The article above this paragraph should soon make sense if you saw the Tom Cruise movie” Minority Report.” In Canada, America’s closest neighbor to the north, a truly dangerous plan is making its way through Parliament.
Advertisement
That plan may make it possible for law enforcement to make arrests of people based on the fear that they are about to commit a crime or that someone else has already done it.
Read it once more:” On the basis of fear they are about to commit a crime or produce one to be committed by someone else.”
Conor Friedersdorf sums up the French request:
Anyone who supports or encourages murder is “liable to imprisonment for life,” according to the Online Harms Act. It defines lesser “hate offences” as including virtual statement that is “likely to foment repugnance or demonization” on the basis of race, religion, sex, or other secured groups.
And if someone “fears” that they might commit a hate crime, they can testify before a judge, who does summon the accused for a pre-crime trial of some kind. If the judge finds “reasonable basis” for the worry, the defendant has input into” a detainer”.
A recognition is not merely a pledge to stop committing love crimes. The judge may place the accused under electric or house arrest and require them to stop using alcohol and drugs. Unwillingness to “enter the custody” for one month results in 12 months in prison.
Picture what happens when every far-Left dramatic Karen goes to court because they fear they will face criminal charges as a result of a neighbor’s “hate talk,” which he said at a community gathering.
Advertisement
According to Canadian journalist Denyse O’Leary,” Americans should NOT assume that “it ca n’t happen here,” as it appears to be happening right in her native country, as she wrote last month on Mind Matters.
O’Leary is correct: It may happen these, thanks to the expansion of censorship between federal agencies like the FBI and modern giants like Google and Facebook, as well as the development of AI.
Think about it: It’s not much of a approach from repression by the government of what private individuals can learn, see, and hear to, combined with widespread government cultural credit system-type surveillance of everybody’s finances, cultural activities, recreation, and spiritual and political conduct, and AI-based conduct-predictive technology.
When such a group of elements come together, legislation will soon be passed that make it possible to make preemptive arrests of those accused of “hate talk” before the criminal acts that are anticipated to appear as a result. The First Amendment might as well be thrown into the trash because it will become a meaningless remnant of a lost constitutional history when that occurs.
Concerns about pre-crime rules are not new, but they moved from the realm of science literature to immediately probable real with the 9/11 Islamist terrorist attacks in New York, remote Pennsylvania, and Washington, D. C., which killed 2, 997 Americans.
Advertisement
Prior to 9/11, there was a well-established trend in criminal justice that pre-empted threats. However, contemporary counter terrorism measures have taken it to a new level. The most recent wave of pre-crime counterterrorism measures have its roots in US-led wars against drugs and crime, according to Judith McCulloch and Sharon Pickering, who wrote for the Center for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS)   in London in 2010.
Only two years later,” Minority Report” was in theaters across America. The trailer’s opening scene should make you shiver. Before you dismiss it as excessively imaginary, check out Forbes ‘ description of the status of pre-crime law in a 2018 analysis:
One-third of all U. S. cities either use or are considering predictive policing. Hartford, Connecticut, has implemented a system of pre-crime technology to keep watch over its citizens. A$ 2.5 million investment of state funds will be added to Harvard to add new software and surveillance cameras ( bringing the total to nearly 1, 000 ) as well as a network of drones. While the stable cameras are used for ongoing surveillance, software also analyzes the footage to find patterns.
Foot traffic, for example, at a particular house could indicate a location for drug deals. Drones can track suspects or pursue stolen goods. Although Harvard’s system does not yet have facial recognition technology, its equipment may incorporate this in the near future. Additionally, Harvard does n’t keep any information on file with outside organizations.
Advertisement
According to Forbes, Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, a professor of law, described pre-crime law as being a form of public health regulation. With a 2017 Time Magazine article where he noted:” Ferguson caught Forbes ‘ attention”:
Person-based predictive policing began in 2009 as an attempt to apply a public health approach to violence. Criminal behavior can increase life risks ( like getting shot ), just as epidemiological patterns reveal environmental toxins that can increase health risks ( such as getting cancer ). The trick is to identify the predictive risk factors and address the environmental causes that lie at the root.
In other words, they will say it’s for our own good if and when oppressive pre-crime suppression eventually becomes widespread in America.  ,
