- Reaction score
- 17,022
- Points
- 1,160
Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)
- Thread starter daftandbarmy
- Start date
At the end of the day, this legislation isn't about protecting kids at all, nor is it about protecting any specific group from being hated by some.
When Justin says "I think we can all agree that we need to protect our kids from harmful content..." that's just a way to get people to appear to agree with him, and create a false sense of consensus
Ofcourse everybody agrees that harmful things should be inaccessible to kids, whether it be firearms, drugs, pornography, or watching people get lit on fire by ISIS....that doesn't mean everybody also agrees that the government should be the filter to what everybody can access online.
Agreeing with one doesn't automatically mean agreeing with the other.
And sentencing someone to life in prison because they said something online that someone else deems 'hate speech' is absurdly draconian...you could to out, beat up a girl, kidnap her and rape her and get LESS prison time than if you write something online that someone else thinks is hateful?
We already have laws on the books for someone inciting terrorism, and for terrorism. We have online bullying laws, and we already have laws that address inciting others to commit violent acts against an individual or group of people. We already have laws addressing child pornography, human trafficking, etc etc
This new legislation doesn't do ANYTHING other than give the government additional broad yet vague powers - the very things it's supposedly supposed to protect us from are already on the books in the Criminal Code.
If anybody still has doubts about the sincerity of concern behind this legislation, just look at how it was introduced. That alone, in my opinion, is enough said...
- Reaction score
- 26,207
- Points
- 1,360
My biggest beef is seeing CHRC anywhere in the para-justice chainā¦IMO it is an over-reaching administratively-appointed tribunal that is notably separated from the courts-based justice system.
- Reaction score
- 8,348
- Points
- 1,160
I once dealt with the OHRC. I forget exactly what the complaint was. I believe it was a slam by Wynne against white males. Anyway, I got this guy and he started out with what did I need. We had quite the conversation about a number of things, including the Premieres comments. He told me they wouldn't touch it and would refer it back to her office for an answer. He also asked what I was, I told him Anglo Caucasian. He chuckled and told me to forget it. Apparently white males are not considered a group that can have their human rights contravened. You have to be something other than Caucasian to file a complaint. 
Iām not defending the new powers, but again as Iāve described above, this exactly mirrors existing powers for terrorism, where if police and federal prosecutors believe someone is likely to commit a terrorism offence, they can get the court to impose a peace bond with the exact same conditions being discussed. Thatās without charges, trial, or conviction.
The new powers introduced by this bill are taking an existing approach for an existing class of offence, and mirroring those powers for a different and newly expanded class of offence.
Any position against the new hate crime powers that rests on an opposition to the court imposing conditions where offences are reasonably apprehended will need to either oppose these same powers for anticipated terrorism offences that havenāt happened yet and arenāt proven in court, or else will have to say why these two categories of offences are so different that one is justified but the other is not.
Similar peace bond provisions also exist for cases where someone reasonably fears, and demonstrates that reasonable fear to a court, that someone is going to commit an intimidation of justice participant, or a criminal organization offence.
These various peace bonds have various conditions that can be imposed, with GOS monitoring or house arrest at the farthest extreme.
Iām only offering these details so that in this conversation we understand that whatās being proposed already exists in a few different contexts that I donāt see the same complaints about.
- Reaction score
- 26,207
- Points
- 1,360
Is the Canadian Human Rights Commission also involved with peace bonds for potential future terrorism, as well?
As well as what?
- Reaction score
- 20,352
- Points
- 1,010
The CHRC is involved in this proposed legislation. Basically, it is proposed that a quasi-judicial body would be involved in issuing peace bonds. Not a judge.
So, how is this like the Terrorism legislation, again?
Yeah? You read it and youāre sure about that? Or someone else said it so youāre going with it?
- Reaction score
- 10,553
- Points
- 1,160
And while many people are affronted by Poilievreās musings about controlling access to pornography by minors, there appears to be muted criticism (at least at the moment) for Trudeauās (via his Justice Minister) Bill C-63 āHouse Arrest for Future Potential As Yet Uncommitted But You May Actually Offend, But Letās Let The Canadian Human Rights Commission Process Complaints And Forward Them To The Courts To Prosecute In Advance Of Any Trial But A Very Carefully Thought Out Justification To Arrest.ā
Justice Minister defends house arrest power for people feared to commit a hate crime in future
Arif Virani said new power could restrain behaviour of someone with a track record of hateful conductwww.theglobeandmail.com
It appears that ātrack recordā need not actually include any convictions for said behavior.
My thoughts, if itās important enough to paracarcerate, it needs to have more than a non-judicial process justifying restriction to freedoms.
It is critical to protect the flock from the bad book.
So, to put the answer out here because Iām packing it in for the night shortly, the peace bond powers are contained within a Criminal Code amendment, and are reserved for a provincial court judge (not even delegated down to a Justice of the Peace). CHRC has nothing to do with the Criminal Code peace bond powers. The CHRA amendments, though within the same bill, are a different part of the bill that donāt interact with the criminal powers aspect.
The CHRC will have nothing to do with peace bonds for hate offences, āhouse arrestā, GPS monitoring, or anything else in the Criminal Code. Anyone telling you they will is either ignorant or is lying to you to stoke outrage and play you for their ends.
Whenever thereās a particularly contentious bill proposed, I like to actually take a look to make sure I commit to an opinion grounded in the facts. The bill itself, like all legislation tabled in Parliament, can be read at LegisInfo: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - Online Harms Act - Parliament of Canada
The CHRC will have nothing to do with peace bonds for hate offences, āhouse arrestā, GPS monitoring, or anything else in the Criminal Code. Anyone telling you they will is either ignorant or is lying to you to stoke outrage and play you for their ends.
Whenever thereās a particularly contentious bill proposed, I like to actually take a look to make sure I commit to an opinion grounded in the facts. The bill itself, like all legislation tabled in Parliament, can be read at LegisInfo: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - Online Harms Act - Parliament of Canada
- Reaction score
- 17,022
- Points
- 1,160
Bill C-63 is here for anyone that wants to review it.
Online Harms Act
Oh! My!
Edited to add - @brihard looks like your finger hit post just before mine - I'm boggled by the complexity and vagueness of this proposed act. If nothing else the Libs are building a new bureaucracy that, like the CHRC, will be totally unable to deal with the myriad of complaints thrown its way in any reasonable period of time. ... And maybe that's a good thing.
Online Harms Act
Oh! My!
Edited to add - @brihard looks like your finger hit post just before mine - I'm boggled by the complexity and vagueness of this proposed act. If nothing else the Libs are building a new bureaucracy that, like the CHRC, will be totally unable to deal with the myriad of complaints thrown its way in any reasonable period of time. ... And maybe that's a good thing.
- Reaction score
- 26,207
- Points
- 1,360
As well as Bill C-63.
Minister Virani has included provisions for complaints that could be used to determine potential future hate speech justification to impose house arrest, to be presented to the CHRC, not solely through law enforcement and the courts.
The issue is noted in the previously quoted article, but Iāll include this link to the Globe article, so folks need not double backā¦but the section I find of note where the CHRC is linked as a non-LE path to pursue house arrest is noted immediately below.
A few have already commented at a double standard of picking and choosing what should apply to those whose behavior they personally donāt like, but my point of concern remains the notably looser burden of evidence that an action described as future hate, can be elevated to an type of limited incarceration (House arrest) that has nowhere near the burden of judicial validation that you have described regarding potential terrorist acts.
The crim code part is quite straightforward. In a nutshell, any existing criminal offences committed for a motivation of hatred of an identifiable group can be prosecuted as a hate offense. Superficially it looks very much similar to how a specific crime can be committed for a terrorist purpose and thus be prosecuted and punished as a terrorism offense. Likewise, a new peace bond for hate crime, like the peace bond for terrorism. Iāll need to go through the rest in detail but thatās my first glance.Bill C-63 is here for anyone that wants to review it.
Online Harms Act
Oh! My!
Edited to add - @brihard looks like your finger hit post just before mine - I'm boggled by the complexity and vagueness of this proposed act. If nothing else the Libs are building a new bureaucracy that, like the CHRC, will be totally unable to deal with the myriad of complaints thrown its way in any reasonable period of time. ... And maybe that's a good thing.
CHRA/CHRC- hate-motivated expressions, in some contexts, become discriminatory acts under the CHRA that can be adjudicated in complaint form by CHRC. A lot of this are exempted from this, probably to win a Charter challenge. I think CHRCās numbers are expanded.
Iāve not yet had time to look at the whole āonline harmsā aspect and commission. Much bigger project. I think itāll likely be an absolute dogās breakfast and youād have to be a total masochist to work there.
Your understanding - and likely that of some reporters - is incorrect. The bill in no way says that, and does not give CHRC powers to force someone into a recognizance or even to directly refer a matter for a peace bond hearing in criminal court. Whatās being alleged is that if CHRC determines something is āhate speechā in situation A, that could be used as an analogue for what Iām terming a hate crime peace bond predicate in situation B. But that doesnāt really hold water. The bill doesnāt create any new expression-based criminal offences that CHRC would be adjudicating. A peace bond would still require convincing a judge that thereās a reasonable apprehension of a criminal offence being committed. Thatās not something the courts would look to an administrative tribunal on.
Iām not sold on the necessity for the new hate crime provisions; I need to think about it more. But thereās also a lot of fear mongering on this, much of it based on bad takes and bullshit.
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,362
- Points
- 1,160
Exactly. Punishment without due process is wrong, and will always be wrong.
- Reaction score
- 8,348
- Points
- 1,160
Is anyone else alarmed/ surprised/ perplexed that they are including comedians jokes in this? Court jesters were the only ones that had immunity to make fun of the king for a reason.
- Reaction score
- 26,207
- Points
- 1,360
Not sure that Iām incorrect. Note that I said ājustification to imposeā not āimplement the impositionā, which I would hope would remain in the hands of the courts. I will re-read the draft bill, but to be clear, I do see that the CHRC has been included to feed the courts with information that may be used by the courts to impose house arrest. I am not a fan of the latitude that the tribunal nature of the Commission has been afforded in the past and I remain to see it act otherwise.
On verra
That's a very helpful and reasonable explanation of things, and does help put the matter into a much more sensible context.
Thank You for posting that.
Since we already have laws on the books for terrorism or domestic violence peace bonds, as well as inciting violence against individuals or groups of individuals - is there really a need for this new legislation at all?
Is there a hole that exists within our current laws that requires the introduction of new legislation to plug said hole?
_______________________________________
I think the roots of people's complaints about this new legislation can mostly be boiled down to...
a) total lack of confidence in our government
b) total lack of credibility our government leaders have with the general population
c) in addition to the above, the STRONG perception by most Canadians that Trudeau & Freeland are blatantly corrupt, cover up their misdeeds, are out of touch with the average person, etc.
d) the perception by most Canadians that the Trudeau government actively does things thay are against the best interests of the country
e) the parts of the legislation that have been focused on by the media
I think the strongest source of people's paranoia & complaints stem from the Trudeau governments total lack of credibility with most Canadians, its total lack of transparency, and the very real perception that it is doing what is against the best interests of Canadians.
If the government wasn't so tone deaf, they would realize that they are not the government that should be introducing any bill that deals with online censorship.
- Reaction score
- 26,207
- Points
- 1,360
Not sure that Iām incorrect. Note that I said ājustification to imposeā not āimplement the impositionā, which I would hope would remain in the hands of the courts. I will re-read the draft bill, but to be clear, I do see that the CHRC has been included to feed the courts with information that may be used by the courts to impose house arrest. I am not a fan of the latitude that the tribunal nature of the Commission has been afforded in the past and I remain to see it act otherwise.
On verra
Similar threads
