by Ezra Levant, Rebel News
Help us stop the world’s worst censorship law!
Justin Trudeau’s new censorship bill, C-36, criminalizes mean words on the Internet. It makes anyone liable for a tweet or Facebook post they made — even years ago as a teenager.
Bill C-36 allows for secret complaints — so you’ll never know who is suing you. But you could be forced to pay them up to $20,000 for every offensive tweet or Facebook post you make, in addition to $50,000 in fines to the government.
Believe it or not, that’s not even the worst part about C-36. The bill actually allows any woke activist to go to court and accuse someone of triggering them — to say that they are afraid that someone “might” do or say something “hateful”.
It’s like Tom Cruise’s movie Minority Report — the Department of Pre-Crime. Under Bill C-36, a woke activist can ask a judge to order that someone be severely punished even if they haven’t done anything yet.
These punishments include wearing an ankle bracelet tracker; being subject to curfews; being banned from communicating with any person or going to any place; and even (weirdly) being banned from drinking alcohol.
All because some activist is afraid they “might” say something mean on the Internet!
If you think any of this is an exaggeration, you can read Bill C-36 for yourself.
This is literally the worst law in the free world. Frankly, the Internet censorship part is the least of it. But the secret complaints system, the cash rewards for complainers, and the Department of Pre-Crime are simply concepts of law that are incompatible with democracies. They belong in authoritarian police states — or science fiction movies.
Please sign our petition to Stop C-36. We’ll fight it journalistically and politically — and if we have to, in court.
If C-36 passes I wonder if the government snitch hotlines will be trolled as in this story from NYC? deBlasio’s snitch hotline was hacked rather cleverly.
Bill C-36 will be used to punish “thoughtcrimes” that someone might deem offensive, giving vindictive SJWs the power to ruin people’s lives anonymously.
And there is a monetary reward for snitching, so you can be sure it will happen, if this bill is passed.
Many people will be faced with onerous fines, and their convictions reported in the media, as warnings to others.
The point of this is really to act as a disincentive to politically incorrect speech online, to self-censor and thus enforce only the official (state) view of what’s proper.
People will live in fear of the government and each other — just how totalitarians like it.
If passed, it’s the end of free speech in Canada, which is already under attack due to social media censorship and previous anti-free speech bills by Trudeau.
But this one goes well beyond anything before. It can be used to punish a person for a crime they have not committed. Incredible. Very Stalinesque.
If you read a typical mainstream media piece on this — by the news agencies paid by Trudeau with taxpayer’s money — there is no substantive criticism of it being offered.
For example, this puff piece by corrupt Global News just says it’s about stopping “hate.” But who gets to decide what that is? Some nameless faceless Party apparatchiks. Reminds me of the dystopian film Brazil (1985).
And along the same lines — another development that takes us a step closer to absolute state and corporate control of our lives, and zero freedom:
IMF report suggests credit scores could soon be based on web browsing history
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has published the results of research conducted into how lenders are likely to be doing their business in the future, and what new information and personal data these companies plan to start asking from borrowers in order to determine their credit score.
The biggest takeaway is the seemingly inevitable shift from merely accessing credit information to also incorporating people’s online behavior into the process of deciding whether to lend them money necessary, for example, to buy a house.
Compared to the way the system now works in most countries – these changes, which are expected to be coming soon, look fairly invasive privacy-wise, and with no “vision” of proper safeguards. Banks and others will go as far as to access personal browsing and shopping history. This would be done by allowing automated systems, powered by algorithms, to harvest the data and turn it into credit reports.
From the report:
“The use of non-financial data will have large effects on the provision of financial services. Traditionally, banks rely on the analysis of customer financial information from payment flows and accounting records. The rise of the internet permits the use of new types of nonfinancial customer data, such as browsing histories and online shopping behavior of individuals, or customer ratings for online vendors.”
Currently, those hoping to take out a loan can expect to have their repayment and credit history length, as well as total debt checked, but going forward, the IMF study suggests, this will be expanded to include what’s known as people’s digital footprint – either collected from data already publicly available, or that obtained by credit bureaus.
The stated goal is to improve “loan default predictions” – and the upcoming trend is sold as a way to give access to money to people who have previously been unable to use loans because their status is “unscorable.” Also known as “credit invisibles,” these are mostly low-income minorities and immigrants, and having access to their personal habits and behavior as exhibited on the internet is supposed to help banks and other lenders “profile” them precisely enough to determine if they should be given a loan.
On the other hand, citizens who are “scorable” but whose score is low might suffer in the new system now in the making, as their online activity could persuade lenders to cut them off from access to money.
Although the move in this direction looks inevitable, some key answers are missing: what data scraped from the internet will be used to determine someone’s credit rating, and how it will be secured.
IMF’s post warns, however, to expect an “efficiency-privacy trade-off.”
If you’re tired of censorship, cancel culture, and the erosion of civil liberties subscribe to Reclaim The Net.