Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
authoritarianism.

If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.

Progressivism!

----------------------------
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/07/justin-trudeau-canada-legislation-hate-crimes-free-speech/

Justin Trudeau's government has proposed a law giving judges the power to
put someone under house arrest if they fear they could commit a hate crime.

Critics have warned the draconian bill is an overreach of power and could
stifle free speech and difficult discussions.

But Canada's justice minister defended the measure, claiming it would be an
important tool to help protect potential victims.

An online harms bill introduced by the Liberals last week proposed a string
of laws to protect children and prosecute hate crimes.

One of the suggested measures would give judges the ability to put people
under house arrest who they worry could commit a hate crime in the future.
The person could also be made to wear an electronic tag if the
attorney-general requested it.

Arif Virani, the justice minister, said the measures could prove very
important in restraining the behaviour of someone who might be targeting
minority groups.

"[If] there's a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group
could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them
from doing certain things," Mr Virani said.

Preventative measures could include banning the person from being near a
synagogue or a mosque or restrictions on internet use.

He said: "That would help to de-radicalise people who are learning things
online and acting out in the real world violently-- sometimes fatally."

Measures proposed in Bill C-63, which was unveiled on 26 February, include
a new hate speech offence which carries a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment for the most serious cases.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
>speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
>authoritarianism.

>If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
>for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.

>Progressivism!

>----------------------------
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/07/justin-trudeau-canada-legislation-hate-crimes-free-speech/

>Justin Trudeau's government has proposed a law giving judges the power to
>put someone under house arrest if they fear they could commit a hate crime.

>Critics have warned the draconian bill is an overreach of power and could
>stifle free speech and difficult discussions.

>But Canada's justice minister defended the measure, claiming it would be an
>important tool to help protect potential victims.

>An online harms bill introduced by the Liberals last week proposed a string
>of laws to protect children and prosecute hate crimes.

>One of the suggested measures would give judges the ability to put people
>under house arrest who they worry could commit a hate crime in the future.
>The person could also be made to wear an electronic tag if the
>attorney-general requested it.

>Arif Virani, the justice minister, said the measures could prove very
>important in restraining the behaviour of someone who might be targeting
>minority groups.

>"[If] there's a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group
>could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them
>from doing certain things," Mr Virani said.

>Preventative measures could include banning the person from being near a
>synagogue or a mosque or restrictions on internet use.

>He said: "That would help to de-radicalise people who are learning things
>online and acting out in the real world violently-- sometimes fatally."

>Measures proposed in Bill C-63, which was unveiled on 26 February, include
>a new hate speech offence which carries a maximum penalty of life
>imprisonment for the most serious cases.

This doesn't go far enough. Clearly their karma is tainted, so they
should be held in prison during their next life as well.

This should work like East Germany. In Canada, half of the population
will serve as guards and the warden over the other half of the
population.

Don't forget to teach A.I. to analyze faces to detect microaggressions,
otherwise Canadian society will not meet its quotas.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:03:25 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
>speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
>authoritarianism.
>
>If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
>for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.
>
>Progressivism!
>
>----------------------------
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/07/justin-trudeau-canada-legislation-hate-crimes-free-speech/
>
>Justin Trudeau's government has proposed a law giving judges the power to
>put someone under house arrest if they fear they could commit a hate crime.
>
>Critics have warned the draconian bill is an overreach of power and could
>stifle free speech and difficult discussions.
>
>But Canada's justice minister defended the measure, claiming it would be an
>important tool to help protect potential victims.

Who is going to protect the victims of the government putting them
under house arrest for the crime they might commit some day.

>An online harms bill introduced by the Liberals last week proposed a string
>of laws to protect children and prosecute hate crimes.
>
>One of the suggested measures would give judges the ability to put people
>under house arrest who they worry could commit a hate crime in the future.
>The person could also be made to wear an electronic tag if the
>attorney-general requested it.

So the judge is deciding if a person might commit a crime in the
future? Nothing could go wrong with that ability being given to judges
as we know they never make mistakes.

>Arif Virani, the justice minister, said the measures could prove very
>important in restraining the behaviour of someone who might be targeting
>minority groups.

Might being the key word

>"[If] there's a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group
>could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them
>from doing certain things," Mr Virani said.
>
>Preventative measures could include banning the person from being near a
>synagogue or a mosque or restrictions on internet use.

Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.

>He said: "That would help to de-radicalise people who are learning things
>online and acting out in the real world violently-- sometimes fatally."

If they are acting out violently in the real world then there's an
actual basis for putting restrictions in place. That's very different
from what was being suggested earlier in this post.

>Measures proposed in Bill C-63, which was unveiled on 26 February, include
>a new hate speech offence which carries a maximum penalty of life
>imprisonment for the most serious cases.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:03:25 +0000
BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for
> hate speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
> authoritarianism.
>
> If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in
> Canada for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a
> child.
>
> Progressivism!
>
> ----------------------------
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/07/justin-trudeau-canada-legislation-hate-crimes-free-speech/
>
> Justin Trudeau's government has proposed a law giving judges the
> power to put someone under house arrest if they fear they could
> commit a hate crime.
>
> Critics have warned the draconian bill is an overreach of power and
> could stifle free speech and difficult discussions.
>
> But Canada's justice minister defended the measure, claiming it would
> be an important tool to help protect potential victims.
>
> An online harms bill introduced by the Liberals last week proposed a
> string of laws to protect children and prosecute hate crimes.
>
> One of the suggested measures would give judges the ability to put
> people under house arrest who they worry could commit a hate crime in
> the future. The person could also be made to wear an electronic tag
> if the attorney-general requested it.
>
> Arif Virani, the justice minister, said the measures could prove very
> important in restraining the behaviour of someone who might be
> targeting minority groups.
>
> "[If] there's a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or
> group could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to
> prevent them from doing certain things," Mr Virani said.
>
> Preventative measures could include banning the person from being
> near a synagogue or a mosque or restrictions on internet use.
>
> He said: "That would help to de-radicalise people who are learning
> things online and acting out in the real world violently-- sometimes
> fatally."
>
> Measures proposed in Bill C-63, which was unveiled on 26 February,
> include a new hate speech offence which carries a maximum penalty of
> life imprisonment for the most serious cases.

A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people eligible
for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly identifying
the gender of an individual). They got away with that so now they've
upped the ante to put us in prison for life for hate speech.

It's probably just a coincidence that the current Justice Minister,
Arif Virani, is a Muslim in a party where the Muslims have more
influence than Jews these last few years. Still, it won't shock me if
convictions for "Islamophobia" radically exceed convictions for
anti-Semitism once this bill is enacted. And make no mistake about it,
it has every chance of being enacted given that Trudeau's Liberals plus
their NDP enablers have enough votes to get it done even if the Bloc
Quebecois and the Conservatives jointly oppose the bill with all of
their members. (The Bloc Quebecois is very progressive just like the
NDP and Liberals so it would not remotely surprise me if they supported
enacting this bill.)

Want your country destroyed? All you need to do is vote "progressive"!

--
Rhino

In article <etg0vi500jelb00ghvu1o1n46i6e2mkq3v@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:03:25 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
> >speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
> >authoritarianism.
> >
> >If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
> >for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.
> >
> >Progressivism!
> >
> >----------------------------
> >https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/07/justin-trudeau-canada-legis
> >lation-hate-crimes-free-speech/
> >
> >Justin Trudeau's government has proposed a law giving judges the power to
> >put someone under house arrest if they fear they could commit a hate crime.
> >
> >Critics have warned the draconian bill is an overreach of power and could
> >stifle free speech and difficult discussions.
> >
> >But Canada's justice minister defended the measure, claiming it would be an
> >important tool to help protect potential victims.
>
> Who is going to protect the victims of the government putting them
> under house arrest for the crime they might commit some day.
>
> >An online harms bill introduced by the Liberals last week proposed a string
> >of laws to protect children and prosecute hate crimes.
> >
> >One of the suggested measures would give judges the ability to put people
> >under house arrest who they worry could commit a hate crime in the future.
> >The person could also be made to wear an electronic tag if the
> >attorney-general requested it.
>
> So the judge is deciding if a person might commit a crime in the
> future? Nothing could go wrong with that ability being given to judges
> as we know they never make mistakes.
>
> >Arif Virani, the justice minister, said the measures could prove very
> >important in restraining the behaviour of someone who might be targeting
> >minority groups.
>
> Might being the key word
>
> >"[If] there's a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group
> >could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them
> >from doing certain things," Mr Virani said.
> >
> >Preventative measures could include banning the person from being near a
> >synagogue or a mosque or restrictions on internet use.
>
> Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
> they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
> restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
> reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.

I've never understood how you can sentence someone to no internet use in
today's world anyway. You use the internet in a million different ways
every day.

How could you do any banking at all? Even in-person banking at an ATM
uses the internet. Or pay for something with a credit/debit card? Again,
that's using the internet.

When you get on an elevator in an office building, you're using the
internet because the elevator is connected to the building's remote
management system and uses the internet to control things like elevators
from some remote location.

Driving a car uses the internet. Most modern cars have dozens of
internet-enabled features, especially the fancier ones what can
'self-drive'.

Even simply watching TV now is using the internet. Not just streaming,
either. Watching cable TV is using the internet also.

Anyone sentenced to no internet use as a condition of parole will likely
violate it before they leave the courthouse.

On 3/12/2024 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <etg0vi500jelb00ghvu1o1n46i6e2mkq3v@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:03:25 +0000, BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Locking people up for crimes they might commit and life in prison for hate
>>> speech. Looks like Canadia is well on its way to the Putin-level
>>> authoritarianism.
>>>
>>> If this bill passes, you'll get significantly more time in prison in Canada
>>> for making a racist comment than you you will for raping a child.
>>>
>>> Progressivism!
>>>
>>> ----------------------------
>>> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/07/justin-trudeau-canada-legis
>>> lation-hate-crimes-free-speech/
>>>
>>> Justin Trudeau's government has proposed a law giving judges the power to
>>> put someone under house arrest if they fear they could commit a hate crime.
>>>
>>> Critics have warned the draconian bill is an overreach of power and could
>>> stifle free speech and difficult discussions.
>>>
>>> But Canada's justice minister defended the measure, claiming it would be an
>>> important tool to help protect potential victims.
>>
>> Who is going to protect the victims of the government putting them
>> under house arrest for the crime they might commit some day.
>>
>>> An online harms bill introduced by the Liberals last week proposed a string
>>> of laws to protect children and prosecute hate crimes.
>>>
>>> One of the suggested measures would give judges the ability to put people
>>> under house arrest who they worry could commit a hate crime in the future.
>>> The person could also be made to wear an electronic tag if the
>>> attorney-general requested it.
>>
>> So the judge is deciding if a person might commit a crime in the
>> future? Nothing could go wrong with that ability being given to judges
>> as we know they never make mistakes.
>>
>>> Arif Virani, the justice minister, said the measures could prove very
>>> important in restraining the behaviour of someone who might be targeting
>>> minority groups.
>>
>> Might being the key word
>>
>>> "[If] there's a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group
>>> could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them
>> >from doing certain things," Mr Virani said.
>>>
>>> Preventative measures could include banning the person from being near a
>>> synagogue or a mosque or restrictions on internet use.
>>
>> Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
>> they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
>> restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
>> reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.
>
> I've never understood how you can sentence someone to no internet use in
> today's world anyway. You use the internet in a million different ways
> every day.
>
> How could you do any banking at all? Even in-person banking at an ATM
> uses the internet. Or pay for something with a credit/debit card? Again,
> that's using the internet.
>
> When you get on an elevator in an office building, you're using the
> internet because the elevator is connected to the building's remote
> management system and uses the internet to control things like elevators
> from some remote location.
>
> Driving a car uses the internet. Most modern cars have dozens of
> internet-enabled features, especially the fancier ones what can
> 'self-drive'.
>
> Even simply watching TV now is using the internet. Not just streaming,
> either. Watching cable TV is using the internet also.
>
> Anyone sentenced to no internet use as a condition of parole will likely
> violate it before they leave the courthouse.

That's like saying you use nuclear power if you get a suntan.

In article
<17bc1dd7c9d7d04f$139926$2218499$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 3/12/2024 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <etg0vi500jelb00ghvu1o1n46i6e2mkq3v@4ax.com>,
> > shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> >> Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
> >> they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
> >> restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
> >> reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.
> >
> > I've never understood how you can sentence someone to no internet use in
> > today's world anyway. You use the internet in a million different ways
> > every day.
> >
> > How could you do any banking at all? Even in-person banking at an ATM
> > uses the internet. Or pay for something with a credit/debit card? Again,
> > that's using the internet.
> >
> > When you get on an elevator in an office building, you're using the
> > internet because the elevator is connected to the building's remote
> > management system and uses the internet to control things like elevators
> > from some remote location.
> >
> > Driving a car uses the internet. Most modern cars have dozens of
> > internet-enabled features, especially the fancier ones that can
> > 'self-drive'.
> >
> > Even simply watching TV now is using the internet. Not just streaming,
> > either. Watching cable TV is using the internet also.
> >
> > Anyone sentenced to no internet use as a condition of parole will likely
> > violate it before they leave the courthouse.
>
> That's like saying you use nuclear power if you get a suntan.

No, it's not really like saying that at all.

On 3/12/2024 6:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17bc1dd7c9d7d04f$139926$2218499$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/12/2024 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <etg0vi500jelb00ghvu1o1n46i6e2mkq3v@4ax.com>,
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
>>>> they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
>>>> restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
>>>> reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.
>>>
>>> I've never understood how you can sentence someone to no internet use in
>>> today's world anyway. You use the internet in a million different ways
>>> every day.
>>>
>>> How could you do any banking at all? Even in-person banking at an ATM
>>> uses the internet. Or pay for something with a credit/debit card? Again,
>>> that's using the internet.
>>>
>>> When you get on an elevator in an office building, you're using the
>>> internet because the elevator is connected to the building's remote
>>> management system and uses the internet to control things like elevators
>>> from some remote location.
>>>
>>> Driving a car uses the internet. Most modern cars have dozens of
>>> internet-enabled features, especially the fancier ones that can
>>> 'self-drive'.
>>>
>>> Even simply watching TV now is using the internet. Not just streaming,
>>> either. Watching cable TV is using the internet also.
>>>
>>> Anyone sentenced to no internet use as a condition of parole will likely
>>> violate it before they leave the courthouse.
>>
>> That's like saying you use nuclear power if you get a suntan.
>
> No, it's not really like saying that at all.

That's like calling something wrong when you simply don't understand it.

In article <17bc2498b33e6a54$353$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 3/12/2024 6:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article
> > <17bc1dd7c9d7d04f$139926$2218499$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
> > moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/12/2024 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <etg0vi500jelb00ghvu1o1n46i6e2mkq3v@4ax.com>,
> >>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
> >>>> they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
> >>>> restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
> >>>> reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.
> >>>
> >>> I've never understood how you can sentence someone to no internet use in
> >>> today's world anyway. You use the internet in a million different ways
> >>> every day.
> >>>
> >>> How could you do any banking at all? Even in-person banking at an ATM
> >>> uses the internet. Or pay for something with a credit/debit card? Again,
> >>> that's using the internet.
> >>>
> >>> When you get on an elevator in an office building, you're using the
> >>> internet because the elevator is connected to the building's remote
> >>> management system and uses the internet to control things like elevators
> >>> from some remote location.
> >>>
> >>> Driving a car uses the internet. Most modern cars have dozens of
> >>> internet-enabled features, especially the fancier ones that can
> >>> 'self-drive'.
> >>>
> >>> Even simply watching TV now is using the internet. Not just streaming,
> >>> either. Watching cable TV is using the internet also.
> >>>
> >>> Anyone sentenced to no internet use as a condition of parole will likely
> >>> violate it before they leave the courthouse.
> >>
> >> That's like saying you use nuclear power if you get a suntan.
> >
> > No, it's not really like saying that at all.
>
> That's like calling something wrong when you simply don't understand it.

While I will admit that due to your purposeful word games and
legerdemain, it's often hard to understand what the hell you're talking
about, in this case, no, it's not really like saying that at all.

On 3/12/2024 6:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <17bc2498b33e6a54$353$2820980$c4d58e68@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/12/2024 6:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <17bc1dd7c9d7d04f$139926$2218499$46d50c60@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/12/2024 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <etg0vi500jelb00ghvu1o1n46i6e2mkq3v@4ax.com>,
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
>>>>>> they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
>>>>>> restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
>>>>>> reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never understood how you can sentence someone to no internet use in
>>>>> today's world anyway. You use the internet in a million different ways
>>>>> every day.
>>>>>
>>>>> How could you do any banking at all? Even in-person banking at an ATM
>>>>> uses the internet. Or pay for something with a credit/debit card? Again,
>>>>> that's using the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you get on an elevator in an office building, you're using the
>>>>> internet because the elevator is connected to the building's remote
>>>>> management system and uses the internet to control things like elevators
>>>>> from some remote location.
>>>>>
>>>>> Driving a car uses the internet. Most modern cars have dozens of
>>>>> internet-enabled features, especially the fancier ones that can
>>>>> 'self-drive'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even simply watching TV now is using the internet. Not just streaming,
>>>>> either. Watching cable TV is using the internet also.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone sentenced to no internet use as a condition of parole will likely
>>>>> violate it before they leave the courthouse.
>>>>
>>>> That's like saying you use nuclear power if you get a suntan.
>>>
>>> No, it's not really like saying that at all.
>>
>> That's like calling something wrong when you simply don't understand it.
>
> While I will admit that due to your purposeful word games and
> legerdemain, it's often hard to understand what the hell you're talking
> about, in this case, no, it's not really like saying that at all.

So, one is to assume that your unsupported dismissal of my analogy
arises from a thorough yet strangely withheld insight...

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:04:17 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>He said: "That would help to de-radicalise people who are learning things
>>online and acting out in the real world violently-- sometimes fatally."
>
>If they are acting out violently in the real world then there's an
>actual basis for putting restrictions in place. That's very different
>from what was being suggested earlier in this post.

The 2 biggest things that make me wonder about this is that
(a) Justin Trudeau is 12-18 months away from an election AND

(b) the Supreme Court of Canada is not at all shy about striking down
laws deems "ultra vires" (beyond their powers - e.g. the legislative
branch)

If it ISN'T 'fake news' then JT is ignoring (a) to his peril

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people eligible
>for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly identifying
>the gender of an individual). They got away with that so now they've
>upped the ante to put us in prison for life for hate speech.

I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.

(I know Rhino knows this but Gladue is the Supreme Court decision
mandating softer sentences on aboriginal criminals upon conviction and
UNDRIP is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Persons which
is a fraud and a farce and currently being used by the BC government
to give aboriginal groups a say on the use of all Crown land - that's
land held by the federal or provincial governments - which is 97% of
BC)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:07:09 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>> Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
>> they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
>> restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
>> reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.
>
>I've never understood how you can sentence someone to no internet use in
>today's world anyway. You use the internet in a million different ways
>every day.
>
There have been several cases where Canadians have been given "no
internet" as part of terms of parole - but those are people already
convicted of crimes by a judge or jury of one's peers.

I agree with your analysis but in practice this clause has only been
invoked when the person's crime (for instance kiddy porn or wire fraud
committed over the net) directly involves the Internet And unless a
minor is the victim is almost never ordered on a first offence.

In article <dcr1vipm3mtr2oc9vef5lcnr5sh9jqdfq5@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:07:09 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
> >> they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
> >> restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
> >> reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.
> >
> >I've never understood how you can sentence someone to no internet use in
> >today's world anyway. You use the internet in a million different ways
> >every day.
> >
> There have been several cases where Canadians have been given "no
> internet" as part of terms of parole - but those are people already
> convicted of crimes by a judge or jury of one's peers.
>
> I agree with your analysis but in practice this clause has only been
> invoked when the person's crime (for instance kiddy porn or wire fraud
> committed over the net) directly involves the Internet And unless a
> minor is the victim is almost never ordered on a first offence.

Even so, it's still virtually impossible to not use the internet in
modern society. Unless you're locked in a prison cell, any of thousands
of daily interactions in the outside world will involve internet use.

In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
> >A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people eligible
> >for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly identifying
> >the gender of an individual). They got away with that so now they've
> >upped the ante to put us in prison for life for hate speech.
>
> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.

Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate speech?

Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
nearest maximum security prison?

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 20:34:51 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <dcr1vipm3mtr2oc9vef5lcnr5sh9jqdfq5@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:07:09 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
>> >> they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
>> >> restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
>> >> reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.
>> >
>> >I've never understood how you can sentence someone to no internet use in
>> >today's world anyway. You use the internet in a million different ways
>> >every day.
>> >
>> There have been several cases where Canadians have been given "no
>> internet" as part of terms of parole - but those are people already
>> convicted of crimes by a judge or jury of one's peers.
>>
>> I agree with your analysis but in practice this clause has only been
>> invoked when the person's crime (for instance kiddy porn or wire fraud
>> committed over the net) directly involves the Internet And unless a
>> minor is the victim is almost never ordered on a first offence.
>
>Even so, it's still virtually impossible to not use the internet in
>modern society. Unless you're locked in a prison cell, any of thousands
>of daily interactions in the outside world will involve internet use.

While I take your point, I don't think the government is particularly
all that excited about anyone whose terms of release bar internet
usage from making a credit card payment (since most stores' credit
card terminals DO use the net rather than phone lines) - it's when
they find the newly released individual is accessing things like
(made-up URL) prettyunderagegirls.com they are concerned PARTICULARLY
when the newly released has a record of certain types of crimes.

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 20:36:14 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> >A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people eligible
>> >for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly identifying
>> >the gender of an individual). They got away with that so now they've
>> >upped the ante to put us in prison for life for hate speech.
>>
>> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
>> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.
>
>Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
>been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate speech?
>
>Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
>nearest maximum security prison?

Heh heh - no doubt JT would argue those pictures were taken when he
was in his 20s and therefore beyond the statute of limitations. And
therefore shouldn't count.

The peak of his hypocrisy is that he believes everybody not of his
party in parliament is a hypocrite which is why theyre not supporting
his measures.....

In article <vtd2viph8kdb0ptjjoglk8odd8vpu9r97r@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 20:34:51 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <dcr1vipm3mtr2oc9vef5lcnr5sh9jqdfq5@4ax.com>,
> > The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:07:09 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Again this is being discussed for what someone might do and not what
> >> >> they actually have done? At least so far as I know when such
> >> >> restrictions on people using the Internet in the USA it has been in
> >> >> reaction to things that they've actually done like with Kevin Mitnick.
> >> >
> >> >I've never understood how you can sentence someone to no internet use in
> >> >today's world anyway. You use the internet in a million different ways
> >> >every day.
> >> >
> >> There have been several cases where Canadians have been given "no
> >> internet" as part of terms of parole - but those are people already
> >> convicted of crimes by a judge or jury of one's peers.
> >>
> >> I agree with your analysis but in practice this clause has only been
> >> invoked when the person's crime (for instance kiddy porn or wire fraud
> >> committed over the net) directly involves the Internet And unless a
> >> minor is the victim is almost never ordered on a first offence.
> >
> >Even so, it's still virtually impossible to not use the internet in
> >modern society. Unless you're locked in a prison cell, any of thousands
> >of daily interactions in the outside world will involve internet use.
>
> While I take your point, I don't think the government is particularly
> all that excited about anyone whose terms of release bar internet
> usage from making a credit card payment (since most stores' credit
> card terminals DO use the net rather than phone lines) - it's when
> they find the newly released individual is accessing things like
> (made-up URL) prettyunderagegirls.com they are concerned PARTICULARLY
> when the newly released has a record of certain types of crimes.

Yes, but if you're going to put parole restrictions on people whose
violation will result in re-incarceration, due process requires that you
define precisely what those restrictions are.

Saying "no internet use" leaves a person in a world of uncertainty. What
does that mean? Do they mean just no social media? Can I still log on to
my bank account from home? Can I file my taxes electronically? Can I
watch Disney+?

As a parolee, I can't just assume "they don't mean that" when it comes
to something that could send me to prison if it turns out they actually
*do* mean that.

And even if "they don't mean that" in general, it's a helluva weapon to
use against someone that a cop or a prosecutor wants to "get" but hasn't
actually committed an overt crime or parole violation to hang on them.

Like the guy who made the anti-Islam video that Hillary lied and tried
to blame for Benghazi. There was nothing illegal about the video but (at
the time, thanks to Hillary) he was seen as being responsible for a huge
tragedy and national embarrassment, so since the guy was on parole, they
went looking for anything they could hang on him to punish him for and
they ended up violating him for "using an alias". Parolees are generally
prohibited from using fake names to hide from police or to participate
in gangs. That's the intent of that kind of parole restriction. In this
case, the government decided his YouTube screen name was an alias under
the terms of his parole-- something they'd never violated anyone else
for, something that most people, if they thought about it at all, would
have figured "they don't mean that"-- but in his case, they wanted to
save face by punishing him for embarrassing the U.S. and getting Navy
SEALs killed, so they said his YouTube account name was an alias and
threw him back into prison.

That's the sort of thing you have to worry about when a parole agreement
says something like "no internet use". What precisely does that mean and
can it be abused to fuck me over on a technicality? Because if it can be
used that way, there's a good chance it will be used that way.

On 3/12/2024 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people eligible
>>> for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly identifying
>>> the gender of an individual). They got away with that so now they've
>>> upped the ante to put us in prison for life for hate speech.
>>
>> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
>> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.
>
> Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
> been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate speech?
>
> Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
> nearest maximum security prison?

Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
speech' presumably is.

In article
<17bc6a65e0fefe3d$133203$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 3/12/2024 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
> > The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
> >> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people eligible
> >>> for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly identifying
> >>> the gender of an individual). They got away with that so now they've
> >>> upped the ante to put us in prison for life for hate speech.
> >>
> >> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
> >> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.
> >
> > Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
> > been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate
> > speech?
> >
> > Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
> > nearest maximum security prison?
>
> Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
> speech' presumably is.

Yes, there's always an excuse for why "it's different when we do it".

Ask any BLM/NAACP/black racial grievance group if they consider
appearing blackface to be hate and I bet they have a different standard
than you do. And the rules of political correctness say their definition
controls.

On 3/13/2024 4:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17bc6a65e0fefe3d$133203$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/12/2024 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people eligible
>>>>> for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly identifying
>>>>> the gender of an individual). They got away with that so now they've
>>>>> upped the ante to put us in prison for life for hate speech.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
>>>> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.
>>>
>>> Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
>>> been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate
>>> speech?
>>>
>>> Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
>>> nearest maximum security prison?
>>
>> Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
>> speech' presumably is.
>
> Yes, there's always an excuse for why "it's different when we do it".
>
> Ask any BLM/NAACP/black racial grievance group if they consider
> appearing blackface to be hate and I bet they have a different standard
> than you do. And the rules of political correctness say their definition
> controls.

No, there isn't "always an excuse" for why it might be "different".
Consider, for example, the recent discussion of RuPaul's book-banning.

Meanwhile, the question of 'hate' is determined by the offender's state
of mind, not the offendee's. I know that's difficult to countenance
when one's on the hunt for 'gotchas', but it's what logic dictates...

moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 4:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article
>> <17bc6a65e0fefe3d$133203$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/12/2024 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people eligible
>>>>>> for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly identifying
>>>>>> the gender of an individual). They got away with that so now they've
>>>>>> upped the ante to put us in prison for life for hate speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
>>>>> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
>>>> been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate
>>>> speech?
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
>>>> nearest maximum security prison?
>>>
>>> Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
>>> speech' presumably is.
>>
>> Yes, there's always an excuse for why "it's different when we do it".
>>
>> Ask any BLM/NAACP/black racial grievance group if they consider
>> appearing blackface to be hate and I bet they have a different standard
>> than you do. And the rules of political correctness say their definition
>> controls.
>
> No, there isn't "always an excuse" for why it might be "different".
> Consider, for example, the recent discussion of RuPaul's book-banning.
>
> Meanwhile, the question of 'hate' is determined by the offender's state
> of mind, not the offendee's.

Not according to all the woke DEI training everyone has to go through these
days. Your intent doesn't matter. It's the offended person's feelings that
matter.

That's why people can get fired for using the word niggardly. Doesn't
matter if the word has no racial meaning. Doesn't matter that the person
who used it had no intent to offend. All that matters is that a stupid
person with a stunted vocabulary was offended.

On 3/13/2024 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 4:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <17bc6a65e0fefe3d$133203$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people eligible
>>>>>>> for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly identifying
>>>>>>> the gender of an individual). They got away with that so now they've
>>>>>>> upped the ante to put us in prison for life for hate speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
>>>>>> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
>>>>> been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate
>>>>> speech?
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
>>>>> nearest maximum security prison?
>>>>
>>>> Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
>>>> speech' presumably is.
>>>
>>> Yes, there's always an excuse for why "it's different when we do it".
>>>
>>> Ask any BLM/NAACP/black racial grievance group if they consider
>>> appearing blackface to be hate and I bet they have a different standard
>>> than you do. And the rules of political correctness say their definition
>>> controls.
>>
>> No, there isn't "always an excuse" for why it might be "different".
>> Consider, for example, the recent discussion of RuPaul's book-banning.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the question of 'hate' is determined by the offender's state
>> of mind, not the offendee's.
>
> Not according to all the woke DEI training everyone has to go through these
> days. Your intent doesn't matter. It's the offended person's feelings that
> matter.
>
> That's why people can get fired for using the word niggardly. Doesn't
> matter if the word has no racial meaning. Doesn't matter that the person
> who used it had no intent to offend. All that matters is that a stupid
> person with a stunted vocabulary was offended.

'Training' is presumably to let people know what things might be
unexpectedly injurious. 'Hate' is what might be inferred of someone who
does such things despite already knowing.

By now, we'd both bet that 'niggardly' is used primarily to taunt.

In article <17bc7ef34c89321a$26$2906873$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com>,
moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 3/13/2024 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/13/2024 4:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <17bc6a65e0fefe3d$133203$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
> >>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/12/2024 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
> >>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
> >>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people
> >>>>>>> eligible for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly
> >>>>>>> identifying the gender of an individual). They got away with tha
> >>>>>>> so now they've upped the ante to put us in prison for life for
> >>>>>>> hate speech.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
> >>>>>> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
> >>>>> been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate
> >>>>> speech?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
> >>>>> nearest maximum security prison?
> >>>>
> >>>> Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
> >>>> speech' presumably is.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, there's always an excuse for why "it's different when we do it".
> >>>
> >>> Ask any BLM/NAACP/black racial grievance group if they consider
> >>> appearing blackface to be hate and I bet they have a different standard
> >>> than you do. And the rules of political correctness say their definition
> >>> controls.
> >>
> >> No, there isn't "always an excuse" for why it might be "different".
> >> Consider, for example, the recent discussion of RuPaul's book-banning.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, the question of 'hate' is determined by the offender's state
> >> of mind, not the offendee's.
> >
> > Not according to all the woke DEI training everyone has to go through these
> > days. Your intent doesn't matter. It's the offended person's feelings that
> > matter.
> >
> > That's why people can get fired for using the word niggardly. Doesn't
> > matter if the word has no racial meaning. Doesn't matter that the person
> > who used it had no intent to offend. All that matters is that a stupid
> > person with a stunted vocabulary was offended.
>
> 'Training' is presumably to let people know what things might be
> unexpectedly injurious.

No, they don't go through a list of what's offensive. They just tell you
that it doesn't matter what you meant or intended. Only the offended
person's thoughts and feelings matter.

> 'Hate' is what might be inferred of someone who does such things despite
> already knowing.
>
> By now, we'd both bet that 'niggardly' is used primarily to taunt.

Presumption of guilt. One of America's core values, amirite?

On 3/13/2024 10:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <17bc7ef34c89321a$26$2906873$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com>,
> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2024 7:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <17bc6a65e0fefe3d$133203$1098985$c8d58268@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>>>> moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/12/2024 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <75r1vidlcuq3nd6lsnd4o1s254bn9khpgu@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 12:10:11 -0400, Rhino
>>>>>>>> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A bill passed earlier in Trudeau's Reign of Error made people
>>>>>>>>> eligible for two years in prison for "mis-gendering" (i.e. correctly
>>>>>>>>> identifying the gender of an individual). They got away with tha
>>>>>>>>> so now they've upped the ante to put us in prison for life for
>>>>>>>>> hate speech.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose I could be in trouble then since I have publicly and online
>>>>>>>> denounced the Gladue decision and the UNDRIP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has anyone pointed out to Trudeau how ironic it is that a guy who has
>>>>>>> been caught in blackface is now proposing life sentences for hate
>>>>>>> speech?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has anyone suggested he lead by example and check himself into the
>>>>>>> nearest maximum security prison?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trudeau's blackface wasn't a clear expression of hate ...which 'hate
>>>>>> speech' presumably is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there's always an excuse for why "it's different when we do it".
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask any BLM/NAACP/black racial grievance group if they consider
>>>>> appearing blackface to be hate and I bet they have a different standard
>>>>> than you do. And the rules of political correctness say their definition
>>>>> controls.
>>>>
>>>> No, there isn't "always an excuse" for why it might be "different".
>>>> Consider, for example, the recent discussion of RuPaul's book-banning.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, the question of 'hate' is determined by the offender's state
>>>> of mind, not the offendee's.
>>>
>>> Not according to all the woke DEI training everyone has to go through these
>>> days. Your intent doesn't matter. It's the offended person's feelings that
>>> matter.
>>>
>>> That's why people can get fired for using the word niggardly. Doesn't
>>> matter if the word has no racial meaning. Doesn't matter that the person
>>> who used it had no intent to offend. All that matters is that a stupid
>>> person with a stunted vocabulary was offended.
>>
>> 'Training' is presumably to let people know what things might be
>> unexpectedly injurious.
>
> No, they don't go through a list of what's offensive. They just tell you
> that it doesn't matter what you meant or intended. Only the offended
> person's thoughts and feelings matter.
>
>> 'Hate' is what might be inferred of someone who does such things despite
>> already knowing.
>>
>> By now, we'd both bet that 'niggardly' is used primarily to taunt.
>
> Presumption of guilt. One of America's core values, amirite?

Expectation isn't presumption.