The ONLINE HARMS ACT Gives Power To Arrest People Who MAY Commit A “HATE CRIME” IN THE FUTURE!!!

Comment: I have seen this happen, already. In early 1980s, I had an honour and a privilage to represent “the people” against “the government” in a communist Poland. I was a member of the National Committe of “Solidarity (one of 108) and was elected a chairman of one of its 48 regions [1] , [2] , [3] ,[4] , [5] . In one year, 10 million out of 14 million empoloyees in the public sector became members of “Solidarity”. At the same time, only 2 million Poles were members of the communist party (PZPR). Given these stats, the governing political party could not win with us politically, so they resorted to the establishent of martial law that outlawed the first “Solidarity” and lasted about two years.

While most of my collegues were arrested and interned, I went into hiding. After the amnesty act in 1983, which practically ended the martial law, I was fired from my teaching position and prevented from finding any employment. I ended up at the Canadian Embassy in Warsaw, applying for an immigrant status, and I was accepted. In Canada, I learned English and renewed my teaching qualifications. Unfortunately, I was publishing a website that criticized Israel’s policies. I also wrote articles criticizing the dumbing down education reforms of 1998. The cabal has taken all necessary steps to make sure that my teaching career would not continue. They did not win but I did not win, either. It is from this background that I am asking the following questions:

Since WW2, our politicians and our media have consistently criticized Nazis and the war crimes committed by them during WW2. Did it constitute a “Hate Crime”? Has anybody been punished for “hating” the Nazis”? Was hating Hitler and Stalin a crime? Is hating criminals, thieves, liars and killers a crime? Is hating and killing terrorists a hate crime? Or, maybe we kill them and imprison them because we love them? How about international law, human rights, and the Constitution? Is defending them a hate crime? Is criticizing a state which violates international law and UN resolutions a hate crime?
–
Is following the science and believing in science a hate crime? Today, scientists and doctors are divided on the topic of policies and mandates implemented under the “pandemics” umbrella. Scientists are divided under the “climate change” umbrella and under other umbrellas, as well. This is how science works, this is how innovations and discoveries are made. Questions often arise from doubts and curiosity. People ask questions and search for answers. In this process, sometimes they make mistakes, sometimes they find the truth. Without this process of free research and free speech that involves trial and error, there would be no progress. Is this process a “hate crime”?
–
Is believing in democracy and existing human rights a hate crime? Is criticizing a government that tries to destroy democracy and human rights a hate crime? Democracy means the right to self-determination based on informed consent. It is the right to information and decision based on individual choices. Maybe this does not work for “The Elites” but it works for “The People”. We can see where application of collective rights and destruction of individual rights has taken humanity. It is called communism. It requires a totalitarian governance. It ‘s achieved by repression of dissent and opposition. Is this where Canada is heading under the new Online Harms Act?

This is the right time to remind Trudeau and his cabinet about Canada’s commitment to uphold earlier ratified Human Rights, including art. 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which reads:

Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is more “incusive” and less “divisive”. It reads:

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

As you can see, these articles refer to “opinions”, not to “facts”. My “opinion” may be right or wrong, I can be mistaken or misinformed, but I still have the right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media od my choice”. Freedom of opinion and communication is necessary to advance understanding and science. It is also necessary to make informed choices and to participate meaningfully in a democratic process.

Related: