed that narcissists do well as CEOs, guys who were bullied like to become police officers in order to feel empowered. i don't know if these are particularly true, but it's easy to see how similar correlations might be. what about being a public servant prevents this type of ambition? is it just the words "public servant"?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, OverSword said:

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?

I repeat, Bill C-36 is aimed at only the most egregious acts. Furthermore, the courts will decide, not the politicians.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

He is a nobody and a nothing to everyone but the incel community and others of similar ilk.

If that were true then there would not be so much pushback from left wing idealists.  He really makes them mad and there have been many attempts to shut him down.  Personally his message didn't say anything I didn't already know or mainly agree with but for some reason leftists took his stand against compelled speech as a personal attack (yes Canada has been trying and will continue to try to curtail your rights on behalf of peoples feelings for quite some time)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

I repeat, Bill C-36 is aimed at only the most egregious acts. Furthermore, the courts will decide, not the politicians.

Famous last words.  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Famous last words.  

you don't understand, courts aren't political. everyone knows that.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

you don't understand, courts aren't political. everyone knows that.

How naive of me ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

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.

Not that part, the fomenting hate part, its wide open for abuse.

I`m sure the politicians in the Reichstag were equally as naïve when they gave Hitler the right to have people imprisoned without trial who were a threat to the state. He used it to remove opposition politicians, to Night of the Short Lives the rival power block within his party, and to disappear millions of ordinary citizens.

The laughing and naivety shocks me. Like none of you have never read or heard about how a law has been miss used in your countries. Snap yourself out of it please, the proposed legislation is dangerous. At the very minimum it needs to be re-written to stop the Canadian PM declaring himself God.

From the Labour Party in my own country there are two recent notable examples. The first is when they tried to ban political websites that were `promoting hate`. So, the misuse with that would have been Farage`s UKIP being taken offline to mess with Brexit. With the other Blair tried to get dictator powers after 9/11 and the Queen told him to f-off. Bush tried it on after 9/11 too but US politicians noted what he was up to and placed limitations on his Patriot Act. 

Look at the woke attitude where if you simply say a man is a man, and a woman is a woman, you are accused of inciting hate and violence. If the Canadian PM is woke (and he is) then you now see the danger. It effectively bans free speech but allowing anyone with an alternative view on woke subjects to receive a life sentence. That is crazy dangerous legislation.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

whoa that's not my experience working very closely with "public servants" in recent years. people are people, and people are tempted by the ill-advised. why would they stop acting like people just because of their particular job? in fact, a particular job might particularly appeal to certain types of people. i believe it's been claimed that narcissists do well as CEOs, guys who were bullied like to become police officers in order to feel empowered. i don't know if these are particularly true, but it's easy to see how similar correlations might be. what about being a public servant prevents this type of ambition? is it just the words "public servant"?

Public servants are more likely to be woke due to recruitment policies, and they are the least able to behave professionally when encountering others with differing political views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, OverSword said:

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 fight this tool that can be used as a wedge to violate free speech right then they deserve this new law.  It will be a very sad day imo.

What do you suggest we do then? Allow the internet to become a free for all where anyone and everyone is permitted to post whatever they want? That nothing be done to prevent online harms against children and other victims? You've got your knickers in a knot because of a bill that will compel social media platforms to take steps to remove content such hate speech, as well as things like child sex abuse images, and any other material that might be used to exploit children. None of that should have any place on the internet to begin with. Those of us who do not indulge in hateful speech have nothing to worry about.

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

11 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Famous last words.  

You're so paranoid lol

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Electric Scooter said:

The laughing and naivety shocks me. Like none of you have never read or heard about how a law has been miss used in your countries. Snap yourself out of it please, the proposed legislation is dangerous. At the very minimum it needs to be re-written to stop the Canadian PM declaring himself God.

Re-written how exactly? What is it about the proposed legislation that is dangerous?

As for Trudeau, he is a god, but only in his own head lol

9 minutes ago, Electric Scooter said:

Look at the woke attitude where if you simply say a man is a man, and a woman is a woman, you are accused of inciting hate and violence. If the Canadian PM is woke (and he is) then you now see the danger. It effectively bans free speech but allowing anyone with an alternative view on woke subjects to receive a life sentence. That is crazy dangerous legislation.

Not only are you exaggerating, nothing you've stated is true. The proposed legislation in no way bans free speech, nor does it punish those who are not as 'woke' from openly declaring a man is a man and a woman is a woman, or whatever other nonsense they want to spew.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

God you are naïve.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  There are honest people, but don't think for one minute the ability to shut down free speech won't be abused.  We have case study after case study.  

The problem is that it is easy to label anything you disagree with as hate speech.  Giving ideological government bureaucrats the ability to make that determination is dangerous.

Basically, I agree with you in concept.  It's the application that is naive.

A means of limiting the damage done by false information is certainly needed.  Censoring public discourse is one way of doing it.  But there's another one:  allow private citizens to sue both the poster and the platform for damages if a posted item is not correct.  A court would have to decide on a case-by-case basis.

Doug

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

What do you suggest we do then? Allow the internet to become a free for all where anyone and everyone is permitted to post whatever they want? That nothing be done to prevent online harms against children and other victims? You've got your knickers in a knot because of a bill that will compel social media platforms to take steps to remove content such hate speech, as well as things like child sex abuse images, and any other material that might be used to exploit children. None of that should have any place on the internet to begin with. Those of us who do not indulge in hateful speech have nothing to worry about.

There is already speech which is illegal and well defined.  This seems like you are for it being okay to add otherwise legal speech to now be forbidden depending on how someone interprets it's potential to harm someone which can vary person to person which is a bad way to do law.  We will have to agree to disagree as I believe in the right to say anything that is legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

What do you suggest we do then? Allow the internet to become a free for all where anyone and everyone is permitted to post whatever they want?

that's a lot closer to the attitude that allowed us to even have an internet in the first place than the one espoused by the bill you are promoting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

You're so paranoid lol

When it comes to this kind of thing, damn right I am.  I know what kind of society's limit or outlaw unpopular speech.

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

1 hour ago, DayoOlabisi said:

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.

I would never feel comfortable in an environment where people carried guns. Nor would I feel comfortable allowing my kids to attend an American public school. Kids should not have a need for tighter security in their schools, nor should they have to go through regular safety drills. The US is so far gone when it comes to guns, that aside from tougher gun controls, I don't know what else can be done. I'm not adverse to people owning guns, but am shocked when I see people carrying them as openly as they do in the US.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Re-written how exactly? What is it about the proposed legislation that is dangerous?

As for Trudeau, he is a god, but only in his own head lol

Not only are you exaggerating, nothing you've stated is true. The proposed legislation in no way bans free speech, nor does it punish those who are not as 'woke' from openly declaring a man is a man and a woman is a woman, or whatever other nonsense they want to spew.

The ease of accusation that someone is committing a hate crime when they are not.

Pivotal is whether the nation has gone woke or not, which Canada has. That part of the legislation requires re-writing to define what is and isn`t a hate crime, and there needs to be penalties for its misuse to prevent it being misused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DayoOlabisi said:

whoa that's not my experience working very closely with "public servants" in recent years. people are people, and people are tempted by the ill-advised. why would they stop acting like people just because of their particular job? in fact, a particular job might particularly appeal to certain types of people. i believe it's been claimed that narcissists do well as CEOs, guys who were bullied like to become police officers in order to feel empowered. i don't know if these are particularly true, but it's easy to see how similar correlations might be. what about being a public servant prevents this type of ambition? is it just the words "public servant"?

I have been a minor public servant for most of my career.  I genuinely try to do my job in the public interest.  Mistreating people and/or bullying them is not a way to get ahead in public service.

Doug

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Re-written how exactly?

Re-written to exactly define what is and is not legal.  Not leave up to interpretation.

Quote

Not only are you exaggerating, nothing you've stated is true. The proposed legislation in no way bans free speech, nor does it punish those who are not as 'woke' from openly declaring a man is a man and a woman is a woman, or whatever other nonsense they want to spew.

Is speech violence?  Many believe it is. That's the issue here, it's too easy for idealists to abuse vaguely written law.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OverSword said:

When it comes to this kind of thing, damn right I am.  I know what kind of society's limit or outlaw unpopular speech.

It's not unpopular speech that's being suppressed, it's dangerous speech. Why would you, or anyone for that matter, object to speech inciting hatred or violence being removed from the internet?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

When it comes to this kind of thing, damn right I am.  I know what kind of society's limit or outlaw unpopular speech.

Wait until Trump gets elected.

Doug

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

Just now, OverSword said:

Re-written to exactly define what is and is not legal.  Not leave up to interpretation.

That is currently underway. The legislation proposes to be very specific.

  • Like 3
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.