Davin News Server

On 10/5/2024 10:36 AM, Graham wrote:
> Conrad Black seems to think that he is the "Second Coming"!

You seem to be an Orwellian dystopia slave, Graham Cracker.

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

There’s a way of getting children to eat something they dislike – 
medicine, for example – where you bury the goods in a spoonful of jam. 
Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are trying this method with their Online Harms 
Bill C-63. But it may not go down as well as they hoped.

The stated intent of the Bill is something every decent person supports: 
protecting children from online victimisation. Yet behind this noble aim 
lurks the thought police.

This is no exaggeration. This 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.’

Is it possible, that in the beautiful and once civilized country of 
Canada, leading politicians seriously want to punish people for crimes 
they might (but actually haven’t) committed? Canada already has a law 
that criminalises conspiracy, and another law criminalising threats—so 
we’re not talking about someone who is planning murder or terrorism. 
Then who are we talking about? People who read the wrong websites? 
People who didn’t get vaccinated? People who criticise the government? 
People who go to church and believe certain types of immorality will 
send you to hell?

There’s something Trudeau and his minions don’t seem to realise. With 
the Online Harms Bill, as with the reckless invocation of the 
Emergencies Act and the debanking of protestors, they are making a 
mockery of the rule of law and of the public order they are sworn to uphold.


YOU GUTLESS SLAVE OF THE ROYALS!