|
|
|
More authoritarianism Bill C-63
- Thread starter bigpoppa
- Start date
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I kinda look at it like a campfire at a motorcycle rally. The rally brings like minded people together, but the conversations around the campfire are not just motorcycles.
I find the forums that try to bring the focus to sharp end up with a lot of conflict and more worthless advice than good stuff.
Nice thing about this forum is the advice, whether best way to remove a broken stud, best way to side a house or best way to pick a LTC home, the community is always helpful, rarely idiotic.
When the conversation around a campfire turns to politics, I generally either try to steer it back into another topic, or if it's inevitable it's not recoverable and is headed off the rails (as often happens in those sorts of situations) I excuse myself and leave - I'd prefer to avoid the drama. That's not what I go to sit around a campfire for.
Speaking of subject change, and not to troll the thread. How's the bike planning going? any add-ons you're thinking about.
I wouldn't say they aren't sure on CC just a difference of opinion
Getting old i guess
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Sounds like a gathering around my backyard fire pit.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Mad Mike
Well-known member
A squirt of Rotella is an excellent accelerator.
"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."
The Supreme Court defines hate speech.. The blue haired bureaucrats at the commission can fine someone and/or send them to a tribunal... Neither the commission nor the tribunal can send anyone to jail for life.. that's complete nonsense... and you know it.
"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".
Pre-crime as you call it.. or 810.012 in the bill.. already exists in section 810 in the CC. Anyone that could apply for a recognition order under 810.012 can already apply under 810. Someone can apply for a recognizance order and present their case at a hearing... it is not as simple as saying "I think someone might..." and the person would be placed under house arrest. The reasons for the application have to be 'reasonable' and the conditions in an order must be 'reasonable'. Recognizance order come up against someone's rights.. not taken lightly. They won't be just "slapping" them on people... The exaggeration is enough for me to consider the comment nonsense.
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 potential fines are actually 0-70K... not 20k-70k as you stated... You quoted the max fines from the commission and tribunal...
"wrong to some degree"
If you have a legit source with a legit interpretation that differs from anything I've said above.. I really would like to see it.
I never said you didn't have sources. I've probably read most of what you have.. and more.
I've never said there aren't concerns with bill.. nor that I support it. Go back and re-read the thread and you'll see that...
Now I'm just arguing the non-sense and mis-information that some are posting about it. I'm sure some is from not understanding or misinterpreting a section or whatever... but any attempt at saying something that differs from their interpretation.. and the attacks start immediately. I chose to to reply to you.. until you called people stupid.
Shaman
Well-known member
Except that it's not. It says right in the bill that fines and imprisonment right up to life in prison are possible for an offense "motivated by hatred." Or are we not to believe their own words? Are you saying that we should just not worry about it, because no reasonable judge would do that? I'm not up for that.
This extends that to the Internet, social media and to freedom of expression. But then, one of my points was that much of what is listed in this bill already existed and is superceded or augmented by C-63. This is one of the many things that will require a digital ID, which, if the bill were to pass, can be done through a regulatory route rather than being voted on.
I told you I'd been listening to lawyers.
My understanding from other's reading of the bill is that $20K seems like the lowest that will likely be posed. I will now commence on finding out if that's explicit in the bill but multiple lawyers have referenced it as $20K. And you skipped over the point that it's functionally a bounty.
You've been wrong so far all the way through including the logical end of this bill, so I think I'll just say: there's plenty of actual lawyers that have walked through the bill at length and they're easily accessable with a simple search. I am not your personal Google.
If the shoe fits. I've now listened to 4 lawyers walk through the bill and read three articles from people I trust (and also Margaret Atwood who is rather alarmed by it, given her writings). I still stand by everything I said.
Last edited:
Prison sentence.. in a criminal court.
Again.. Neither the commission nor the tribunal can sentence anyone to prison. Neither sets policy for the criminal court..
It's not their words that's the problem.. it's your interpretation.
Yes, it did already exist. I said that on page 2... I didn't need a lawyer for that. You learned that from watching the video in the other thread this morning.
Other's reading of the bill??? seems like? lowest that will likely be posed? WTF?
Listened to 4 lawyers walk though.. read 3 articles.. and you're still getting the basics of it wrong... while calling others stupid!?
Last edited:
My two cents, the very fact there are opposing points of view here, it’s exactly the reason there should be scrutiny.
We can all agree children need to be protected and those that prey on children should be prosecuted. The intent of how the laws and regulations will be applied is more important than the issue they are trying to address. As well intended they may be, I can’t speak for how they will be applied by those in power at any given time.
We can all agree children need to be protected and those that prey on children should be prosecuted. The intent of how the laws and regulations will be applied is more important than the issue they are trying to address. As well intended they may be, I can’t speak for how they will be applied by those in power at any given time.
Shaman
Well-known member
Uh, duh. This doesn't need to be said. Obviously there's going to be court involved.
EDIT: but fines can be levied without court, and you do not have the right to meet your accuser in either case.
They can charge you with it, and the sentence is up to and including life. Are you SERIOUSLY being this pedantic?
No, I didn't. I got that from the walkthroughs of other lawyers. You just assumed that.
You haven't proven me wrong on one single thing (granted I still have not confirmed the fine min/max due to time constraints), you're just playing weasel words to make it seem like I'm uninformed. I'm not only informed, but take for granted that people would understand that to be sentenced with something like imprisonment, court would be involved just as with every other serious crime. You're reaching so hard, it's painful to watch.
Now here's the take of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom posted on Twitter yesterday:
It's not just that bad, it's even worse.
Last edited:
You're trying to back-peddle (for lack of a better term) from the non-sense in your original post.. And.. you're still getting the basics wrong in the post above.. while continuing to throw out insults.
Time constraints? It takes 2 minutes to look it up on the actual bill... that you haven't read.. and wouldn't understand if you did..
I've probably spent 20 or more hours on it since it was released.. reading the whole bill.. parts of it many times.. reading the relevant sections in the CC.. comparing both.. reading SCC rulings.. precedents.. legal opinions.. etc.. and again.. most of everything you've watched or read.. and talked to a couple lawyers... I understand most of it.. and have it all.
I didn't assume anything.. when I read 810.012 in the bill.. it sounded very familiar to me.. from 810.011 years ago... I understand the law enough to know it was redundant.. despite knowing.. I still verified with an available legal opinion before responding to soulcatcher. My thought was.. dispel the hype around that section.. and move the discussion to the more concerning sections.
You're original post was too far out there to bother with.. but then you started insulting people... calling them dumb.
I've been reading and researching the CC for 25 years.. I have a very good understanding of the law.. criminal.. employment.. application and proceedings..for someone that's not a lawyer. I know more about certain areas of the law.. than some lawyers.
I'm not trying to "make it seem like you're uniformed"... you're doing that yourself... and it's getting pathetic.
Straight up.. You're in over your head.. and continuing to post against me about this is just going to continue to prove that.
Time constraints? It takes 2 minutes to look it up on the actual bill... that you haven't read.. and wouldn't understand if you did..
I've probably spent 20 or more hours on it since it was released.. reading the whole bill.. parts of it many times.. reading the relevant sections in the CC.. comparing both.. reading SCC rulings.. precedents.. legal opinions.. etc.. and again.. most of everything you've watched or read.. and talked to a couple lawyers... I understand most of it.. and have it all.
I didn't assume anything.. when I read 810.012 in the bill.. it sounded very familiar to me.. from 810.011 years ago... I understand the law enough to know it was redundant.. despite knowing.. I still verified with an available legal opinion before responding to soulcatcher. My thought was.. dispel the hype around that section.. and move the discussion to the more concerning sections.
You're original post was too far out there to bother with.. but then you started insulting people... calling them dumb.
I've been reading and researching the CC for 25 years.. I have a very good understanding of the law.. criminal.. employment.. application and proceedings..for someone that's not a lawyer. I know more about certain areas of the law.. than some lawyers.
I'm not trying to "make it seem like you're uniformed"... you're doing that yourself... and it's getting pathetic.
Straight up.. You're in over your head.. and continuing to post against me about this is just going to continue to prove that.
|
|
|
|
|