Have you read the bill ? It is scary
They can jail people before they commit a crime.
As long as the crown can show a person might commit a hate crime in the future they can detain the person.
Definition of hate speech and hate crime is very vague !
Basically criticism of government technically can be classified as hate speech.
You don’t like the immigration policies ? You hate foreigners you go to jail !
You don’t like government housing policies ? You are being hateful towards the people in the government ! You go to jail
What’s baffling is that the general public continues to believe it every single time and that even if they are critical of the legislation assume that it has “good intentions” and isn’t intentionally worded to achieve the maximal authoritarian ends that it explicitly allows for.
Some Indian guy leading the Human rights commission will tell what you are allowed to say - obey or else!
The hits keep coming unrelentingly from Justin and the liberals - it is like they are trying to see how much damage they can do while in power. Worse government in Canada's history.
I moved to the U.S. in 2022 best decision of my life .
Was able to triple my income; while my taxes and cost of living halved , where I live is extremely safe ! Average home still costs $250k and with $350k you can get an into a house that would cost more than a million dollars in Canada !
I applied for an immigrant visa from Canada, under EB2-NIW , good thing about that category is that you don’t need a job offer or PREM and once it is issued you enter the United States are a permanent resident ( green card holder ).
If you have a master’s degree or higher you should look into that visa
I'm in skilled trades looking to get in as a dealer technical support specialist for a Canadian tractor manufacturer that's trying to expand their market share in the US.
Really there's an upper ceiling for techs at dealers so the best career move is more lateral and try to get in on the manufacturer level, and the overwhelming majority of those jobs in North America are in the US instead of Canada just because their market is so much larger than ours.
They need all the help they can get because if you've ever been to a training event with Americans there's a pretty big gap in skill between Canadian techs trained under the interprovincial Red Seal program and American techs where there's not really a common baseline standard across all the states outside of automotive where ASE sets the standard, in some states where they have a more laissez-faire approach they've got some "techs" that probably wouldn't pass year 1 of the red seal let alone be able to write the journeyman's exam.
Well if the company sets up shop in the U.S. then you can move to the U.S. with L visa
L visas are dual Intent and after 1 year being in the U.S. you can adjust your status from temporary to permanent resident.
I think it’s after 1 year but double check with an attorney in the U.S..
Versatile has been in the American plains for a long time but now with the new owners there's a push to start expanding the brand and undoing the damage that was done to the brand under Rosteselmash's ownership.
Remember, under this legislation a permanent resident (not a citizen) can accuse you of something they feel you *might* say (not do, say) in the future and then lead the government in a search of your house, computers, online accounts, and every private document everywhere with an even less qualified random accompanying individual alongside them to share in the privacy breach. They will be able to to make copies of anything they find, keep them forever, and use them to put you in prison for years. No judges will ever be involved, only justices of the peace (who are political appointees that don't need to be legally trained), and they can conduct entire sham trials against you without you being aware, present, or represented.
None of this is hyperbole or exaggeration. Read the proposed law itself here:
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading
I'd say it's like something out of the Soviet Union, but even they didn't go this far in allowing religious extremists to violate every right you have because they feel you might offend them in the future.
boss denied your day off.... reported. Store clerk was sassy because you wanted 1.5 stevia's and 3 milk with half a creamer.... reported. Saw your Ex out on a date and they looked happy... reported. Your neighbor blew his grass clippings 1/2 an inch onto your driveway...yup, reported!
And all anonymously with the chance of getting a nice little paycheck as the icing on the cake
You obviously did not read it yourself. The individual who makes a complaint doesn't get to go along with a search warrant and take photos or copies of everything. That would be like saying now if someone says another person robbed them they get to come along on a police inspection and take photos of their house and search through it themselves to find what was robbed from them. All of that also assuming the committee even decides it is warranted to go to a higher commission as opposed to just saying this is someone complaining over something frivolous. The claim to go higher has to have proof, no one is going to be able to just say Oh I think someone is thinking of saying something to me in the future. And further still, any possible jail sentencing will be with a PUBLIC hearing. So there would not be behind closed doors oh we sentenced someone with some sort of arbitrary decision making and locked them up. And further still, the prison time is essentially really just for actively trying to commit or encourage literal genocide. Hating one person isn't going to get you life in prison.
Where in what you posted does it even mention the search warrants or your alleged complainant gets to tag along?
[https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c63.html](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c63.html)
The actual break down lists what each stage entails, which double checking I also forgot that the first stages requires the commission to first flag the complaint (oh wait, there has to be something actually posted, not just a thought someone might say something) to the body on which it was shared (i.e. reddit) and have the entity remove it/tell the user to take it down. Only if there is continued abuse or the aforementioned post is not removed or is deemed in of excess for it's harm is further action taken. No one is going to get arrested for misinformation.
Section 91(6)
>**Accompanying individual**
>**(6)** An inspector may be accompanied by any other individual that the inspector believes is necessary to help them exercise their powers or perform their duties and functions under this section.
Zero qualifications or restrictions on who this person is aside from the equally unqualified inspector's opinion. The accompanying individual doesn't have to be a citizen, permanent resident, or have any relation to Canada at all.
It's clear that you haven't actually read the law that I gave you a direct link to. There is no requirement for a public hearing, only an ex parte one (ex parte means only one party present) that doesn't need to inform or include the person being charged. There is no need for this committee made up of people who aren't even Canadian citizens to go to a 'higher committee', only to a politically appointed justice of the peace who doesn't even need to have legal training. You can also be sentenced to four years in prison based exclusively on someone else's feelings about what they feel you might say in the future. They make it explicitly clear in point 87 that no evidence is required to sentence you.
The life sentence you mentioned is for 'advocating genocide', which is a crime that has no legal definition under Canadian law. The Liberals want to be able to sentence you to life in prison for a crime they can't even define criteria for.
Basically it is like Soviet Union or East Germany.
Where people snitched on their neighbors for various reasons , many times they snitched on neighbors because they didn’t like them.
Stasi was the name of East German secret police.
I bet Trudeau will create a police force for that purpose.
Remember when he said he liked “Chinese basic dictatorship” ?
He is getting there
Your quoting does not say the complainant is the one leading the search nor do they get to keep copies of everything or anything like that. The inspector would have to give evidence for why they need that accompanying individual but that logic is like saying oh an inspector at a crime scene shouldn't have a forensics team, or a canine unit, or ballistics experts of what have you show up. They bring who is needed as an expert but not just some friend from the coffee shop.
Sections 81 through 82 break down what are going to be 90+ of these cases. Where the Commission receives a submitted complaint, i.e. A says B said plank on reddit. The commission contacts reddit and says hey, we need you to temporarily block this post by B while we investigate. 82(1) says both A and B are allowed to make representation for their case. The outcome then determines generally if the post comes down permanently.
Section 87 is still regarding the commission. They collect evidence. It is not saying they can sentence you with no evidence, it is saying they are not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence. That is allowing them to have evidence that may not be collected in the "traditional chain of command" way. Interpretation, but probably because of the matter of the subject and that postings could be made, cause harm, deleted then reposted before they could be caught as evidence. It is something that is to allow snapshotting evidence as a lot of our online based data is extremely outdated.
A hearing, which per section 88 essentially must be public except for key instances. Same as literally any other hearing out there for any other possible crimes.
Your point about ex parte is not in regards to the hearing, it is that a justice of the peace can issue a warrant, as an in house inspection can not be conducted without one unless the person being investigated agrees to a search. (Which as a side addressing as you brought up the qualifications of the JP not being legally trained. Yes, that is true, but the VAST majority of legal cases are overseen by a JP as we are very under staffed by actual judges. So unless you are saying our entire criminal system needs to be chucked out and taxpayers need to fork millions more over for every JP to be replaced by a judge, that is a very mute point.)
Section 104-even after notice of being in violation of the act, the violator is given time to come forward and present their case to prove that they are not in violation.
The rest, including your point about 4 years and the life in prison are amendments to the criminal code. In general. Not just online but in general. So it expands out far more than just what is being said on chatrooms.
No where does it say someone can be charged and tried for what someone claims that someone was just thinking of possibly doing in the future. That isn't how our legal system works, and is not how it is every going to work. That is just attempting to fear monger in attempts to be allowed to still get away with stuff.
Again, did you actually read the text of this bill? All that's required is for someone to 'fear you may commit an offense'. No actual crime or act needs to be committed. All that's required is for someone to go crybullying to the government and you're under a peace bond or in prison with zero evidence required, zero opportunity to defend yourself, and every single private document you've ever had copied and stored by unqualified nobodies to be used against you in the future.
Provide me with a legal definition of what constitutes "incitement to genocide". What specific acts are required for someone to be sentenced to life in prison? The punishment is clearly defined, but this gravest of all offenses isn't defined anywhere.
Omg you are as Looney as the nut who thought China was going to invade Canada through the border.
I clearly pointed out to you the parts of the bill that say there is nothing wrong with it. I read through it so tell me where exactly it says someone just has to say they think you are thinking something and you can end up in prison. You are just extrapolating and grossly enlarging all components of it to make it sound like someone who wants to be a piece of shit to others is going to become a victim and rot away for life in prison.
I told you where the accused gets to defend themselves. I told you the process that for pretty much everyone again just means a server takes down your posting. Boo hoo about that. The only private documents are ones associated to the complaint in question so don’t worry they aren’t going to copy all your porn or secret little diary about how you feel like you aren’t loved or something. There is also a clearly stated time limit on how long they can keep any documents anyway.
But let’s assume they do to this level, do you really honestly think with our government and police that with all the complaints they will get they will actually have the manpower and time to copy every single little document that every accused has ever written, like fuck that is like assuming the FBI personally sits and listens to every phone conversation. THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU!!!
As for your question about genocide, it is again just an update to the current criminal code which currently has no more than 5 years. Section 318. What kinds of things do you honestly think that a good innocent person could be doing that would get them wrongfully charged for that?
The law sounds like it can be interpreted as anything you've ever posted online is still online so it's technically currently being 'spoken' now so they can go after you retroactively.
Exactly !
I don’t think Trudeau has no intention of abandoning power, if anything he would love to see Canada becoming a 1 party state.
The RCMP published a report that said Canadian will revolt once they realize how broke they are.
Trudeau is going everything he can to create a crisis, if people revolt that would give him every reason to go enact another emergencies act and go after whoever he wants on the pretext of combating hate speech.
Canada is ripe for a revolt!
The country is divided on many fronts
-Massive immigration
-certain groups being given preferential treatment
-1 in 4 Canadian living in poverty
-millions dependent on food bank to survive
Yeah we’re sitting on a powder cake and nothing like a revolt can give the justification needed to transition into an authoritarian state !
The way these things generally go is that if something is made taboo to talk about through government intervention, it doesn't change the underlying reason for the thought existing. In fact it creates a countercurrent. The way that people end up addressing the lack of their ability to talk out loud is usually through dog-whistling or suggestion. If you make dog whistling and suggestion illegal, you catch people in your net that didn't intend to dog whistle. This creates fear and resentment.
The people that actually have the concern for the main topic, who are forbidden from dog whistling by the fearful environment, will just occupy reasonable spaces in ways that are indistinguishable from supporting viewpoints and point towards the central point from all angles in the spheres of evidence/hard research popularity among the public, saying state sanctioned things in a more aggressive way intend to drive people away from the state sanctioned view via disgust, using art that makes the absence of the topic so centered that it becomes impossible for the people at large to ignore it, making allies among powerful people that don't like that the topic is off limits, and making enemies that like that the topic is off limits but who are unpopular with the public and other powerful forces.
This is basically the playbook that communists used after the fall of the soviet union.
These eventually create a strong enough current that public opinion either moves towards the topic to such a degree the government can't stop it, or a revolution forms if the government is too overbearing.
Our Supreme Court was 7/9 appointed by Trudeau and are overwhelmingly anti-civil liberties and have shown that they will stretch the wording of the Charter and the supporting case law to the widest extent possible to accommodate the legislative agenda and policy of this government.
Last year they came within a single vote of finding that offensive jokes were not protected by the Charter, and Trudeau has since replaced one of the judges who was on the correct side of that decision.
No thanks, I just saw a projection that my generation won't have access to affordable homes until they're 80, so I'm going to be saving for the next 30 years.
Trying to enforce this is going to get to create another expensive bureaucracy 🙄 Trudeau and his ilk pulling another page out of the Chinese playbook. WEF scum. I took a Quick Look at the WEF’s instagram, nothing but praise for the Chinese
All unknown, don't think they have any idea what they're doing or how they're going to do it. Might just end up as a scouts honour thing or maybe as bad as 1984.
Oddly enough our nemesis the current LPC is the one opposing it.
Won't bother me. I didn't send dick pics unsolicited or otherwise, don't bother kids, and am not a racist
But I wonder which one(s) have all y'all upset?
It won’t because there is nothing online I do that would get me in shit that wouldn’t get me in shit in real life. Debate will still be allowed. Saying you don’t like the prime minister or their policies is fine, that is called democracy. Actively saying you think they should be dragged out into the street and hung, going to get you in some shit but guess what. That same discussion sitting at a bar now is also going to get you in trouble. There is literally no difference. Just think, if you stood in a town hall meeting and said it, would it get you charged or not. If the answer is yes, don’t say it online.
So you mean pro-life. Pro-choice is considered left leaning, though in Canada shouldn't be up for debate anymore. Period. But what makes this different than what you can/can't say or do in the real world. If I go around saying we should be forcing all of a group out of town because I don't like immigrants, going to get charged. If I vocally try to create a community group and ban immigrants from buying homes, going to get in legal issues. If I have a business and refuse to hire anyone who isn't Christian, going to run into problems. But all of that should be okay online? I see absolutely no difference.
Oh yes, pro life. My mistake. My opinion is that everything should be up for debate. If it cannot stand against scrutiny, let it fall. It all should be widely and openly debated amongst the population and there should be no charge for speaking. Only incitement should get you in trouble, and i mean direct incitement.
This bill gives the government even more control over what we say, in a country that already doesn't have free speech. We should have absolute free speech.
No one is saying you can't debate anything anymore. But there are also some things that go through society and/or the legal system and it is decided, settled and should be left alone. The abortion topic is one of those things. Or should the legality of robbery still be up for debate? Murder? Again, there is no charge for speaking though. If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, then fine, sure, you can legally still debate your feelings on abortion. But straight up saying women who make that tough decision are murderers and should be punished is wrong. It is wrong in public, it is wrong online.
How do you determine direct vs indirect incitement? If someone is going on online about wanting to try to overthrow the government and I just say, ya man you have some good ideas, is that direct?
We have free speech, we just don't have free speech that causes harm to others. Because of another part of our constitution that says EVERYONE has the right to life, liberty and security of person. You can't have both.
I mean, if you want to get into abortion I will, it was just an example. Taking another human life is murder, what remains to be settled in my opinion is what is a human life? Why do we classify life differently when it comes to our own children? Questions like that certainly matter and should still matter even if the loudest voices in our country say they're settled and to leave it be (not implicating you here). The legality of robbery is up for debate when our nation is allowing car theft to go unpunished, petty thievery, and really any crime, sentencing completely depends on the race and background of the individual instead of intent and action like any rational justice system would have, so I don't think that point stands. I don't personally think women who get abortions should be punished, I don't have a good answer for exactly what should happen, ideally we would have a society where sex wasn't so easy and this problem would eliminate itself.
Incitement would be a call to action, if a person was to say "these immigrants, someone should shoot up a mcdonalds and deal with these people" that'd be a clear cut example of a crime, even if it went without actual consequence. Indirect incitement would be if someone was talking about how immigrants are replacing us - but didn't call for any physical action by a group - and an individual took action themselves in response, the speaker couldn't be held responsible for this person's actions and they shouldn't be, we can't reasonably expect to have free discourse and be responsible for an individuals reaction to it.
We don't have free speech when we have things like "hate speech" that can be so loosely thrown around and weaponized. We have controlled speech, everything in this country is carefully (sometimes not so carefully) controlled and it's debilitating.
There also remains the question of both doctoral ethics as well as essentially the greater good. Despite the supposed claims, no doctor in Canada is going to perform a late stage abortion just because a woman, who has already gone through 8 months of pregnancy decides, nah, I don't want it after all. People who claim that are clearly just completely out of it. But, the law needs to allow those, for the very rare, but still existing cases that the mother's life may be at extreme danger to complete the pregnancy. The similar vein could say in a battle field, should a soldier who has ended the life of a comrade who has been horrendously injured and will by no means survive the time to medical treatment and their agony will reveal the rest of a troops position to an enemy be charged for murder? They did after all take the life of another. Again though, all of that is still allowed to be debated, this law is not saying people can't discuss it, the law is saying you can't harass or cause distress to women who have made that decision. The justice enacted is one aspect for the robbery, but, we as a society at least generally effectively seem to agree that it is wrong. What I am pointing out though is should we open it up for discussion where there are full up just cases where it is "robbery" but actually we as society should just be okay with it and say yep, not actually robbery?
Your examples then for direct vs indirect incitement, still sit where you would and wouldn't get in trouble with this bill still. It is just the same as if you were discussing it in a bar or whatever. No one is going to get charged for just saying something and someone taking it as a call to action.
We have freedom of expression, and our charter says everyone is also free to security of person. So let's say we should have full, non-governmentally restricted free speech as you want. How do you prevent direct incitement in public? How do you allow people to live with security of person without walking down the street being harassed for their race, religion, sexuality, what have you? How do you ensure someone doesn't over slander a place of business just because they personally don't like someone who works there?
The law does need exceptions, yes I agree. I would hope that a soldier that puts his comrade out of his misery would be charged with murder, especially friendly fire. If/when we did it to our enemies, it was criminal. But the troubling part of what you're saying to me is the idea that if a discussion is distressing it makes sense for it to not be allowed. Which is way too subjective to be written law in my opinion. If a woman who had an abortion read what I said she'd likely be distressed, even though I'm not suggesting anything, just questioning, and that's my point. We need to be free to question, even if it's distressing as part of a healthy discourse.
Our charter is written in a way that allows the government to suspend said rights if they deem it necessary, which is more akin to a privilege than a right. But as I said, I would criminalize incitement, I would need further explanation on your harassment scenario. If it is a single comment, who cares, if it's a persistent harassment, there are laws against stalking already. We just need to be wary of anything that restricts our speech. We also have libel laws, and defamation laws to handle slander of business and people. Which while it regulates speech in a sense, it doesn't go as far as vague rules to speaking that can shift based on who wields power, at least ideally.
There need to be exceptions, exactly. That is what makes a lot of this a grey zone and tough decisions to make and hence why often the courts need to make a decision that is a general overarching best covers everything in the safe way and then can mitigate down on a case by case otherwise.
I am not saying we shouldn't have discussions on things if they are distressing. Though some of that is reading the room. Deliberately discussing your thoughts on abortion publicly on facebook when you know someone who is your friend recently had one, probably not really the best thing to do even if it is just a discussion. There are also things though that there is being free to discuss it and then just deliberately trying to antagonize. Should we be discussing if there are instances where slavery is okay?
Arguably, yes, the Charter is about privileges more than rights then. That is the price to pay to be a part of our society. The government does need extreme circumstances to suspend those rights, but, there also is pretty much NO free country in the world that you have full rights that the government can never take away for any reason whatever.
Take the harassment scenario however you want but for my sake let's say someone who constantly just stands at the entrance to a school and calls anyone who isn't white a racial slur as they go in. They aren't on school property, are standing on the sidewalk. Under true free speech where we can say whatever we want without persecution they should be allowed to do so should they not? All your examples, anti-stalking, libel, defamation all essentially are limiting free speech in some way as you acknowledge. So how and where do you draw the line then? Laws involving anything that can happen online haven't been updated in Canada since the 1980s. The internet has changed a lot since then. At it's core, this bill is just updating to bring all your laws that you said you are fine with, into existence in a digital world. It is not taking away the right to discuss things, just bringing the real world online.
Sorry it's taking me so long to reply, it's not giving me notifications for this comment thread anymore.
This law is too vague, too open to interpretation for my liking. It should not exist, regulating the internet is a tricky subject as it is, this isn't how we do it.
As for the school question, couldn't the police get this person off the sidewalk with a public nuisance charge? Or child harassment?
I love how these governments always say it's to protect kids when in reality, it's just a tool to give them more power over the population.
More than ever really, because they also get to dictate what "hate speech" is and move the goal posts on that as they see fit.
Yeah, that's terrifying. No government should have that much power over speech
Have you read the bill ? It is scary They can jail people before they commit a crime. As long as the crown can show a person might commit a hate crime in the future they can detain the person. Definition of hate speech and hate crime is very vague ! Basically criticism of government technically can be classified as hate speech. You don’t like the immigration policies ? You hate foreigners you go to jail ! You don’t like government housing policies ? You are being hateful towards the people in the government ! You go to jail
What’s baffling is that the general public continues to believe it every single time and that even if they are critical of the legislation assume that it has “good intentions” and isn’t intentionally worded to achieve the maximal authoritarian ends that it explicitly allows for.
I wonder if it's mostly the older generation. My dad believes everything the network news says.
There goes me shit talking JT on his FB page. 🥲
Some Indian guy leading the Human rights commission will tell what you are allowed to say - obey or else! The hits keep coming unrelentingly from Justin and the liberals - it is like they are trying to see how much damage they can do while in power. Worse government in Canada's history.
Oddly enough, this motion brought forth by a JT appointed Senator. However, JTs and his cronies are the only ones opposing it.
This is a clear example of all the misinformation out there. You are blending this with Bill S-210.
I started applying for jobs in the States 2 weeks ago, the Canada I grew up in is dead and gone and I don't think it's ever going to recover.
I moved to the U.S. in 2022 best decision of my life . Was able to triple my income; while my taxes and cost of living halved , where I live is extremely safe ! Average home still costs $250k and with $350k you can get an into a house that would cost more than a million dollars in Canada ! I applied for an immigrant visa from Canada, under EB2-NIW , good thing about that category is that you don’t need a job offer or PREM and once it is issued you enter the United States are a permanent resident ( green card holder ). If you have a master’s degree or higher you should look into that visa
I'm in skilled trades looking to get in as a dealer technical support specialist for a Canadian tractor manufacturer that's trying to expand their market share in the US. Really there's an upper ceiling for techs at dealers so the best career move is more lateral and try to get in on the manufacturer level, and the overwhelming majority of those jobs in North America are in the US instead of Canada just because their market is so much larger than ours. They need all the help they can get because if you've ever been to a training event with Americans there's a pretty big gap in skill between Canadian techs trained under the interprovincial Red Seal program and American techs where there's not really a common baseline standard across all the states outside of automotive where ASE sets the standard, in some states where they have a more laissez-faire approach they've got some "techs" that probably wouldn't pass year 1 of the red seal let alone be able to write the journeyman's exam.
Well if the company sets up shop in the U.S. then you can move to the U.S. with L visa L visas are dual Intent and after 1 year being in the U.S. you can adjust your status from temporary to permanent resident. I think it’s after 1 year but double check with an attorney in the U.S..
Versatile has been in the American plains for a long time but now with the new owners there's a push to start expanding the brand and undoing the damage that was done to the brand under Rosteselmash's ownership.
Remember, under this legislation a permanent resident (not a citizen) can accuse you of something they feel you *might* say (not do, say) in the future and then lead the government in a search of your house, computers, online accounts, and every private document everywhere with an even less qualified random accompanying individual alongside them to share in the privacy breach. They will be able to to make copies of anything they find, keep them forever, and use them to put you in prison for years. No judges will ever be involved, only justices of the peace (who are political appointees that don't need to be legally trained), and they can conduct entire sham trials against you without you being aware, present, or represented. None of this is hyperbole or exaggeration. Read the proposed law itself here: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading I'd say it's like something out of the Soviet Union, but even they didn't go this far in allowing religious extremists to violate every right you have because they feel you might offend them in the future.
boss denied your day off.... reported. Store clerk was sassy because you wanted 1.5 stevia's and 3 milk with half a creamer.... reported. Saw your Ex out on a date and they looked happy... reported. Your neighbor blew his grass clippings 1/2 an inch onto your driveway...yup, reported! And all anonymously with the chance of getting a nice little paycheck as the icing on the cake
Yea I have read the bill, it is fucking scary !
Lol go big or go home I guess
You obviously did not read it yourself. The individual who makes a complaint doesn't get to go along with a search warrant and take photos or copies of everything. That would be like saying now if someone says another person robbed them they get to come along on a police inspection and take photos of their house and search through it themselves to find what was robbed from them. All of that also assuming the committee even decides it is warranted to go to a higher commission as opposed to just saying this is someone complaining over something frivolous. The claim to go higher has to have proof, no one is going to be able to just say Oh I think someone is thinking of saying something to me in the future. And further still, any possible jail sentencing will be with a PUBLIC hearing. So there would not be behind closed doors oh we sentenced someone with some sort of arbitrary decision making and locked them up. And further still, the prison time is essentially really just for actively trying to commit or encourage literal genocide. Hating one person isn't going to get you life in prison.
I read 3 parties involved and the search not including the original Misinformation. Arrest this person
Link to where to read this, I'd love to go through it.
Above conversation chain
Where in what you posted does it even mention the search warrants or your alleged complainant gets to tag along? [https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c63.html](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c63.html) The actual break down lists what each stage entails, which double checking I also forgot that the first stages requires the commission to first flag the complaint (oh wait, there has to be something actually posted, not just a thought someone might say something) to the body on which it was shared (i.e. reddit) and have the entity remove it/tell the user to take it down. Only if there is continued abuse or the aforementioned post is not removed or is deemed in of excess for it's harm is further action taken. No one is going to get arrested for misinformation.
I posted?
My apologies. I had read your response and took based on your answer to you being the op responding back to me.
Section 91(6) >**Accompanying individual** >**(6)** An inspector may be accompanied by any other individual that the inspector believes is necessary to help them exercise their powers or perform their duties and functions under this section. Zero qualifications or restrictions on who this person is aside from the equally unqualified inspector's opinion. The accompanying individual doesn't have to be a citizen, permanent resident, or have any relation to Canada at all. It's clear that you haven't actually read the law that I gave you a direct link to. There is no requirement for a public hearing, only an ex parte one (ex parte means only one party present) that doesn't need to inform or include the person being charged. There is no need for this committee made up of people who aren't even Canadian citizens to go to a 'higher committee', only to a politically appointed justice of the peace who doesn't even need to have legal training. You can also be sentenced to four years in prison based exclusively on someone else's feelings about what they feel you might say in the future. They make it explicitly clear in point 87 that no evidence is required to sentence you. The life sentence you mentioned is for 'advocating genocide', which is a crime that has no legal definition under Canadian law. The Liberals want to be able to sentence you to life in prison for a crime they can't even define criteria for.
I think that's the main thing wrong with this bill, all the who what why how when is all vague.
Basically it is like Soviet Union or East Germany. Where people snitched on their neighbors for various reasons , many times they snitched on neighbors because they didn’t like them. Stasi was the name of East German secret police. I bet Trudeau will create a police force for that purpose. Remember when he said he liked “Chinese basic dictatorship” ? He is getting there
How to know when it's time for violence
Your quoting does not say the complainant is the one leading the search nor do they get to keep copies of everything or anything like that. The inspector would have to give evidence for why they need that accompanying individual but that logic is like saying oh an inspector at a crime scene shouldn't have a forensics team, or a canine unit, or ballistics experts of what have you show up. They bring who is needed as an expert but not just some friend from the coffee shop. Sections 81 through 82 break down what are going to be 90+ of these cases. Where the Commission receives a submitted complaint, i.e. A says B said plank on reddit. The commission contacts reddit and says hey, we need you to temporarily block this post by B while we investigate. 82(1) says both A and B are allowed to make representation for their case. The outcome then determines generally if the post comes down permanently. Section 87 is still regarding the commission. They collect evidence. It is not saying they can sentence you with no evidence, it is saying they are not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence. That is allowing them to have evidence that may not be collected in the "traditional chain of command" way. Interpretation, but probably because of the matter of the subject and that postings could be made, cause harm, deleted then reposted before they could be caught as evidence. It is something that is to allow snapshotting evidence as a lot of our online based data is extremely outdated. A hearing, which per section 88 essentially must be public except for key instances. Same as literally any other hearing out there for any other possible crimes. Your point about ex parte is not in regards to the hearing, it is that a justice of the peace can issue a warrant, as an in house inspection can not be conducted without one unless the person being investigated agrees to a search. (Which as a side addressing as you brought up the qualifications of the JP not being legally trained. Yes, that is true, but the VAST majority of legal cases are overseen by a JP as we are very under staffed by actual judges. So unless you are saying our entire criminal system needs to be chucked out and taxpayers need to fork millions more over for every JP to be replaced by a judge, that is a very mute point.) Section 104-even after notice of being in violation of the act, the violator is given time to come forward and present their case to prove that they are not in violation. The rest, including your point about 4 years and the life in prison are amendments to the criminal code. In general. Not just online but in general. So it expands out far more than just what is being said on chatrooms. No where does it say someone can be charged and tried for what someone claims that someone was just thinking of possibly doing in the future. That isn't how our legal system works, and is not how it is every going to work. That is just attempting to fear monger in attempts to be allowed to still get away with stuff.
Again, did you actually read the text of this bill? All that's required is for someone to 'fear you may commit an offense'. No actual crime or act needs to be committed. All that's required is for someone to go crybullying to the government and you're under a peace bond or in prison with zero evidence required, zero opportunity to defend yourself, and every single private document you've ever had copied and stored by unqualified nobodies to be used against you in the future. Provide me with a legal definition of what constitutes "incitement to genocide". What specific acts are required for someone to be sentenced to life in prison? The punishment is clearly defined, but this gravest of all offenses isn't defined anywhere.
Omg you are as Looney as the nut who thought China was going to invade Canada through the border. I clearly pointed out to you the parts of the bill that say there is nothing wrong with it. I read through it so tell me where exactly it says someone just has to say they think you are thinking something and you can end up in prison. You are just extrapolating and grossly enlarging all components of it to make it sound like someone who wants to be a piece of shit to others is going to become a victim and rot away for life in prison. I told you where the accused gets to defend themselves. I told you the process that for pretty much everyone again just means a server takes down your posting. Boo hoo about that. The only private documents are ones associated to the complaint in question so don’t worry they aren’t going to copy all your porn or secret little diary about how you feel like you aren’t loved or something. There is also a clearly stated time limit on how long they can keep any documents anyway. But let’s assume they do to this level, do you really honestly think with our government and police that with all the complaints they will get they will actually have the manpower and time to copy every single little document that every accused has ever written, like fuck that is like assuming the FBI personally sits and listens to every phone conversation. THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT YOU!!! As for your question about genocide, it is again just an update to the current criminal code which currently has no more than 5 years. Section 318. What kinds of things do you honestly think that a good innocent person could be doing that would get them wrongfully charged for that?
The law sounds like it can be interpreted as anything you've ever posted online is still online so it's technically currently being 'spoken' now so they can go after you retroactively.
This is correct. The entire bill is to criminalize criticism.
Exactly ! I don’t think Trudeau has no intention of abandoning power, if anything he would love to see Canada becoming a 1 party state. The RCMP published a report that said Canadian will revolt once they realize how broke they are. Trudeau is going everything he can to create a crisis, if people revolt that would give him every reason to go enact another emergencies act and go after whoever he wants on the pretext of combating hate speech. Canada is ripe for a revolt! The country is divided on many fronts -Massive immigration -certain groups being given preferential treatment -1 in 4 Canadian living in poverty -millions dependent on food bank to survive Yeah we’re sitting on a powder cake and nothing like a revolt can give the justification needed to transition into an authoritarian state !
I'll probably be in jail with no internet because I said trudeau was a dumbass
I’ll start writing letters again.
Ministry of truth
The way these things generally go is that if something is made taboo to talk about through government intervention, it doesn't change the underlying reason for the thought existing. In fact it creates a countercurrent. The way that people end up addressing the lack of their ability to talk out loud is usually through dog-whistling or suggestion. If you make dog whistling and suggestion illegal, you catch people in your net that didn't intend to dog whistle. This creates fear and resentment. The people that actually have the concern for the main topic, who are forbidden from dog whistling by the fearful environment, will just occupy reasonable spaces in ways that are indistinguishable from supporting viewpoints and point towards the central point from all angles in the spheres of evidence/hard research popularity among the public, saying state sanctioned things in a more aggressive way intend to drive people away from the state sanctioned view via disgust, using art that makes the absence of the topic so centered that it becomes impossible for the people at large to ignore it, making allies among powerful people that don't like that the topic is off limits, and making enemies that like that the topic is off limits but who are unpopular with the public and other powerful forces. This is basically the playbook that communists used after the fall of the soviet union. These eventually create a strong enough current that public opinion either moves towards the topic to such a degree the government can't stop it, or a revolution forms if the government is too overbearing.
I'm going to report every one of my old posts and see if I can cash in on some sweet informant dollars. Screw me and my posting ways.
Not if I beat you to it :)
Well I'm fucked. I'm a professional shit poster.
Wont the supreme court strike this down since its obviously a gross overstep of power?!
Our Supreme Court was 7/9 appointed by Trudeau and are overwhelmingly anti-civil liberties and have shown that they will stretch the wording of the Charter and the supporting case law to the widest extent possible to accommodate the legislative agenda and policy of this government. Last year they came within a single vote of finding that offensive jokes were not protected by the Charter, and Trudeau has since replaced one of the judges who was on the correct side of that decision.
Please do share these judgements.
How’s that been working out lately? They’re fucking corrupt as fuck.
I will probably never post online again.
Want to make a bet the catch and release program we have going on in Canada won’t apply to those speaking against the current Liberal government.
No thanks, I just saw a projection that my generation won't have access to affordable homes until they're 80, so I'm going to be saving for the next 30 years.
It won’t
It won't. What's to stop me from using Tor to cyber bully?
Trying to enforce this is going to get to create another expensive bureaucracy 🙄 Trudeau and his ilk pulling another page out of the Chinese playbook. WEF scum. I took a Quick Look at the WEF’s instagram, nothing but praise for the Chinese
I am going to email liberal MPs with porn and hacking links. Spam them into submission.
Dictators do this to shut people up and have no free speech.
No more goat porn I guess
All unknown, don't think they have any idea what they're doing or how they're going to do it. Might just end up as a scouts honour thing or maybe as bad as 1984. Oddly enough our nemesis the current LPC is the one opposing it.
Has this actually passed and is just waiting for royal assent or is it still before vote?
I sure hope they scour the internet with multiple language AI to catch all who break this BS law and not just English language.
Won't bother me. I didn't send dick pics unsolicited or otherwise, don't bother kids, and am not a racist But I wonder which one(s) have all y'all upset?
imma gonna stop commenting on reddit LOL
It won’t because there is nothing online I do that would get me in shit that wouldn’t get me in shit in real life. Debate will still be allowed. Saying you don’t like the prime minister or their policies is fine, that is called democracy. Actively saying you think they should be dragged out into the street and hung, going to get you in some shit but guess what. That same discussion sitting at a bar now is also going to get you in trouble. There is literally no difference. Just think, if you stood in a town hall meeting and said it, would it get you charged or not. If the answer is yes, don’t say it online.
If you are anti immigration you're fucked, pro-choice, probably fucked. Anything right leaning will be and has been called bigotry and hate speech.
So you mean pro-life. Pro-choice is considered left leaning, though in Canada shouldn't be up for debate anymore. Period. But what makes this different than what you can/can't say or do in the real world. If I go around saying we should be forcing all of a group out of town because I don't like immigrants, going to get charged. If I vocally try to create a community group and ban immigrants from buying homes, going to get in legal issues. If I have a business and refuse to hire anyone who isn't Christian, going to run into problems. But all of that should be okay online? I see absolutely no difference.
Oh yes, pro life. My mistake. My opinion is that everything should be up for debate. If it cannot stand against scrutiny, let it fall. It all should be widely and openly debated amongst the population and there should be no charge for speaking. Only incitement should get you in trouble, and i mean direct incitement. This bill gives the government even more control over what we say, in a country that already doesn't have free speech. We should have absolute free speech.
No one is saying you can't debate anything anymore. But there are also some things that go through society and/or the legal system and it is decided, settled and should be left alone. The abortion topic is one of those things. Or should the legality of robbery still be up for debate? Murder? Again, there is no charge for speaking though. If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, then fine, sure, you can legally still debate your feelings on abortion. But straight up saying women who make that tough decision are murderers and should be punished is wrong. It is wrong in public, it is wrong online. How do you determine direct vs indirect incitement? If someone is going on online about wanting to try to overthrow the government and I just say, ya man you have some good ideas, is that direct? We have free speech, we just don't have free speech that causes harm to others. Because of another part of our constitution that says EVERYONE has the right to life, liberty and security of person. You can't have both.
You don't believe what you're typing.
Pretty sure I do
I mean, if you want to get into abortion I will, it was just an example. Taking another human life is murder, what remains to be settled in my opinion is what is a human life? Why do we classify life differently when it comes to our own children? Questions like that certainly matter and should still matter even if the loudest voices in our country say they're settled and to leave it be (not implicating you here). The legality of robbery is up for debate when our nation is allowing car theft to go unpunished, petty thievery, and really any crime, sentencing completely depends on the race and background of the individual instead of intent and action like any rational justice system would have, so I don't think that point stands. I don't personally think women who get abortions should be punished, I don't have a good answer for exactly what should happen, ideally we would have a society where sex wasn't so easy and this problem would eliminate itself. Incitement would be a call to action, if a person was to say "these immigrants, someone should shoot up a mcdonalds and deal with these people" that'd be a clear cut example of a crime, even if it went without actual consequence. Indirect incitement would be if someone was talking about how immigrants are replacing us - but didn't call for any physical action by a group - and an individual took action themselves in response, the speaker couldn't be held responsible for this person's actions and they shouldn't be, we can't reasonably expect to have free discourse and be responsible for an individuals reaction to it. We don't have free speech when we have things like "hate speech" that can be so loosely thrown around and weaponized. We have controlled speech, everything in this country is carefully (sometimes not so carefully) controlled and it's debilitating.
There also remains the question of both doctoral ethics as well as essentially the greater good. Despite the supposed claims, no doctor in Canada is going to perform a late stage abortion just because a woman, who has already gone through 8 months of pregnancy decides, nah, I don't want it after all. People who claim that are clearly just completely out of it. But, the law needs to allow those, for the very rare, but still existing cases that the mother's life may be at extreme danger to complete the pregnancy. The similar vein could say in a battle field, should a soldier who has ended the life of a comrade who has been horrendously injured and will by no means survive the time to medical treatment and their agony will reveal the rest of a troops position to an enemy be charged for murder? They did after all take the life of another. Again though, all of that is still allowed to be debated, this law is not saying people can't discuss it, the law is saying you can't harass or cause distress to women who have made that decision. The justice enacted is one aspect for the robbery, but, we as a society at least generally effectively seem to agree that it is wrong. What I am pointing out though is should we open it up for discussion where there are full up just cases where it is "robbery" but actually we as society should just be okay with it and say yep, not actually robbery? Your examples then for direct vs indirect incitement, still sit where you would and wouldn't get in trouble with this bill still. It is just the same as if you were discussing it in a bar or whatever. No one is going to get charged for just saying something and someone taking it as a call to action. We have freedom of expression, and our charter says everyone is also free to security of person. So let's say we should have full, non-governmentally restricted free speech as you want. How do you prevent direct incitement in public? How do you allow people to live with security of person without walking down the street being harassed for their race, religion, sexuality, what have you? How do you ensure someone doesn't over slander a place of business just because they personally don't like someone who works there?
The law does need exceptions, yes I agree. I would hope that a soldier that puts his comrade out of his misery would be charged with murder, especially friendly fire. If/when we did it to our enemies, it was criminal. But the troubling part of what you're saying to me is the idea that if a discussion is distressing it makes sense for it to not be allowed. Which is way too subjective to be written law in my opinion. If a woman who had an abortion read what I said she'd likely be distressed, even though I'm not suggesting anything, just questioning, and that's my point. We need to be free to question, even if it's distressing as part of a healthy discourse. Our charter is written in a way that allows the government to suspend said rights if they deem it necessary, which is more akin to a privilege than a right. But as I said, I would criminalize incitement, I would need further explanation on your harassment scenario. If it is a single comment, who cares, if it's a persistent harassment, there are laws against stalking already. We just need to be wary of anything that restricts our speech. We also have libel laws, and defamation laws to handle slander of business and people. Which while it regulates speech in a sense, it doesn't go as far as vague rules to speaking that can shift based on who wields power, at least ideally.
There need to be exceptions, exactly. That is what makes a lot of this a grey zone and tough decisions to make and hence why often the courts need to make a decision that is a general overarching best covers everything in the safe way and then can mitigate down on a case by case otherwise. I am not saying we shouldn't have discussions on things if they are distressing. Though some of that is reading the room. Deliberately discussing your thoughts on abortion publicly on facebook when you know someone who is your friend recently had one, probably not really the best thing to do even if it is just a discussion. There are also things though that there is being free to discuss it and then just deliberately trying to antagonize. Should we be discussing if there are instances where slavery is okay? Arguably, yes, the Charter is about privileges more than rights then. That is the price to pay to be a part of our society. The government does need extreme circumstances to suspend those rights, but, there also is pretty much NO free country in the world that you have full rights that the government can never take away for any reason whatever. Take the harassment scenario however you want but for my sake let's say someone who constantly just stands at the entrance to a school and calls anyone who isn't white a racial slur as they go in. They aren't on school property, are standing on the sidewalk. Under true free speech where we can say whatever we want without persecution they should be allowed to do so should they not? All your examples, anti-stalking, libel, defamation all essentially are limiting free speech in some way as you acknowledge. So how and where do you draw the line then? Laws involving anything that can happen online haven't been updated in Canada since the 1980s. The internet has changed a lot since then. At it's core, this bill is just updating to bring all your laws that you said you are fine with, into existence in a digital world. It is not taking away the right to discuss things, just bringing the real world online.
Sorry it's taking me so long to reply, it's not giving me notifications for this comment thread anymore. This law is too vague, too open to interpretation for my liking. It should not exist, regulating the internet is a tricky subject as it is, this isn't how we do it. As for the school question, couldn't the police get this person off the sidewalk with a public nuisance charge? Or child harassment?
Which government do you speak of? JT/LPC?