The Future is an Iron Muzzle on the Human Face, Forever?
The Future is an Iron Muzzle on the Human Face, Forever?
Canada's Bill C-63 Criminalizing Free Speech & the WHO NWO
“Bill C-63 creates a new hate crime offence that will make any offence under the Criminal Code, or any Act of Parliament, an indictable offence and punishable to life in prison if the offence was motivated by hatred.”
And not merely motivated by hatred, in fact, but anything that is deemed “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group” . . . Which means Canadians are now potentially accountable for (what someone thinks might be) the effects of what they say on anyone else.
Such decrees are piggy-backing on ostensible attempts to control sexual exploitation of children (if anyone really believes that). The actual result is ensuring it’s no longer safe to say anything at all, since there will be no way to be 100% sure that something we do say won’t be used against us, in such a dystopian, AI-modulated future.
Which translates to, just say whatever it is you need to say, and let the microchips fall where they may.
At least, that’s my viewpoint, and why I will continue sawing cheerfully away at the limb I am sitting on, here at the Children of Job (while feeling gladder than ever not to be living in Canada anymore).
I recognize this “in for a penny, in for a pound of flesh” viewpoint is not for the faint of heart or shriveled of cojones. But if you are here at CoJ, then you know the risks.
Because, anyway, the new Bill C-63 Canadian law is meant to be applied retroactively, meaning anything you wrote (or said publicly, or maybe even privately), at anytime, could, through a complaint process that could start anywhere, admin-ed by a Human Rights Tribunal, have you under house arrest, and worse.
And not just retroactively either, but also predictively: the bill is worded to include anyone deemed likely to commit such indefinable crimes in the foreseeable future.
All this is, in any event, part of the (post-Pandemic) new ruled-based world-order by which mandates replace laws, so the point to remember is that anything less than complete and total submission to the rule of AI will never satisfy our techno-narcissistic overlords.
And total submission might not just mean towing the party line, either, but ratting out any of your loved ones who don’t, or suffering the consequences (c.f. the new “Everyone is a Spy” bill, just passed in the US).1
Short of total auto-redaction, Canadians who have any sort of online record of speaking openly about controversial topics may as well consider themselves wholly and irrevocably compromised.
And then, simply relax.
Because there is no winning social strategy in Satan’s Accusations Game. The only honest move a Soul has is the move not to play.
From “Even Orwell’s Thought Police didn’t go as far as Trudeau,” by Toby Young, the Spectator, 20 April 2024:
who gets to decide what speech falls foul of this new standard? And what qualifies them to make these Solomon-like judgments, parsing the difference between ‘dislike’ (acceptable) and ‘detest’ (verboten)? That job will fall to a new national agency called the Digital Safety Commission, comprised of five commissioners and an army of bureaucratic busybodies, which will have the same powers as a federal court, save for the fact that it won’t be bound by ‘any technical or legal rules of evidence’. (Points to Kafka for anticipating that.) . . .
And it isn’t just stuff you’ve posted after the new law comes into force you can get into trouble for – oh, no – but anything you’ve posted, ever, dating back to the dawn of the internet. In other words, it’s a gold-embossed invitation to offence archaeologists to do their worst, with the prospect of a $20,000 reward if they hit paydirt.
The only way to protect yourself is to go through all your social media accounts and painstakingly delete anything remotely controversial you’ve ever said.
And there is worse:
Although, that won’t protect you from another clause in the bill – and this is where it trips over into as yet unimagined dystopian territory. If the courts believe you are likely to commit a ‘hate crime’ or disseminate ‘hate propaganda’ (not defined), you can be placed under house arrest and your ability to communicate with others restricted. That is, a court can force you to wear an ankle bracelet, prevent you using any of your communication devices and then instruct you not to leave the house. If the court believes there’s a risk you may get drunk or high and start tweeting under the influence – although how is unclear, given you can’t use your phone or a PC – it can order you to submit regular urine samples to the authorities. Anyone who refuses to comply with these diktats can be sent to prison.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/even-orwells-thought-police-didnt-go-as-far-as-trudeau/
Canadian MP Rachael Thomas of Lethbridge on the Online Harms Bill C-63:
There are four key parts to the bill: Part 1 creates the Online Harms Act; Part 2 amends the Criminal Code; Part 3 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act, and Part 4 amends An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service. . . .
Part 1: The bureaucratic arm will consist of three entities: the Digital Safety Commission, Digital Safety Ombudsperson, and Digital Safety Office. These new offices are made up almost entirely of Cabinet appointees and are given powers to receive and investigate complaints concerning harmful content, collect data, and develop more regulations.
The Chairperson of the Digital Safety Commission would be voted on by Parliament. The Digital Safety Commission may investigate complaints and hold hearings regarding violations of the Act. The commission may act with the power of the federal court and may authorize any person to investigate compliance and non-compliance. Penalties for violating an order of the commission or hindering anyone they authorize depend on whether a regulated service or individual commits the violation.
The maximum penalty for a violation is not more than 8% of the gross global revenue of the person that is believed to have committed the violation or $25 million, whichever is greater. Cabinet and the Digital Safety Commission can make further regulations concerning the Commission’s powers and financial enforcement (fines). Setting up a bureaucratic arm will do little-to-nothing to protect children. . . .
Part 2: Bill C-63 creates a new hate crime offence that will make any offence under the Criminal Code, or any Act of Parliament, an indictable offence and punishable to life in prison if the offence was motivated by hatred. A definition of ‘hatred’ is introduced in s. 319(7), which is defined to mean ‘the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.’ s. 319 (8) includes the clarification that the communication of a statement does not incite or promote hatred, for the purposes of this section, solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.
Furthermore, the bill increases the punishment for an offence in s. 318 (1), advocating genocide, to imprisonment for life. The current punishment is up to 5 years. The bill also increases the punishments for offences in s. 319 (public incitement of hatred, wilful promotion of hatred, wilful promotion of antisemitism) from up to 2 years to not more than 5 years.
Alarmingly, a peace bond is created for ‘fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime.’ This will allow a person to seek a court-ordered peace bond if they reasonably fear that someone will commit a hate propaganda offence or hate crime against them in the future.
If you’ve watched the movie “Minority Report” you know how scary this is.
Part 3: The bill reinstates Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which empowers officials at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to make subjective determinations as to what forms of expression constitute hate speech, and they may also decide on remedies including fines.
This will allow any individual or group in Canada to file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against users who post ‘hate speech’ online, with an accused facing fines of up to $50,000.
The legislation defines hate speech as content that is “likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.” In other words, the content doesn’t necessarily have to directly express vilification; it only needs to be assessed as “likely to” vilify someone by a human rights tribunal.
Section 13 is a punitive regime that lacks procedural safeguards and rights of the accused that exist in criminal law. Truth is no defence, and the standard of proof that will apply to Section 13 is “balance of probabilities,” not “beyond reasonable doubt,” as exists in a criminal case. As you have rightly pointed out, Parts 2 and 3 of this bill are a direct attack on freedom of speech and will have a significant chilling effect as people fear the possibility of house arrest or life in prison.
Margaret Atwood has gone so far as to say that C-63 invites the possibility of revenge accusations and the risk of “thoughtcrime.”
Furthermore, its alarming that the bill enables individuals to anonymously file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against those they deem to be posting hate speech. If found guilty, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal can impose fines of up to $70,000 and issue takedown orders for the content in question.
Additionally, the tribunal is granted the authority to shield the identities of complainants and prohibit defendants from disclosing this information if uncovered. In essence, accusers of hate speech will have their identities safeguarded, while those accused face significant financial penalties.
Common-sense Conservatives believe that we should criminalize and enforce laws against sexually victimizing a child or revictimizing a survivor online, bullying a child online, inducing a child to harm themselves or inciting violence. Criminal bans on intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes, must be enforced and expanded.
Conservatives believe that these serious acts should be criminalized, investigated by police, tried in court, and punished with jail, not pushed off to a new bureaucratic entity that does nothing to prevent crimes and provides no justice to victims. We will bring forward changes to the Criminal Code that will actually protect children without infringing on free speech. Thank you again for writing to me, and please accept my best wishes.
Warmest regards,
Rachael Thomas Member of Parliament for Lethbridge
Matt Taibbi:
Last week the house passed a bill reauthorizing FISA, America’s powerful foreign surveillance bill. Now it heads to the Senate but it’s got a big new problem attached. Intelligence agencies can already compel companies like Verizon and Google to turn over your data; a small tweak in the law however will allow them to compel virtually anyone to cooperate in taking your communications. As one Hill staffer reported to me, this bill applies to virtually anyone with access to communications. “That includes the Cable Guy, it includes the plumber or an electrician or anyone who could physically access a wire, a cable box Wi-Fi, a phone, or a computer. This one vote could force almost anyone to become an involuntary participant in the Spy State, and as Edward Snowden said about this, this is what a red alert looks like.
Transcript of video summary is available here.
The Bill passed and is heading to Biden’s desk to be signed:
The senate voted to authorize warrantless federal government searches of every American’s private papers, effects, emails, electronic data records, cell phone calls, contact lists, text messages, buying habits, purchases, banking records, social media posts, direct messages, private communications and every keystroke of every electronic device in your life.
All of it continues to be subject to the capture, review and surveillance of an unelected opaque law enforcement mechanism, and congress supports it.
Source: Children of Job
Comments
Post a Comment