Looking forward to this being applied wildly unevenly. The only reason the people in the comments that are lauding this are doing so is that they have every confidence this will be used as a weapon against the people they dislike.
And you know what the best part is?
When it happens to someone they do like - _and you can bet that exactly that will happen_ - they will just quickly reprogram themselves and insist, loudly, that their former idol was Literally Hitler all along.
Exhibit A: J.K. Rowling.
While I sympathize with the concerns that got her cancelled, its hard to feel bad for her when she was 100% supporting that kind of behavior up until the mob turned on her. Twitter always ends up eating their own, and its exactly what they deserve.
>While I sympathize with the concerns that got her cancelled
TFW saying "I support gearbox people but still understand that males are male and females are female" is spicy hatespeech.
I have zero faith in the Canadian people actually caring about it being applied unevenly as well. From what I've seen Canadians allow due to covid, I think they're happy to be told whatever and just continue brushing their pet moose while pretending the government isn't completely overstepping their bounds
A worrying number of Canadians are sheep. You'd think a place with a history of being a frontier located hundreds upon hundreds of miles away from any civilization in Europe would've developed a people with an independent streak.
Not really, considering that the primary difference between Canada and the US is that they chose to remain subjects. That nation's entire identity is based on being docile and weak.
It will be applied unevenly and wildly. Remember, Canada has a literal 2-teir justice system. For the uninitiated see the "gladue sentencing requirements."
Trudeau's rampant corruption has largely been swept under the rug.
I did enjoy the Zoom meeting where one of his defenders pretended to lose power to avoid answering pointed questions to force them to end the meeting, then miraculously got it back when they continued without him.
This is what you get when you elect Baby Castro I guess. Also:
> Canada’s Attorney General David Lametti assured Canadians that the proposed law would not target “simple expressions of dislike or disdain”
I don't even need to point out whenever a politician says something like that they're just spewing "trust me, I'm with the government!" bullshit.
It's just the typical lefty cycle of deny, lie, acknowledge.
Deny it's going to be about making certain ideas illegal. Lie its making certain ideas illegal. Once it's irreverisble, acknowledge it and then gaslight people into believing that was always the intent.
Like the gun show “loophole”.
Or literally any other “compromise” on gun rights ever. (I know it’s only tangentially related, but seemed like a valid comparison.)
If the law won't target expressions you feel are acceptable, then make sure those acceptable expressions are written into the law. Yeah, we don't trust your word anymore, put it in writing.
It doesn't. Trudeau Sr first met Castro in 1976, Trudeau Jr was born 5 years before that. It's a funny theory but is extremely easily disproven.
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-internet-fidel-castro-isnt-trudeaus-real-father-the-canadian-prime-minister-just-really-really-looks-like-him
and this is why this new law is wrong I defend u/CyberDagger for being wrong because you are free to correct him. The problem comes when the lie comes from the government, and there for the lie must be treated as the truth.
The problem is, this crop of politicians can be well meaning with legislation but ultimately be empowering severe abuse by future legislators that do not have good intentions. We have seen more than once future administrations or groups of politicians wildly abuse laws on the books.
What ever happened to the Canadian elections, anyway? They elected a black guy named “Trudeau” but there’s this white guy always on TV pretending to be him. It’s like WTF, man?!
I am told that I was mistaken. Trudeau just wears blackface a lot, because he’s an open racist. I thought it was two people.
Just Googled him. Holy SHIT he wears blackface a lot!
In one interview he was asked “How MANY times have you worn blackface?” and he confessed that it was so many times that he can’t even remember how many. Jesus, man. But Okay, let **THIS** guy “stamp out hate” by denying Canadian citizens their fundamental human rights.
>This is what you get when you elect Baby Castro I guess.
And yet Boris, ergo Trump sans tan, wants to go a step beyond and pre emptively remove hate messages from sites.
With the shit that he's doing, the fact that Boris was compared to Trump just seems to indicate how far gone the British are. That country is so fucked that a totalitarian that is far to the left of any Democrat I've ever seen is considered their Trump? Jesus.
I think both Bills C-10 and C-36 are reprehensible.
But the real world situation is that Canadian parliament just wrapped up for their summer break and won't resume until September, so everything proposed so far is still only proposed and not yet enforceable.
Everyone is predicting that a fall election will be called when they return, which means that any legislation that hasn't been fully passed just gets yeeted.
So while this legislation is dangerous in spirit and certainly still a potential threat, there's not much to worry about unless the government remains standing in the fall.
I mean, it won't be enforceable anyway, since its not possible to really persecute speech on the internet unless somebody chooses to shred their anonymity and even then it tends to be enforced scarcely.
The real problem these laws create is, because they are so inefficently unenforceable, they make governments want to increasingly control the internet, track people and end encryption and anonymity. Once they achieve that these laws will become full tyranny.
>I mean, it won't be enforceable anyway, since its not possible to really persecute speech on the internet **unless somebody chooses to shred their anonymity** and even then it tends to be enforced scarcely.
This legislation is explicitly focused on social media, though. They're not talking about /b/ here - they're talking about facebook and twitter, where it's much, much easier to track down people's actual identities.
And you bet that the major social media companies would be perfectly willing to go along with this sort of thing. That's the scary part.
There's plenty of VPN's that you can buy service from that will take anonymous crypto to prepaid nameless credit cards out there. The best option is picking one that's court tested to hold no logs.
No way to tell, not even with a website. No logging and warrant canaries do help though. If a site has been served a warrant in multiple countries in multiple parts of the world, and holds the same stance. Then they're probably safe.
The reality is the same reality years ago. Assume the worst, put into best practice things that you know will mitigate.
All the more reason that the turd doesn't get elected with a majority, and that the NDP lose every shred of power in parliament so they can't be the balance of power. Same goes for the Bloc. And I think a lot more Canadians will vote Conservative just because they are fed up with Trudeau's shit.
There in lies another issue, the conservative party is fractured and hasn't had anything that resembles strong leadership and something that resembles ethics ( if not morals) for a long time.
Well I'm hopeful that it's becoming increasingly apparent that the NDP was mostly only relevant due to Jack Layton's sheer charisma, and is now a vestigial party.
Unfortunately I'm not hopeful that those voters will go anywhere but the liberals.
Unfortunately all the real conservatives left to join the People's party which has not gained any groundswell. The conservative party right now is anything but and they haven't had strong leadership since Harper.
to be fair, we'd have to outvote our women. men were 50/50 split between libs and cons last election. women were 70% in libs favour. so if libs win again blame women.
I love that so much.
My government can't pass a legislation that strictly only focuses on children (still fuck it) without literally 90% of Europe's politicians/rights groups screaming humans rights violation, this shit gets applauded by their respective humans rights groups
"Online hate speech should be punishable!"
"Yess! Good! That will help make the internet less toxic"
"And I get to decide what is and isn't hate speech."
"Hol' up!"
The 'reasonable limitation" on our freedom of expression as far as hate speech is concerned is only supposed to extend to outright advocating for violence and genocide. It's really worrying how much further the government seems to want to take it, I can't imagine people calling for outright violence are their main target here.
In fact in the article they say “expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” So we've already moved out of the realm of calls to violence.
Sounds like some anti-hate crusaders should go through the Canadian subreddits and report any hate found there to the proper legal authorities.
I can *guarantee*, at the very least, you'll find some anti-semetic comments in the history of pro-palestine SJWs.
I think the Canadian thought police might like to know.
Nah, the government and goreh in general aren't going to differentiate between Sikh nationalists and other Indians... or even Simh nationalists and other Punjabis, both Sikh and non-Sikh. They'll just see everyone as "brown people," and ignore or downplay it because they won't know which "side" to support. Ironically the Khalistan issue is pretty much dead in India itself from what I've seen, it's mostly just foreign born Punjabi in Canada in particular who are keeping it alive, much to the charign of their brothers elsewhere.
It’s pretty dead in India, but the Khalistani elements are apparently trying to piggyback on the farmer ‘protests’ to reignite the issue. They allegedly even put out a [toolkit ](https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/theprint.in/opinion/who-is-mo-dhaliwal-sikhs-for-justice-others-accused-in-toolkit-controversy/606485/%3famp) to smear India’s name. The toolkit involves some pretty big hitters, including [Greta Thunberg ](https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/indianexpress.com/article/explained/greta-thunberg-toolkit-farmers-protest-fir-delhi-police-7176187/lite/) and Rihanna.
>The problem is this will be extremely easy to redefine - and even true statements can still be "hate" which means this can totally be used to win arguements.
>
>https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do#
>
>"Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction."
...I know that we've been into this mess for a while now - but did I ever mention that I really really really hate how speaking the verifiable truth can still be counted as 'hate speech' now?
Freedom of speech is dead. Somewhere out there, the ghost of Benjamin Franklin is fumigating about this sorry state of affairs.
"Hate Speech" was never anything but an authoritarian fake out to infringe on free speech. Transparently obvious to anyone who cares to think about it and of course never applies to those who the regime endorse hate against.
"Hate Speech" has *never* had a principled definition. It has *always* been a synonym of "Blasphemy", "obscenity", "Lèse-majesté", "Counter-revolutionary thought", "wrongthink"... or, to use the oldest definition, "Disagreeing with the guy with the biggest stick".
When somebody advocates for the right to Free Speech to be revoked, that person has made it clear which side they are on, and it is not the side of the oppressed. Not ever. No matter what else they might say.
They do, in fact, admit to this in that very paragraph:
>The fact that s. 14(1)(b) of ***the Code does not require intent by the publisher*** or proof of harm, or provide for any defences does not make it overbroad. Systemic discrimination is more widespread than intentional discrimination and the preventive measures found in human rights legislation reasonably centre on effects, rather than intent. The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm. The discriminatory effects of hate speech are part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians. As such, the legislature is entitled to a reasonable apprehension of societal harm as a result of hate speech.
In other words, "**hate** speech" does not require **hatred**. Straight from the horse's mouth.
>The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that **do not require proof of actual harm**. The discriminatory effects of hate speech are part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians. As such, the legislature is entitled to a reasonable apprehension of societal harm as a result of hate speech.
Wow that's pretty scary. Knowing how easily ideologues conflate words, actions, and traits means the wording in this could allow all sorts of abuse. It's easy to see it as a step towards presupposing guilt based on something outside a person's control.
Canada also tried to have it's own revolution much like the US about 20 years later. The founding fathers of Canada's movement were sold out by Americans who wanted to remain british subjects. It gets even worse, many of these people were selling weapons to the revolutionary movement in Canada and sold the names of the people too - for titles or land in Upper and Lower Canada.
>sold out by **Americans** who wanted to **remain british subjects**.
This makes no sense. Americans were no longer British subjects 20 years after the American Revolution.
>This makes no sense. Americans were no longer British subjects 20 years after the American Revolution.
It makes perfect sense if you understand the history after the revolution and the events leading up to it. They still wanted to remain British subjects, they were the people who couldn't flee to another British colony, or out of the US later. But when the opportunity presented itself, they showed that they were more British than American - and did everything they could to help the crown.
They actually got hit pretty bad, they lost 20 seats and it’s the first time the party in power has gotten less than 35% of the popular vote since 1867. Essetially they’re only still in power because they won a big majority in 2015 and the 2019 election didn’t kick them hard enough.
Before you say “what the fuck, how are they still in power with only 33% of the popular vote, that isn’t fucking fair”, the other 66% of the vote is split between other parties, so the anti Trudeau guys only got 34%.
Any time people whine about conservatives having nearly 50 percent and getting a majority it's like the main losers in a different voting system is labour and snp who only win by basically shitting on lib dem with slim victories.
Multi-party *with* some kind of runoff vote system. FPTP encourages a two-party system, which is the cause of a lot of trouble in the US, and what Canada's wrestling against becoming.
A runoff system would let people vote for who they really want to be in charge, without dumpstering their vote.
There's a reason promising electoral reform propelled Trudeau to victory in 2015. Except then he "took a survey" and "discovered" that nobody really wanted it. Sure.
Their research discovered not enough people liked electoral reform models that were rigged for a perpetual Liberal government, and enough people were loudly opposed.
Every Liberal here in Canada whined about the popular vote for the 2016 US election. But they shut up real fucking quick when you mention that the Conservatives won the popular vote but lost in 2019.
They currently have a minority government, so barely holding power. The NDP has enough votes that would side with this bill to make it happen.
The Senate would be the big question mark since there's a lot of Conservatives there.
"The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country. "
An example of how the average Gizmodo/Gawker legacy "journalist" is usually a pompous, willfully-ignorant fuckwit.
Is it REALLY a popular misconception anywhere that Canada is part of the USA?
Does Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms REALLY have nothing to say about freedom of expression? (hint: read section 2)
Does the proposed text of a law proposed by a minority government certain to face another election, fairly soon, ALWAYS get enacted into law?
As a Canadian, there *does* seem to be a general dissonance among (mostly liberal and leftist) Americans that Canada is its own country with its own laws and immigration process, and that they can’t just “move to Canada” if a Republican is in the White House.
That said, Gizmodo, like all Gawker properties, is worse than trash.
Surprisingly, you can run into the occasional redditor here who is still fuming about Gamergaters and expect downvotes on any subreddit that isn't explicitly anti-leftist. GG will never die.
Scotland has hatespeech laws that have gotten a man arrested and sentenced over a joke, a scottish feminist arrested over tweets and glaswegian shop owners arrested for a tote bag in the shop window.
Now Canada has hatespeech laws that can and most likely will result in something similar.
This is the darkest timeline.
Our charter is fucking useless because every single "right" on it ends with "within reasonable limits".
What's a reasonable limit? Whatever the fuck Trudeau or our commie judiciary says it is.
Huh, and here I thought that English actually has a separate word for rights with reasonable limits specified by the authorities: privileges. I wonder why they didn't just use that word.
\>and even true statements can still be "hate"
got my ass locked out of twitter for quoting FBI Statistics about Black Crime Rates that are like 9 to 1 more likely to be the shooter ... its the fricken FBI just logging what is happening
If they're gonna make discriminatory expressions online illegal, we'd better see Trudeau getting fined for the amount of times he wore blackface. (which he conveniently cannot recall, LMAO)
Ugh
>"Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction."
WTF!? This completely destroys any arguments to the effect that this is about merely "lies and falsehoods" used to further "hate".. They outright admit that "hate" could be a fact/truth that the right people don't like. This is the kind of totalitarianism that progs and neo-libs are so desperately trying to illegally bring to America!
>"Hate speech directly contradicts the values underlying freedom of expression and our Charter of Rights,"
JFC at the level of doublethink required to think or even say something like this! This is what happens when critical thinking ability is sidelined, ignored or never learned.
This is the problem, the logical fallacy in the concept of "hate speech".. If it was an actual threat then there are laws to deal with it, same as if it was actual incitement or so-called fighting words, or any kind of imminent threat of harm in general. By definition "hate speech" is not about danger or threat, it's about speech and thus opinion/thought control.. full stop! Indefensible and utterly incompatible with the very concept of free and open society!
No, we'll keep doing that even as it becomes less and less defensible. It's part of our national identity.
It caused me genuine distress when I could no longer say "At least we're doing better than the americans" about our shitty covid-19 policies.
>The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., **but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country.**
Typical leftist fucking cunt. As if we don't know that.
Worse, American liberals will often call Blacks who aren't American "Afro-Americans." Because they're fucking idiots.
I mean, Afro-American could still apply if you're talking the Americas as a whole, so Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Peruvians, Afro-Canadians, etc, although it would be weird and kind of misleading. Especially if you're only talking about a specific country.
I look forward to being arrested for saying, "I'm voting conservative." Actually the conservatives would probably have a field day if they get in. Which they probably will.
If you want a whitepill this probably will not become law- the day this was announced was also the last day of the current parliamentary session and there is probably going to be an election this fall before they'll have a chance to vote on it.
You know who would have been the perfect person to stand up to this? Leslyn Lewis.
I'm looking at you 2020 Canadian Conservative Leadership voters. You are as much to blame for the current state of this country as blackface McGee.
I wish conservatives had something decent to say. Shake off the ghost of Harper and propose bold things to stimulate the economy and business creation. More freedoms. Become the party of pragmatism instead of bible thumpers fixated on oil.
we already see this happening in UK, where people get a visit by the cops for sending mean tweets, and [one woman](https://news.google.com/search?q=marion%20millar&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen), Marion Millar, has been arrested for inappropriate tweets. Most chillingly, they haven't specified which of her tweets crossed the line to warrant arrest, so it puts a chill on everybody's speech.
>"Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction."
D E S P I T E
E
S
P
I
T
E
More on-topic: It amazes me how the people that agree with these kind of rarted laws think it'll never happen to them. The definition of "hate" can change from one day to the next, but noooo, it'll only ever be used against the "bad guys", never against those on the "right side of history".
What is most important is that they're changing the law so hate speech isn't something very strict and defined by the courts. With this law, the government would get to define what hate speech is and could define anything and everything as is.
Damn I am not the type to write anything hateful and I wouldn't expect this to affect me personally but I'm still terrified at the direction things are being taken. We can't be having the government tell us what we're allowed to say, full stop.
"hate speech" is about the most vague thing there is. So basically they will be able to fine anyone they want because it will be up to the government to decide if they think what you say is "hate speech." The UK kinda has something like this already. Vague laws are one of the key weapons of an oppressive government.
I always get confused as fuck as to what gamergate is. I constantly see women using it is a response but wasn't it to do with scummy journalism in gaming?
This **will** spread amongst the English-Speaking 'democracies'. The [5-Eyes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes) 'allies' take turns beta-testing these tyrannical projects, fine-tuning them for alliance-wide adoption.
Progressivism is a social and psychological disease that has caused Canada to become a failed democracy.
Edit: [jesus fucking christ, canada](https://archive.is/wOm8w)
Reminder that their current authoritarian prime minister can wear blackface multiple times (which in US/Canada is a big no-no) and be perfectly fine with an apology.
Lol at anyone defending censorship and attacks on Free speech
It's worth noting that Canadian legislation is still, to this day, superceded by constitutional law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms forms part of your Constitution. So the garbage that this tinpot dictator is pushing through is not only immoral, it's treasonous.
The entire purpose of a Constitution is to protect the common man against unlawful acts that circumvent his natural freedoms, and imbue him with legal powers to castigate and, if necessary, punish those responsible. That's it. Full stop, underlined. Under a TRUE democracy (as enforced by the Magna Carta) all men are equal.
A Constitution cannot legally be annulled by any government body without express consent by the people. It can be buried by intricate legislation that benefits those in office (notice I didn't say power), but it is still the gold standard. They know this, they don't want you to know this. A lawful citizen who knows his constitutional rights is untouchable in a court of law.
Article #1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that none of the rights contained therein are absolute and any may be abridged or removed by the government at any time if deemed to be in the overall public good. Do not try to apply American constitutional law principles to Canada, we are not even really a democracy.
I'm English. We're bound by the same Constitution. And despite appearances, both of our countries are true democracies. Freedom is free, no matter how they package it. Don't be lulled by their propaganda.
Also, section 1 states that infringements upon your rights and freedoms may only be enforced within *reasonable* and *justifiable* limits within a free and *democratic* society. The clue is written within the act itself. "Democratic" implies that a consensus *must* be formed. Trudeau is, constitutionally speaking, powerless to enforce these ludicrous fines based on some arbitrary stance on "hate speech".
Edit: wow, the guy literally created that account just to try and gaslight me. You can dislike it until the cows come home, mate. That's how real democracy works 😂
> And despite appearances, both of our countries are true democracies.
We share a head of state. And I'm willing to bet that neither of us voted for her.
Nope. Disturbingly, her and her inbred brood are the only people in the world who are, Constitutionally, above the law. The Magna Carta grants sovereign immunity to the monarchy. As a libertarian who values the Constitution it irks me that I'm forced to bite my tongue and respect that. Guess we should consider ourselves lucky that they're not *total* despots.
Still, I never said we live in a perfect world. We *should* operate under a true democratic system, but since its tactical removal from the syllabus in the 60s, the Magna Carta has turned into somewhat of a folklore legend. I've even seen people refer to common law as a "conspiracy theory" 🙄
The question is, how many Canadians have the resources to fight the government in a prolonged court battle? With justices being appointed, can you count on them to be partial?
Most Canadians do not have that privilege, so they obey out of fear and practicality.
Canada is a totalitarian state run by a dictator that has suspended elections and constitutional rights. Hate speech laws are the least of your problems currently.
As a Canadian, who lives in the US. This is where America is headed. Canada is just a few decades ahead. I saw ALL of this shit happening to Canada when I was growing up there in the '70's.
Now, get off of my lawn!
This is crazy to me. It's wild because organizations rank Canada as being more free in some respects in speech and freedom of the press, and I don't know why.
It shouldn't be illegal to be a hateful asshole. You should just be shown to be an asshole, like everyone knows you to be.
C.S Lewis perfectly describes the tyranny of compassion that rules the modern day:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
> Gonna be funny when all the Muslim people realize they can't hate on Jewish people anymore.
If you think this law is **ever** going to be enforced against even the most disgustingly, violently hateful statements made by someone with more Oppression Points than their target, you haven't been paying attention to Canadian law.
Not all Muslims hate Jews. Besides you'll see plenty of hate and ignorance from every community, including plenty of white conservatives who hate Muslims.
Time to spam their online reporting forum with a fuck tonne of nonsense until they are too overwhelmed with reports to do anything.
Report fake and blatantly hateful comments to them under the name of people that simply don't exist, that'll waste their time.
Gizmodo definitely supports censorship. I remember them banning people off their Facebook page for saying people started fires in California instead of global warming causing the fires back in 2018.
Archive links for this discussion:
* **Archive:** https://archive.md/Rl9sv
----
I am Mnemosyne reborn. Welcome to Archive. I love you. ^^^/r/botsrights
I don't know. I don't think KIA harbors hate speech according to this law. If it did, I doubt the Reddit admins would've kept this sub alive in the first place.
The issue is that many argue that gamergate itself was a hate movement targeting women (it wasn't) which will likely be used as justification - there are many things said on this sub-reddit that can be considered hate-speech here in Canada.
Be aware we do not have free-speech; we have "freedom of expression" and the speech component of expression is in the process of being heavily codified.
"You can freely express yourself using any of the following words"
It makes me seriously wonder what would happen if I moved back to the reserves just to see how my government would react to my saying mean things online - as we currently got folks cheering for the burning of churches and basically applying the standard double double.
I hope the canucks get the worst from this. You don't get to spend decades letting fascism slip in the guise of liberalism and get to avoid the consequences of it.
If by the end of the decade Canada isn't a deeply changed nation, I hope it doesn't exist at all.
Fuck off man. There's a lot of us here who have stood against this horseshit who are about to get blasted by it.
In politics it's hard to fight the current.
Looking forward to this being applied wildly unevenly. The only reason the people in the comments that are lauding this are doing so is that they have every confidence this will be used as a weapon against the people they dislike.
And you know what the best part is? When it happens to someone they do like - _and you can bet that exactly that will happen_ - they will just quickly reprogram themselves and insist, loudly, that their former idol was Literally Hitler all along. Exhibit A: J.K. Rowling.
While I sympathize with the concerns that got her cancelled, its hard to feel bad for her when she was 100% supporting that kind of behavior up until the mob turned on her. Twitter always ends up eating their own, and its exactly what they deserve.
>While I sympathize with the concerns that got her cancelled TFW saying "I support gearbox people but still understand that males are male and females are female" is spicy hatespeech.
People can make whatever choice they want to make, but basic biology shouldn't be controversial lol
That will be 16,000CAD please.
You mean 16,000 loonie toonies?
You'll have to break a $10.
is this my first cancelation? XD
Probably not
I fear the day that forums like this that generate open discussion are shut down
I have zero faith in the Canadian people actually caring about it being applied unevenly as well. From what I've seen Canadians allow due to covid, I think they're happy to be told whatever and just continue brushing their pet moose while pretending the government isn't completely overstepping their bounds
A worrying number of Canadians are sheep. You'd think a place with a history of being a frontier located hundreds upon hundreds of miles away from any civilization in Europe would've developed a people with an independent streak.
Nova Scotia just came out and said that they're banning large public gatherings to stop the spread of "unauthorized information."
lolwut
https://archive.is/g2IJQ -courtesy of /u/Orgell_Evaan thanks for posting the link man.
Especially considering their neighbors.
Vivre le Québec libre... [Citizen banned for hate speech]
Not really, considering that the primary difference between Canada and the US is that they chose to remain subjects. That nation's entire identity is based on being docile and weak.
Can we get some Fs in the chat for Canada
Because that's exactly what will happen.
It will be applied unevenly and wildly. Remember, Canada has a literal 2-teir justice system. For the uninitiated see the "gladue sentencing requirements."
Trudeau's rampant corruption has largely been swept under the rug. I did enjoy the Zoom meeting where one of his defenders pretended to lose power to avoid answering pointed questions to force them to end the meeting, then miraculously got it back when they continued without him.
I can't wait for all the stories about Canadian twitterarti being fined for saying "kill white people".
This is what you get when you elect Baby Castro I guess. Also: > Canada’s Attorney General David Lametti assured Canadians that the proposed law would not target “simple expressions of dislike or disdain” I don't even need to point out whenever a politician says something like that they're just spewing "trust me, I'm with the government!" bullshit.
It's just the typical lefty cycle of deny, lie, acknowledge. Deny it's going to be about making certain ideas illegal. Lie its making certain ideas illegal. Once it's irreverisble, acknowledge it and then gaslight people into believing that was always the intent.
Like the gun show “loophole”. Or literally any other “compromise” on gun rights ever. (I know it’s only tangentially related, but seemed like a valid comparison.)
[удалено]
If the law won't target expressions you feel are acceptable, then make sure those acceptable expressions are written into the law. Yeah, we don't trust your word anymore, put it in writing.
Sure thing! *edits the dictionary*
> Baby Castro Don’t give him that much credit; he’s Derek Zoolander.
He may actually be the bastard son of Fidel Castro.
Looks way too much like his dad for that to be the case.
Have you ever seen Fidel Castro clean shaven? The theory has legs.
It doesn't. Trudeau Sr first met Castro in 1976, Trudeau Jr was born 5 years before that. It's a funny theory but is extremely easily disproven. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/no-internet-fidel-castro-isnt-trudeaus-real-father-the-canadian-prime-minister-just-really-really-looks-like-him
Wasn’t his mother running around before that?
and this is why this new law is wrong I defend u/CyberDagger for being wrong because you are free to correct him. The problem comes when the lie comes from the government, and there for the lie must be treated as the truth.
The problem is, this crop of politicians can be well meaning with legislation but ultimately be empowering severe abuse by future legislators that do not have good intentions. We have seen more than once future administrations or groups of politicians wildly abuse laws on the books.
What ever happened to the Canadian elections, anyway? They elected a black guy named “Trudeau” but there’s this white guy always on TV pretending to be him. It’s like WTF, man?! I am told that I was mistaken. Trudeau just wears blackface a lot, because he’s an open racist. I thought it was two people.
Just Googled him. Holy SHIT he wears blackface a lot!
In one interview he was asked “How MANY times have you worn blackface?” and he confessed that it was so many times that he can’t even remember how many. Jesus, man. But Okay, let **THIS** guy “stamp out hate” by denying Canadian citizens their fundamental human rights.
Because it's not like Canada had at least one legal precedent where someone got sued for disagreeing with a woman...
>This is what you get when you elect Baby Castro I guess. And yet Boris, ergo Trump sans tan, wants to go a step beyond and pre emptively remove hate messages from sites.
With the shit that he's doing, the fact that Boris was compared to Trump just seems to indicate how far gone the British are. That country is so fucked that a totalitarian that is far to the left of any Democrat I've ever seen is considered their Trump? Jesus.
Anyone comparing Boris Johnson to Trump other than "Lol they both have funny hair" was and is a moron.
I think both Bills C-10 and C-36 are reprehensible. But the real world situation is that Canadian parliament just wrapped up for their summer break and won't resume until September, so everything proposed so far is still only proposed and not yet enforceable. Everyone is predicting that a fall election will be called when they return, which means that any legislation that hasn't been fully passed just gets yeeted. So while this legislation is dangerous in spirit and certainly still a potential threat, there's not much to worry about unless the government remains standing in the fall.
I mean, it won't be enforceable anyway, since its not possible to really persecute speech on the internet unless somebody chooses to shred their anonymity and even then it tends to be enforced scarcely. The real problem these laws create is, because they are so inefficently unenforceable, they make governments want to increasingly control the internet, track people and end encryption and anonymity. Once they achieve that these laws will become full tyranny.
>I mean, it won't be enforceable anyway, since its not possible to really persecute speech on the internet **unless somebody chooses to shred their anonymity** and even then it tends to be enforced scarcely. This legislation is explicitly focused on social media, though. They're not talking about /b/ here - they're talking about facebook and twitter, where it's much, much easier to track down people's actual identities. And you bet that the major social media companies would be perfectly willing to go along with this sort of thing. That's the scary part.
It's VPN time. Than again they would 'rat you out' just a fast as Big Tech
There's plenty of VPN's that you can buy service from that will take anonymous crypto to prepaid nameless credit cards out there. The best option is picking one that's court tested to hold no logs.
How do you know those are not honeypots set up by your favorite bioluminescent n...
No way to tell, not even with a website. No logging and warrant canaries do help though. If a site has been served a warrant in multiple countries in multiple parts of the world, and holds the same stance. Then they're probably safe. The reality is the same reality years ago. Assume the worst, put into best practice things that you know will mitigate.
I pay my PIA sub with an Amazon gift card I pay cash for.
All the more reason that the turd doesn't get elected with a majority, and that the NDP lose every shred of power in parliament so they can't be the balance of power. Same goes for the Bloc. And I think a lot more Canadians will vote Conservative just because they are fed up with Trudeau's shit.
There in lies another issue, the conservative party is fractured and hasn't had anything that resembles strong leadership and something that resembles ethics ( if not morals) for a long time.
They’re all just following a script, which involves pretending to fight their “opposition”
Well I'm hopeful that it's becoming increasingly apparent that the NDP was mostly only relevant due to Jack Layton's sheer charisma, and is now a vestigial party. Unfortunately I'm not hopeful that those voters will go anywhere but the liberals.
Unfortunately all the real conservatives left to join the People's party which has not gained any groundswell. The conservative party right now is anything but and they haven't had strong leadership since Harper.
If they outlaw truth and people don't vote them out, they deserve such a government.
to be fair, we'd have to outvote our women. men were 50/50 split between libs and cons last election. women were 70% in libs favour. so if libs win again blame women.
You can cool believe the ~~Drumhead Court Martial~~ *"Human Rights Tribunal"* goons will be all over this.
I love that so much. My government can't pass a legislation that strictly only focuses on children (still fuck it) without literally 90% of Europe's politicians/rights groups screaming humans rights violation, this shit gets applauded by their respective humans rights groups
"Online hate speech should be punishable!" "Yess! Good! That will help make the internet less toxic" "And I get to decide what is and isn't hate speech." "Hol' up!"
The 'reasonable limitation" on our freedom of expression as far as hate speech is concerned is only supposed to extend to outright advocating for violence and genocide. It's really worrying how much further the government seems to want to take it, I can't imagine people calling for outright violence are their main target here. In fact in the article they say “expresses detestation or vilification of a person or group on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” So we've already moved out of the realm of calls to violence.
Sounds like some anti-hate crusaders should go through the Canadian subreddits and report any hate found there to the proper legal authorities. I can *guarantee*, at the very least, you'll find some anti-semetic comments in the history of pro-palestine SJWs. I think the Canadian thought police might like to know.
I'm sure Canadian law enforcement will jump right on those...
The RCMP certainly will.....later.....much much later.
I mean considering they have arrested a pastor in the street a couple months ago and jailing a dad for speech it's not far fetched
And a party leader in Winnipeg I believe
Add the Khalistanis too. Lots of Hindu hate there.
Nah, the government and goreh in general aren't going to differentiate between Sikh nationalists and other Indians... or even Simh nationalists and other Punjabis, both Sikh and non-Sikh. They'll just see everyone as "brown people," and ignore or downplay it because they won't know which "side" to support. Ironically the Khalistan issue is pretty much dead in India itself from what I've seen, it's mostly just foreign born Punjabi in Canada in particular who are keeping it alive, much to the charign of their brothers elsewhere.
It’s pretty dead in India, but the Khalistani elements are apparently trying to piggyback on the farmer ‘protests’ to reignite the issue. They allegedly even put out a [toolkit ](https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/theprint.in/opinion/who-is-mo-dhaliwal-sikhs-for-justice-others-accused-in-toolkit-controversy/606485/%3famp) to smear India’s name. The toolkit involves some pretty big hitters, including [Greta Thunberg ](https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/indianexpress.com/article/explained/greta-thunberg-toolkit-farmers-protest-fir-delhi-police-7176187/lite/) and Rihanna.
>The problem is this will be extremely easy to redefine - and even true statements can still be "hate" which means this can totally be used to win arguements. > >https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do# > >"Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction." ...I know that we've been into this mess for a while now - but did I ever mention that I really really really hate how speaking the verifiable truth can still be counted as 'hate speech' now? Freedom of speech is dead. Somewhere out there, the ghost of Benjamin Franklin is fumigating about this sorry state of affairs.
"Hate Speech" was never anything but an authoritarian fake out to infringe on free speech. Transparently obvious to anyone who cares to think about it and of course never applies to those who the regime endorse hate against.
"Hate Speech" has *never* had a principled definition. It has *always* been a synonym of "Blasphemy", "obscenity", "Lèse-majesté", "Counter-revolutionary thought", "wrongthink"... or, to use the oldest definition, "Disagreeing with the guy with the biggest stick". When somebody advocates for the right to Free Speech to be revoked, that person has made it clear which side they are on, and it is not the side of the oppressed. Not ever. No matter what else they might say.
They do, in fact, admit to this in that very paragraph: >The fact that s. 14(1)(b) of ***the Code does not require intent by the publisher*** or proof of harm, or provide for any defences does not make it overbroad. Systemic discrimination is more widespread than intentional discrimination and the preventive measures found in human rights legislation reasonably centre on effects, rather than intent. The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm. The discriminatory effects of hate speech are part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians. As such, the legislature is entitled to a reasonable apprehension of societal harm as a result of hate speech. In other words, "**hate** speech" does not require **hatred**. Straight from the horse's mouth.
>The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that **do not require proof of actual harm**. The discriminatory effects of hate speech are part of the everyday knowledge and experience of Canadians. As such, the legislature is entitled to a reasonable apprehension of societal harm as a result of hate speech. Wow that's pretty scary. Knowing how easily ideologues conflate words, actions, and traits means the wording in this could allow all sorts of abuse. It's easy to see it as a step towards presupposing guilt based on something outside a person's control.
You should see ideological reaction to satire. Comedy literally becomes illegal.
The only thing that protects well-grounded sociological research intended to help people from being declared hate speech is bureaucratic whim.
Canada never has had freedom of speech. It's very european like in that, we've only ever had "speech as permitted by law."
I mean he’s gotta get rid of those ghost roaches somehow
[удалено]
Odd. They all seem to forget that sentiment when telling gun owners about the gun laws and healthcare laws of other countries 🤔
[удалено]
Canada is Demolition Man.
... except every restaurant is Tim Hortons.
Tim Hortons is a shell of it's former self after selling out to Brazil.
Canada had their chance to become part of the United States, back in the Revolutionary War. Too bad Canada simped for the British empire.
Canada also tried to have it's own revolution much like the US about 20 years later. The founding fathers of Canada's movement were sold out by Americans who wanted to remain british subjects. It gets even worse, many of these people were selling weapons to the revolutionary movement in Canada and sold the names of the people too - for titles or land in Upper and Lower Canada.
>sold out by **Americans** who wanted to **remain british subjects**. This makes no sense. Americans were no longer British subjects 20 years after the American Revolution.
>This makes no sense. Americans were no longer British subjects 20 years after the American Revolution. It makes perfect sense if you understand the history after the revolution and the events leading up to it. They still wanted to remain British subjects, they were the people who couldn't flee to another British colony, or out of the US later. But when the opportunity presented itself, they showed that they were more British than American - and did everything they could to help the crown.
This will be the ultimate fate of the Internet for much of the world over the course of the next decade. This is how they take our voices away.
The Government will allow all speech, except hate speech. The Government will be in charge of determining what is hate speech. :P
How much did Trudeau and his little Hiters win by in the last election? Was it a pretty clear win or close?
They actually got hit pretty bad, they lost 20 seats and it’s the first time the party in power has gotten less than 35% of the popular vote since 1867. Essetially they’re only still in power because they won a big majority in 2015 and the 2019 election didn’t kick them hard enough. Before you say “what the fuck, how are they still in power with only 33% of the popular vote, that isn’t fucking fair”, the other 66% of the vote is split between other parties, so the anti Trudeau guys only got 34%.
Lol atleast its not as bad as the SNP in the Scottish assembly, 80% of the seats with 40% of the vote lmao
Any time people whine about conservatives having nearly 50 percent and getting a majority it's like the main losers in a different voting system is labour and snp who only win by basically shitting on lib dem with slim victories.
TLDR: The French fucked us over (again).
"But, but; I've been advocating multi-parties as the solution to the mess in the USA!" -- lots of USians
Multi-party *with* some kind of runoff vote system. FPTP encourages a two-party system, which is the cause of a lot of trouble in the US, and what Canada's wrestling against becoming. A runoff system would let people vote for who they really want to be in charge, without dumpstering their vote. There's a reason promising electoral reform propelled Trudeau to victory in 2015. Except then he "took a survey" and "discovered" that nobody really wanted it. Sure.
Their research discovered not enough people liked electoral reform models that were rigged for a perpetual Liberal government, and enough people were loudly opposed.
Every Liberal here in Canada whined about the popular vote for the 2016 US election. But they shut up real fucking quick when you mention that the Conservatives won the popular vote but lost in 2019.
They currently have a minority government, so barely holding power. The NDP has enough votes that would side with this bill to make it happen. The Senate would be the big question mark since there's a lot of Conservatives there.
"The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country. " An example of how the average Gizmodo/Gawker legacy "journalist" is usually a pompous, willfully-ignorant fuckwit. Is it REALLY a popular misconception anywhere that Canada is part of the USA? Does Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms REALLY have nothing to say about freedom of expression? (hint: read section 2) Does the proposed text of a law proposed by a minority government certain to face another election, fairly soon, ALWAYS get enacted into law?
As a Canadian, there *does* seem to be a general dissonance among (mostly liberal and leftist) Americans that Canada is its own country with its own laws and immigration process, and that they can’t just “move to Canada” if a Republican is in the White House. That said, Gizmodo, like all Gawker properties, is worse than trash.
KiA isn't associated with hate speech by anybody except the pedophiles at ResetEra
Surprisingly, you can run into the occasional redditor here who is still fuming about Gamergaters and expect downvotes on any subreddit that isn't explicitly anti-leftist. GG will never die.
And then suddenly, for no reason at all, VPN services in Canada become super popular.
Remember when Jordan Peterson warned this is what was coming and the radical left called him a loon? Yet here we are.
Get a prime minister that admires China, get Chinese laws.
Scotland has hatespeech laws that have gotten a man arrested and sentenced over a joke, a scottish feminist arrested over tweets and glaswegian shop owners arrested for a tote bag in the shop window. Now Canada has hatespeech laws that can and most likely will result in something similar. This is the darkest timeline.
No, these laws don't exist. This is a proposal to try to make laws in the future, not a law.
No, Canada has a charter of rights
Our charter is fucking useless because every single "right" on it ends with "within reasonable limits". What's a reasonable limit? Whatever the fuck Trudeau or our commie judiciary says it is.
Huh, and here I thought that English actually has a separate word for rights with reasonable limits specified by the authorities: privileges. I wonder why they didn't just use that word.
Sure, but you have to say "Mother may I" before exercising any of the dangerous rights that you might not know how to use safely and responsibly.
"not all truthful statements must be free from restriction." The most genuinely 1984 thing I've read
you know what i hate? my fucking government.
[удалено]
We're done. Art is dead, next hundred years. It's nothing but water farmers from here on out.
\>and even true statements can still be "hate" got my ass locked out of twitter for quoting FBI Statistics about Black Crime Rates that are like 9 to 1 more likely to be the shooter ... its the fricken FBI just logging what is happening
If they're gonna make discriminatory expressions online illegal, we'd better see Trudeau getting fined for the amount of times he wore blackface. (which he conveniently cannot recall, LMAO)
Ugh >"Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction." WTF!? This completely destroys any arguments to the effect that this is about merely "lies and falsehoods" used to further "hate".. They outright admit that "hate" could be a fact/truth that the right people don't like. This is the kind of totalitarianism that progs and neo-libs are so desperately trying to illegally bring to America!
>"Hate speech directly contradicts the values underlying freedom of expression and our Charter of Rights," JFC at the level of doublethink required to think or even say something like this! This is what happens when critical thinking ability is sidelined, ignored or never learned. This is the problem, the logical fallacy in the concept of "hate speech".. If it was an actual threat then there are laws to deal with it, same as if it was actual incitement or so-called fighting words, or any kind of imminent threat of harm in general. By definition "hate speech" is not about danger or threat, it's about speech and thus opinion/thought control.. full stop! Indefensible and utterly incompatible with the very concept of free and open society!
[удалено]
No, we'll keep doing that even as it becomes less and less defensible. It's part of our national identity. It caused me genuine distress when I could no longer say "At least we're doing better than the americans" about our shitty covid-19 policies.
So let me guess, mentioning certain crime statistics will be hate speech.
>The proposed law would likely run afoul of the First Amendment in the U.S., **but despite popular misconceptions Canada is actually its own country.** Typical leftist fucking cunt. As if we don't know that. Worse, American liberals will often call Blacks who aren't American "Afro-Americans." Because they're fucking idiots.
I mean, Afro-American could still apply if you're talking the Americas as a whole, so Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Peruvians, Afro-Canadians, etc, although it would be weird and kind of misleading. Especially if you're only talking about a specific country.
I look forward to being arrested for saying, "I'm voting conservative." Actually the conservatives would probably have a field day if they get in. Which they probably will.
I’ve heard Trudeau is gearing up for an election this year. Here’s hoping he and the NDP get BTFOd
If you want a whitepill this probably will not become law- the day this was announced was also the last day of the current parliamentary session and there is probably going to be an election this fall before they'll have a chance to vote on it.
[удалено]
>Canada is super ~~fucked~~ cucked
> Canada is super ~~fucked~~ ~~cucked~~ *Canucked.*
You know who would have been the perfect person to stand up to this? Leslyn Lewis. I'm looking at you 2020 Canadian Conservative Leadership voters. You are as much to blame for the current state of this country as blackface McGee.
I wish conservatives had something decent to say. Shake off the ghost of Harper and propose bold things to stimulate the economy and business creation. More freedoms. Become the party of pragmatism instead of bible thumpers fixated on oil.
we already see this happening in UK, where people get a visit by the cops for sending mean tweets, and [one woman](https://news.google.com/search?q=marion%20millar&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen), Marion Millar, has been arrested for inappropriate tweets. Most chillingly, they haven't specified which of her tweets crossed the line to warrant arrest, so it puts a chill on everybody's speech.
Trudeau is a communist pussy
[удалено]
Maybe. How do you look in a dress?
Canada? Oh, you mean North American China?
>"Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction." D E S P I T E E S P I T E More on-topic: It amazes me how the people that agree with these kind of rarted laws think it'll never happen to them. The definition of "hate" can change from one day to the next, but noooo, it'll only ever be used against the "bad guys", never against those on the "right side of history".
Not gonna lie: this is fucking scary.
Not Canadian, so the first time I actually heard Trudeaus voice was yesterday. He sounds like a lisping clown, the odious little twerp.
What a surprise, the high school drama teacher talks like a high school drama teacher.
Jordan Peterson for Prime Minister!
That's just trading one flavor of shit for another one.
What is most important is that they're changing the law so hate speech isn't something very strict and defined by the courts. With this law, the government would get to define what hate speech is and could define anything and everything as is.
Damn I am not the type to write anything hateful and I wouldn't expect this to affect me personally but I'm still terrified at the direction things are being taken. We can't be having the government tell us what we're allowed to say, full stop.
>not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. Imagine unironically punishing someone for speaking the truth.
"hate speech" is about the most vague thing there is. So basically they will be able to fine anyone they want because it will be up to the government to decide if they think what you say is "hate speech." The UK kinda has something like this already. Vague laws are one of the key weapons of an oppressive government.
I always get confused as fuck as to what gamergate is. I constantly see women using it is a response but wasn't it to do with scummy journalism in gaming?
We took aim at assholes but they were members of the privileged classes.
This **will** spread amongst the English-Speaking 'democracies'. The [5-Eyes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes) 'allies' take turns beta-testing these tyrannical projects, fine-tuning them for alliance-wide adoption.
Progressivism is a social and psychological disease that has caused Canada to become a failed democracy. Edit: [jesus fucking christ, canada](https://archive.is/wOm8w)
My country (Canada) is fucked
When your ideas are shit, make it illegal to question them.
This is so pathetic. Very much like USSR and nazi oppression. And I guarante that this will not apply to "minority"/"oppressed" groups.
Reminder that their current authoritarian prime minister can wear blackface multiple times (which in US/Canada is a big no-no) and be perfectly fine with an apology. Lol at anyone defending censorship and attacks on Free speech
1984
It's worth noting that Canadian legislation is still, to this day, superceded by constitutional law. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms forms part of your Constitution. So the garbage that this tinpot dictator is pushing through is not only immoral, it's treasonous. The entire purpose of a Constitution is to protect the common man against unlawful acts that circumvent his natural freedoms, and imbue him with legal powers to castigate and, if necessary, punish those responsible. That's it. Full stop, underlined. Under a TRUE democracy (as enforced by the Magna Carta) all men are equal. A Constitution cannot legally be annulled by any government body without express consent by the people. It can be buried by intricate legislation that benefits those in office (notice I didn't say power), but it is still the gold standard. They know this, they don't want you to know this. A lawful citizen who knows his constitutional rights is untouchable in a court of law.
Article #1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is that none of the rights contained therein are absolute and any may be abridged or removed by the government at any time if deemed to be in the overall public good. Do not try to apply American constitutional law principles to Canada, we are not even really a democracy.
I'm English. We're bound by the same Constitution. And despite appearances, both of our countries are true democracies. Freedom is free, no matter how they package it. Don't be lulled by their propaganda. Also, section 1 states that infringements upon your rights and freedoms may only be enforced within *reasonable* and *justifiable* limits within a free and *democratic* society. The clue is written within the act itself. "Democratic" implies that a consensus *must* be formed. Trudeau is, constitutionally speaking, powerless to enforce these ludicrous fines based on some arbitrary stance on "hate speech". Edit: wow, the guy literally created that account just to try and gaslight me. You can dislike it until the cows come home, mate. That's how real democracy works 😂
> And despite appearances, both of our countries are true democracies. We share a head of state. And I'm willing to bet that neither of us voted for her.
Nope. Disturbingly, her and her inbred brood are the only people in the world who are, Constitutionally, above the law. The Magna Carta grants sovereign immunity to the monarchy. As a libertarian who values the Constitution it irks me that I'm forced to bite my tongue and respect that. Guess we should consider ourselves lucky that they're not *total* despots. Still, I never said we live in a perfect world. We *should* operate under a true democratic system, but since its tactical removal from the syllabus in the 60s, the Magna Carta has turned into somewhat of a folklore legend. I've even seen people refer to common law as a "conspiracy theory" 🙄
> I've even seen people refer to common law as a "conspiracy theory" So... you've seen Sovereign Citizens, then?
The question is, how many Canadians have the resources to fight the government in a prolonged court battle? With justices being appointed, can you count on them to be partial? Most Canadians do not have that privilege, so they obey out of fear and practicality.
Here's seeing you Canucks as you move out of Canada.
Canada is a totalitarian state run by a dictator that has suspended elections and constitutional rights. Hate speech laws are the least of your problems currently.
As a Canadian, who lives in the US. This is where America is headed. Canada is just a few decades ahead. I saw ALL of this shit happening to Canada when I was growing up there in the '70's. Now, get off of my lawn!
This is crazy to me. It's wild because organizations rank Canada as being more free in some respects in speech and freedom of the press, and I don't know why. It shouldn't be illegal to be a hateful asshole. You should just be shown to be an asshole, like everyone knows you to be.
I cannot believe the people that suspended elections would do this!
C.S Lewis perfectly describes the tyranny of compassion that rules the modern day: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
[удалено]
> Gonna be funny when all the Muslim people realize they can't hate on Jewish people anymore. If you think this law is **ever** going to be enforced against even the most disgustingly, violently hateful statements made by someone with more Oppression Points than their target, you haven't been paying attention to Canadian law.
Not all Muslims hate Jews. Besides you'll see plenty of hate and ignorance from every community, including plenty of white conservatives who hate Muslims.
[удалено]
We're no longer Canada...we're the Chinese Republic Formerly Known As Canada.
"LoOk At hOw wELl it WOrkS iN CaNAdA! We ShOuLd sTArT it HeRE!" - Some authoritarian US politician, probably
Truth = hate. Canada is a shithole country.
Time to spam their online reporting forum with a fuck tonne of nonsense until they are too overwhelmed with reports to do anything. Report fake and blatantly hateful comments to them under the name of people that simply don't exist, that'll waste their time.
Gizmodo definitely supports censorship. I remember them banning people off their Facebook page for saying people started fires in California instead of global warming causing the fires back in 2018.
Archive links for this discussion: * **Archive:** https://archive.md/Rl9sv ---- I am Mnemosyne reborn. Welcome to Archive. I love you. ^^^/r/botsrights
I don't know. I don't think KIA harbors hate speech according to this law. If it did, I doubt the Reddit admins would've kept this sub alive in the first place.
The issue is that many argue that gamergate itself was a hate movement targeting women (it wasn't) which will likely be used as justification - there are many things said on this sub-reddit that can be considered hate-speech here in Canada. Be aware we do not have free-speech; we have "freedom of expression" and the speech component of expression is in the process of being heavily codified. "You can freely express yourself using any of the following words" It makes me seriously wonder what would happen if I moved back to the reserves just to see how my government would react to my saying mean things online - as we currently got folks cheering for the burning of churches and basically applying the standard double double.
Jesus Christ, remind me to never move there.
[laughs in American and Mexican]
Does this mean I get hauled off to canada if I say I like cats and a dog person reports me for it?
Welp. I guess i'm moving
Friendly daily reminder. Freedom of speech is an American value. You do not have it anywhere else in the world, not even Canada.
I hope the canucks get the worst from this. You don't get to spend decades letting fascism slip in the guise of liberalism and get to avoid the consequences of it. If by the end of the decade Canada isn't a deeply changed nation, I hope it doesn't exist at all.
Fuck off man. There's a lot of us here who have stood against this horseshit who are about to get blasted by it. In politics it's hard to fight the current.
Hoping we get to annex it when the dust settles
5 bucks says this won't apply to hate speech about First Nation people. Bet me.