I agree, brilliant and digestible summary. The scary part is the almost limitless powers whenever there some notion of maybe something that someone doens't like, the limitless power to enter a business and examine anything and everything without a warrant.... draconian.
I"m 41 and NOT a lawyer either, but this whole mess was influenced by old USA court cases. FCC v Pacifica should have been mentionned (look it up kids! "George Carlin seven dirty words" was to many one of the funniest thing to air, still available on youtube, maybe not for long)
The ability to enter any building and copy any document without due process or notice is staggeringly bad and will be abused at the first opportunity. Also terrible is the ability to impose house arrest on someone who is feared to commit a hate crime in the future. I shouldn't be, but I am shocked by the editorials defending this bill.
How is anyone going to verify if someone is a real inspector or not? As they can just waltz right into the tech campus whenever they feel like!? What's stopped someone from impersonating one of these borderline 'godly' figures and stealing trillion dollar trade secrets from a social media company? Nothing at all it seems, Canada is going to be seen as the next mainland China on the internet and companies like Alphabet (Google) don't care about a country with a GDP less than the market cap of Nvidia. We are going to be the most blocked people in the entire world right next to China.
I have been screaming about the taking of documents including correspondence with your lawyer and anti convoy provisions since the get go, this is to close the loophole that was exposed by the truckers........this is totalitarian and a take over like c h I n a @@lostjustice
and it never will, When ever they say "think of the children, for your safety, for the greater good" it will NEVER be for any of those, they just hope your brain shuts down and you'll agree / consent by reflex
@@bigdog3628 Yes but that’s just an excuse that they use to take your privacy and freedoms away. They keep using “save the children” crap to fool people into believing they have society’s problems in mind- but it’s only about them gaining more control
Interesting. It seems that if this passes, and is subsequently upheld, the police state will have fully arrived - in that the state no longer requires the police, the courts, or the law. Just regulatory fiat.
It's pretty unlikely, given it has just had the first reading in House of Commons, it still has to get through 2 more in HoC and then 3 in the senate and royal assent before it passes. The chances of it getting passed in its current form is approaching zero.
@Xpertman213 I don't mean to be offensive, but I think you still have too much faith in them.. they want us to shut up and fear, report each other. This is the slow implementation of communism make no mistake
I have just found and subscribed to your channel. Could you explain if a person is required to answer police questions and provide ID if you are in a public area
Given the severity of the potential punishment for prospective incitement of hatred, instead of hostage takings, we'll have television dramas featuring villains, "Stay back coppers! I'm thinking of words that arouse hatred and contempt and I'm not afraid to say them on a major platform!"
Question for everybody: at 24:00 he talks about inspectors being allowed to seize documents et so on. Are they allowed to seize documents at Social media operator's buildings, or at anybody's homes?
Here's the issues. 1. Hatred is undefined. 2. You are not tried in front of a judge but a tribunal chose by the prime minister. 3. You're not allowed to face you're accuser. 4. Anyone from any country can Use This law against a canadian. 5. The law will be used to silence. Opposition against a tyrannical federal government. 5. You do not have to take an action but on suspicion that you might say something hateful. You can get a life sentence. 6. You're not allowed to defend you're reputation online. 7. It is designed to silence opposition. 8. It is a political weapon against the free and democratic people of canada!
Yes, this is super dangerous. It's basically a weaponization program where specific people are silenced and harmed by the tribunals. If you don't think the way they do, you will be punished.
It's basically a gag order on dissidents. Most people are just going to walk away from having an online presence. In the end, their goal is achieved. A silenced, gagged populace that would rather not participate at all lest they be roped into legal controversy. Diabolical.
The lack of appeal present in privacy law, insurance decisions, tax law, and competition law is like having arbitration law decide freedom of expression for not simply single takedown orders but fines based on the meta of a social media firm's practices. And like in some arbitration agreements, the boss (the government) gets to decide who the Commission's five members are. While the same issue is present for court appointments, I highly doubt the an independent vetting panel will be making recommendations to the PM nor is the opposition required like the the Privacy Commissioner appointment. Interestingly the lack of appeal process is also present in the UK and Australia's online safety legislation and abroad, practically every GDPR fine and enforcement notice can be appealed to a court of law.
Children have become problematic on the internet they should not have access to open content the system has failed to regulate minors now the whole community suffers, responsibility is on the social platforms + the parents if any group needs censorship it should be the underaged not the adults, it's quite obvious what's happened with the loss of control + the gain of opportunity, sad that something so basic like this wasn't dealt with properly long ago.
I"m 41 and NOT a lawyer, but this whole mess was influenced by old USA court cases. FCC v Pacifica should have been mentionned (look it up kids! "George Carlin seven dirty words" was to many one of the funniest thing to air, still available on youtube, maybe not for long)
Pretty sure the government can mind their own business on what is shared and said personally between two people, the only people that are harmed are Canadians from this bill !!
I personally feel they should be working with the police in tracking the IP address of the original poster of those that are hate and/or criminal posts. So why have you not contacted or consulted with the government?
Thank you its detailled and really usefull most people told me it was bad without clear explanations. Now I understand the flaws of this Bill and the potential good it can do if fixed properly. It's sad that this type of content is now rare for I see more often only opinions and emotions instead of facts on YT. As a young men I hope to feed my mind with usefullness for I fear to be manipulated by others due to my lack of knowledge...
I find it strange and too broad the definitions of "Content that incites violence" & "Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism", especially the part c) in each definition. Seems like a very broad definition and giving the government a lot of powers. Is this type of content considered a "hate crime" and therefore "an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life"? Or would this content be treated differently in the criminal code? "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." "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."
Section C under "content that incites violence" is an anti-convoy/protest legislation. If any event that causes disruption to any essential services, facilities or system (shipping lanes, borders, roads, etc) will be charged under this law. This can also include planning or simply jokingly discussing with other people through email or text messaging. Remember under Section 810.011, it clearly states that if someone believes another person will in the future commit an offence, they can rat on you and get $20k.
Has anyone even considered the fact that Kindle books are online and they are a serious if not essential source of revenue for some authors. many of whom cannot control what their publishers put online. In an effort to meet the terms of this bill or just to cancel culture control the writers, publishers may use this as an excuse to refuse books by established authors or force changes to the structure of the book. Just off the top of head, a teenage heroine has a Down Syndrome sibling and hates the effects on her life and constantly wishes her mother had an abortion. Normal. Reasonable realistic character development. But if all did not turn out nice nice at the end with a new understanding and loving relationship between the siblings, this would likely be called a hate crime. And they won"t stop there. Every characterisation or stand or belief anyone disagrees with will be a target for trying to get someone thrown in jail for 30 years. A person, i might add, who did not commit and violent crimes. This bill was tabled THIS year. How can anyone claim this could have been worse and was a missed opportunity? It passed in secret or with barely any chance for anyone to hear about it let alone raise any objections to it. Doesn't that bother you as a lawyer?
I can understand what they're trying to do in regards to deepfakes or CP but they need to go back to the drawing board with this one, it's too poorly made.
This should apply to the garbage they are teaching minors in schools which is sexually explicit. This is grooming and places immature minds in places they can neither process nor deal with properly.
Why don't the NDP-Liberals improve healthcare and housing instead of sillysocial engineering projects, adding additional bureaucracies on Canadians that will end up costing an order of magnitude more than initial estimates?
These laws must he warned to strangers or immigrants who are biased in culture and mind and target different culture.foreign dating And lifestyle is different than those who come from different background.these laws go to them too. Cause of unawareness and behaviorial patterns. Sextortionists and criminal minded. Too. I have kids n I definetly don't want my kids or others to go through this.
I say what I want ,when I want and for as long as I want, even online. I don't care about all the little snowflakes that can't handle online responses to their stupidity. I get called on things I say online, and I never once complain, because I expect to get the same treatment in return.
This does not protect business. Just the opposite. Legislation like this prevents private business from even being able to defend or lobby against legislation like this that prevents business from hiring based on skill, experience and corporate fit instead of claiming discrimination. If I walked in and said I had a homeless person on the street who belonged to a protected group and needed a place to stay so you would have to let them stay in your child's bedroom with them - you would be rightfully outraged. Yet anti-discrimination legislation says I cannot not hire someone if they are a member of a protected group. Establishing bona fide occupational job requirements will be very hard to do if you cannot even research, talk about or lobby. And then there is just the fact of corporate culture or fit. It is dicey, because no one wants to risk their job on the possibility THEY will be the bad fit, but if they don"t want to hire you anyway-is this suddenly going to turn into a Disney movie?
@@Dickhead-e6e Then clarify what you are talking about. By claiming this Bill protects business, the only obvious connection you seem to be making is that of so-called discriminatory hiring practices. So no, we are not talking about two different things unless you were talking about something else.
@@Dickhead-e6e And you chose to reply in a public forum to get attention with vague and attention-getting accusations. Now you sound 12. I can guess what you are. Do you know what you were supposed to be?
