Ides Eve
Too many people with too much power are either dangerously stupid or unashamedly evil.
Tomorrow is the Ides of March—my birthday.
My employer is throwing a huge party—not in my honor, believe it or not—and then I’ll be celebrating all weekend with Herself and our girls. I therefore intend to take a complete time out until next week, when I’ll be so much older and wiser than I am today.
Youngest, who’s in ninth grade, is currently doing a module on Crime and Punishment at school. It’s not about the novel, although apparently they’ll be discussing it, but about the principles themselves: what is crime? What is punishment? Who decides? On what basis? I don’t see how they discuss all that without having to confront the question what is justice?—but then they’d have left Dostoyevseky and moved on to Plato. Maybe that’s a bit much for ninth grade.
We adults would also do well to ask ourselves, today: What is crime? What is punishment? What is justice?
That link goes to a Wall Street Journal article about a story I noticed bubbling around the internet last week—but dismissed because I figured it couldn’t possibly be true.
More fool me:
On Feb. 26 Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal government introduced Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which targets so-called hate speech on the internet. One of its provisions would enable anyone, with the consent of the federal attorney general, to “lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit” an offense. The judge could then issue a “peace bond” imposing conditions, including house arrest and electronic monitoring, on the defendant merely because it’s feared he could commit a hate crime.
Take that same article and rephrase it as conservative chum, à la “Justin Castreau is establishing a precrime unit in Canada,” and that’s what I was seeing and disbelieving last week.
Except here’s the opening of the Journal article:
The 2002 film “Minority Report” depicts a specialized law-enforcement unit called Precrime that relies on information from psychics to apprehend would-be offenders before they can commit crimes. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seems to have taken this as a suggestion rather than a warning.
I respect the editorial standards of the Wall Street Journal, but when a story is this loony I still feel compelled to seek out whatever source documentation I can get my hands in.
In this case, it would be the official text of the bill. It’s right here.
Fear of hate propaganda offence or hate crime
810.012 (1) A person may, with the Attorney General’s consent, lay an information before a provincial court judge if the person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit
(a) an offence under section 318 or any of subsections 319(1) to (2.1); or
(b) an offence under section 320.1001.
Section 318 is “advocating genocide:”
318 (1) Every person who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
No mention of whether it “depends on the context,” so if Canadian university campuses are anything like their American counterparts, a lot of Canadian college students may end up spending the rest of their lives in a Canadian prison.
Subsections 319(1) through (2.1) appear to be as follows:
319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(2) Relevant portion of subsection 319(2):
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(3) Relevant portion of subsection 319(2.1):
(2.1) Everyone who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
Except that they are modified by amendments as follows:
14 (1) Paragraph 319(1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(2) Paragraph 319(2)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
2022, c. 10, s. 332(1)
(3) Paragraph 319(2.1)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
So the penalties all went from a maximum of two years’ imprisonment to a maximum of five years. Because two years isn’t enough of a penalty for a crime someone might commit.
Now we can go back to see what might be meant by “an offence under section 320.1001.”
Offence motivated by hatred
320.1001 (1) Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, if the commission of the offence is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.
Definition of hatred
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), hatred has the same meaning as in subsection 319(7).
Exclusion
(3) For greater certainty, the commission of an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament is not, for the purposes of this section, motivated by hatred based on any of the factors mentioned in subsection (1) solely because it discredits, humiliates, hurts or offends the victim.
Great: now we have to get the meaning of hatred from subsection 319 (7):
hatred means the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike; (haine)'
I know that’s a lot of stuff, and it’s confusing and tangled, but remember: this is all the stuff that 810.012(1) says someone can bring someone else to court for “if the person fears on reasonable grounds” that that someone is about to embark on any of the new crimes defined in the hopeless tangle of stuff I have so patiently laid out before you.
And here’s where we go from there, once that snitch has brought the precriminals precrimes to the provincial court:
Appearances
(2) The provincial court judge who receives the information may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.
Adjudication
(3) If the provincial court judge before whom the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the informant has reasonable grounds for the fear, the judge may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months.
Duration extended
(4) However, if the provincial court judge is also satisfied that the defendant was convicted previously of any offence referred to in subsection (1), the judge may order that the defendant enter into the recognizance for a period of not more than two years.
Refusal to enter into recognizance
(5) The provincial court judge may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.
Remember: the “defendant” here hasn’t actually done anything. Nothing at all. It’s merely suspected that the defendant may do something. How does one defend oneself against accusations that one might do something?
I guess Canadians will find out, good and hard (it’s a long excerpt, but you need to read it to believe it—or at least skim it enough to realize the sheer depravity of what’s being proposed):
Conditions in recognizance
(6) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant, including conditions that require the defendant to
(a) wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes that request;
(b) return to and remain at their place of residence at specified times;
(c) abstain from the consumption of drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance;
(d) provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.3(2)(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance;
(e) provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.3(2)(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or
(f) abstain from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary.
End of inserted block
Conditions — firearms
(7) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which it applies.
Surrender, etc.
(8) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall specify in the recognizance how the things referred to in that subsection that are in the defendant’s possession shall be surrendered, disposed of, detained, stored or dealt with and how the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant shall be surrendered.
Reasons
(9) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (7) to a recognizance, the judge shall include in the record a statement of the reasons for not adding it.
Variance of conditions
(10) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.
Other provisions to apply
(11) Subsections 810(4) and (5) apply, with any modifications that the circumstances require, to recognizances made under this section.
Any judge will have the power to inflict any of those “conditions” upon any Canadian who some other Canadian “reasonably” fears may someday commit a hate crime.
And please note: for all the definitions and subsections, there is no definition of “reasonable” offered in the text, despite the word appearing 42 times.
This isn’t an accident. It isn’t something that weary and inattentive interns typed up for their bosses and didn’t have time to proof before publication. This is something that has been hammered out, considered, debated, hammered out some more, amended, tweaked, and fine-tuned.
The perversity of this law therefore cannot be excused by any of the arguments one sometimes hears from legislators and regulators caught with their pants down. (“That’s not how it read in committee!” “They promised they’d strike that paragraph!” “I didn’t have a chance to read the latest draft before it went online!”)
The Canadian government wants so badly to crack down on “hate”—the emotion that involves detestation or vilification and that is stronger than disdain or dislike—that it’s willing to let its citizens (who are, if this monstrosity passes, effectively no longer citizens but serfs) accuse one another of crimes that might be committed.
Not only that, but pay special attention to the most psychotic and sociopathic touch of all: at the conclusion of the inquiry, the panel may issue:
an order to pay compensation of not more than $20,000 to any victim identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, for any pain and suffering that the victim experienced as a result of that discriminatory practice, if that person created or developed, in whole or in part, the hate speech to which the complaint relates
So they’re not just opening the floodgates of mutual recrimination: they’re incentivizing it with cold, hard cash. Well, Canadian dollars, but still.
The names of everyone involved in this legislation ought to be made public, and the people of Canada ought to dedicate themselves to the task of ensuring they are all removed from office and none of them is ever again permitted even a nuclino of public authority.
Were Canada a sane nation populated by free, self-respecting, self-governing citizens, the Trudeau government would not merely fall, it would be knocked down with such force the tremors would be felt in Australia.
But, as my old man used to say, if we had some bacon we could have bacon and eggs, if we had some eggs.
Karl Marx died in London on March 14, 1883. His premature death prevented him from seeing the global impact of his progeny: Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Zeppo.
The 14th marks the birthdays of Billy Crystal (1947), Michael Caine (1933), Quincy Jones (1933), Frank Borman (1928), Hank Ketcham (1920), and Albert Einstein (1879).
March 14 is Constitution Day in Andorra.
But Wait, There’s More!
I’m taking the weekend off but don’t want to leave anyone hanging.
March 15 is, as we’ve already noted, the Ides of March. Julius Caesar was killed on the Ides in 44 BC by a group of conspirators led by Brutus and Cassius. They were angry at him because he had crossed the Rubicon. Later Marc Antony borrowed everyone's ears and told them that Brutus was an honorable man, which upset them so much they had a Civil War.
Sixteen centuries later, more or less, William Shakespeare immortalized the story, and eventually Marlon Brando got to play Marc Antony, so everyone was happy in the end.
Caesar is also celebrated because he wrote a famous book called The Garlic Wars, which begins with the famous line, “All garlic is divided into three cloves.” It also includes the line “veni, vidi, vinci,” the exact meaning of which is still a matter of debate but, if my own Latin studies are worth anything, probably involves Druids and hollandaise sauce.
I celebrate my own birthday on March 15, alongside the older and dowdier Fabio (1961), Sylvester “Sly” Stone (1944), Judd Hirsch (1935), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933), Samuel "Lightnin'" Hopkins (1912), and Andrew Jackson (1767).
Besides my birthday, it’s Revolution Day in Hungary, Constitution Day in Belarus, Youth Day in Palau, and, it should go without saying, J.J. Roberts Day (no relation) in Liberia.
On March 16, 1792, Gustavus III of Sweden was shot to death by a Captain Anckarstroem at a masked ball. It took him almost two weeks to die. Shakespeare never wrote about Gustavus, probably because Gustavus was born well after Shakespeare's death, but Giuseppe Verdi (in English, “Joe Green”) wrote an opera about the affair called Un Ballo in Maschera (“A Bull in Mascara”).
Erik Estrada will be 74 on the 16th. He shares his birthday with Bernardo Bertolucci (1940), Jerry Lewis (1926), Pat Nixon (1912), Henny Youngman (1906), and James Madison (1751).
March 16 is Canberra Day Australia.
The Feast Day of St. Patrick is celebrated on March 17. St. Patrick is considered the father of Celtic Christianity. He founded more than three hundred churches, drove the snakes out of Ireland, invented green beer, and coined the popular slogan, “Kiss me, I'm Irish.”
On March 17, 1939, after German troops crossed the Czech border, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain threw all his years of careful diplomacy out the window and accused Adolf Hitler of breaking his word. He instantly regretted having let these angry words slip, however, and subsequently resigned.
March 17 is the birthday of Rob Lowe (1964), Gary Sinise (1955), Kurt Russell (1951), Patrick Duffy (1949), Rudolf Nureyev (1938), Nat "King" Cole (1919), and Shemp Howard (1895).
Enjoy the weekend!
© 2024, The Moron’s Almanac
A belated comment. It really is strange and horrible to see how far and how fast especially the English speaking countries have turned towards the kind of policies that look to Orwell's 1984 as a how-to-guide. In my naïveté, as someone who spent formative years in the US and who have long admired the civilizational contributions of the English, from the Magna Carta and onwards, I must confess to have harboured far more faith in the resilience against authoritarian tendencies of the British and her former imperial progeny (to which I will include the United States) than has shown to be warranted.
Had you asked me back in say, the 90s, I would NOT have had Canada on my Fascist bingo card. Nor New Zealand (whose Covid response was insane) or Australia (ditto) or the many myriad ways in which the British themselves have cheerfully thrown any pretence of respect for individual rights out the window.
For some reason, the toxic identity politics that obscure US academics took from France and polished into weapons grade radioactive civilizational acid, have arguably been the most impressively successful idea based export since Marxism (and by historical standards, its contagion has been much much faster). And for reasons I do not understand, this rot has found amazingly fertile ground in the English speaking countries. Not that the rest of the European continent has proved immune, but at least here there is some residual instinctive opposition to the most insane ideas.
The US as a creedal nation might be suspected to be somewhat susceptible to idea corruption in a way that a traditional cultural and ethnic European nation state would not be, since in the latter case the national ties are emotional to a higher (or deeper) degree and thus in theory somewhat resistant to an ideology whose effective main message is that your country and your culture is evil and should be abolished. (this nonsense can find purchase with a section of highly educated idiots in Western Europe but is unlikely to convince ordinary people in those countries).
But I remain astounded and appalled. And I do not understand why Trudeau is not hounded out of office in disgrace.