From: CaLaVeRa <cv@invalid.org>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Biden's failed border policies resulting in deaths of innocents
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 19:01:29 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 6/23/2024 1:39 PM, Alan wrote:
> Trump WANTS the border to continue to be an issue?
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. Itâs right there in
the text: if a judge believes there are reasonable grounds to âfearâ 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 thatâs not establishing a thought police, I donât know what is.
What is a hate crime? According to the Bill, it is a communication
expressing âdetestation or vilification.â But, clarified the government,
this is not the same as âdisdain or dislike,â or speech that
âdiscredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.â
Unfortunately, the government didnât think to include a graduated scheme
setting out the relative acceptability of the words âoffend,â âhurt,â
âhumiliate,â âdiscredit,â âdislike,â âdisdain,â âdetest,â and âvilify.â
Under Bill C-63, you can be put away for life for a âcrimeâ whose legal
existence hangs on the distinction between âdislikeâ and âdetest.â
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 youâve left online, regardless of
its posting date. Anonymous accusations and secret testimony are
permitted (at the tribunalâs 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 youâre 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? Thereâs 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 âto interpret the law, make up new rules,
enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury and executioner