XPost: can.politics, can.general, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: alt.politics.trump

On 6/25/2024 10:17 AM, Alan wrote:

'More incriminating evidence

Turdeau just made thought crimes a part of your nation, you servile canuckleheaded scumbag!

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/justin-trudeau-is-creating-a-canadian-thought-police/

his legislation authorises house arrest and electronic tagging for a
person considered likely to commit a future crime. It’s right there in
the text: if a judge believes there are reasonable grounds to ‘fear’ a future hate crime, the as of yet innocent party can be sentenced to
house arrest, complete with electronic tagging, mandatory drug testing
and communication bans. Failure to cooperate nets you an additional year
in jail. If that’s not establishing a thought police, I don’t know what is.

What is a hate crime? According to the Bill, it is a communication
expressing ‘detestation or vilification.’ But, clarified the government, this is not the same as ‘disdain or dislike,’ or speech that
‘discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.’

Unfortunately, the government didn’t think to include a graduated scheme setting out the relative acceptability of the words ‘offend,’ ‘hurt,’ ‘humiliate,’ ‘discredit,’ ‘dislike,’ ‘disdain,’ ‘detest,’ and ‘vilify.’
Under Bill C-63, you can be put away for life for a ‘crime’ whose legal existence hangs on the distinction between ‘dislike’ and ‘detest.’

Despite this Trudeau claims to stand against authoritarianism.

The Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson says that under
Bill C-63, his criminalisation would be a certainty. The legislation
appears to apply retroactively, meaning you can be hauled up before the
Human Rights Tribunal for any material you’ve left online, regardless of
its posting date. Anonymous accusations and secret testimony are
permitted (at the tribunal’s discretion). Complaints are free to file,
and an accuser, if successful, can hope to reap up to a $20,000 payout,
with up to another $50,000 going to the government.

Hold on, you may be thinking, what does all this have to do with
protecting children online? So far it seems more geared towards
protecting the Liberal government online. There is in fact a section
that requires social media companies to establish plans to protect
users, including children. But if you’re getting your hopes up, prepare
to have them dashed.

All the social media companies are going be supervised by a brand-new government body called the Digital Safety Commission. The Digital Safety Commission can, without oversight, require companies to block access to anycontent, conduct investigations, hold secret hearings, require the
companies to hand over specific content, and give all data collected to third-party researchers accredited by the Commission. All data. Any
content. No oversight.

Does that sound crazy? There’s more.

The ostensible purpose of putting the Commission (and not the ordinary
police) in charge is so that it can act informally and quickly (i.e.
without a warrant) in situations where material victimising a child
could spread quickly across the Internet. What that means in effect is
that the Digital Safety Commission is not accountable and does not have
to justify its actions. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association says
in its sharply worded critique of the Bill, it endows government
appointees with vast authority ‘to interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury and executioner

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)