What is the functional difference between Stretch, former Speaker of the House and fern, buck or mello? Making rational decisions based on what? Having a leftard try to explain a policy preference is an impossibility. Guns, God and Gays? Quite the argument for refusing to respond to "Answers" which are never given, just a pile of lies. Border is closed, inflation is just a false narrative, the chicom crud didn't come from a substandard chicom lab funded by Fow Chee. All "Answers".
Some Team Dazzler dream legislation for Canada as a starting point. It's nice we have a first amendment that the dems want to "evolve" into it's okay to criminally punish hate speech as defined by leftards. Just pack the Supreme Court and let the evolution of the Constitution begin.
Blaive noted, however, that while you can delete a past offense, the new Canadian law also punishes future or potential crimes. She wrote:
This is where it trips over into as yet unimagined dystopian territory. If the courts believe you are likely to commit a ‘hate crime’ or disseminate ‘hate propaganda’ (not defined), you can be placed under house arrest and your ability to communicate with others restricted… If the court believes there’s a risk you may get drunk or high and start tweeting under the influence — although how is unclear, given you can’t use your phone or a PC — it can order you to submit regular urine samples to the authorities. Anyone who refuses to comply with these diktats can be sent to prison…
That's pretty damned bad. So why not more upset about this? Well,
I found the text of the bill, saw the Post quoted it accurately, then reread from the start. By the text, Camus, Blaive, and Moore seemed correct, and it also seemed clear the New York Times, the CBC, The Conversation, the Globe and Mail and others buried the lede in coverage of the bill, which twice uses the term “imprisonment for life” and also references two, five and ten year sentences. There’s no way to read the bill and the Canadian coverage especially and conclude anything but that the more extreme provisions were deliberately played down.
The Globe and Mail, for instance, ran an article specifically about the “controversial” criminal provisions, but avoided mentions of “life” or “ten years” and said only that it “includes changes to the Criminal Code to usher in stiffer penalties for hate-related crimes.” A piece on the McGill University website quoted one of its law professors saying “the bill should remove its criminal law provisions, as we don’t have evidence that longer prison sentences lead to safer practices,” but with typical Canadian reserve avoided the neon headline material, i.e. the “imprisonment for life” line.
...
I tell this story for two reasons. One is just to illustrate that in the current media environment, there is often now no way to know what the hell you’re dealing with without picking up the telephone. The alleged most reputable media outlets in Canada and the U.S. refused to touch the most sensitive parts of this bill. Again, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that many did so intentionally, among other things because some reference parts of quotes or text but tiptoe around nearby key terms like “life,” “$50,000,” “$20,000,” “will commit,” “continuous communication,” and “so long as the hate speech remains public.” I’m still curious about the “Act of Parliament” clause — Virani insists an “offence motivated by hatred” refers to “criminal” offenses — but there’s no question that most of this law has been aggressively non-reported in the mainstream press, portrayed as just another in the growing jumble of European and anglophile “anti-disinformation” laws like the EU’s Digital Services Act.
Exactly my point on "no functional difference". The reporter is just a walking cliche stuffed full of a wad of feelings and thinks that using words like "progressive", page from Donald Trump's playbook and "people say" is some how the way to frame a debate. No facts were given except Trudeau's dementia patient like spending on stupid projects and ramping up inflation. Dude actually cited numbers and sh*t which to a leftard is like putting salt on a slug.
Comments
You and that person think the case is about hush money.
Funny.
No non-leftard here thinks the trial is about hush money. You and the Red Queen have a lot in common.
PS That isn't a flattering comparison, but it is the truth. Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.
She has a real name. Stormy is here ho name.
Go ahead and educate us what it’s about.
I’ve got bad news for you
Been good knowing y’all. Deep State about to take down the power grid and invoke martial law. Prolly need to convert to all mail in ballots too.
How much cheating will have to occur for the authoritarian elites to keep control of all of us who are sick of them?
Joe can't fill an ice cream shop.
What is the functional difference between Stretch, former Speaker of the House and fern, buck or mello? Making rational decisions based on what? Having a leftard try to explain a policy preference is an impossibility. Guns, God and Gays? Quite the argument for refusing to respond to "Answers" which are never given, just a pile of lies. Border is closed, inflation is just a false narrative, the chicom crud didn't come from a substandard chicom lab funded by Fow Chee. All "Answers".
Some Team Dazzler dream legislation for Canada as a starting point. It's nice we have a first amendment that the dems want to "evolve" into it's okay to criminally punish hate speech as defined by leftards. Just pack the Supreme Court and let the evolution of the Constitution begin.
HIS DADDY IS CASTRO. HIS INSPIRATION IS MAO: “Why don’t you trust the media?” https://instapundit.com/
https://elmtreeforge.blogspot.com/2024/05/why-dont-you-trust-media.html
"Why don't you trust the media?"
Because so many of the bastards won't tell us the truth. This is on the current "Free speech we don't approve of cannot be tolerated" bill by the Stalin wannabes running Canuckistan:
...But I clicked on the tweet by “Camus,” which linked to a People’s Voice article that quoted Czech historian Muriel Blaive of the Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes at length. She called the bill “mad” and like Camus decried the retroactive punishment clause, which places a responsibility on Canadians (or visitors to Canada, as I’d learn) to delete any old statements on the Internet that may constitute illegal hate speech under the new bill.
Blaive noted, however, that while you can delete a past offense, the new Canadian law also punishes future or potential crimes. She wrote:
This is where it trips over into as yet unimagined dystopian territory. If the courts believe you are likely to commit a ‘hate crime’ or disseminate ‘hate propaganda’ (not defined), you can be placed under house arrest and your ability to communicate with others restricted… If the court believes there’s a risk you may get drunk or high and start tweeting under the influence — although how is unclear, given you can’t use your phone or a PC — it can order you to submit regular urine samples to the authorities. Anyone who refuses to comply with these diktats can be sent to prison…
That's pretty damned bad. So why not more upset about this? Well,
I found the text of the bill, saw the Post quoted it accurately, then reread from the start. By the text, Camus, Blaive, and Moore seemed correct, and it also seemed clear the New York Times, the CBC, The Conversation, the Globe and Mail and others buried the lede in coverage of the bill, which twice uses the term “imprisonment for life” and also references two, five and ten year sentences. There’s no way to read the bill and the Canadian coverage especially and conclude anything but that the more extreme provisions were deliberately played down.
The Globe and Mail, for instance, ran an article specifically about the “controversial” criminal provisions, but avoided mentions of “life” or “ten years” and said only that it “includes changes to the Criminal Code to usher in stiffer penalties for hate-related crimes.” A piece on the McGill University website quoted one of its law professors saying “the bill should remove its criminal law provisions, as we don’t have evidence that longer prison sentences lead to safer practices,” but with typical Canadian reserve avoided the neon headline material, i.e. the “imprisonment for life” line.
...
I tell this story for two reasons. One is just to illustrate that in the current media environment, there is often now no way to know what the hell you’re dealing with without picking up the telephone. The alleged most reputable media outlets in Canada and the U.S. refused to touch the most sensitive parts of this bill. Again, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that many did so intentionally, among other things because some reference parts of quotes or text but tiptoe around nearby key terms like “life,” “$50,000,” “$20,000,” “will commit,” “continuous communication,” and “so long as the hate speech remains public.” I’m still curious about the “Act of Parliament” clause — Virani insists an “offence motivated by hatred” refers to “criminal” offenses — but there’s no question that most of this law has been aggressively non-reported in the mainstream press, portrayed as just another in the growing jumble of European and anglophile “anti-disinformation” laws like the EU’s Digital Services Act.
Fern's been quiet. I'm guessing his drag story time dance card is full.
H level intellect by the reporter
Exactly my point on "no functional difference". The reporter is just a walking cliche stuffed full of a wad of feelings and thinks that using words like "progressive", page from Donald Trump's playbook and "people say" is some how the way to frame a debate. No facts were given except Trudeau's dementia patient like spending on stupid projects and ramping up inflation. Dude actually cited numbers and sh*t which to a leftard is like putting salt on a slug.
The WEF Obunghole SloJoe plan then. Print till it's worthless and then communist nirvana!
Uh oh. Trump has his own crackhead now.
Take that, Hunter.
but Trump even in Canada