SIMULATIONCOMMANDER reminds us about the psycopathy of Trudeau & the leftist liberals with its new hate crimes bill; "Canadian Government Introduces "Online Harms Act" You don't want to harm children,

do you?" One of the most insidious things modern governments do is tucking massive freedom-killing measures into innocent-sounding bills; “Online Harms Act” coming out of Canada (Bill C-36 again)

Note Trudeau is not interested in imprisoning the pedophiles for life, or the jihadist rapist for life, no no no, its the online hater….

Excellent sharing by Simulation and very insiduous and horrifying; note, this be the same government that the courts now have ruled were wrong and had no basis for the emergency powers invoked on the truckers etc.…what these bitches do is act now knowing it is wrong, but beg forgivenss later…even if no forgiveness, they know the damage has been done.

Canadian Government Introduces "Online Harms Act"

‘One of the most insidious things modern governments do is tucking massive freedom-killing measures into innocent-sounding bills — and yet another example is the “Online Harms Act” coming out of Canada (which is really another attempt at the 2021’s Bill C-36 — with an extra helping of “THINK OF THE CHILDREN”).

See, we’re PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM ONLINE HARM — who could be against that? You don’t want children to experience harm online, do you? Only a MONSTER could vote against this bill that PROTECTS CHILDREN FROM ONLINE HARM.

(and bans hate speech)

Wait, did you say bans hate speech?

THE IMPORTANT THING IS PROTECTING THE CHILDREN FROM HARM ONLINE AND IF YOU DON’T VOTE FOR THIS BILL IT MEANS YOU HATE CHILDREN.

See, this story about the Canadian government attempting to censor its citizens is just DANGEROUS RIGHT-WING MISINFORMATION being peddled by people who have actually read the full text of the bill.

As usual, these things are hard to read — with references to other laws abundant throughout — which I’m starting to think is a feature, not a bug. By the time I got to the ‘good stuff’, I had to wade through pages of how the government plans to protect kids from bullying online, as well as the benefits of the people who ran the committees. But once we get PAST that stuff, we see the scary part:

As is always the case with ‘hate crimes’, this definition requires the government to assess the mindset of the person who committed the crime. Does Jack hate all Latinos, or just the one who totaled his car? Does Jack hate all women, or the specific government employee who sucks at her job? Guess who gets to decide!

“Your honor, this can’t be a hate crime because I only dislike the defendant.”

But even this can’t be an actual defense, because it’s also illegal to spread content that FOMENTS hatred — meaning you don’t even have to do the hating yourself IF GOVERNMENT SAYS YOUR POST COULD GET OTHERS TO HATE.

Just like that, we’re already ten steps down the slippery slope.

And the reality is that in these sorts of online censorship bills, government always exempts itself, no matter how ‘hateful’ its speech. The Online Harms Bill proclaims those who promote genocide are liable to spend life in prison:

But many people think that Trudeau’s government is promoting genocide in Gaza — this guy certainly thinks so. But of course the rule of law is only for SUBJECTS of the crown, not the crown itself (which of course needs special protections from the masses).

And perhaps more dangerously, this places control of speech on social media directly into the hands of government — who will have a completely legal way to remove any speech it doesn’t like (which, by experience, we know will include true information and joke posts). The whole plan sounds suspiciously like it was lifted directly from the UNESCO playbook.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre recently spoke about the Online Harms Bill, and….he sort of sounds like a Screamer.

Hate speech isn’t just speech you hate…..where have I heard that idea before?

---

I didn’t want to talk about the story of Laken Riley, the 22-year-old Augusta University College of Nursing student who was murdered by illegal immigrant Jose Ibarra last week. The story was already ‘out there’, and the picture it paints is crystal clear. Additionally, I tend to treat people as individuals and don’t like to tarnish some because of the actions of another.

But the media — in all its narrative-pushing glory — was so obviously trying to bury the lede in this story that I just had to Scream about it.

First up, we have an AP article that fails to mention that Ibarra is here illegally, instead calling him an “Athens resident” while framing the story as one of the dangers of jogging alone…..

(I’m reminded of the Glock commercial with the woman running alone…….)

And if that wasn’t bad enough, here’s a CNN clip courtesy of MAZE:

Notice how they carefully word the story to minimize the damage to the narrative. She was “found dead” and “didn’t go to the same school” as Ibarra (who didn’t go to ANY school). A quick 15-second ‘update’ and then onto a story about migrant centers being closed due to a lack of funding.

I guess by now I shouldn’t be, but I’m always amazed when the media attempts to omit basic facts about a case — as if nobody else in the world is looking into the murder of a nursing student and the information won’t get out anyway.

But it always does:

But if the facts are going to get out anyway, why attempt to frame the narrative? It’s literally what they were taught:

After all, we don’t want negative reporting to lead to negative stereotyping — unless we’re talking about anti-vaxxers, or MAGA Republicans, or police departments, or right-wing misinformation peddlers, or parents who don’t want their daughters competing against boys………

All those people are guilty of hate speech, after all.

---

Wrapping up today with the most disgusting thing you’ll read all day:

Pretty sure that’s in violation of the Online Harms Bill. Can we send Adam away?’