Bill’s C-10 & C-11. If we aren’t talking about it already, shouldn’t we be?
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
Hand in hand with Bill C-11 (formerly C-10) & Bill C-18, is Bill C-63. Since Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre, Jews and other supporters of Israel have been claiming that protesters chanting “from the river to the sea” are advocating genocide because a Palestinian state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean would necessitate the destruction of the Jewish state. On the other side are people who erroneously claim that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza and that anyone who supports its war against Hamas is therefore advocating genocide.
I’ll let you decide which group is more likely to end up on the wrong side of Trudeau’s new censorship regime.
Rather than focusing on the type of crime that puts Canadians’ property and physical safety at risk — the “sticks and stones,” if you will — the government has chosen to focus on the words being transmitted to our smartphones and laptops.
To accomplish this, the Liberals propose burdening “social media” platforms with heavy-handed regulations; creating a giant censorship bureaucracy to force compliance; and re-empowering kangaroo courts to persecute people for thought crimes.
Bill C-63 establishes a new digital safety commission, digital safety ombudsperson and digital safety office (to assist the commission and ombudsman), which will be responsible for ensuring revenge porn and child pornography are taken offline within 24 hours. (Though child porn is already taken seriously by social media platforms and, if history is any indication, it won’t be long before the new bureaucracy’s mission expands).
Websites will be responsible for ensuring they have tools that allow users to flag posts and systems in place to determine whether they meet the definition of “harmful content,” which includes “content that induces a child to harm themselves,” “content used to bully a child,” “content that foments hatred,” “content that incites violence” and “content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.”
While social media companies will be required to submit data on the volume of harmful content found on their sites to the new digital safety commission, enforcement will be punted to the courts and the human rights tribunal, where the penalties are much steeper than merely having a post arbitrarily deleted.
apple.news
The bill would reinstate parts of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which will once again put decisions over what constitutes online hate speech in the hands of the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Commission (HRC) and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
The new bill creates a Digital Safety Commission of Canada (to administer and enforce the act), a Digital Safety Ombudsman (to provide support to users of social media) and a Digital Safety Office (er … no idea).
Meanwhile, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will deal with complaints alleging discriminatory practices and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal will inquire into such complaints. It remains a mystery to me which government commission the bemused, offended citizen should approach with an initial complaint.
The danger is that we have gone from the digital Wild West to a surveillance state with the stroke of a pen.
apple.news
Under the bill, condemning the Hamas massacre of 1,200 people on Oct. 7, could, under some circumstances, be considered “hate speech,” and therefore subject to a human rights complaint with up to $50,000 in penalties. As part of the new rules designed to protect Canadians from “online harms,” the bill would reinstate Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the hate speech provision repealed under the Harper government.
It is distressingly easy to imagine scenarios where everyday political speech finds itself under the purview of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Criticizing Hamas and the murderous ideology that motivates it could, to some, be seen as “likely to foment detestation or vilification” against a group, especially if the condemnation of Hamas notes that Palestinians generally support the terrorist group or that Hamas is driven by religious fanaticism.
apple.news
I’ll let you decide which group is more likely to end up on the wrong side of Trudeau’s new censorship regime.
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons wh
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make...
www.parl.ca
To accomplish this, the Liberals propose burdening “social media” platforms with heavy-handed regulations; creating a giant censorship bureaucracy to force compliance; and re-empowering kangaroo courts to persecute people for thought crimes.
Bill C-63 establishes a new digital safety commission, digital safety ombudsperson and digital safety office (to assist the commission and ombudsman), which will be responsible for ensuring revenge porn and child pornography are taken offline within 24 hours. (Though child porn is already taken seriously by social media platforms and, if history is any indication, it won’t be long before the new bureaucracy’s mission expands).
Websites will be responsible for ensuring they have tools that allow users to flag posts and systems in place to determine whether they meet the definition of “harmful content,” which includes “content that induces a child to harm themselves,” “content used to bully a child,” “content that foments hatred,” “content that incites violence” and “content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.”
While social media companies will be required to submit data on the volume of harmful content found on their sites to the new digital safety commission, enforcement will be punted to the courts and the human rights tribunal, where the penalties are much steeper than merely having a post arbitrarily deleted.
Jesse Kline: Online harms act makes hate speech akin to murder — National Post
Promoting genocide would carry a maximum penalty of life in prison, but no one can agree on what genocide actually means
The new bill creates a Digital Safety Commission of Canada (to administer and enforce the act), a Digital Safety Ombudsman (to provide support to users of social media) and a Digital Safety Office (er … no idea).
Meanwhile, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will deal with complaints alleging discriminatory practices and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal will inquire into such complaints. It remains a mystery to me which government commission the bemused, offended citizen should approach with an initial complaint.
The danger is that we have gone from the digital Wild West to a surveillance state with the stroke of a pen.
John Ivison: The online harms bill risks replacing digital anarchy with a surveillance state — National Post
If all these new regulatory bodies and adjudicators are overzealous, it will have a chilling effect on the behaviour of Canadians online
It is distressingly easy to imagine scenarios where everyday political speech finds itself under the purview of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Criticizing Hamas and the murderous ideology that motivates it could, to some, be seen as “likely to foment detestation or vilification” against a group, especially if the condemnation of Hamas notes that Palestinians generally support the terrorist group or that Hamas is driven by religious fanaticism.
Carson Jerema: Don't believe the Liberals, online harms act targets free speech — National Post
Truth is no defence under new hate speech rules
Shekels to bagels says 90% cant name the river or the sea they are chanting aboot.
That’s an example though. More concerning is that layered Bill’s C-63 on top of C-18 (I believe) on top of C-11 (formally known as C-10) where as the liberal minority Canadian government wishes to police the World Wide Web Internet…Which will, if acknowledged at all, just block content or access to Canada, as a fix towards compliance with the above layered goat rodeo.
This going hand-in-hand with draconian heavy handedness towards its own citizens (Canadians) creating a new bureaucracy and empowering Canadian human rights tribunals and the CRTC towards policing the global Internet.
This going hand-in-hand with draconian heavy handedness towards its own citizens (Canadians) creating a new bureaucracy and empowering Canadian human rights tribunals and the CRTC towards policing the global Internet.
Question. . . what idiot came up with the "abbreviation" that has three times as many syllables as the phrase being abbreviated?
Good question. Provide an example? I’d love to dig into it a little more.
Anyway, Liberal censorship overstep Bills:
*smacks own forehead* "Du-ble-you du-ble-you du-ble-you" (nine syllables) for "World Wide Web" (three syllables).
Thank you. Sometimes I’m trying to walk and chew gum and Pat belly & rub head, and so on and so forth….my bad. Yes I should’ve read back a little bit further or something.
The government pushes Bill C-63 as one to protect children from harm due to online sexual exploitation. We already have laws against that….so why bother?
What Trudeau and company are pushing is a crime omnibus bill, purporting to be about children and protecting people from things like revenge porn.
Buried within are the parts we need to be worried about.
An age old political trick is to hide such government power overreach behind those reasonable child protections, such that if the opposition parties vote against it the government can come out and say, “Our opposition refuses to protect children.”
It is political gotcha, with our freedoms at stake….& the Libs know they’re out the political door in a maximum of 20 months if not (hopefully) sooner.
“Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life,” the bill states.
apple.news
The creation of a “digital safety commission” composed of government appointees given “vast authority” and “sweeping powers” to “interpret the law, make up new rules, enforce them, and then serve as judge, jury, and executioner. Granting such sweeping powers to one body undermines the fundamental principle of democratic accountability.”
apple.news
It may be that the online harms bill is simply a ruse — a political head fake. Trudeau’s Liberals can proclaim that they have taken action against online hateful conduct without ever planning to pass it into law. The real objective, perhaps, is to trap the Conservatives into opposing the bill, which will permit Liberals to say that the Tories don’t care about hate and child exploitation.
apple.news
online harms act is akin to an omnibus bill that will not only double-down on measures the social-media giants are already being forced to adopt in the United States. Bill C-63 also includes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and several other pieces of legislation that have nothing to do with protecting children.
Among other things, Bill C-63 proposes to target “online harms,” including hate speech, with the establishment of a “digital safety” commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and a digital safety office. The commission would be vested with the authority to investigate social media platforms that allegedly aren’t compliant with the law, levy fines and carry out their proceedings in closed hearings. All these officials will be appointed by the federal cabinet.
Under the proposed act, hate speech complaints against individuals would be directed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission which, unlike the courts, would be exempt from the ordinary rules of evidence. No proof beyond a reasonable doubt will be required for a tribunal to find that the subject of a complaint before them constitutes “hate.” All that’s necessary is the “balance of probabilities” that a violation of the law has occurred.
Just who is going to be vested with these extraordinary powers? What does the Trudeau government really mean when it refers to “hate”?
apple.news
As much as the Liberals want everyone to believe that their proposed online harms act is focused almost exclusively on protecting children from predators, and that, as Justice Minister Arif Virani said, “It does not undermine freedom of speech,” that simply isn’t true.
While the legislation, tabled Monday, could have been much worse — it mercifully avoids regulating “misinformation” — it opens up new avenues to censor political speech.
A person is found “guilty” in human rights law when it’s shown that they are more than 50 per cent likely to have committed a wrong, a much lower standard of proof than required in criminal law.
apple.news
What Trudeau and company are pushing is a crime omnibus bill, purporting to be about children and protecting people from things like revenge porn.
Buried within are the parts we need to be worried about.
An age old political trick is to hide such government power overreach behind those reasonable child protections, such that if the opposition parties vote against it the government can come out and say, “Our opposition refuses to protect children.”
It is political gotcha, with our freedoms at stake….& the Libs know they’re out the political door in a maximum of 20 months if not (hopefully) sooner.
“Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life,” the bill states.
LILLEY: C-63, the Online Harms Act, misses the mark — Toronto Sun
Trudeau government is desperate to show they are taking the issue seriously but they fail in the execution.
GOLDSTEIN: Online harms bill an assault on free speech, civil liberties groups say — Toronto Sun
The two Canadian civil liberties organizations that convinced a federal court judge the Trudeau government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act violated fundamental rights — which the feds are appealing — are sounding similar alarms about its new online harms bill. So it would be a good idea for...
KINSELLA: Trudeau Liberals' online harms bill sure seems like problematic mess — Toronto Sun
“Free speech,” says Salman Rushdie, “is the whole thing, the whole ball game.” “Free speech,” he says, “is life itself.” That feels like a bit of an overstatement. But in Rushdie’s case, it’s probably heartfelt. The British-American author has faced several death threats and assassination...
Among other things, Bill C-63 proposes to target “online harms,” including hate speech, with the establishment of a “digital safety” commission, a digital safety ombudsperson, and a digital safety office. The commission would be vested with the authority to investigate social media platforms that allegedly aren’t compliant with the law, levy fines and carry out their proceedings in closed hearings. All these officials will be appointed by the federal cabinet.
Under the proposed act, hate speech complaints against individuals would be directed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission which, unlike the courts, would be exempt from the ordinary rules of evidence. No proof beyond a reasonable doubt will be required for a tribunal to find that the subject of a complaint before them constitutes “hate.” All that’s necessary is the “balance of probabilities” that a violation of the law has occurred.
Just who is going to be vested with these extraordinary powers? What does the Trudeau government really mean when it refers to “hate”?
Terry Glavin: Under hate speech bill, wouldn't Trudeau be guilty of vilifying Catholics? — National Post
Who would trust a digital safety commission appointed by this government?
While the legislation, tabled Monday, could have been much worse — it mercifully avoids regulating “misinformation” — it opens up new avenues to censor political speech.
A person is found “guilty” in human rights law when it’s shown that they are more than 50 per cent likely to have committed a wrong, a much lower standard of proof than required in criminal law.
Carson Jerema: Don't believe the Liberals, online harms act targets free speech — National Post
Truth is no defence under new hate speech rules
If the Trudeau government is serious about its online harms legislation, as opposed to just playing politics, then it should stop trying to sneak through a bad bill by claiming it’s all about protecting children.
Bill C-63 is not, primarily, about protecting children. It’s about imposing dangerous restrictions on free speech. The solution is to package the measures designed to protect children and to prevent intimate content communicated without consent — for example, so-called “revenge porn” — into a separate bill.
apple.news
With that accomplished, the more contentious proposals in the bill aimed at online content that foments hatred, incites violent extremism or terrorism and incites violence can be dealt with separately.
Yet Justice Minister Arif Virani is defending against criticism that the Liberals’ sweeping new online harms bill could have a chilling effect on free speech.
But some legal experts call the proposed changes overly broad and warn they will stifle debate.
“It’s very difficult to know where the line is between controversial speech and speech that is actually said hateful,” Josh Dehaas, a lawyer with the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said in an interview with Global News this week.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, meanwhile, says the bill represents a “serious clampdown on freedom of expression.”
apple.news
Bill C-63 is not, primarily, about protecting children. It’s about imposing dangerous restrictions on free speech. The solution is to package the measures designed to protect children and to prevent intimate content communicated without consent — for example, so-called “revenge porn” — into a separate bill.
EDITORIAL: How to fix the online harms bill — Toronto Sun
If the Trudeau government is serious about its online harms legislation, as opposed to just playing politics, then it should stop trying to sneak through a bad bill by claiming it’s all about protecting children. Bill C-63 is not, primarily, about protecting children. It’s about imposing...
Yet Justice Minister Arif Virani is defending against criticism that the Liberals’ sweeping new online harms bill could have a chilling effect on free speech.
But some legal experts call the proposed changes overly broad and warn they will stifle debate.
“It’s very difficult to know where the line is between controversial speech and speech that is actually said hateful,” Josh Dehaas, a lawyer with the Canadian Constitution Foundation, said in an interview with Global News this week.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, meanwhile, says the bill represents a “serious clampdown on freedom of expression.”
Online Harms Act not about 'insults launched from a smartphone': minister — Global News
Justice Minister Arif Virani defended against criticism that the Liberals’ sweeping new online harms bill could have a chilling effect on free speech.
So, claim you hate everyone and you should be able to skate on this one.“Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life,” the bill states.
LILLEY: C-63, the Online Harms Act, misses the mark — Toronto Sun
Trudeau government is desperate to show they are taking the issue seriously but they fail in the execution.
All with no definitions as to what is hateful or offensive.
I find the whole liberal party offensive. Can I have them all thrown in jail?
When Menzies approached Freeland with a microphone in his hand, the officer physically intervened, grabbed the reporter by his jacket lapels, and forced him against a nearby wall. “You’re under arrest,” the RCMP officer said. “You’re under arrest for assault.”
Rebel News sues RCMP after David Menzies arrested while questioning Chrystia Freeland — National Post
The lawsuit accuses the RCMP of engaging 'in a pattern of intimidation and exclusion'
No idea, but the similarities in pictures are interesting between Fidel & Justin.
Rebel News owner and founder Ezra Levant stated, “We lay out some of this pattern of unconstitutional abuse in the lawsuit and we ask the court for a remedy under the Charter of Rights,” Levant continued. “The Trudeau government has systematically violated our rights as journalists simply because they dislike our political opinions. We do not accept this and we’ve put together a legal dream team to hold Trudeau to account.”
RCMP spokeswoman Robin Percival told the Post that they do “not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.” Following the arrest, Menzies was released with no formal charges filed.
“The arrest of the Rebel News reporter was made by the Prime Minister’s RCMP security detail. York Regional Police officers assisted as the interaction took place in our region,” Constable Lisa Moskaluk, a media relations officer with York police, said at the time. “It was determined that no credible security threat existed and the subject was released unconditionally shortly thereafter.”
The Online Harms Act, known as Bill C-63, was tabled at the end of February to provide more protections for children and to stamp out online bullying and revenge porn. It also includes controversial new laws around hate speech, including up to life imprisonment for hate-crime offences.
Canadian author Margaret Atwood, who has been called the “prophet of dystopia,” is among the prominent voices, including Elon Musk, criticizing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “Orwellian” online harms bill.
Atwood took issue with the portion of the bill that says if a person “fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit” a hate crime, a judge can order their imprisonment, subject them to house arrest or insist they wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.
Reasonable grounds is a lower level of proof for a court to consider than the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt and in the court could punish someone even if they have yet to commit the allegedly hateful offence.
“The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting!” wrote Atwood on X last Friday.
apple.news
Canadian author Margaret Atwood, who has been called the “prophet of dystopia,” is among the prominent voices, including Elon Musk, criticizing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “Orwellian” online harms bill.
Atwood took issue with the portion of the bill that says if a person “fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit” a hate crime, a judge can order their imprisonment, subject them to house arrest or insist they wear an electronic monitoring bracelet.
Reasonable grounds is a lower level of proof for a court to consider than the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt and in the court could punish someone even if they have yet to commit the allegedly hateful offence.
“The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting!” wrote Atwood on X last Friday.
Margaret Atwood, Elon Musk call out Trudeau's 'Orwellian' hate speech legislation — National Post
Atwood has criticized the Online Harms Act: 'The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting!'