Bill’s C-10 & C-11. If we aren’t talking about it already, shouldn’t we be?

[Ron in Regina]

None of that.

But if you think the "Liberals" are the only ones who would do this kind'a stuff, maybe you're the brainwashed, blind or partisan one.

There’s the punchline. Currently it’s only the Liberals wanting this (Sorry, I guess I mean the Liberal/NDP non-Coalition cartel), but once it exists….whomever is in power can use it as a club against those that don’t think or believe or dare to say what isn’t acceptable to the government of the day…

Then who decides what is real or false news? Here’s a snapshot of those currently in power who want to decide this with bill C-11 and NDP backing:

No I’m not even talking about compensation for digital media etc., but the censorship end of this bill. If it was in place already as C-10, would Christia Freeland’s lies that Trudeau doubled down on have been exposed (?) or would the exposure have been censored?

 

[pgs]

There’s the punchline. Currently it’s only the Liberals wanting this (Sorry, I guess I mean the Liberal/NDP non-Coalition cartel), but once it exists….whomever is in power can use it as a club against those that don’t think or believe or dare to say what isn’t acceptable to the government of the day…

Then who decides what is real or false news? Here’s a snapshot of those currently in power who want to decide this with bill C-11 and NDP backing:

No I’m not even talking about compensation for digital media etc., but the censorship end of this bill. If it was in place already as C-10, would Christia Freeland’s lies that Trudeau doubled down on have been exposed (?) or would the exposure have been censored?

After those comments by Jagmeet Singh he is still supporting the Liberals on these bills . Say one thing do the opposite.

 

[Ron in Regina]

The Liberals are now trying to revive their incredibly controversial Internet legislation bill. It was previously known as Bill C-10, now it’s Bill C-11.

There was great uproar that the government was planning to censor Canadians’ social media. While the government denied this, experts maintained the bill would have that very effect.

The government is now expected to claim that this is a new and improved piece of legislation, addressing everyone’s concerns.

Liberal bill requires digital giants to negotiate fair rate with Canadian news publishers — National Post

CRTC will have the power to levy fees of up to $15 million a day on digital platforms like Google and Facebook that don’t comply

apple.news

Professor Michael Geist, from the University of Ottawa, is the country’s leading expert on these issues. He says that it’s just not true that all of the problems are now gone.

“Indeed, for all the talk that user generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a “program”,” Geist explains in a blog post that’s appropriately headlined “not ready for prime time”.

Basically, the bill means the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission will be granted permission to regulate a lot of social media content created by Canadians.

We shouldn’t be doing this and it’s not needed. Full stop. The legislation is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist and Canadians should oppose it as much as they did its precursor.

As if this isn’t scandalous enough, it’s quite something that Trudeau would try to slip this through when he did.

It’s pretty clear by now that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wishes to make things look worse than they are so he can stoke fear and division among Canadians. As the old saying goes, he’s not letting a good crisis go to waste.

But that’s not all that’s happening. Trudeau and his Liberal government are using the current national tensions as a smokescreen to let them slip in unpopular pieces of legislation.

Not so fast Mr. Trudeau. You’ve been caught. Anyway, here’s various people questioning this, that may or may not have a voice in Canada if Bill C-11 goes through:

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

How do you get to be "the leading expert?" Is it like the Order of Canada or something?

 

[Ron in Regina]

How do you get to be "the leading expert?" Is it like the Order of Canada or something?

Michael Geist - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ron in Regina]

After Speaker of the House Anthony Rota last summer ordered that documents related to the firing of two scientists from Winnipeg’s microbiology lab be given to MPs for review, the Liberal government took him to court. It was a galling attempt to override Parliament’s ancient powers to conduct its own affairs. Scrutiny over the fired scientists ended when the prime minister called an early election, just as a year earlier, the Liberals prorogued Parliament and conveniently ended committee work investigating the relationship between Trudeau and We Charity.

Since being reduced to a minority in 2019, Trudeau has made every attempt to conduct the business of government with as little Parliamentary oversight as possible. Budget? Just don’t bring one. Committees asking embarrassing questions? Shut down Parliament. Committees still asking embarrassing questions? Go to court. Protesters camped out on the Hill? Declare an emergency.

Criticism of the current government? Bring in C-10. It’s not going to get past the senators? Call a snap election, then reintroduce C-10 as C-11.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Michael Geist - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I ain't doubting he's good. I was just a little struck with him being declared "the" leading expert. Do you get a special pin or something?

 

[Ron in Regina]

I ain't doubting he's good. I was just a little struck with him being declared "the" leading expert. Do you get a special pin or something?

Honesty I’ve never heard of the guy before two days ago, & someone has to be the expert until somebody better comes along, & the guy who played Cliff on Cheers was busy…..so….

 

[B00Mer]

 

[B00Mer]

 

[Dixie Cup]

I'm still not sure how I feel about this bill.

On the one hand I feel like trying to regulate/control the internet in any way is like herding cats.

On the other hand, there needs to be some sort of regulations/guidelines at least for content at least on commercial platforms, and considering what's out there online, relying on individual people to do the regulating isn't smart, cause... people won't.

But again, I'm not sure which is worse.

I just wish they'd treat people like adults and allow free speech. If one doesn't like what's being said, either challenge them to a debate or ignore them. Governments & Big Tech SHOULD have thick skins and be able to deal with opinions they don't agree with, just like everyone else has before and will do so currently. The babies that scream and yell about how their "feelings" are hurt or are "offended" need to get a bloody life.

Trudeau has caused more damage by his insults & C-11 just shows how vindictive he is. We need to fight against this Bill especially since there are already laws on the books against hate, slander etc. We don't need a C-11 nor should the government control what we think, feel and believe. It's all about Trudeau and what HE thinks everyone should think, feel & believe because there are those of us who have the "wrong think" and need to be "schooled" I guess. I will not be one of them.

 

[Serryah]

I just wish they'd treat people like adults and allow free speech. If one doesn't like what's being said, either challenge them to a debate or ignore them. Governments & Big Tech SHOULD have thick skins and be able to deal with opinions they don't agree with, just like everyone else has before and will do so currently. The babies that scream and yell about how their "feelings" are hurt or are "offended" need to get a bloody life.

Trudeau has caused more damage by his insults & C-11 just shows how vindictive he is. We need to fight against this Bill especially since there are already laws on the books against hate, slander etc. We don't need a C-11 nor should the government control what we think, feel and believe. It's all about Trudeau and what HE thinks everyone should think, feel & believe because there are those of us who have the "wrong think" and need to be "schooled" I guess. I will not be one of them.

So you're all for advocating for the murder of people, for whatever reason a person deems that they want it done, without anything to stop it?

Got'cha.

 

[pgs]

So you're all for advocating for the murder of people, for whatever reason a person deems that they want it done, without anything to stop it?

Got'cha.

That is a stretch .

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So you're all for advocating for the murder of people, for whatever reason a person deems that they want it done, without anything to stop it?

Got'cha.

If D-Cup is actually for that, I have to agree. Banning speech is an attempt to ban thought. That's what's going on with the "Don't Say Gay" laws.

At some point, we need to stand on the notion of "sticks and stones" or accept that our ideas can be criminalized.

There can be other, narrower ways to prevent incitement of a crime. Hey, there's an idea! We could make incitement or solicitation of a crime themselves a crime! Oh. . . wait. We already do.

Incitement, solicitation, conspiracy. . . all these concepts are and have been ways to take on the incredibly fraught-with-peril attempt to set up a system that lies somewhere between the Wild West and the Crushing East (Germany). Let's continue to develop those, following the lead of educated, sensitized jurists who at least understand that any kind of categorical "you can't say that!" works more harm than good.

The "slippery slope" and the "parade of horribles" are always suspect arguments, but would you really want to set up a system where anything you can't broadcast on CBC, you can't say on the internet, lest the website or the ISP you're on be fined or shut down by the CRTC?

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
Thomas Jefferson

TJ had his good days.

 

[Ron in Regina]

If D-Cup is actually for that, I have to agree. Banning speech is an attempt to ban thought. That's what's going on with the "Don't Say Gay" laws.

At some point, we need to stand on the notion of "sticks and stones" or accept that our ideas can be criminalized.

There can be other, narrower ways to prevent incitement of a crime. Hey, there's an idea! We could make incitement or solicitation of a crime themselves a crime! Oh. . . wait. We already do.

Incitement, solicitation, conspiracy. . . all these concepts are and have been ways to take on the incredibly fraught-with-peril attempt to set up a system that lies somewhere between the Wild West and the Crushing East (Germany). Let's continue to develop those, following the lead of educated, sensitized jurists who at least understand that any kind of categorical "you can't say that!" works more harm than good.

The "slippery slope" and the "parade of horribles" are always suspect arguments, but would you really want to set up a system where anything you can't broadcast on CBC, you can't say on the internet, lest the website or the ISP you're on be fined or shut down by the CRTC?

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
Thomas Jefferson

TJ had his good days.

So….how does this fit with what’s currently going on in Sweden? There seems to be a free speech issue between an extremist (?) political party…..& an extremist religious part a religious group….and who’s expression should be censored and who’s shouldn’t???

I just started a thread about this but there’s not much in it at this point, but it ties back to the free-speech question here in this thread.

Swedish Riots

OK, so from what I can understand so far with almost no reading on the subject, some extremist political party wants to burn a copy of the Quran for some reason, & Mostly immigrants of Muslim faith are protesting that by burning police cars and such… and this is been in the media for about 3...

forums.canadiancontent.net

 

[taxslave]

After Speaker of the House Anthony Rota last summer ordered that documents related to the firing of two scientists from Winnipeg’s microbiology lab be given to MPs for review, the Liberal government took him to court. It was a galling attempt to override Parliament’s ancient powers to conduct its own affairs. Scrutiny over the fired scientists ended when the prime minister called an early election, just as a year earlier, the Liberals prorogued Parliament and conveniently ended committee work investigating the relationship between Trudeau and We Charity.

Since being reduced to a minority in 2019, Trudeau has made every attempt to conduct the business of government with as little Parliamentary oversight as possible. Budget? Just don’t bring one. Committees asking embarrassing questions? Shut down Parliament. Committees still asking embarrassing questions? Go to court. Protesters camped out on the Hill? Declare an emergency.

Criticism of the current government? Bring in C-10. It’s not going to get past the senators? Call a snap election, then reintroduce C-10 as C-11.

Making independent thought illegal is the only way socialists can hold power.

 

[taxslave]

That is a stretch .

Happens when you type in front of a mirror.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So….how does this fit with what’s currently going on in Sweden? There seems to be a free speech issue between an extremist (?) political party…..& an extremist religious part a religious group….and who’s expression should be censored and who’s shouldn’t???

I just started a thread about this but there’s not much in it at this point, but it ties back to the free-speech question here in this thread.

Swedish Riots

OK, so from what I can understand so far with almost no reading on the subject, some extremist political party wants to burn a copy of the Quran for some reason, & Mostly immigrants of Muslim faith are protesting that by burning police cars and such… and this is been in the media for about 3...

forums.canadiancontent.net

I'd have to look into it more deeply. But just off the jump, I'd point out that Canada and the U.S. have very similar, British-descended philosophical and legal notions of rights and freedom. Sweden ain't exactly Mars, but it's a different system with different philosophies and understandings.

 

[Ron in Regina]

A comedian named Lenny Bruce got jailed for his "freedom" several times in the early 60s.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. This is a bad law that will inevitably be used to quell speech. Just saying don't rely too heavily on your constitution to protect you.

Agreed! All the more reason not to give the state more power and control over our "freedom".

Do I need to add that it is not necessary for other journalists or news organizations to agree with Rebel News, to admire or esteem its style or approach, in order to come to its defence, when the very principle of a free press is being invaded by the national government? A genuine free press does not depend on taste, nor is it contingent on one’s views about a competitor.

Now let us turn to this most curious determination of the “independent” advisory board that only one per cent of Rebel’s content can be seen as original reporting. What an eerily precise measurement of a staggeringly imprecise subject. And this came after what Ezra Levant claims was a one-year review of Rebel’s output.

This ruling on Rebel is extremely tendentious, and as the always judicious Lorrie Goldstein observed on Twitter: “The issue is not whether one agrees or disagrees with the content of a media organization. (The) issue is the CRA’s bizarre definition of what qualifies as a media organization.”

Rex Murphy: What right does the government have to judge Rebel News? — National Post

Outside of news organizations and reporters, I’d guess that most people do not know that the Canadian government has established what it likes to call an “independent advisory board” to decide on the question of what is or what is not a “qualified Canadian journalism organization” (QCJO). Before...

apple.news

Canada PM Justin Trudeau seeking to forcibly silence news outlet

Canada PM Justin Trudeau seeking to forcibly silence news outlet www.JustinTrudeauSucks.com

forums.canadiancontent.net

 

[petros]

Objective media Vs Subjective media.