Davin News Server

On 10/27/2024 12:04 PM, gm wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 17:04:03 +0000, Mike Duffy wrote:
> 
>> On 2024-10-27, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/27/2024 4:30 AM, Daniel wrote:
>>
>>>> I also boil the potatoes in a brine so that
>>>> they absorb a bit of that sodium.
>>
>>> I certainly hope you've patted those brined in
>>> salted water potatoes dry before dropping them in hot oil
>>> because water and hot oil doesn't mix.  Splatter!
>>
>> Trump could revoke Daniel's 'Fry Cook' pin for such behaviour.
> 
> 
> You Canucks *sure* are "obsessed" with THE DONALD...
> 
> Shouldn't you *instead* be "fretting" about your rapidly failing PM
> "Judy" Trudeau*...???
> 
> [ *aka the bastard spawn of Fidel Castro... ]
> 
> -- 
> GM


+1!

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/new-federal-legislation-should-remind-canadians-of-orwells-1984

Now, a new piece of federal legislation—Bill C-63, the Online Harms 
Act—seeks to control language and grant government power to punish 
citizens for what the government deems to be unfavourable speech.

The government has sold Bill C-63 as a way to promote the online safety 
of Canadians, reduce harms, and ensure the operators of social media 
services are held accountable. In reality, however, the bill is Orwell’s 
Big Brother concept brought to life, where government controls 
information and limits free exchange. The legislation seeks to punish 
citizens not just for what the governments deems as “hate speech” but 
also grants the state power to bring Canadians before tribunals on 
suspicion that they might say something hateful in the future. Not 
surprisingly, many have raised concerns about the constitutionality of 
the Bill, which will surely be tested in court.

Put differently, the Bill dictates that citizens may not only be 
punished for speech crimes, but also punished when another person or 
group of individuals believes they are likely to commit such a crime. 
The legislation outlines punishment mechanisms at the government’s 
disposal, including electronic monitoring devices, house arrest or jail 
time. Frighteningly, if the government doesn’t like what you say or even 
suspects they won’t like what you might say, then you could face serious 
repercussions.

That sounds eerily similar to Orwell’s concept of the Thought Police. In 
1984, a secret police force investigates and punishes “thoughtcrimes,” 
which are personal and political thoughts unapproved by the state. The 
Thought Police monitor citizens and arrest anyone who engages in such 
crimes, to prevent personal autonomy and freedom of thought, thus 
providing the state with immense power and control over the populace.

The big government approach inherent in the Online Harms Act and others 
is antithetical to the idea of personal freedom. Famed English 
philosopher J.S. Mill was particularly observant in recognizing the 
perils of controlling and punishing speech government officials deem 
“dangerous.” In his book On Liberty, Mill stated “If any opinion is 
compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, 
be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, 
though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, 
contain a portion of the truth; and since the general of prevailing 
opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by 
the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has 
any chance of being supplied.”

Orwell’s famous novel provides a guidebook for what governments should 
avoid doing at all costs. Unfortunately, hints of 1984 have seeped into 
government policy in Canada today. The erosion of personal freedom is 
not something we should take for granted anymore.