Canada heading towards prosecuting thought crimes (a la "Minority Report") via C-63

[icehorse]

In proposed legislation very much in keeping with the P.K. Dick story, then movie "Minority Report" Canada's Bill C-63 empowers citizens to tell a judge that they FEAR another person will commit an offense, and the judge can choose to imprison or monitor the person who MIGHT commit the offense, BEFORE they commit the offense.

This mostly seems targeted at "hate crime" or "hate speech" (whatever THOSE are?).

In the link below, if you go to section 11 and skip down to the section: "Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime"

You can read this section of the bill which includes the sentence:

"810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit..."

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - Online Harms Act - Parliament of Canada

I feel safer already... NOT !

 

[icehorse]

An update from CTV below. I'm always suspicious when the language in a proposed bill or law provides a broad definition, but the public is "assured" that the bill would only be used in a particular way.

Government says only extreme online hate speech would be probed by human rights body

 

[Kathryn]

All I know is that I live in the US and I was told in no uncertain terms that it is not against the law for a person to be crazy. This was regarding my brother, who ended up committing various crimes and being incarcerated until they figured out he was insane (schizophrenic) and eventually sent him to a state hospital and into a program, which actually probably saved his life. Now he's out of the system entirely and not doing that well (no surprise there) but once again, it's not against the law to be insane - it's only against the law to say or do some things that may harm yourself or others. So it's a vicious cycle.

 

[Secret Chief]

reasonable grounds

I would suggest this means more than just thoughts are required.

 

[Wirey]

I'm Canadian, and a non-fan of this law. That said, there are already plans to take it to court if it is passed. The system will parse it down to what is reasonable eventually. Please note that the opposition leader has already expressed disdain for it, and will probably form the next government. A new law that leans left and will probably be unenforceable under Canadian laws and our constitution just before an election smells like an election gambit, not an actual policy move.

 

[icehorse]

I'm Canadian, and a non-fan of this law. That said, there are already plans to take it to court if it is passed. The system will parse it down to what is reasonable eventually. Please note that the opposition leader has already expressed disdain for it, and will probably form the next government. A new law that leans left and will probably be unenforceable under Canadian laws and our constitution just before an election smells like an election gambit, not an actual policy move.

That's all good to know. But it's still crazy that a politician would think this law would be a good election gambit, yikes!

 

[Wirey]

That's all good to know. But it's still crazy that a politician would think this law would be a good election gambit, yikes!

In Canada, the bulk of our population is centered around Ontario and Quebec, and that's where politicians tend to spend their political capital. Those two provinces are traditionally more left-leaning than the rest of the country, with the exception of rural Quebec (people in rural Quebec are like pissed-off Texans who learned to fight while they were wearing skates and can chop down a tree with a pen knife, and that's just the women). Stuff like this sells there. Our present Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is in for a tough election. This is both a sop to the more-extreme lefties in those provinces, and a way to get the conservatives to speak out against it so they can say "Look, conservatives want children to read pro-genocide stuff for the upcoming election. It's a bag of nothing, our courts will remove the more outlandish parts.

 

[icehorse]

In Canada, the bulk of our population is centered around Ontario and Quebec, and that's where politicians tend to spend their political capital. Those two provinces are traditionally more left-leaning than the rest of the country, with the exception of rural Quebec (people in rural Quebec are like pissed-off Texans who learned to fight while they were wearing skates and can chop down a tree with a pen knife, and that's just the women). Stuff like this sells there. Our present Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is in for a tough election. This is both a sop to the more-extreme lefties in those provinces, and a way to get the conservatives to speak out against it so they can say "Look, conservatives want children to read pro-genocide stuff for the upcoming election. It's a bag of nothing, our courts will remove the more outlandish parts.

Again, your post is somewhat comforting.

But zooming out, I don't think it's wise to underestimate the craftiness of politicians. I think most of them (all?), are corrupt, but not stupid. Take the dumpster fire for example. I see him as a sort of propaganda-savant. The fact that he's convinced 70 million people that he ought to be president is just gobsmacking. It speaks to how susceptible people are to propaganda.

So when it comes to C-63 in Canada, some crafty politicians thought that this bill would help their agenda. To me that means they know that a LOT of Canadians think that THOUGHT CRIMES might be a good idea. I say again, YIKES !!

 

[Twilight Hue]

In proposed legislation very much in keeping with the P.K. Dick story, then movie "Minority Report" Canada's Bill C-63 empowers citizens to tell a judge that they FEAR another person will commit an offense, and the judge can choose to imprison or monitor the person who MIGHT commit the offense, BEFORE they commit the offense.

This mostly seems targeted at "hate crime" or "hate speech" (whatever THOSE are?).

In the link below, if you go to section 11 and skip down to the section: "Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime"

You can read this section of the bill which includes the sentence:

"810.‍012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit..."

Government Bill (House of Commons) C-63 (44-1) - First Reading - Online Harms Act - Parliament of Canada

I feel safer already... NOT !

How does that even work from a legal standpoint in a free country?

 

[icehorse]

Canada and Scotland, heading in the same terrifying direction:

(Shout out to Canada near the end of the video)

 

[Wu Wei]

I am not Canadian, but I do own property there, I just skimmed Canada Bill C-63 and it seems to be talking only about digital content. Am I missing something?

 

[icehorse]

I am not Canadian, but I do own property there, I just skimmed Canada Bill C-63 and it seems to be talking only about digital content. Am I missing something?

Can you show me where it says that in the Bill?

And for the sake of discussion, even if that's correct, does that somehow make it less of an issue?

 

[Wu Wei]

Can you show me where it says that in the Bill?

And for the sake of discussion, even if that's correct, does that somehow make it less of an issue?

I'm just trying to understand it myself, but this is where I got that from

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

Maybe I have the wrong Bill...like I said I'm not Canadian, maybe I am missing something

 

[icehorse]

I'm just trying to understand it myself, but this is where I got that from

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

Maybe I have the wrong Bill...like I said I'm not Canadian, maybe I am missing something

Go to section 11

 

[Wu Wei]

Go to section 11

interesting, and a bit unsettling.... an accusation can get you brought before a Provincial court judge. Then it is up to the Judge to decide what to do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can you show me where it says that in the Bill?

And for the sake of discussion, even if that's correct, does that somehow make it less of an issue?

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 consequential and related amendments to other Acts​

And then there's this

SUMMARY​

Part 1 of this enactment enacts the Online Harms Act, whose purpose is to, among other things, promote the online safety of persons in Canada, reduce harms caused to persons in Canada as a result of harmful content online and ensure that the operators of social media services in respect of which that Act applies are transparent and accountable with respect to their duties under that Act.

That Act, among other things,
...
Part 3 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to provide that it is a discriminatory practice to communicate or cause to be communicated hate speech by means of the Internet or any other means of telecommunication in a context in which the hate speech is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination. It authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints alleging that discriminatory practice and authorizes the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to inquire into such complaints and order remedies.

Part 4 amends An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service to, among other things,

And there's this:

Exclusion​

(3) For greater certainty, the commission of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament is not, for the purposes of this section, motivated by hatred based on any of the factors mentioned in subsection (1) solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends the victim.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

interesting, and a bit unsettling.... an accusation can get you brought before a Provincial court judge. Then it is up to the Judge to decide what to do.

The police accuse you something and you get brought before a judge. That's usually how it works.
And the anti-hate speech side must necessarily explain why countries with them rate higher than America in ratings of freedom and liberty. Without this explanation it seems more like baseless fear pandering.

 

[Wu Wei]

The police accuse you something and you get brought before a judge. That's usually how it works.
And the anti-hate speech side must necessarily explain why countries with them rate higher than America in ratings of freedom and liberty. Without this explanation it seems more like baseless fear pandering.

This is a bit different though, in the Canadian bill...it could be your neighbor, friend, enemy or person on the street, for many reasons, jealousy, revenge, etc. Police generally pick you up based on cause or evidence. May question you on accusation... but the Canadian law had a private citizen, telling a judge you are guilty of hate speech, and you will find yourself in front of a judge.

This also comes down to how some other person interprets speech as hate speech..... it may or may not actually be hate speech, they just felt it was hateful

 

[Laniakea]

In Canada, the bulk of our population is centered around Ontario and Quebec, and that's where politicians tend to spend their political capital. Those two provinces are traditionally more left-leaning than the rest of the country, with the exception of rural Quebec (people in rural Quebec are like pissed-off Texans who learned to fight while they were wearing skates and can chop down a tree with a pen knife, and that's just the women). Stuff like this sells there. Our present Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is in for a tough election. This is both a sop to the more-extreme lefties in those provinces, and a way to get the conservatives to speak out against it so they can say "Look, conservatives want children to read pro-genocide stuff for the upcoming election. It's a bag of nothing, our courts will remove the more outlandish parts.

If the politicians were able to agree to pass such legislation, why would you have any more faith in the courts to be reasonable enough to override it?
The law shouldn't even be there in the first place!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This also comes down to how some other person interprets speech as hate speech..... it may or may not actually be hate speech, they just felt it was hateful

That doesn't seem to be the case given the exception.

 For greater certainty, the commission of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament is not, for the purposes of this section, motivated by hatred based on any of the factors mentioned in subsection (1) solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends the victim.

I don't know their laws, but I don't think they opened the floodgates for he-said-she-said hearsay cases flooding their courts.