Bill’s C-10 & C-11. If we aren’t talking about it already, shouldn’t we be?
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
As authoritarian regimes are expanding all around the world, notes Freedom House, Canada and other western nations seem to be tilting in that awful direction. Some Canadians may fear the future of democracy under a new Donald Trump administration in the United States, but they would do well to look closer to home.
Indeed, even as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issues statements denouncing Russia and China, his regime is now contemplating an online harms law, Bill C-63, which would permit judges to impose house arrest on those who they fear might commit a hate crime in the future. In the case of the most heinous speech, like advocating for genocide, this law would allow lifetime imprisonment. Lighter sentences or simple house arrest could be applied to anything that censors regard as hate speech, which could include such things as “misgendering” people or criticizing any aspect of Islam.
apple.news
The write up at the above link isn’t short, but it is interesting. The link below is another view from the outside looking in:
apple.news
What makes this worse is that this all comes after a period in which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been perfectly happy to call decent, ordinary Canadians Nazis. To use measures like the de-banking of his critics in moves that have horrified most of the other democracies in the West.
When a bank in my country of birth — Britain — was recently found to have de-banked a politician (Nigel Farage) for what turned out to be political reasons not only did the head of the bank resign, but politicians in Britain from across the political system condemned the bank. Such moves are unlikely to be taken by another bank in Britain again. But in Canada it seems to be perfectly acceptable, because at any time the Canadian prime minister and deputy prime minister can claim that their critics are homophobes, xenophobes, racists, Nazis, misogynists and all of the rest, etc….
Indeed, even as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issues statements denouncing Russia and China, his regime is now contemplating an online harms law, Bill C-63, which would permit judges to impose house arrest on those who they fear might commit a hate crime in the future. In the case of the most heinous speech, like advocating for genocide, this law would allow lifetime imprisonment. Lighter sentences or simple house arrest could be applied to anything that censors regard as hate speech, which could include such things as “misgendering” people or criticizing any aspect of Islam.
Joel Kotkin: Aggressive Canadian progressivism is descending the country into crazy — National Post
Justin Trudeau's expansion of state power over media and technology has troubling similarities to Russia, China and Iran
Douglas Murray: Canada's descent into ignorance shocks the world — National Post
An unbearable stupidity has trickled down from the Liberal government
When a bank in my country of birth — Britain — was recently found to have de-banked a politician (Nigel Farage) for what turned out to be political reasons not only did the head of the bank resign, but politicians in Britain from across the political system condemned the bank. Such moves are unlikely to be taken by another bank in Britain again. But in Canada it seems to be perfectly acceptable, because at any time the Canadian prime minister and deputy prime minister can claim that their critics are homophobes, xenophobes, racists, Nazis, misogynists and all of the rest, etc….
Dangerous when words are now labeled violence.As authoritarian regimes are expanding all around the world, notes Freedom House, Canada and other western nations seem to be tilting in that awful direction. Some Canadians may fear the future of democracy under a new Donald Trump administration in the United States, but they would do well to look closer to home.
Indeed, even as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issues statements denouncing Russia and China, his regime is now contemplating an online harms law, Bill C-63, which would permit judges to impose house arrest on those who they fear might commit a hate crime in the future. In the case of the most heinous speech, like advocating for genocide, this law would allow lifetime imprisonment. Lighter sentences or simple house arrest could be applied to anything that censors regard as hate speech, which could include such things as “misgendering” people or criticizing any aspect of Islam.
The write up at the above link isn’t short, but it is interesting. The link below is another view from the outside looking in:Joel Kotkin: Aggressive Canadian progressivism is descending the country into crazy — National Post
Justin Trudeau's expansion of state power over media and technology has troubling similarities to Russia, China and Iran
What makes this worse is that this all comes after a period in which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been perfectly happy to call decent, ordinary Canadians Nazis. To use measures like the de-banking of his critics in moves that have horrified most of the other democracies in the West.Douglas Murray: Canada's descent into ignorance shocks the world — National Post
An unbearable stupidity has trickled down from the Liberal government
When a bank in my country of birth — Britain — was recently found to have de-banked a politician (Nigel Farage) for what turned out to be political reasons not only did the head of the bank resign, but politicians in Britain from across the political system condemned the bank. Such moves are unlikely to be taken by another bank in Britain again. But in Canada it seems to be perfectly acceptable, because at any time the Canadian prime minister and deputy prime minister can claim that their critics are homophobes, xenophobes, racists, Nazis, misogynists and all of the rest, etc….
One persons violent words could be anothers lullaby. Who decides? The crybaby?
Remember , sticks and stones will break my bones , but words will never hurt me ?
Anywho….today is a banner day for Lib/NDP etc…
If we’re going to discriminate against our largest (& only physically connected) trade partner…might as well come into effect July 4th. Who’s potentially the next US octogenarian president going to be again? Trudeau’s buddy….whats his name again?
The federal government has enacted a controversial digital services tax that will bring in billions of dollars while threatening Canada's trading relationships by taxing the revenue international firms earn in Canada….& after a 10 month overlap between Trudeau/Singh & that other dude (blond mop, orange skin, what’s his name again? Oompa Loompa or something?).
The Liberal government proposed the tax in its 2019 election platform. It later agreed to delay implementing the measure until the end of 2023 in the hopes it could reach a deal with other OECD countries on how multinational digital companies should be taxed.
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters in Milton, Ont. on Thursday that "Canada's preference is, and has always been, a multilateral solution."
"It’s simply not reasonable, not fair, for Canada to indefinitely put our own measures on hold," she said. "A number of other countries have a DST in place right now, and they have had a DST in place for a number of years with no retaliation [from the U.S.]."
Digital firms that have global annual income of at least $1.1 billion will see annual revenues in Canada over $20 million taxed at a rate of three per cent. The first year of the tax includes revenue earned since Jan. 1, 2022.
…& whom will eat this tax? Canadian content providers &/or subscription holders to these services? Wouldn’t that just make things more expensive for Canadians in general on top of pissing off our closest trade partner? Would that matter to a Liberal government?
The Liberal government's decision to impose the tax before an international agreement could be reached with other OECD countries has raised concerns about “possible” negative impacts.
U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Cohen issued a media statement Thursday calling the tax "discriminatory."
"[The United States Trade Representative] has noted its concern with Canada's digital services tax and is assessing, and is open to using, all available tools that could result in meaningful progress toward addressing unilateral, discriminatory [digital services taxes]," Cohen said in the statement.
As soon as the legislation enabling the tax became law, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Chamber of Commerce in Canada issued a statement strongly objecting to the measure, which they say will raise prices for everyone.
They said a digital services tax would disproportionately hit U.S. companies, undermine digital exports to Canada and violate Canada's obligations under the U.S.-Canada-Mexico free trade agreement and the World Trade Organization.
"At this very sensitive time in the Canada–U.S. trade relationship, we urge the Government of Canada to reconsider this unilateral and discriminatory new levy," the statement said.
Last month, the U.S. Computer and Communications Industry Association, which represents big tech companies such as Amazon, Apple and Uber, wrote to U.S. President Joe Biden asking his administration to initiate formal dispute settlement procedures under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Happy July 4th to our American Friends and Neighbours!!!
Liberal government enacts controversial digital services tax, raising trade concerns — CBC News
The federal government has enacted a controversial digital services tax that will bring in billions of dollars while threatening Canada's trading relationships by taxing the revenue international firms earn in Canada.
"The government should reverse its unilateral decision that is out of step with our allies, and instead work with our trading partners on an international solution that would better serve Canadians," Robin Guy, the chamber's vice president of government relations, told CBC News.
On June 28, Ontario Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy wrote to Freeland asking that the tax's implementation be paused because it’s just such an awesome idea? Nope, ‘cuz “We must do this carefully and not in a way that will impose unnecessary taxes on people and businesses or risk isolating Canada from the U.S. marketplace." Oh, well, that too I guess.
Streaming giants launch multiple legal challenges to Bill C-11 payments in Canada
Streaming giants launch multiple legal challenges to Bill C-11 payments in Canada
The challenges threaten to delay implementation of the act, which would compel foreign streaming giants to pay about $200-million a year to support Canadian music, TV, film and radio
www.theglobeandmail.com
So it sounds like the Canadian media will not have to bust their a$$e$ to report facts. They'll continue to support government edicts. Oh my....
If you're shocked by this decision, you clearly don't get the law, the rights of organizations to 'police themselves' and the reality that Peterson is a fucking wackjob.
…& he responds…On Thursday, my attempt to defend myself against the ideologues and petty tyrants that now occupy so many positions of authority in Canada came to an end — or I finally got what I deserve, due to my incautious verbal utterances, depending on your stance.
I am (still) a licensed psychologist in Ontario, and was once a full professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. Back in 2016, both of those occupations basically came to an end, when I had the temerity to object to the idiot legislation passed by our jackanapes prime minister, Justin Trudeau, the worst leader Canada has ever had, and a contender for the worst in the western world.
His moralizing compatriots decided at the time that it was a good idea to rejig the very definition of sex — what could go wrong with that? — and to simultaneously compel everyone to accept that redesignation, on pain of law.
Jordan Peterson: I will see this contemptible 're-education' process through to its absurd end — National Post
Having failed to persuade the Supreme Court, I am going to see what constraints are put on my speech, and I am going to make it as public as possible
This is legislation for ideologically addled three-year-olds. Bill C-16 is, in a phrase, unutterably stupid, as only a damned fool would assume that criticizing the fashion choice, say, of an autogynephilic 40-year-old with children who decides, despite his family, that he is really a woman — and now wears a dress and nylons for sexual kicks — has anything to do with the racism that doomed the Blacks in the southern United States to their fate, or the murderous anti-Jewish pogroms of Eastern Europe, etc…
But we have become such fools in Canada, moralizing blindly and pridefully while inverting our traditions and perverting our legal system.
Who cares? Why die on that hill? People asked me such things when I said very publicly that I would rather rot in jail than use the bloody pronouns demanded of me by people too stupid to understand what they were doing — the outright metastatic communists of the progressive liberals and the minor moralizing tyrants of the elite liberal bureaucracy. I care.
Why? Because I could see where all this idiocy was headed, as clear as day. I told the arrogant fools in the Canadian Senate (and a hostile and dismissive bunch they were) that confusing young people about their sexual identity would lead to an epidemic of gender dysphoria among young women, and that is precisely what has happened.
“But Jordan… tell us how you really feel!!”
More at the above link, etc…
…& he responds…On Thursday, my attempt to defend myself against the ideologues and petty tyrants that now occupy so many positions of authority in Canada came to an end — or I finally got what I deserve, due to my incautious verbal utterances, depending on your stance.
I am (still) a licensed psychologist in Ontario, and was once a full professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. Back in 2016, both of those occupations basically came to an end, when I had the temerity to object to the idiot legislation passed by our jackanapes prime minister, Justin Trudeau, the worst leader Canada has ever had, and a contender for the worst in the western world.
His moralizing compatriots decided at the time that it was a good idea to rejig the very definition of sex — what could go wrong with that? — and to simultaneously compel everyone to accept that redesignation, on pain of law.
Bill C-16 made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of the made-up neo-Marxist/postmodernist/queer theory categories of gender identity, which do not exist, and of gender expression, which is literally nothing other than fashion (from the Ontario Human Rights Commission: “Gender expression is how a person publicly expresses or presents their gender. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A person’s chosen name and pronoun are also common ways of expressing gender”).
Jordan Peterson: I will see this contemptible 're-education' process through to its absurd end — National Post
Having failed to persuade the Supreme Court, I am going to see what constraints are put on my speech, and I am going to make it as public as possible
This is legislation for ideologically addled three-year-olds. Bill C-16 is, in a phrase, unutterably stupid, as only a damned fool would assume that criticizing the fashion choice, say, of an autogynephilic 40-year-old with children who decides, despite his family, that he is really a woman — and now wears a dress and nylons for sexual kicks — has anything to do with the racism that doomed the Blacks in the southern United States to their fate, or the murderous anti-Jewish pogroms of Eastern Europe, etc…
But we have become such fools in Canada, moralizing blindly and pridefully while inverting our traditions and perverting our legal system.
Who cares? Why die on that hill? People asked me such things when I said very publicly that I would rather rot in jail than use the bloody pronouns demanded of me by people too stupid to understand what they were doing — the outright metastatic communists of the progressive liberals and the minor moralizing tyrants of the elite liberal bureaucracy. I care.
Why? Because I could see where all this idiocy was headed, as clear as day. I told the arrogant fools in the Canadian Senate (and a hostile and dismissive bunch they were) that confusing young people about their sexual identity would lead to an epidemic of gender dysphoria among young women, and that is precisely what has happened.
“But Jordan… tell us how you really feel!!”
More at the above link, etc…
So as expected, he turned into a whiney bitch because the Law won't tell the College Of Psychiatrists that they have to let him be the sole exemption from their oversight.
I love it.
Well, he’s an articulate whiney bitch if nothing else.
Maybe 10 or more years ago.
Now a gerbil with a mouth full of seeds makes more sense.
But the Scuence...…& he responds…On Thursday, my attempt to defend myself against the ideologues and petty tyrants that now occupy so many positions of authority in Canada came to an end — or I finally got what I deserve, due to my incautious verbal utterances, depending on your stance.
I am (still) a licensed psychologist in Ontario, and was once a full professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. Back in 2016, both of those occupations basically came to an end, when I had the temerity to object to the idiot legislation passed by our jackanapes prime minister, Justin Trudeau, the worst leader Canada has ever had, and a contender for the worst in the western world.
His moralizing compatriots decided at the time that it was a good idea to rejig the very definition of sex — what could go wrong with that? — and to simultaneously compel everyone to accept that redesignation, on pain of law.
Bill C-16 made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of the made-up neo-Marxist/postmodernist/queer theory categories of gender identity, which do not exist, and of gender expression, which is literally nothing other than fashion (from the Ontario Human Rights Commission: “Gender expression is how a person publicly expresses or presents their gender. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A person’s chosen name and pronoun are also common ways of expressing gender”).Jordan Peterson: I will see this contemptible 're-education' process through to its absurd end — National Post
Having failed to persuade the Supreme Court, I am going to see what constraints are put on my speech, and I am going to make it as public as possible
This is legislation for ideologically addled three-year-olds. Bill C-16 is, in a phrase, unutterably stupid, as only a damned fool would assume that criticizing the fashion choice, say, of an autogynephilic 40-year-old with children who decides, despite his family, that he is really a woman — and now wears a dress and nylons for sexual kicks — has anything to do with the racism that doomed the Blacks in the southern United States to their fate, or the murderous anti-Jewish pogroms of Eastern Europe, etc…
But we have become such fools in Canada, moralizing blindly and pridefully while inverting our traditions and perverting our legal system.
Who cares? Why die on that hill? People asked me such things when I said very publicly that I would rather rot in jail than use the bloody pronouns demanded of me by people too stupid to understand what they were doing — the outright metastatic communists of the progressive liberals and the minor moralizing tyrants of the elite liberal bureaucracy. I care.
Why? Because I could see where all this idiocy was headed, as clear as day. I told the arrogant fools in the Canadian Senate (and a hostile and dismissive bunch they were) that confusing young people about their sexual identity would lead to an epidemic of gender dysphoria among young women, and that is precisely what has happened.
“But Jordan… tell us how you really feel!!”
More at the above link, etc…
Wiley has been the shit for centuries.
Abstract
Marxist theories of gender are fundamentally concerned with analyzing the relation between class exploitation and gender inequality. Women's oppression is regarded as the product of the economic, political, and social structures of capitalism. Marxist approaches were taken up by some feminist anthropologists in the 1970s, in particular taking inspiration from Friedrich Engels's The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884), seeking evidence of gender equality in pre-class societies. Related to the 1970s discourse of universal subordination of women, Engels's approach was economic deterministic and feminist scholars who took up his work have struggled to incorporate understandings of masculinity and femininity into the application of this model. Marxist ideas inspired other approaches to the understanding of gender, in both communist and capitalist societies, with studies of communist societies bringing attention to the organization of social reproduction as the basis of gender inequality.
References and Further Reading
Brown, Heather. 2013. Marx on Gender and the Family: A Critical Study. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Google Scholar
Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. New York: Morrow.
Google Scholar
Gibson-Graham, J. K. 1996. The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Hartman, Heidi. 1979. “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union.” Capital & Class 12 (2): 1–33. doi:10.1177/030981687900800102.
View
Google Scholar
Eleanor Leacock, ed. 1972. “ Introduction.” In Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, in the Light of Researches of Lewis H. Morgan, 2–44. New York: International Publishers.
Google Scholar
Moore, Henrietta L. 1988. Feminism and Anthropology. Cambridge: Polity.
Google Scholar
Nazzari, Muriel. 1983. “The ‘Woman Question’ in Cuba: An Analysis of Material Constraints on Its Solution.” Signs 9 (2): 246–63.
Google Scholar
Rayna R. Reiter, ed. 1975. Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Google Scholar
Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo, and Louise Lamphere, eds. 1974. Woman, Culture and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Web of Science®
Google Scholar
Sacks, Karen. 1975. “ Engels Revisited: Women, the Organization of Production and Private Property.” In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by Rayna R. Reiter, 211–34. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Web of Science®
Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1997. “Unruly Categories: A Critique of Nancy Fraser's Dual Systems Theory.” New Left Review 1 (22): 147–60.
Google Scholar