A violation of Rights that could be taken to court or tribunal is where I'm leaning. This toxic crap needs to stop
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
Oh I'm sure they're working on it being illegal to say the truth. There are only two sexes - male & female no matter what they so-called "experts" say. It's idiotic to think otherwise. The nurse is correct.
Examples are everywhere of why it would be supremely dangerous to permit the Trudeau Liberals and their appointees to police content on the Internet.
On Wednesday, the government-funded Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), claimed that journalistic balance is getting in the way of good public policy.
The 21-year-old organization, which has received nearly $55 million in federal funding since 2002 for “independent” assessments of science, said “some journalistic norms contribute to misinformation, such as the tendency to present both sides of a debate … artificially creating a false balance even in cases where the science is conclusive.”
apple.news
But when is the science ever fully conclusive? An essential part of scientific process is the constant testing and questioning of “conclusive” knowledge.
Rejecting alternate or opposing views out of hand is religious cant, not scientific method.
There is no significant difference between the CCA urging that media ignore intelligent skepticism on issues such as global warming versus the medieval church insisting dissenting scientists be banned from promoting any theory other than the Earth the centre of our solar system.
What the CCA is peddling, like the church of the Middle Ages, is dogmatic faith not scientific consensus.
The CCA essentially wants “talk radio, cable news, online message boards and social media” to stop reporting any views not approved of by the scientific, political and cultural elites.
It all boils down to the idea that “progressives” believe their opinions amount to received wisdom – unchallengeable, objectively true – while everyone else’s views are dangerous misinformation/disinformation.
apple.news
Given the faith the Trudeau Liberals have in the CCA, though, it is not difficult to imagine the government asking the council for input about what scientific information can be posted online and what cannot once the government’s Internet censorship bills are law.
Interestingly, the CCA did not complain much about mainstream media. I’m guessing that’s because on contentious issues, unfortunately, the MSM all too often simply parrots the “woke” official line.
There is also Ottawa’s Digital Citizen Initiative (DCI).
An arm of Heritage Canada, the DCI has given away $15 million, largely to lefty researchers and organizations to “prove” that Canada is rife with racism, Islamophobia, misogyny, transgender hatred and other prejudices.
Nearly all of DCI’s funding is aimed at right-wing extremism; none at the left (because, again, the assumption is the left never engages in hatred or misinformation). Often the racism that successful grant applicants have found is so invisible researchers have received money to train the supposed victims on how to recognize it and take action.
apple.news
My favourite is a grant for nearly $100,000 to help Black francophones in Edmonton realize they are victims of discrimination (even though most don’t know it) and learn how to combat its subtle messages in media and in the broader culture.
Is it hard for anyone to imagine this same sort of thinking guiding the CRTC on how to regulate content once it gets its hands on the Internet?
The National Arts Centre plans a performance on Feb. 17 at which the only audience members permitted will be black. The Global Affairs department has training manuals for diplomats that insist only white people are capable of racism, and concepts such as “objectivity” and “colour-blind” hiring are nothing more than hidden manifestations of “white supremacy.”
Ottawa’s official positions on misinformation are part of an unshakeable mindset.
Even after the Laith Marouf scandal, the Libs this week appointed Amira Elghawaby as special rep on combatting Islamophobia, even though Elghawaby had advocated deposing Queen Elizabeth for being a racist and has described Canada Day as a celebration of “European, Judeo-Christian storytelling.”
Do we really want to give people who operate in such an ideological mudpuddle the power to decide what the rest of us may see and say online?
On Wednesday, the government-funded Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), claimed that journalistic balance is getting in the way of good public policy.
The 21-year-old organization, which has received nearly $55 million in federal funding since 2002 for “independent” assessments of science, said “some journalistic norms contribute to misinformation, such as the tendency to present both sides of a debate … artificially creating a false balance even in cases where the science is conclusive.”
GUNTER: Trudeau’s web-police groups lacking objectivity — Toronto Sun
Examples are everywhere of why it would be supremely dangerous to permit the Trudeau Liberals and their appointees to police content on the Internet. On Wednesday, the government-funded Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), claimed that journalistic balance is getting in the way of good public...
But when is the science ever fully conclusive? An essential part of scientific process is the constant testing and questioning of “conclusive” knowledge.
Rejecting alternate or opposing views out of hand is religious cant, not scientific method.
There is no significant difference between the CCA urging that media ignore intelligent skepticism on issues such as global warming versus the medieval church insisting dissenting scientists be banned from promoting any theory other than the Earth the centre of our solar system.
What the CCA is peddling, like the church of the Middle Ages, is dogmatic faith not scientific consensus.
The CCA essentially wants “talk radio, cable news, online message boards and social media” to stop reporting any views not approved of by the scientific, political and cultural elites.
It all boils down to the idea that “progressives” believe their opinions amount to received wisdom – unchallengeable, objectively true – while everyone else’s views are dangerous misinformation/disinformation.
GUNTER: Trudeau’s web-police groups lacking objectivity — Toronto Sun
Examples are everywhere of why it would be supremely dangerous to permit the Trudeau Liberals and their appointees to police content on the Internet. On Wednesday, the government-funded Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), claimed that journalistic balance is getting in the way of good public...
Given the faith the Trudeau Liberals have in the CCA, though, it is not difficult to imagine the government asking the council for input about what scientific information can be posted online and what cannot once the government’s Internet censorship bills are law.
Interestingly, the CCA did not complain much about mainstream media. I’m guessing that’s because on contentious issues, unfortunately, the MSM all too often simply parrots the “woke” official line.
There is also Ottawa’s Digital Citizen Initiative (DCI).
An arm of Heritage Canada, the DCI has given away $15 million, largely to lefty researchers and organizations to “prove” that Canada is rife with racism, Islamophobia, misogyny, transgender hatred and other prejudices.
Nearly all of DCI’s funding is aimed at right-wing extremism; none at the left (because, again, the assumption is the left never engages in hatred or misinformation). Often the racism that successful grant applicants have found is so invisible researchers have received money to train the supposed victims on how to recognize it and take action.
GUNTER: Trudeau’s web-police groups lacking objectivity — Toronto Sun
Examples are everywhere of why it would be supremely dangerous to permit the Trudeau Liberals and their appointees to police content on the Internet. On Wednesday, the government-funded Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), claimed that journalistic balance is getting in the way of good public...
My favourite is a grant for nearly $100,000 to help Black francophones in Edmonton realize they are victims of discrimination (even though most don’t know it) and learn how to combat its subtle messages in media and in the broader culture.
Is it hard for anyone to imagine this same sort of thinking guiding the CRTC on how to regulate content once it gets its hands on the Internet?
The National Arts Centre plans a performance on Feb. 17 at which the only audience members permitted will be black. The Global Affairs department has training manuals for diplomats that insist only white people are capable of racism, and concepts such as “objectivity” and “colour-blind” hiring are nothing more than hidden manifestations of “white supremacy.”
Ottawa’s official positions on misinformation are part of an unshakeable mindset.
Even after the Laith Marouf scandal, the Libs this week appointed Amira Elghawaby as special rep on combatting Islamophobia, even though Elghawaby had advocated deposing Queen Elizabeth for being a racist and has described Canada Day as a celebration of “European, Judeo-Christian storytelling.”
Do we really want to give people who operate in such an ideological mudpuddle the power to decide what the rest of us may see and say online?
Jamie Sarkonak: The Liberals' giant subsidy for lefty academics to bolster their censorship legislation — National Post
These research projects lay the groundwork for a politically moderated internet
In the future there will be people asking "WTF went wrong with a supposedly Scientific, technologically advanced, Socialist based movement that promised education, safety from dissenting views, jobs for all, unity, a healthy lifestyle, free healthcare, cutting edge pharma, equal justice, clean air, clean water, restoration of forests and waterways to repopulate wildlife ensuring the future for the next 50 generations?"
Jamie Sarkonak: The Liberals' giant subsidy for lefty academics to bolster their censorship legislation — National Post
These research projects lay the groundwork for a politically moderated internetapple.news
Sadly I ask the same question about the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich.
To be fair, lefty academics probably need the subsidy.Jamie Sarkonak: The Liberals' giant subsidy for lefty academics to bolster their censorship legislation — National Post
These research projects lay the groundwork for a politically moderated internet
Ain't like they got anything useful to sell.
This kind of project serves the Liberals well, since much of the current government’s cultural policy depends on widening the concept of “racism” to include things that are abstract, unquantifiable and not traditionally known to be racist.
These research projects lay the groundwork for a politically moderated internet. It’s likely that these projects will contribute “evidence” to the forthcoming “evidence-based” online harms legislation.
The underlying goal to fund projects driving one “official” version of the truth is stated in the written announcement for this new funding: “Our democracy relies on a common set of facts, reliable sources of information and the ability for citizens to express themselves freely.”
This comes from the link in post#285.
In preparation for the tabling of new laws to censor “harmful” online content, federal officials are spending millions of dollars researching subtle forms of racism, “queerphobic cyber-violence,” (alt-)right-wing attitudes in gaming, credibility attacks on journalists and the use of children to counter “misinformation” within their families.
Canadian Heritage’s Digital Citizen Contribution Program suggests that this common set of facts will be shaped according to Liberal values — rather than neutral pan-Canadian values, such as equality and freedom of expression. Canadians should be ready to scrutinize the government’s censorship legislation when it’s tabled, because it will have been written on a politically slanted foundation.
The latest funding batch of Digital Citizen Contribution Program grants read more like a Liberal wish list of left-wing research subsidies than an actual program to help Canadians sort fact from fiction.
The way the program works is simple: Canadian Heritage publishes a list of research topics it plans to fund, organizations fill out an application form that describes their proposed projects and wait to hear if they’ve received the funding. Unlike the funding of university research, the department has direct control over who gets the money — and it can give that money to non-academics.
These research projects lay the groundwork for a politically moderated internet. It’s likely that these projects will contribute “evidence” to the forthcoming “evidence-based” online harms legislation.
The underlying goal to fund projects driving one “official” version of the truth is stated in the written announcement for this new funding: “Our democracy relies on a common set of facts, reliable sources of information and the ability for citizens to express themselves freely.”
This comes from the link in post#285.
In preparation for the tabling of new laws to censor “harmful” online content, federal officials are spending millions of dollars researching subtle forms of racism, “queerphobic cyber-violence,” (alt-)right-wing attitudes in gaming, credibility attacks on journalists and the use of children to counter “misinformation” within their families.
Canadian Heritage’s Digital Citizen Contribution Program suggests that this common set of facts will be shaped according to Liberal values — rather than neutral pan-Canadian values, such as equality and freedom of expression. Canadians should be ready to scrutinize the government’s censorship legislation when it’s tabled, because it will have been written on a politically slanted foundation.
The latest funding batch of Digital Citizen Contribution Program grants read more like a Liberal wish list of left-wing research subsidies than an actual program to help Canadians sort fact from fiction.
The way the program works is simple: Canadian Heritage publishes a list of research topics it plans to fund, organizations fill out an application form that describes their proposed projects and wait to hear if they’ve received the funding. Unlike the funding of university research, the department has direct control over who gets the money — and it can give that money to non-academics.
It's truly odd some of the things that get tagged as "racism" by people who don't know, or don't care about, what the word means.
I use the terms prejudice and discrimination. Both mean judging someone by some group they (may) belong to, and attributing one's own fantasies about that group to that individual. Difference is discrimination is action, prejudice is thought (though "thought" might be the wrong word). The latter is stupidity.
I use the terms prejudice and discrimination. Both mean judging someone by some group they (may) belong to, and attributing one's own fantasies about that group to that individual. Difference is discrimination is action, prejudice is thought (though "thought" might be the wrong word). The latter is stupidity.
LOL - their sublte forms are "anything we don't like but can't come up with a better reason for so we say it's racist but can't quite articulate why... it's THAT subtle!"
We all know the whole thing is a lie. The problem is two fold - those on the left (and some on the right) are perfectly happy with censorship if it's censoring something or someone they disapprove of. So that means a significant percent of people will back trudeau because they don't see the harm in attacking another person just because they don't like what that person said.
And the other problem is that people just don't care about the massive overspending the way it is. Trudeau was smart - he overspent by TRILLIONS of dollars - once you see that in action a few dozen billion really doesn't seem like a big deal. So people don't care about our financial deficits and aren't furious over the hundreds of millions which will go to the friends of the liberals.
Subtle forms of racism (though I question how "subtle" they are) are those whose motivation is racist, though they are couched in race-neutral terms.
The woke crowd fixed that problem by proclaiming there is a difference between sex and gender. There isn’t, but it is the only way to make the dogma work. Change the meaning of a word.
Changing a definition is pretty much their bread and butter. "Racism is wrong, you white people all suck for doing it" "Dude that's racists to white people". "uhhhhh no.. no because... because.. AH - BECAUSE WHITES HAVE BEEN RACIST FOR SO LONG IT"S NOT RACISM TO BE RACIST to WHITES SO THAT"S NOT WHAT RACISM MEANS!!! Ha!" Changing a definition can solve all manner of issues for you.
And frankly if we wanted to distinguish between sex and gender i suppose that's not unreasonable when you think about it. THey are similar but not quite the same.
But - Pick a lane!!!! they pretend it's completely different half the time, then flip back to it being the same thing the rest of the time!!! This is what lets them claim 'sex is assigned at birth' (as if it were the same as gender rather than a biological fact.) and yet claim that men who think they're women should be considered women because sex and gender are different and their gender is female.
THe flipping back and forth is the really frustrating thing. If there's no difference between sex and gender then your sex is your gender, and if there IS a difference then your sex is still your sex regardless of gender.
Or, as has happened since we developed language, the word changed meaning as society/people decided it should be changed. Lots of words change meaning over time, or rather, have other meanings added to them. Unless you're gonna cry about them, your point is simply whining.
Can't remember where it's from but i always liked that line "My friends said i would sleep with anything that was female, human and breathing, but truth is i'd take two out of three in a pinch..."
No, it wasn't organic. The left changed it for political reasons.
"Fag" changed organically over time, as did 'decimate'. But not sex and gender. That was political.
