More authoritarianism Bill C-63 | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

More authoritarianism Bill C-63

Uninformed voters, plenty to go around whatever colour you subscribe to.

You don't need to say that again. We just had a byelection in my neck of the woods and the level of stupidity online was astounding. Some people thought it was actually a federal election. Some couldn't grasp why they weren't voting for Trudeau or Poilevre. Many were voting based 100% on the "fvck Trudeau" factor than any semblence to voting in their own best interests at the municipal level given as how it was an MP they were voting for (and many were surprised to discover they'd actually voted against their own best interests when confronted about it), and many others coldn't identify the difference between an MP and an MPP.

And in the end, only 23% or something like that of the population voted, but 90% are complaining.
 
You don't need to say that again. We just had a byelection in my neck of the woods and the level of stupidity online was astounding. Some people thought it was actually a federal election. Some couldn't grasp why they weren't voting for Trudeau or Poilevre. Many were voting based 100% on the "fvck Trudeau" factor than any semblence to voting in their own best interests at the municipal level given as how it was an MP they were voting for (and many were surprised to discover they'd actually voted against their own best interests when confronted about it), and many others coldn't identify the difference between an MP and an MPP.

And in the end, only 23% or something like that of the population voted, but 90% are complaining.
Can you translate this to English please?
 
This is to protect people on the internet. The internet is still new in the grand scheme of things, and everyone is trying to figure out how to manage it. Growing up in the 90's I didnt have to deal with social media, but seeing what my young cousins and neices/nephews experience through it is awful.

There's this handy guide at the bottom that even tells you what they mean by specific terms:
content that foments hatred means content that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, within the meaning of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.‍ (contenu fomentant la haine)

content that incites violence means content that actively encourages a person to commit — or that actively threatens the commission of — an act of physical violence against a person or an act that causes property damage, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a person to commit an act that could cause

  • (a) serious bodily harm to a person;
  • (b) a person’s life to be endangered; or
  • (c) serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system.‍ (contenu incitant à la violence)
content that incites violent extremism or terrorism means content that actively encourages a person to commit — or that actively threatens the commission of — for a political, religious or ideological purpose, an act of physical violence against a person or an act that causes property damage, with the intention of intimidating or denouncing the public or any section of the public or of compelling a person, government or domestic or international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a person to commit an act that could cause

  • (a) serious bodily harm to a person;
  • (b) a person’s life to be endangered; or
  • (c) a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any section of the public.‍ (contenu incitant à l’extrémisme violent ou au terrorisme)
content that induces a child to harm themselves means content that advocates self-harm, disordered eating or dying by suicide or that counsels a person to commit or engage in any of those acts, and that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause a child to inflict injury on themselves, to have an eating disorder or to die by suicide.‍ (contenu poussant un enfant à se porter préjudice)

content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor means

  • (a) a visual representation that shows a child, or a person depicted as being a child, who is engaged in or depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity;
  • (b) a visual representation that depicts the sexual organs or anal region of a child, if it is reasonable to suspect that the representation is created or communicated for a sexual purpose;
  • (c) written material or an audio recording whose dominant characteristic is the description, presentation or representation of explicit sexual activity with a child, if it is reasonable to suspect that the material or recording is created or communicated for a sexual purpose;
  • (d) a visual representation, written material or an audio recording that shows, describes, presents or represents any of the following, if it is reasonable to suspect that the representation, material or recording is created or communicated for a sexual purpose:
    • (i) a person touching, in a sexual manner, directly or indirectly, with a part of their body or with an object, any part of the body of a child or a person depicted as being a child,
    • (ii) a person who is engaged in or depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity in the presence of a child or a person depicted as being a child, or
    • (iii) a person exposing their sexual organs or anal region in the presence of a child or a person depicted as being a child;
  • (e) a visual representation, written material or an audio recording in which or by means of which sexual activity between a person who is 18 years of age or more and a child is advocated, counselled or planned, other than one in which or by means of which sexual activity between a person who is 16 years of age or more but under 18 years of age and another person who is less than two years older than that person is advocated, counselled or planned;
  • (f) a visual representation that shows a child who is being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading acts of physical violence;
  • (g) any excerpt of a visual representation referred to in paragraph (a), if it is reasonable to suspect that the communication of the excerpt perpetuates harm against a person who as a child appeared in the visual representation; and
  • (h) a visual representation, written material or an audio recording that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to bring to light a connection between a person and a visual representation, written material or audio recording referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (d) in which the person appeared as a child, if it is reasonable to suspect that the communication of the representation, material or recording that is likely to bring to light that connection perpetuates harm against the person.‍ (contenu représentant de la victimisation sexuelle d’enfants ou perpétuant la victimisation de survivants)
content used to bully a child means content, or an aggregate of content, that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause serious harm to a child’s physical or mental health, if it is reasonable to suspect that the content or the aggregate of content is communicated for the purpose of threatening, intimidating or humiliating the child.‍ (contenu visant à intimider un enfant)

harmful content means

  • (a) intimate content communicated without consent;
  • (b) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;
  • (c) content that induces a child to harm themselves;
  • (d) content used to bully a child;
  • (e) content that foments hatred;
  • (f) content that incites violence; and
  • (g) content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.‍ (contenu préjudiciable)

Read this bit if you're lazy:
  • (a) intimate content communicated without consent;
  • (b) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;
  • (c) content that induces a child to harm themselves;
  • (d) content used to bully a child;
  • (e) content that foments hatred;
  • (f) content that incites violence; and
  • (g) content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.‍ (contenu préjudiciable)

Here's another great article, I would say is relevant to this bill, that you should read:

Also,

CBC have reported on it, twice:

Toronto Star, three times:
 
This is to protect people on the internet. The internet is still new in the grand scheme of things, and everyone is trying to figure out how to manage it. Growing up in the 90's I didnt have to deal with social media, but seeing what my young cousins and neices/nephews experience through it is awful.

There's this handy guide at the bottom that even tells you what they mean by specific terms:


Read this bit if you're lazy:
  • (a) intimate content communicated without consent;
  • (b) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;
  • (c) content that induces a child to harm themselves;
  • (d) content used to bully a child;
  • (e) content that foments hatred;
  • (f) content that incites violence; and
  • (g) content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.‍ (contenu préjudiciable)
Here's another great article, I would say is relevant to this bill, that you should read:

Also,

CBC have reported on it, twice:

Toronto Star, three times:
Yes, protecting children (meanwhile in canadian schools)
frr.jpg


This is just another power grab. The internet is the greatest threat facing the liberal government.
 
The internet is the greatest threat facing the liberal government.

So, what are your thoughts on Poilevre creating a digital ID for you to be allowed to access parts of it?
 
This one isn’t easy and once you table the plan, it’s open to criticism. It’s an important concern to deal with and there should be concern on the possibility of over reach.

I’m cynical enough to worry when I’m told not to.
 
what i see is our government is wasting time and effort, making laws for stuff that there is already laws for... AGAIN.
Canada prosecuted a Dutch citizen, that had never set foot in Canada, for all the "cyber crimes" this bill is supposed to address, with Canadian laws, and gave the guy a Canadian custodial sentence... BUT we need NEW laws for Canadians?
But when i read this, it starts to make sense. Our government doesn't understand the interwebs... and is afraid of it.
Just think; if they weren't busy playing around with such non issues, we'd be expectin em to be trying to solve the country's problems.
 
So, what are your thoughts on Poilevre creating a digital ID for you to be allowed to access parts of it?
Internet "anonymity" IS a real problem.
Internet_dog.jpg

... or a Russian bot.
Video killed the radio star, mis-information is killing the internet. Blue check marks are a joke. "Influencers" are a cancer.
The internet allows people to say things,with impunity, that in REAL life would get them a slap up side the head... and they run with it.
What we NEED is a "Ministry of Truth"
 
. BUT we need NEW laws for Canadians?
But when i read this, it starts to make sense. Our government doesn't understand the interwebs... and is afraid of it.
Making people get warrants instead of shotgunning ip addresses with minimal oversight is a positive step in my book. If the need for a warrant shuts down all ICE and child porn investigations, law enforcement needs to get their crap together.
 
Last edited:
Unsure if trolling, or serious.

I wasn't sure if what you wrote was some kind of inside joke. Sounds like it wasn't.
O.k. Guesses: 1) Durham? 2) Federal by election, which by definition is a Federal election. 3) No, wait, was this a municipal election? I'm so confused. 4) What were their best interests? Why bring Provincial into this hot mess? What's going on that people are complaining about? Your post is so vague. Why in your opinion, are they voting against their interests? You can just say they are without elaborating, but that's exactly what politicians do. So that's why I'd like a translation/elaboration.
 
Internet "anonymity" IS a real problem.
Internet_dog.jpg

... or a Russian bot.
Video killed the radio star, mis-information is killing the internet. Blue check marks are a joke. "Influencers" are a cancer.
The internet allows people to say things,with impunity, that in REAL life would get them a slap up side the head... and they run with it.
What we NEED is a "Ministry of Truth"
 
This is to protect people on the internet. The internet is still new in the grand scheme of things, and everyone is trying to figure out how to manage it. Growing up in the 90's I didnt have to deal with social media, but seeing what my young cousins and neices/nephews experience through it is awful.

There's this handy guide at the bottom that even tells you what they mean by specific terms:


Read this bit if you're lazy:
  • (a) intimate content communicated without consent;
  • (b) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;
  • (c) content that induces a child to harm themselves;
  • (d) content used to bully a child;
  • (e) content that foments hatred;
  • (f) content that incites violence; and
  • (g) content that incites violent extremism or terrorism.‍ (contenu préjudiciable)
Here's another great article, I would say is relevant to this bill, that you should read:

Also,

CBC have reported on it, twice:

Toronto Star, three times:
Star articles that praise Liberal policies and denounce the Conservatives.

Shock.jpg

Strip out the entirety of the 'hate speech' section and you will have a whole lot less push back.
 
My concern is that you have nebulous definitions for an act that can be enforced because you might do them. With heavy penalty.

When you start adding the 'Fear of Offences' clauses, you best have good definitions of what those offenses are.

Just because something has been used before does not make it a good or reasonable idea.

Did you read the 2 sections I mentioned?
Those sections and the purposed 810.012 are related to applying for a recognizance order.. or peace bond.. whatever you want to call it.
To do that.. you have to go in front of a court and present your reasons for requesting the recognizance order.
The court will consider the information and decide whether or not to grant the order.. and what restrictions go on that order.
There is no sentence or "heavy penalty" involved.. unless you breach that order.
 
This bill cannot pass.

It:

Redefines things that already exist in law today for no discernable reason.

Defines hate speech and gives over authority to government to define that, by a group of people who will be hired with DEI practices. Expect blue-haired bureaucrats that are offended by everything to consider using the wrong pronouns to be hate speech and wield the potential of life in prison over you for wrongthink.

Actually defines pre-crime. Someone thinks that you MIGHT offend, well, they will put you on house arrest and slap you with a peace bond and you haven't done a @#$% thing. They just think you might.

Alluded to in earlier part of the message: yes, they want to be able to jail you for life for whatever they think is 'hate speech.'

They will actually pay BOUNTIES with your money for people to turn you in for something you said. We're not talking a little bit, either. $20K - 70K that YOU will need to pay the person or persons that turned you in to the S̵t̵a̵s̵i̵ Liberals. You may never know who did it, either. If you don't think this will turn people against each other, that's crazy.

The unspoken truth is that this will require some sort of Digital ID. They'll spring that on us if the bill passes.

If you are in support of this bill, you need to go outside and touch grass, life should not be this heinous.
 
Last edited:
Did you read the 2 sections I mentioned?
Those sections and the purposed 810.012 are related to applying for a recognizance order.. or peace bond.. whatever you want to call it.
To do that.. you have to go in front of a court and present your reasons for requesting the recognizance order.
The court will consider the information and decide whether or not to grant the order.. and what restrictions go on that order.
There is no sentence or "heavy penalty" involved.. unless you breach that order.
I understand how it works. That does not make it right.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to think that because there is a process involved and they cannot just directly throw you in jail that it is somehow ok.
 
I wish people got this irate when Doug Ford does stupid and illegal things. Instead, he gets rewarded with a second term.

I wasn't sure if what you wrote was some kind of inside joke. Sounds like it wasn't.
O.k. Guesses: 1) Durham? 2) Federal by election, which by definition is a Federal election. 3) No, wait, was this a municipal election? I'm so confused. 4) What were their best interests? Why bring Provincial into this hot mess? What's going on that people are complaining about? Your post is so vague. Why in your opinion, are they voting against their interests? You can just say they are without elaborating, but that's exactly what politicians do. So that's why I'd like a translation/elaboration.

Just saw your response.

- Yes, Durham.

- Yes, "technically" a Federal election. My point was there was a few people so obtuse that they were clearly mistaking a *byelection* for a general election and thought they were voting for a new PM. (These people still get to vote regardless of room temperature IQ's.....)

- What were their best interests? At least 1 fellow I noticed online in a FB group, based on his profile, is not straight (no problem from me for the record, whatever floats your boat I always say), and also works in the medical field and was/is a strong supporter of vaccinations and such, yet he openly voted for a guy who has shared anti-lgbtq stuff in the past and arguably helped spread covid conspiracy theories as well.

It was very evident based on a lot of the discussion online that many people took exactly zero seconds to even learn the basics about who they were voting for, they were just voting *against* Trudeau, end stop.

Anyhow, in the end, Durham, a riding that has continually been blue, stayed blue...it was no surprise, and IMHO, no big surprise nor giant win worthy of celebration for the guy Poilevre parachuted in.
 

Back
Top Bottom