Care to elaborate?

Tri-tip roast and gravy

And don't let anyone tell you that you are ugly, you are, but don't let anyone tell you.

Placeholder post for when c210 and C63 passes in Canada. What are they? BILL s210 will effectively make you show your ID when online, it is aimed to protect students from pornography but the implications would mean that everyone would need to link their real ID to use the net. Bill C-63: The Online Harms ActOverview: Introduced on February 26, 2024, by then-Minister of Justice Arif Virani, Bill C-63, known as the Online Harms Act, aimed to regulate online content to reduce harmful material, such as non-consensual intimate images, child exploitation, and hate speech. It proposed creating a Digital Safety Commission, amending the Criminal Code, reinstating parts of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and mandating reporting of online child pornography. However, the bill was split into two parts due to controversy, and its progress stalled when Parliament was prorogued in January 2025 following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation announcement. As of March 24, 2025, it remains uncertain whether the bill will be revived. Concerns with Bill C-63:Threats to Freedom of Expression:Overbroad Hate Speech Provisions: Part 2 of Bill C-63 proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, including a new standalone hate crime offense with penalties up to life imprisonment for any crime deemed hate-motivated. Critics, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), argue this is excessively punitive and could criminalize minor offenses (e.g., spray-painting graffiti) as severely as violent crimes if deemed hate-motivated. The vague definition of “hate” risks chilling free speech, as individuals may self-censor to avoid prosecution. Reintroduction of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act: Part 3 aimed to reinstate a provision allowing complaints about online hate speech, with potential fines up to $50,000 for the government and $20,000 for complainants. Critics, including the Canadian Constitution Foundation, argue this could lead to frivolous or vindictive complaints, overwhelming the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and punishing non-criminal speech. The subjective nature of “hate” could target controversial but lawful opinions, particularly on issues like gender or religion. Pre-emptive Punishment and Due Process:Peace Bond Provisions: Part 2 introduced a new peace bond (section 810.012) allowing courts to impose restrictions (e.g., ankle monitors, curfews, or firearm surrender) on individuals suspected of potentially committing hate speech in the future, even without a crime being committed. Critics, including the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, argue this violates centuries-old legal principles of punishing only actual offenses and undermines the presumption of innocence. Such measures could disproportionately affect individuals with unpopular views, creating a “thought crime” precedent. Digital Safety Commission Powers: The proposed Digital Safety Commission would have broad authority to regulate online platforms and remove content based on “reasonable grounds” of harm, without court oversight or appeal mechanisms. Legal experts like David Fraser and Michael Geist warn this could lead to unconstitutional overreach, bypassing due process and enabling censorship without transparent accountability. Duplication of Existing Laws:Critics argue that many of Bill C-63’s provisions duplicate existing Criminal Code offenses, such as those covering non-consensual intimate images (Section 162.1), child pornography (Section 163), harassment (Section 264), and incitement of hatred or terrorism (Sections 319, 83.21, 83.22). The BCCLA and others question why new laws are needed when enforcement of current laws is lacking, suggesting the bill is more about political signaling than addressing gaps. Potential for Abuse and Overreach:The bill’s broad scope and severe penalties (e.g., life imprisonment for hate-motivated offenses) could lead to misuse, particularly against marginalized groups or dissenting voices. The BCCLA notes that the bill might harm the very communities it aims to protect by discouraging open discourse. For example, debates on gender identity or parental rights could be misconstrued as hate speech, stifling legitimate discussion. The anonymous complaint mechanism in Part 3 raises concerns about bad-faith actors exploiting the system for financial gain or personal grudges, as complainants could seek up to $20,000 in compensation. Chilling Effect on Online Platforms:The bill imposes heavy fines (up to $10 million or 6% of global revenue) on social media platforms for failing to police “harmful content,” potentially leading to over-censorship by providers to avoid penalties. This could limit free expression and disproportionately affect smaller platforms unable to afford compliance costs. Public and Political Backlash:A coalition of civil society groups, including Amnesty International Canada and the Canadian Association of University Teachers, expressed “profound reservations” about Parts 2 and 3, leading to the government’s decision to split the bill. Public opinion, as reflected in a March 2024 Leger poll, showed mixed support, with concerns about censorship outweighing the bill’s protective intent for some. The bill’s stalling after prorogation suggests political sensitivity to these criticisms. Critical Analysis and Broader ContextBill C-201: The concerns around Bill C-201 are primarily practical, focusing on implementation, funding, and ensuring equitable access. While the bill enjoys broad support from health and food security advocates, its success hinges on addressing logistical hurdles and securing bipartisan commitment. Critics might argue it’s a well-intentioned but ambitious proposal that risks underdelivering without clear financial and operational plans. However, its focus on child welfare and economic benefits makes it less contentious than Bill C-63. Bill C-63: The Online Harms Act is far more controversial due to its implications for free speech and civil liberties. Critics across the political spectrum, from civil liberties groups to legal scholars, argue that its vague definitions, severe penalties, and pre-emptive measures threaten democratic principles. The bill’s defenders, including Minister Virani, emphasize its intent to protect vulnerable groups, citing cases like Amanda Todd’s suicide due to online harassment. However, the lack of enforcement of existing laws and the potential for overreach have fueled skepticism. The decision to split the bill and its subsequent stalling reflect the government’s struggle to balance safety with freedom. Establishment Narrative vs. Reality: The government presents both bills as addressing pressing social issues (food i for C-201, online harms for C-63), but critics highlight a pattern of overreach or inadequate planning. For C-201, the narrative of universal child nutrition may gloss over regional disparities. For C-63, the focus on protecting children and minorities may mask broader censorship risks. The prorogation of Parliament and the splitting of C-63 suggest political calculations, possibly to avoid backlash before elections or to appease international partners pushing for online regulation. ConclusionBill C-201 Concerns: Focus on logistical challenges like funding, infrastructure, and standardization, with potential economic and cultural considerations. The bill is less controversial but faces practical hurdles to ensure equitable implementation. Bill C-63 Concerns: Center on threats to free expression, due process, and potential abuse of vague hate speech laws, with significant criticism for duplicating existing laws and creating a chilling effect. Its stalling reflects widespread public and expert concern.

Neat Doc