Satchmo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 3 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: It's literally in the bill. Why put it in there at all then? For once I agree with Coyne. Did you read the globe article? It needs to be scrapped altogether and parts of it possibly redone No, I did not read it. The article is paywalled and I did not feel like fussing with it. I guess I just could not (and do not) agree we are going to punish people 'for nothing'. But all we really have to do is wait to see what happens with this bill. Otherwise we are just wasting time and pixels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 4 minutes ago, Satchmo said: No, I did not read it. The article is paywalled and I did not feel like fussing with it. I guess I just could not (and do not) agree we are going to punish people 'for nothing'. But all we really have to do is wait to see what happens with this bill. Otherwise we are just wasting time and pixels. Yeah, or we can have people tell other posters what they "should" think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 7 minutes ago, Satchmo said: No, I did not read it. The article is paywalled and I did not feel like fussing with it. I guess I just could not (and do not) agree we are going to punish people 'for nothing'. But all we really have to do is wait to see what happens with this bill. Otherwise we are just wasting time and pixels. If you were to actually read the bill, you would be much better positioned in this conversation. Hahahah You don’t need the globe and mail. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-harms.html# A lot is great and targets pedos and their disgusting shit. Some is nonsense. Some just leaves a giant grey area wide open for them to take away your rights and charge/jail you for a disagreement with someone on the internet. All the folks here that call PP a nazi could be facing life in prison. Heffy and his constant death wishes would absolutely be seen as terror talk and he would be long gone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Salmon Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 9 minutes ago, Satchmo said: No, I did not read it. The article is paywalled and I did not feel like fussing with it. I guess I just could not (and do not) agree we are going to punish people 'for nothing'. But all we really have to do is wait to see what happens with this bill. Otherwise we are just wasting time and pixels. Well fine. It came up for me but I never really read G&M articles so I guess that was one of my freebies I get. Anyways if you're going to argue all day with me about it at least you could have read it. I honestly thought you would read the globe one that's why I posted it, not a national post one or the rebel or whatnot. Oh well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 12 minutes ago, Spring Salmon said: Well fine. It came up for me but I never really read G&M articles so I guess that was one of my freebies I get. Anyways if you're going to argue all day with me about it at least you could have read it. I honestly thought you would read the globe one that's why I posted it, not a national post one or the rebel or whatnot. Oh well No. You don’t get those ‘freebies’. You need to tread carefully. Listen to me carefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 20 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: If you were to actually read the bill, you would be much better positioned in this conversation. Hahahah You don’t need the globe and mail. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-harms.html# A lot is great and targets pedos and their disgusting shit. Some is nonsense. Some just leaves a giant grey area wide open for them to take away your rights and charge/jail you for a disagreement with someone on the internet. All the folks here that call PP a nazi could be facing life in prison. Heffy and his constant death wishes would absolutely be seen as terror talk and he would be long gone. So where is the nonsense? Most people will not violate any of these areas. Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; Intimate content communicated without consent; Content used to bully a child; Content that induces a child to harm themselves; Content that foments hatred; Content that incites violence; and Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 0 32 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: I feel the left extremists are just as plentiful and just as arrogant, ignorant and insufferable as the right. I think we can agree that all extremists are arrogant and insufferable - that’s a basic requirement to extremism. Where we are likely to disagree is my belief that the danger lies with the right. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Just now, Satchmo said: I think the point of contention was that we were told it was the RCMP who said this: Statistically, licensed gun owners are between three and five times less likely to commit murder than the average citizen who does not have a firearms license. The statement may be true. It may be false. But your assertion that it was Chief Supt. Marty Cheliak who said it is false. To be clear, I'm not the one who made that assertion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 1 minute ago, 4petesake said: 0 I think we can agree that all extremists are arrogant and insufferable - that’s a basic requirement to extremism. Where we are likely to disagree is my belief that the danger lies with the right. All extremism whether bent to the Left or Right, are abhorrent. What’s the issue for most of ‘us’ in the Center? ‘We’ can recognize extremism. Or at least ‘we’ should. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 minute ago, RupertKBD said: To be clear, I'm not the one who made that assertion. Quite right Rup. My mistake & my apologies. (I'll argue with you later ) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 2 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said: So where is the nonsense? Most people will not violate any of these areas. Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; Intimate content communicated without consent; Content used to bully a child; Content that induces a child to harm themselves; Content that foments hatred; Content that incites violence; and Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. Read more than the titles homie. What do all those mean? Who is to decide what constitutes hatred? What is hatred? Do we all agree on what is actual, jailable hatred? I fucking doubt it. What counts as the violence being incited? There is so much grey area in this, that it can easily turn into trying to charge/sure people because of a difference of opinion, or you just ran into an overly sensitive person today that is bitter and petty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.B Cooper Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 7 minutes ago, 4petesake said: 0 I think we can agree that all extremists are arrogant and insufferable - that’s a basic requirement to extremism. Where we are likely to disagree is my belief that the danger lies with the right. I see it on both sides, homie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 52 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said: So I'm just watching YouTube videos and posting on CDC and the RCMP gonna come arrest me? I'm gonna go before a judge, get convicted of something and then face house arrest? That's what getting house arrest for nothing sounds like to any reasonable person. That ain't happening. There would have to be SOMETHING. Have you not seen the videos posted on Twitter of the RCMP showing up at people’s houses for things they posted on Facebook? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 29 minutes ago, D.B Cooper said: If you were to actually read the bill, you would be much better positioned in this conversation. Hahahah You don’t need the globe and mail. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/online-harms.html# A lot is great and targets pedos and their disgusting shit. Some is nonsense. Some just leaves a giant grey area wide open for them to take away your rights and charge/jail you for a disagreement with someone on the internet. All the folks here that call PP a nazi could be facing life in prison. Heffy and his constant death wishes would absolutely be seen as terror talk and he would be long gone. I'm mostly waiting for the bill (which I can assure you I have read) to go beyond first reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said: Have you not seen the videos posted on Twitter of the RCMP showing up at people’s houses for things they posted on Facebook? So what did they post on Fbook? Cause some things can and should result in cops banging on your door. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure_Pavel Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 16 minutes ago, the destroyer of worlds said: So where is the nonsense? Most people will not violate any of these areas. Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; Intimate content communicated without consent; Content used to bully a child; Content that induces a child to harm themselves; Content that foments hatred; Content that incites violence; and Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. I think its the last three points: Content that foments hatred; Content that incites violence; and Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. Who decides what qualifies? there is a lot of grey area here especially when it comes to the internet. For instance there are a few posters who call everyone a Nazi or terrorist. What about comedy that is misinterpreted? For instance violent videos games like GTA and rap music like Eminem in the past have been accused of inciting violence. Censoring information online is a tough task and there is concern the government can take it too far/gives them too much power. Edited June 3 by Bure_Pavel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 24 minutes ago, bolt said: What happened in 2015? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 3 Author Share Posted June 3 2 minutes ago, Satchmo said: I'm mostly waiting for the bill (which I can assure you I have read) to go beyond first reading. First Readings mean nothing. If you know what Parliamentary procedures look like, then why bother? Wait for it… and then discuss the actual Bill’s final statement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2024/06/03/first-nation-plans-dig-for-remains-at-ex-residential-school/ I know it's BC but it's a Canadian issue and one that conservative supporters have adopted to challenge that it occured Very important next step to begin actual digging and the fact that it also required signed agreements with the RCMP prior to commencing should silence those challenging the findings .... It was never as simple as "just dig". The work to get to this point was years in the making and planning. It will hopefully provide some closure or at least allow that he healing to begin In any event it will provide very clear indications of what might be at other sites 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said: I think its the last three points: Content that foments hatred; Content that incites violence; and Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. Who decides what qualifies? there is a lot of grey area here especially when it comes to the internet. For instance there are a few posters who call everyone a Nazi or terrorist. What about comedy that is misinterpreted? For instance violent videos games like GTA and rap music like Eminem in the past have been accused of inciting violence. Censoring information online is a tough task and there is concern the government can take it too far/gives them too much power. You do realize that there is already a lot of legislation both here and abroad that has tackled with this issue. This isn't some willy nilly thing that can be arbitrarily applied to some online disagreement like we may be having here. In the legislative summary on page 23 it says Clause 14 adds a definition of hatred for the purpose of the new hate crime offence and existing hate propaganda offences. Under new section 319(7) of the Code, hatred “means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike.” For greater certainty, new section 319(8) adds that a statement does not incite or promote hatred “solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends.” https://lop.parl.ca/staticfiles/PublicWebsite/Home/ResearchPublications/LegislativeSummaries/PDF/44-1/PV_44-1-C63-E.pdf Edited June 3 by the destroyer of worlds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 18 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said: All extremism whether bent to the Left or Right, are abhorrent. What’s the issue for most of ‘us’ in the Center? ‘We’ can recognize extremism. Or at least ‘we’ should. What about the extremely centred? That would make a killer name for a podcast. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said: What about the extremely centred? That would make a killer name for a podcast. Does the world need more Podcasts? How about ‘we’ and our kids just have some common sense without people telling us what they think it means on a digital platform? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 26 minutes ago, 4petesake said: So what did they post on Fbook? Cause some things can and should result in cops banging on your door. What in your opinion are things that should result in cops banging on your door? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the destroyer of worlds Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: What in your opinion are things that should result in cops banging on your door? Probably stuff that 99.9% of the people here wouldn't even dream about posting here or on Facebook. Stuff that would clearly hurdle any legal threshold that would apply in the enforcement of even Bill-63. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.