Canada is gaining an international reputation for all the
wrong things. Elon Musk has chipped in on Justin Trudeau’s “Online Harms Bill,”
that “This
sounds insane if accurate! Community notes, please check.”
Specifically, according to a tweet he reposted, it “will
give police the power to retroactively search the Internet for ‘hate speech‘
violations, and arrest offenders, even if the offense occurred before the law
existed.”
Is this true?
Apparently so. Community notes responded: it applies if “a
person communicates or causes to be communicated hate speech so long as the
hate speech remains public, and the person can remove or block access to it.”
So by the letter of the law, you are liable to prosecution,
and penalties up to life in prison, if you have not taken down anything you
might have written or tweeted in the past, that violates the new law. Including
tweets or posts you might not remember.
This is especially problematic, because you can never be
sure what violates the present law. Life in prison, for example, is the
punishment for “promoting genocide.” But the definition of genocide has become
elastic. Almost everyone is currently accused by someone of promoting genocide
in one way or another. One can also be punished for anything “if it is
motivated by hatred based on protected characteristics.” But who can define “hatred”?
And, speaking of human equality, why are only some
characteristics protected, and not others? Definitionally, this is not “equal
protection before the law.”
Since these protections are arbitrary, one must keep abreast
at all times with what the current law says, and be alert for changes.
The safest thing, of course—the only safe thing; is to just
keep your mouth shut on any topic that might be even vaguely political or
controversial. This seems to be the intent of the legislation—shut up and do
what you’re told.
So who gets to define “hatred”? Or “detestation,” or “vilification,”
or ”genocide,” or the like? That task apparently
falls not to a court of law but to the “Digital Safety Commission.” Which means
the accused will have no due process. No rules of evidence, no right to
confront your accuser or cross-examine, no right to trial by jury of your peers,
none of the traditions of our legal system, fought and died for by our
forefathers over the years. You are judged by government bureaucrats. If the
government identifies an enemy, nothing stops them from throwing him or her in
prison for life. “Name the man, and I will find the crime.”
No actual crime need even be alleged. A person can,
according to the bill, be placed under house arrest and cut off from all
communication devices, if a judge decides he or she is likely to say something
hateful in future.
No problem, the government reassures us. No need to worry. Any
such judgement would have to be approved by the Attorney-General, and “these
provisions would only be invoked in the most extreme cases.” In other words, just
trust the government never to actually use the tools they are demanding.
An
article in The Independent, a centre-left outlet, apparently doing its best
to downplay the threat, quotes the Canadian Civil Liberties Association as saying
“Generally speaking, laws don't have a retroactive effect... in Canada … it
should not have a retroactive effect; that would be a bad interpretation of
that provision, which [we] would stand against.”
In other words, we have to wait and see. The law certainly can
be read to say this. The Civil Liberties Association must stand against this
interpretation.
The Independent article even includes a veiled threat
against anyone raising the alarm over this. Noting that Elon Musk has done so,
it then cites a lawsuit against him for defamation, on the grounds of a similar
prior post on X asking for information from “community notes” on a similar
claim.
So even asking questions is risky. Especially if you’re not
rich and powerful like Elon Musk.
Canada is worst, but similar attempts for force silence on
the citizenry are rampant across the developed world. Something is clearly
going on here.
Right now the Scots, the Irish, and the Dutch seem most
determined to resist. And the polls in Canada have turned decisively against Trudeau.
But the way things seem to be going, does that even matter? Governments
seem to be showing a growing disregard for their own people and the popular
will. What do they know? Given that they are prepared to shut down open debate,
will they even again allow a fair election?
'Od's Blog: Catholic comments on the passing parade.
