Trudeau tries to bring back online censorship bill
torontosun.com
torontosun.com
Here's some actual expert content on this issue: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/02/not-ready-for-prime-time...
Here we see the media companies pushing Trudeau. We could regain our voting power with something better than FPTP.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-vows-to-end-...
At least Geist goes into the substance of the legislation and the very real risks it poses.
You forgot the third leg on the Canadian oligarchy stool: banks.
FPTP can't die soon enough.
Indeed. I wonder if the print version ran this next to the "Sunshine Girl".
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1488162322187182085
Doug Ford, Conservative Premier of Ontario, has actually been hiding, no COVID excuse and no one's even threatening to overthrow him.
What does this even mean.
He's making no public statements, that's what it means for a politician to be "hidden". Meanwhile Trudeau has made several damning statements about the trucker convoy.
Aren't you happy to not be seeing him anyways?
What does Doug Ford have to do with that? Why did you bring him up here?
And he's also made several damning statements about the trucker convoy, so I'm curious why you think he's "hiding". More likely you're just trying to portray him in a negative light.
Because that's what he's doing. His nation is in crisis, his capital is in blockade, and what he did with that? Made "several damning statements" from some undisclosed location? That's not leadership that we need right now.
I suspect you don't want Trudeau's leadership in any case.
There's no such thing as "Trudeau's leadership" in any case. BTW, where's he?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-protest-parliament-1...
Do you mean to say Ottawa has not declared a state of emergency over the convoy?
Not sure what you're getting at anyways. So we agree the trucker convoy is a nuisance that needs to be gotten rid of? Or are you celebrating troll behaviour?
It's not at all weird to test positive in the middle of the Omicron wave.
Seems like the son is trying to do the same with the truckers.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/world/justin-trudeau-castro-e...
[2] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-justin-trudeau-castr...
Without speaking in support of it: as far as I know (and as far as your sources indicate) Pierre Trudeau's infamous 1970 invocation of the War Measures Act to temporarily suspend civil liberties had nothing to do with Operation Bricole, which didn't even start until 1972; it concerned the (real, not manufactured) kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte, among various other (real, not manufactured) terrorist activities. See [0] for more details.
Moreover: the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms didn't even exist in 1970, so it's not quite accurate to say that Trudeau "suspended the constitution" then. In fact, he's the one who, in 1982, led the charge to create a Canadian constitution and attendant protected rights [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...
So the feds did get busted planting bombs to blame it on some terror organization. Just, not right away. That kinda makes what happened before they got busted suspicious doesn't it.
> it concerned the (real, not manufactured) kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte, among various other (real, not manufactured) terrorist activities
But the feds did get busted for doing the same thing... so that was manufactured. But these incidents were real and not manufactured... ok... Weren’t they famously not even able to rule out a suicide and convict someone not even in the room when he died?
> Moreover: the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms didn't even exist in 1970, so it's not quite accurate to say that Trudeau "suspended the constitution" then. In fact, he's the one who, in 1982, led the charge to create a Canadian constitution
Wow so there was not even a constitution to suspend? And didn't like, a third of the population just not sign it? Honestly the more I hear about it the more it sounds surreal. I don’t think this would fly in America.
Not really, unless you're the sort of person who believes that, say, the FBI's fake terror plots in the wake of 9/11 are proof that Bush did 9/11. Which you might be, I guess.
> Weren’t they famously not even able to rule out a suicide and convict someone not even in the room when he died?
No, it was certainly not a suicide; there's some who think that it might've been an accident instead of a deliberate murder, but there's little case for that. Paul Rose was one of the terrorists convicted of murder and there's some question of whether he was actually present when he died (a government report ten years after the fact believes that he wasn't; a recorded confession from a wiretapped conversation suggests he was), but there's ultimately no question that known Québécois separatist terrorists were responsible for the kidnapping and death. The FLQ took responsibility for the kidnapping and made demands for his safe return; several of the convicted, to their death beds, refused to repent for their actions.
In order to believe that this was some kind of False Flag, you'd have to imagine that people were willing to pretend to be terrorists, ardently support a cause in the public eye for the better part of decade, go to prison for several years, and maintain the act for their rest of their lives, so that...Trudeau could invoke the War Measures act for a brief period of time.
> Wow so there was not even a constitution to suspend? And didn't like, a third of the population just not sign it? Honestly the more I hear about it the more it sounds surreal. I don’t think this would fly in America.
Well, no, it wouldn't fly in America, because (this is a bugbear of mine) Canada is a different country than America, with different laws, values, systems of government, and, yes, constitutional rights, which Canada did not even have at the time. The Canadian system of government was modelled after the UK, and the UK still doesn't have any notion of constitutional rights - nor do most other countries, even first-world democratic nations like Australia or New Zealand. Canada continues to have a Queen, which also wouldn't fly in America.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a third of the population [didn't] sign it". They didn't go door-to-door and ask everyone if they wanted to sign up for constitutional rights. Quebec hasn't endorsed the Canada Act, but that very well may have nothing to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that's a part of it; it very well may just be an attempt to stonewall the federal government or fight its legitimacy if they feel it's needed. Quebec's relationship to the rest of Canada is complicated, as the phrase "Québécois separatist terrorists" might imply.
But in this case we do have hard evidence the feds did plant bombs and tried to blame it on the FLQ.
> but there's ultimately no question that known Québécois separatist terrorists were responsible for the kidnapping and death
Typically for murder you want to rule out accidental death and have a murdered. At least, in a real court with due process. I don’t know how much of that they were given considering the people were living under martial law at the time.
> Quebec hasn't endorsed the Canada Act, but that very well may have nothing to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that's a part of it
Isn't the point of a constitution to have everyone endorse it and sign it? That's how it was done in America.
We likewise have evidence that the FBI created fake terror plots. You also ignored or failed to connect the dots to the rest of my post - the parts where I mentioned that the FLQ and FLQ terrorists publicly took responsibility for the kidnapping and death.
> Typically for murder you want to rule out accidental death and have a murdered. At least, in a real court with due process. I don’t know how much of that they were given considering the people were living under martial law at the time.
No, they were not living under martial law at the time - the relevant trials (and even arrests) were conducted after the War Measures Act was no longer in force. The fact that some people have disputed the findings of the court, years later, means little - especially in a situation as politically fraught as this, it's almost to be expected. It's certainly not reason alone to accuse the Crown of running a sham trial, as you seem to be implying.
> Isn't the point of a constitution to have everyone endorse it and sign it? That's how it was done in America.
Again, "how it was done in America" isn't relevant at all, because Canada is not America, and the legal relationship that the provinces have with the federal government in Canada is not the same legal relationship that the states have with the American federal government. Indeed, Canadian Confederation happened directly in the wake of the American Civil War, and many of the choices the architects of it made were deliberately different than the choices the American Founding Fathers made so as to prevent something similar from occurring here.
Whether the federal government had a right to pass it or not (it went to the Supreme Court), Quebec's refusal to endorse the Canada Act was and for many years (maybe still) remained a point of contention. If you're interested, you're free to read on Wikipedia and elsewhere all about the history of Confederation, the British North America act, the Canada Act, the Constitution Act, the Patriation Reference, the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, and so on.
Such as?
> It's certainly not reason alone to accuse the Crown of running a sham trial, as you seem to be implying.
Didn't they specifically make laws to prohibit prosecutions and inquiries into what happened?
> Whether the federal government had a right to pass it or not (it went to the Supreme Court)
The constitution is the document giving power to the court isn't it... weird to have them rule on the document that grants them powers.
Why not simply get all Provinces consent? That sounds better than convoluted legal gymnastics if you ask me.
> Didn't they specifically make laws to prohibit prosecutions and inquiries into what happened?
...such as? I'm not aware of any, Google hasn't revealed anything, and there were indeed inquiries afterwards, so I suspect you're misinformed.
> The constitution is the document giving power to the court isn't it... weird to have them rule on the document that grants them powers.
I'm surprised by this comment, because by analogy with the US - which you seem fond of - the Supreme Court in the US of course does this all the time. Even before 1982, the roles, rights, and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments in Canada were formally agreed upon and legally defined; when disagreements about the interpretation of those laws arose some body needs to arbitrate. In Canada - as in the US! - that falls to the courts.
The federal government tried to get endorsement from all of the provinces - this lead to many changes to the bill as it was being drafted. Ultimately negotiations with Quebec failed (and have continued to fail when it was attempted again, twice, later on). At the time they felt that, given that it was legally viable, it was worth it to proceed without Quebec's support.
Again, I implore you to actually look this stuff up yourself if you're genuinely interested - I'm not an expert on Canadian history, but plenty of people who are have written plenty about this.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-cr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu...
> Protection of children.
> Restrictions against hate speech.
> Protection of national production and national culture.
> Right of reply.
> Restriction on the quantity of advertising, of ad for certain products (tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs), and on product placement
At a high level, I think it means Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, etc.
The issue is that the internet made it easy for everyone to become a broadcaster. So the question with the bill is how will you distinguish an individual broadcasting a video they made, from a broadcasting business or entity that would need regulating?
And when would an individual broadcaster become an entity in need of regulating? Is having 100 million subscriber something that makes you an entity needing to be regulated? Is it if you make money from it? Is it if you're paid by others for what you broadcast?
Then there's also the question of what is a broadcast? Must it include video, must it include audio, what about images? Or video games? Or texts? Or other forms of multimedia?
Legislature hasn't caught up with the internet.
> The CRTC will develop and implement regulations to ensure that both traditional and online broadcasting services, including web giants, offer meaningful levels of Canadian content and contribute to the creation of Canadian content in both official languages
That's generally been what the CRTC does, it makes sure that broadcasters have enough Canadian made content compared to non-canadian made content, and to also make sure it has content in both official languages, as well as to help support and promote content from minorities. And that the content meets some expected standards, like not advertising things to children or medical that aren't allowed in Canada.
> Protection of children.
> Restrictions against hate speech.
> Protection of national production and national culture.
> Right of reply.
> Restriction on the quantity of advertising, of ad for certain products (tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs), and on product placement
The problematic ones for the internet would probably be the first two. The last three, I think most people would be quite happy to see more enforcement around for internet platforms.
Now for the first two, you can argue that the fine line between protecting children and hate speech could be used to censor anything that opposes the current ruling party. This greatly depends if you believe in Canada's institutions as fighting for democracy and liberty, which I think is more common in Canada, or if, like most Americans, you believe in the government institutions as constantly being the enemy of democracy and liberty and something the citizen need to constantly take upon themselves to watchdog.
That said, I believe there are other checks and balances that can be put in place here. As long as there would be mechanisms to challenge rulings, and that all such regulations was still done transparently. And that there were relatively unambiguous guidelines. And that there were still clear ways to publish things on the internet that are bad for children and hateful but wouldn't fall under broadcasting regulations, such as say your own website, email, downloadable content, etc.
In any case, I'm not here to spin my opinion of this, I'm not sure exactly what the reasonable set of rules and regulations should be here. But I'm just saying I think it needs to be discussed. Most people probably don't know that broadcasters currently must abide by this regulation, and that internet streaming platforms don't have too. So I think educating about these and discussing what regulation makes sense and what doesn't needs to happen.
To me this is completely bizarre, not unlike old soviet censors looking at movies and deciding what was “soviet enough” to get the approval from the bureaucracy. Disney and Marvel made billions of dollars simply making content people want to watch and pay for, why not simply do the same and compete in the marketplace? Imagine how ridiculous it would be if there were quotas on iPhone sold so that BlackBerry still had a legally mandated market share.
So Drake would get subsidies for being a Canadian minority but the government would try to limit the air-time given to Lil Nas (one, if not the first openly gay mainstream black rapper)… Tax dollars are paying for this?
I recall Netflix had a deal with the government where they commit xyz amount of money to producing content for their platform made in Canada. I have no problem with things like this as I have no obligation to watch that content. If that Canadian content happens to suck then I just won't watch it. But if Netflix instead had to artificially make me see this content more when I go to browse for a show that would be frustrating. Just like if Spotify had to have their curated playlists have xyz percentage of Canadian content. I don't want what I listen to being tailored based on first the country of origin and then second whether or not I will like the song.
I feel like these policies are happening because of pressure from big media companies in Canada. These companies are losing profit to American companies because now they are actually forced to compete and their average-to-meh tier content just isn't as passable anymore when people actually have options.
Free market is nice, but applying it to culture is saying you're okay to see your culture lose to another. At the same time, how can a country of a small population win a culture content war against one of multiple time its size with much more capital.
The way you talk about being forced to compete, I feel you're assuming that news, media, talk shows, music, movies, and all that are somehow not also incorporating values and morals that reflect a culture. And that there shouldn't be any desire to make sure that Canadian values, morals and historical lineage is still represented in content broadcasted to Canadians.
Now personally, I value Canadian culture and identity, and I want to see it grow and prosper and still be represented in broadcast reaching Canadians. That doesn't mean blocking foreign content, but I think it's fair to make recommendations, search results, and other such promotional mechanism prioritize a certain amount of Canadian content when accessed from Canada. And even more so, I think it's a good idea if it should make sure to always include a little bit of First Nation material, a little bit of French Canadian material, etc., to give proportional representation to our minority groups as well, and support their culture and heritage too.
As a Canadian consumer, it means that if you truly didn't like Canadian content, maybe you'd need to explicitly seek out non-canadian content, or non-canadian content recommendations. I could see it be an explicit opt-out setting, or having to explicitly switch to the American or some other endpoint.
Maybe I'm patriotic, but ya, I do value those things. And I would want the default in Canada for broadcasters to prioritize a certain amount of Canadian content with proportional representation to our various minority/majority groups.
If people want to keep it alive, they’ll simply consume it. If you can’t sell it without having to subsidize it and make special laws to force people to watch it, maybe the people already made their choice.
> And even more so, I think it's a good idea if it should make sure to always include a little bit of First Nation material, a little bit of French Canadian material, etc., to give proportional representation to our minority groups as well, and support their culture and heritage too.
Weren’t the state media making blatantly racist “historical documentary” (with taxpayers money) a few years ago? [0-4] Are people ok with this?
I get the minority content but aren’t the French Canadians notorious for buying and consuming their own culture? I work with a few French Canadians who’s been here in the bay for decades and even their kids (born here in America) watch French Canadian content (on TikTok no less!). No need to subsidize it, they just seek it because they want to watch it.
When you make something that’s worth it, people simply watch it. That’s why Parasite won an Oscar.
[0] https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/cbc-the-story-of-u...
[1] https://this.org/2017/07/19/where-cbcs-the-story-of-us-went-...
[2] https://etcanada.com/news/217608/cbc-issues-apology-after-th...
[3] https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/couillard-govern...
[4] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cbc-apologizes...
So in this case, yes, I'm taking a societal view, it's showing respect, interest and that we're all listening to each other to make the best society, and giving everyone an outlet.
So you can easily say, ok, let 60% of all content be pure consumer/producer free market driven. But reserve a 40% to make sure Canadians of all circle of life and background have a voice that can reach other Canadians.
And that would also include having voices for Ontarians, yes even truckers, or anyone else who shows interest to broadcast content, they can go to the CRTC and ask for a spot, which they'd be granted proportionally, even if their content isn't a money maker that could survive the free market.
Does it actually?
Not that long ago we basically got a completely different sales and marketing team for that region; we were advised to basically treat it as it’s own thing. From my visits it’s quite… insular. I recall their newspapers having news from the province on the front page, then a page about the US and then Canadian/International news.
> And that would also include having voices for Ontarians, yes even truckers, or anyone else who shows interest to broadcast content, they can go to the CRTC and ask for a spot
Ahh, so they have to go vet their content and opinion to a government official before getting a government approved broadcasting right. First amendment as long as you get the government’s approval!
In a democracy, the government technically works for you, you elect it, you can choose to not re-elect them, and as part of that system some institutions are in place to protect your rights. Like ombudsman, the CRTC is an institution whose mandate is to protect voices of Canadians on broadcasts that reaches Canadians.
The CRTC is not a sensor, and cannot choose what programs the broadcasters choose to air or not, it can simply dictate that it has to air some amount of Canadian content, and that it has to promote and advertise some amount of it.
The goals of it is to make sure various Canadians have a propertionally equal air time. That's its mandate.
I'm not sure what exactly you distrust in that, a free market will govern who gets air time based on profit, revenue, and market power/consolidation. This isn't what Canadians want, they want to have a mechanism that protects their rights to broadcast themselves, even if it doesn't fit Big Media's business model of maximized revenue, or their own political leanings. So they created an institution to govern that, and make sure that within the free market, there is still guaranteed room for them to broadcast.
P.S.: First amandment is a US thing. Canada has a Charter of rights and freedoms, and it's section 2(b) which says:
> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
There is really no "Canadian music" either, it's really just the same as American music. But it isn't just American content I get exposed to. I also get exposed to a lot of other content from all around the world.
Take the recent culturally popular hit on Netflix "Squid Game". Should Netflix be forced to show me something from Canada instead of promoting Squid Game simply because they are legally forced to? Shouldn't they be showing me something they think I will like regardless of where it came from? In fact Netflix does exactly this and does suggest content that is even in other languages with English dubs or subtitles.
Instead of being forced to listen or watch subsidized Canadian content I am able to watch whatever would interest me the most from anywhere in the world. In my opinion your view is an old style view that applies to a less connected version of the world. With how connected we are now and how easily I can see content from across the world it feels like an old fashioned approach to do what you are suggesting. And it feels extra silly with just how much more multi-cultural Canada has become.
What’s interesting is that you can see the quotas the government place on radio stations as a form of subsidies. Meaning that, according to the government, Justing Bieber signing about “Georgia Peaches” and consuming drugs in California counts as Canadian Music and Culture (he was born in Canada).
> Take the recent culturally popular hit on Netflix "Squid Game". Should Netflix be forced to show me something from Canada instead of promoting Squid Game simply because they are legally forced to?
Rent-seekers seem to think so! Why try to innovate and compete in a fair marketplace when you can simply have special rules that your content has to be promoted?
This is missing my point, because you are reducing the content to a mindless product of consumption.
The point of promoting and prioritizing Canadian content is not financially motivated. It is politically motivated.
The point is to safeguard free speech and the right to be heard of Canadians within Canadian society.
That means that first nations should have a proportional spot in broadcasts. If they represent 5% of all Canadians, then all broadcast should include 5% of their speech, ideas, and culture, which let their voices, opinions, values, morales, and heritage be spoken and heard through the content, be it news media, opinion pieces, talk shows, stories, etc.
Of course. Even more so when you consider a big portion of that it through a government owned and controlled broadcaster.
I'm taking a view that is about giving all Canadians the right to free speech and to be heard by other Canadians. Not one that is about the consumer and for them to have the most interesting and entertaining content at the cheapest price.
That means that if Canadians are looking to broadcast a message or values or some of their history and culture or any idea, either through a news report, an opinion piece, a talk show, a story told as music or a movie, etc. Well they should be able to do so without having to win the free market and outcompete everyone else even foreign broadcasters or content makers.
That means, reserve them a little bit of "air time" to give their message a chance to reach other Canadians. This is their right to free speech, to be heard and be considered as Canadians by other Canadians without intermediary controlling their narrative or financial and other interests playing into it.
You don't have to make all of it just that, 60% or 70% can still just be free for all free market pure consumer driven of what makes money versus what doesn't. But to reserve a fraction of that, like 30%, for Canadians looking to reach other Canadians through broadcast I think that's a great thing as a society and we need to make sure there are ways for them to do so that are protected by our institutions.
And that's also why sometimes some of those programs will even get grants, to help them produce the content. It's about preserving people's right to have a voice in our society, even the poors.
That doesn't mean that you block and censor media and culture from other countries to reach Canadians. A broadcaster is not a publisher. A broadcaster is inherently a curator, it's a promoter and censor in its own right. If you're the biggest distribution channel, but you are in control of choosing what content gets the most or best "air time", which is what a broadcaster does, you have an outsized control and impact on what content reaches Canadians and what content doesn't.
That means Disney could buy all Canadian TV and radio stations from money they acquired in the US market, and just decide to only broadcast US news, opinions, media, music and film, etc.
Or it means that Canadian broadcasters could choose to do the same because they make more money from big budget American productions than Canadian productions. But it seems wrong to me to say that news, media, and culture should all be driven and optimized purely on what makes the most money, and not on any other dimensions, such as cultural heritage and diversity, equal opinions and voices from Canadians of various groups and affiliations, etc.
Similarly, for online broadcasting, it means what does YouTube decide to recommend you? What do they decide to promote or show first in a search result? You'd want regulations to make sure that YouTube considers what's best for Canadians, by making sure it's equally showing Canadian content from various Canadian groups, and not that it's just demoting and making all Canadian voices and content hard to find while instead only recommending content that is optimized for clicks, revenue, outrage, or representing American, or Russian, or other foreign nations or groups.
That doesn't mean banning foreign content, it just means it can't get priority over Canadian content in broadcasts. You also can still sell and distribute it in Canada without problems.
If people want to consume Canadian content, they'll simply switch to a different station. The free market is always right!
> Or it means that Canadian broadcasters could choose to do the same because they make more money from big budget American productions than Canadian productions
Why not simply step up their game and make content that people want to watch? They are free to sell it on the US market as well.
Hence the now unemployed truckers went to Ottawa to protest. Which is their human right? Even their charter right?
Before they arrived in Ottawa, 1 guy with a nazi flag walked around all over Ottawa and had photographers following him. There's a pretty large bounty to identify this dude, yet nobody can seem to do it.
However, the stories wrote themselves. From our state propaganda... They are a fringe minority of white supremacist truckers. Very unusually there were updates from the police on the highways saying the convoy was tiny, only a few trucks. Like an attempt to label this fringe minority tiny and can be ignored? Very unusual, never seen the police do this before.
The trucker convoy showed up in Ottawa and we discovered oh wait, they are a bunch of Indians. Not white supremacists at all. I dont know the statistic, but pretty significant portion of truckers are Indian. The number of videos mocking the propaganda media where not-white people are claiming to be white supremacists is pretty hilarious.
Then the media spun it again and now people believe the protest is against masks? LOL?
They raised significant $ on gofundme, who seized the funds and at first were going to be donating to left-wing charities. They have since autorefunded. However, what was the rule that they broke? It actually required the government to label the protest a military occupation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation
This designation is very narrow international definition. The allegation by the Canadian government is that they lost control of Ottawa to the protestors. This fringe minority trucker convoy who hasn't invaded any buildings is labelled a military occupation in order to remove their human/charter rights.
It's worse, the propaganda media labelled the solidarity protests in various cities around the country as a 'nation-wide insurrection'
The ottawa police have also started arresting anyone who is bringing 'material support' to the military occupation.
So why the sudden need for an online censorship bill? The government who clearly removed the protestors human rights wish to go further. Remove their ability to counter the clear propaganda being produced against them.
Canada who has some of the most strict covid restrictions is ignoring the protestors and not joining much of Europe by returning our rights. They are planning to remove more of our human rights.
In other news: https://twitter.com/ChrisEnsingCBC/status/149088948355370598...
This bridge isn't the only way in and out but this shutting down is huge. Not much of a fringe minority eh?