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

taxme

Council Member
Feb 11, 2020
2,232
945
113

If no one can see that Canada is fast becoming a globalist controlled communist country then you have to one phukin stupid born idiot. Yet there are some dummy's here who have mocked and attacked the peaceful truckers protesters as radicals. Those comrades here should be quite happy and proud about this communist Bill C-11 and it's attack and assault on freedom of speech and assembly in Canada. You bunch of stupid dummies do not realize that you have truly become a bunch of useless and useful idiots yourselves for the communist globalists who want to take your rights and freedoms away also. Your sheer stupidity is quite overwhelming indeed. FO. (n)
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,969
3,724
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
My concern is that it might become (I know this sounds like I’m wearing a tinfoil hat) illegal to expose government lies as the exposure would be called disinformation & would run afoul of Bill C-11 & the CRTC.

Back in May 2021, the Canadian chapter of the Internet Society wrote in Le Devoir that Bill C-10, now repackaged as C-11, the Amendments to the Broadcasting Act, vastly expanded the range of “broadcasting” and hence what would need government permission. You can only “broadcast” by virtue of a licence or in conformity to regulation. That is the law: to expand the definition of “broadcasting” is to expand government regulation.

C-11 makes user-generated videos or podcasts — virtually anything involving sound or video — subject to CRTC regulation. Indeed it is a wonder the government stopped there: why not regulate email as well? Nor does the regulation of speech stop at Canada’s borders. Bill C-11 permits the CRTC to exercise global authority over “programs” in any language, from any source.

Defenders of C-11 have argued that nothing the bill allows for would threaten freedom of speech because a clause in the act says so. Which is like the Holy Office of the Inquisition saying it is guided by respect for diversity of opinion. The commission’s decision on the use of the n-word has just proven that statement to be false. The CRTC is all about control: who gets to speak, within what limits, how often, and to what effect. Usually the control is exercised indirectly, but in this case it was overt.

Defenders of Bill C-11 in the TV production community and elsewhere have tried to claim that its opponents are just anglophone bigots fighting against French language television subsidies, or some such rot. No one is concerned with the subsidization of television shows, whether across conventional broadcasting or by internet streaming platforms. Under certain conditions, increasing the flow of money to Canadian TV production is a good idea — but that is not the issue here.

C-11 vastly expands federal jurisdiction over speech. It does so while wrapping itself in the flag of “Canadian content,” which thrives on the internet without permission, subsidy, or concern for official Canadian culture. C-11 would actually harm the interests of Canadian YouTubers, TikTok users and other creators.

The danger of federal overreach on speech control is the issue here. User-generated content does not require CRTC regulation. Despite all denials, despite all pretences that it does no such thing, C-11 is directly aimed at user-generated content, and in expanding state authority over it. The CRTC’s recent decision regarding Radio-Canada is a reminder that we have a government censor. Bill C-11 tells us its jurisdiction is about to expand by orders of magnitude. It’s time to wake up.


{Here’s the kicker!! The above is written by
Timothy Denton who is a former National Commissioner of the CRTC (2009-2013) and is the current Chairman of the Internet Society, Canada Chapter.}
 

taxme

Council Member
Feb 11, 2020
2,232
945
113
My concern is that it might become (I know this sounds like I’m wearing a tinfoil hat) illegal to expose government lies as the exposure would be called disinformation & would run afoul of Bill C-11 & the CRTC.

Back in May 2021, the Canadian chapter of the Internet Society wrote in Le Devoir that Bill C-10, now repackaged as C-11, the Amendments to the Broadcasting Act, vastly expanded the range of “broadcasting” and hence what would need government permission. You can only “broadcast” by virtue of a licence or in conformity to regulation. That is the law: to expand the definition of “broadcasting” is to expand government regulation.

C-11 makes user-generated videos or podcasts — virtually anything involving sound or video — subject to CRTC regulation. Indeed it is a wonder the government stopped there: why not regulate email as well? Nor does the regulation of speech stop at Canada’s borders. Bill C-11 permits the CRTC to exercise global authority over “programs” in any language, from any source.

Defenders of C-11 have argued that nothing the bill allows for would threaten freedom of speech because a clause in the act says so. Which is like the Holy Office of the Inquisition saying it is guided by respect for diversity of opinion. The commission’s decision on the use of the n-word has just proven that statement to be false. The CRTC is all about control: who gets to speak, within what limits, how often, and to what effect. Usually the control is exercised indirectly, but in this case it was overt.

Defenders of Bill C-11 in the TV production community and elsewhere have tried to claim that its opponents are just anglophone bigots fighting against French language television subsidies, or some such rot. No one is concerned with the subsidization of television shows, whether across conventional broadcasting or by internet streaming platforms. Under certain conditions, increasing the flow of money to Canadian TV production is a good idea — but that is not the issue here.

C-11 vastly expands federal jurisdiction over speech. It does so while wrapping itself in the flag of “Canadian content,” which thrives on the internet without permission, subsidy, or concern for official Canadian culture. C-11 would actually harm the interests of Canadian YouTubers, TikTok users and other creators.

The danger of federal overreach on speech control is the issue here. User-generated content does not require CRTC regulation. Despite all denials, despite all pretences that it does no such thing, C-11 is directly aimed at user-generated content, and in expanding state authority over it. The CRTC’s recent decision regarding Radio-Canada is a reminder that we have a government censor. Bill C-11 tells us its jurisdiction is about to expand by orders of magnitude. It’s time to wake up.


{Here’s the kicker!! The above is written by
Timothy Denton who is a former National Commissioner of the CRTC (2009-2013) and is the current Chairman of the Internet Society, Canada Chapter.}

We the Canadian peasants have a real enemy and traitor to Canada among us here in Canada. His name is Castro Turdeau. Castro is a very real threat to freedom of speech and freedom loving Canadians. What this communist government in Ottawa is doing to Tamara Liche is a crime against humanity. Tamara Liche should not be the one on trial here. The whole stinking federal government in Ottawa should be on trial instead starting with that Marxist Turdeau.
 

taxme

Council Member
Feb 11, 2020
2,232
945
113
That's certainly how it works in the rightards' paradise, Putin's Russia.
Hey punk. you are now spreading disinformation by calling conservatives "righttards". It's Bill C-10 and C-11 time for you punk. Works for me. LOL.
 

taxme

Council Member
Feb 11, 2020
2,232
945
113
You misspelled it. How typical.

Everything "works for you," because you don't know how anything works.

So, ask me if I really phukin care?

I know for sure that your brain needs an IQ checkup very soon. Anything you say these days here really makes no sense at all. Just saying, punk. LOL.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,969
3,724
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Why is Singh supporting a party and a leader he condemns on one issue or another every second day? Why does he not use his leverage to demand a cancellation of the carbon tax, better treatment for Alberta, a withdrawal of confidence unless boil-water advisories are finally lifted by a fixed and near date? Why not insist that Parliament return to its full, non-remote functioning in the fall, demand far greater resources for the auditor general, make a determined push for a real and immediate inquiry into the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and accelerate the inquiry into the RCMP and the Nova Scotia mass shooting?

None of these, I grant, would be as exciting as launching a fresh tweet into the angry void, or as innovative as a TikTok minute, but they would connect with real governance, and might even provoke the Trudeau government to step away for a minute from its global-warming obsession and tend to the needs and anxieties of most Canadians.
So that all may understand: There is a partnership, a deal, an agreement, an understanding, a compliance, a pact, a covenant, a bond, an alliance — I hope it is appreciated how much work I am putting into avoiding the word “coalition” in their Non-Coalition Coalition - between the Liberals and the NDP.

1658537194549.jpeg
After the “most important election since 1945,” in which the Liberals secured only a minority and thus were vulnerable to parliamentary defeat (should Parliament ever actually meet), Singh and Trudeau engaged in some political horse trading and signed a confidence-and-supply agreement. The result is that Trudeau is now guaranteed — unless fate intervenes, and sometimes dear fate does — freedom from confidence votes for three years.

Now to offer that guarantee has to mean, at the very least, that the essential policies of the Trudeau government, its competence and its overall approach to governance, meet the ethical and political standards of Mr. Singh.
1658537231864.jpeg
 

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,521
2,551
113
Edmonton
Why is Singh supporting a party and a leader he condemns on one issue or another every second day? Why does he not use his leverage to demand a cancellation of the carbon tax, better treatment for Alberta, a withdrawal of confidence unless boil-water advisories are finally lifted by a fixed and near date? Why not insist that Parliament return to its full, non-remote functioning in the fall, demand far greater resources for the auditor general, make a determined push for a real and immediate inquiry into the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and accelerate the inquiry into the RCMP and the Nova Scotia mass shooting?

None of these, I grant, would be as exciting as launching a fresh tweet into the angry void, or as innovative as a TikTok minute, but they would connect with real governance, and might even provoke the Trudeau government to step away for a minute from its global-warming obsession and tend to the needs and anxieties of most Canadians.
So that all may understand: There is a partnership, a deal, an agreement, an understanding, a compliance, a pact, a covenant, a bond, an alliance — I hope it is appreciated how much work I am putting into avoiding the word “coalition” in their Non-Coalition Coalition - between the Liberals and the NDP.

View attachment 14925
After the “most important election since 1945,” in which the Liberals secured only a minority and thus were vulnerable to parliamentary defeat (should Parliament ever actually meet), Singh and Trudeau engaged in some political horse trading and signed a confidence-and-supply agreement. The result is that Trudeau is now guaranteed — unless fate intervenes, and sometimes dear fate does — freedom from confidence votes for three years.

Now to offer that guarantee has to mean, at the very least, that the essential policies of the Trudeau government, its competence and its overall approach to governance, meet the ethical and political standards of Mr. Singh.
View attachment 14926
He's signed on with the devil & will regret it if we ever get to an election. With the way Trudeau is imposing his policies, it may well never happen again! Who knows what the future will bring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxme and taxslave

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,327
113
Vancouver Island
Why is Singh supporting a party and a leader he condemns on one issue or another every second day? Why does he not use his leverage to demand a cancellation of the carbon tax, better treatment for Alberta, a withdrawal of confidence unless boil-water advisories are finally lifted by a fixed and near date? Why not insist that Parliament return to its full, non-remote functioning in the fall, demand far greater resources for the auditor general, make a determined push for a real and immediate inquiry into the invocation of the Emergencies Act, and accelerate the inquiry into the RCMP and the Nova Scotia mass shooting?

None of these, I grant, would be as exciting as launching a fresh tweet into the angry void, or as innovative as a TikTok minute, but they would connect with real governance, and might even provoke the Trudeau government to step away for a minute from its global-warming obsession and tend to the needs and anxieties of most Canadians.
So that all may understand: There is a partnership, a deal, an agreement, an understanding, a compliance, a pact, a covenant, a bond, an alliance — I hope it is appreciated how much work I am putting into avoiding the word “coalition” in their Non-Coalition Coalition - between the Liberals and the NDP.

View attachment 14925
After the “most important election since 1945,” in which the Liberals secured only a minority and thus were vulnerable to parliamentary defeat (should Parliament ever actually meet), Singh and Trudeau engaged in some political horse trading and signed a confidence-and-supply agreement. The result is that Trudeau is now guaranteed — unless fate intervenes, and sometimes dear fate does — freedom from confidence votes for three years.

Now to offer that guarantee has to mean, at the very least, that the essential policies of the Trudeau government, its competence and its overall approach to governance, meet the ethical and political standards of Mr. Singh.
View attachment 14926
Making the NDP irrelevant as a party since their votes go to TurdOWE anyway.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,969
3,724
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
He's signed on with the devil & will regret it if we ever get to an election. With the way Trudeau is imposing his policies, it may well never happen again! Who knows what the future will bring.
Who knows, but just a few days ago, on July 20th, without previous announcement Trudeau tells Canadians (those with kids) to check their bank’s accounts ‘cuz they all got a raise, ‘cuz they’re not giving the Baby Bonus (that already has an income cap) to Millionaires now? Effective that day? It sounded like Oprah telling her audience to check under their seats!! “You get a Car! And You get a Car!! And You get a Car!!!

That is not spur of the moment vote purchasing that happens in a single day without preplanning. What is this bribe announcing telling us with respect to what’s coming down the pipe?


Check your bank accounts, parents! The Canada Child Benefit (CCB) is getting a boostin 2022 and payments have gone up already?

In a video message shared on Wednesday, July 20, PM Justin Trudeau confirmed that CCB payments had increased effective "today." ??

It means eligible families across Canada will receive more money from the federal government to help with the cost of raising children under 18 years of age.

In the clip, Trudeau says the tax-free monthly payment is for things like food, after-school activities, clothing and "whatever your growing family needs."

He adds that the benefit has been able to support hundreds of thousands of kids across the country, after the feds "stopped sending child benefit checks to millionaires (?????) and focused on the people who really need that support."

Trudeau is purchasing something from voters with their own (and others, and freshly printed) money but what & why now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,521
2,551
113
Edmonton
Who knows, but just a few days ago, on July 20th, without previous announcement Trudeau tells Canadians (those with kids) to check their bank’s accounts ‘cuz they all got a raise, ‘cuz they’re not giving the Baby Bonus (that already has an income cap) to Millionaires now? Effective that day? It sounded like Oprah telling her audience to check under their seats!! “You get a Car! And You get a Car!! And You get a Car!!!

That is not spur of the moment vote purchasing that happens in a single day without preplanning. What is this bribe announcing telling us with respect to what’s coming down the pipe?


Check your bank accounts, parents! The Canada Child Benefit (CCB) is getting a boostin 2022 and payments have gone up already?

In a video message shared on Wednesday, July 20, PM Justin Trudeau confirmed that CCB payments had increased effective "today." ??

It means eligible families across Canada will receive more money from the federal government to help with the cost of raising children under 18 years of age.

In the clip, Trudeau says the tax-free monthly payment is for things like food, after-school activities, clothing and "whatever your growing family needs."

He adds that the benefit has been able to support hundreds of thousands of kids across the country, after the feds "stopped sending child benefit checks to millionaires (?????) and focused on the people who really need that support."

Trudeau is purchasing something from voters with their own (and others, and freshly printed) money but what & why now?
I guess he's too stupid to realize the WE KNOW that the Child Benefits are based on income so no, millionaires didn't receive benefits. If they did, then I want to know where mine went when my child was under 18!! I'm certainly not nor ever have been a millionaire!!!
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
17,969
3,724
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
In addition to Bill C-10 (now Bill C-11), here’s a peak at C-18…..& I know this is a super-dry read, but it’s important

Bill C-18, the Online News Act, from April of 2022, & the more you examine the bill, the worse it gets. My previous posts unpacked why the general policy is bad for press independence and competition as well as why the bill features a misguided attempt to require payments for links. Yet the bill requires an even deeper look since it goes far beyond “compensating journalists when they use their content” (as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said yesterday in the House of Commons) or even linking to news articles. Rather, the bill requires compensation for facilitating access to news in any way and in any amount.

In doing so, it eviscerates the claim that there is a tangible connection between the requirement to pay for the value of news articles on social media and search platforms (called digital news intermediaries or DNI’s in the bill). Rather, Bill C-18 is a shakedown with requirements to pay for nothing more than listing Canadian media organizations with hyperlinks in a search index, social media post, or possibly even a tweet. At a time when we need the public to access to credible news, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez believes that large Internet companies that engage in the act of facilitating access to news – not copying, not using, not even directly linking – should pay for doing so.


….There was a time when this government fashioned itself as pro-Internet, supportive of net neutrality, and a staunch defender of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of the press and other media of communication. Yet it cannot credibly claim to support those principles and simultaneously legislate barriers to accessing media by mandating payments for facilitating access to media sources.

Further, how is any of this possibly constitutional? Would the Supreme Court uphold a law whose effect could be to limit facilitation of access to news? Moreover, how does the entire Bill C-18 framework fit within the federal government’s jurisdiction? It isn’t broadcast, it isn’t telecommunications, and it isn’t copyright. If the government claims powers over anything involving the Internet then it believes there are no real limits on its jurisdiction.

Millions of Canadians choose to access media through search and social media. As I pointed out in yesterday’s post, the resulting referral links already provide enormous value at no cost. Setting even that aside, mandating payments for services that facilitate access to media sources runs counter to basic freedoms and casts aside the suggestion that the bill is limited to a “quid pro quo” of payment for links to news articles. Bill C-18 is shamefully over-broad, an embarrassment to the news media lobby that demanded it, and unworthy of a government that sees itself as a model for the rest of the world on media freedoms.