jacee

Ya I get that, but I don't think that's the intention with this policy. Other than getting rid of 'Your Ward News', police barely seem to use the ones we have, but maybe this will give them more practice. I just don't see the current legal definition being applied by police within the 24 hr period specified ... so who's making those judgements? All very unclear.

The TripAdvisor 'review' that Levy cited was already public, but ya, it didn't become broadly known until the Levy/Toronto Sun trash rag peice. "Should" ... well ... it's a tough call with little likelihood of conviction. Might have been different if the fire injured people, the arsonist was caught and babbled about Levy's column ...Ya, bs liar Levy should be mincemeat but ... it's a high bar. "Different" ... in that 'somebody' will monitor sites for "hate speech" ... but the definition of hate content will remain as per Section 319 - a very high bar.

Breach of the peace applies only to "Public incitement of hatred". But not to "Wilful promotion of hatred" which covers online, print, flyers, posters and other communications.

There are length-of-residency requirements for OAS & GIS. Look it up. And again ... CPP is a "pension" with contributions through working. OAS and GIS are not pensions, but senior benefits.

You said that as of 2013, 25% of elderly immigrants ended up on welfare. Can you provide a cite for that, and more importantly, an update to 2019?

No, they don't get "pension" - CPP - unless they've worked and contributed. They do get OAS and possibly GIS ... like every senior in Canada, including all others who have never worked (eg, mostly women supported by spouse's income).

That's a refugee. They do have a face-to-face interview. Argus is talking about immigration.

No, I don't have to make anything up. Your words have spoken for themselves. Lol Please explain the points system, Argus. Because you said they all end up "on welfare". That's just more of you racist and malicious lies and made-up nonsense. Where's your cite for that?! Lol Elderly immigrants are sponsored and supported by their family's verified income in Canada, or they have their own money to support themselves.

What's your source for that? Lol

Argus I am very aware of your personal racial prejudices and obsessive and irrational fears, and that's all you're spewing here. You provide no sources, no facts, just a lot of paranoid and delusional nonsense. Just "a cursory check for criminal records"?! So NOT TRUE, Argus. Are you not even familiar with Canada's immigration 'points system'? You don't know even the smallest facts about immigration to Canada, nor do you really care or ever bother to research or cite sources for what you say. It's like you're just a wind-up toy repeating every anti-immigrant meme that ever crossed your screen! And, given the google, facebook and other algorithms that mine your clicks and keep sending you more and more of the same, you're inevitably mired in downward slide under a mountain of racist propaganda. Fear is not enough: I suggest you start your real citizenship education here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/family-sponsorship/sponsor-parents-grandparents.html

'Hate speech' does not have to be further defined, because what is illegal is already defined by law in the Criminal Code of Canada, and the instruction is to "remove illegal content". - public incitement of hatred - wilful promotion of hatred (And also enforce any laws relating to 'radicalization, terrorism, exploitation of children, etc.)

Michael, even though I may believe that that false story of refugees slaughtering goats in a hotel bathroom was intended to "promote hatred" ... NO, I can't imagine the courts concluding that "beyond a reasonable doubt". First, because the original publication of that claim online was by a possibly anonymous or fake 'customer' posting a fake review of the hotel on Trip Advisor. So that's the real perpetrator, but the hotel can't remove reviews. Did Trip Advisor remove that review? I don't know ... perhaps. Did police search out that poster to charge them with 'promoting hatred'? Very unlikely ... because repeating a rumour that you "believe" to be true absolves you under the law anyway. It became a much more public issue when Sue-Ann Levy opined about it in her usual nauseating manner, including repeating that fake 'review' ... in her column. She cited her source without verifying it's veracity, a journalistic fault but likely not a legal one: The courts could never prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Levy was intending to promote hatred against refugees. In fact, in responding to complaints, Levy determinedly maintained that her purpose was to bring attention to the plight of these refugees, brought to Canada, and then "abandoned" by the Liberal government. It is, as Moonlight Graham said, a very high bar to even lay charges under Section 319, and even moreso for obtaining a conviction in court that will stick through appeal and Supreme Court challenge.

I see you're taking a reasonable approach to this, Moonlight, unlike some who (read 'Postmillennial' and) exaggerate the 'threat' to our Freedom of Expression. I'm referring back to scribblet's OP now, looking at the real parameters of this initiative by quoting the actual relevant content of Trudeau's letter to the Minister: I will expect you to work with your colleagues and through established legislative, regulatory and Cabinet processes to deliver on your top priorities. In particular, you will: Create new regulations for social media platforms, starting with a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech, within 24 hours or face significant penalties. This should include other online harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda. Really, people, there is no new law here, and not even any new enforcement of the existing Canadian law, which is and will remain Section 319 of the Criminal Code: "Wilful promotion of hatred". It's even questionable that such new regulations will have any teeth: How does Canada tell Mark Zuckerberg to remove content that is illegal in Canada but not in the US? Will the regulations apply only to content generated in Canada? That's a loophole that you could drive a truck through! I see this as a purely political move in response to legitimate concerns of Canadians, that 'wilful promotion of hatred' against groups of people (notably Indigenous, Muslim, Black and LGBTQ2), radicalization, terrorism, exploitation of children, etc. is rampant online and needs to be curbed. The Liberals want to be seen to be trying to do 'something' about it. So there will be 'regulations' on the books ... but who's actually tasked with enforcing the regulation? The owners of the platform. And who's monitoring the owners to identify illegal content and make sure that they "remove illegal content ... within 24 hours"? <crickets> It's just politics, playing to the crowd, and possibly somewhat educational for owners of platforms, the public and the police. I'm pleased to see it mentioned, just for the educational value and perhaps to encourage the public to report "illegal" content to platform owners, applying social pressure rather than legal ... but I don't see any real teeth in such regulations: Trudeau is not going to fund and staff a whole new unit of RCMP to crawl around the internet to identify and enforce the "24 hour" regulations on "illegal" content on platforms that don't originate in Canada. While "hate speech" is perhaps popular terminology among the public, we do not have a federal law against "hate speech" per se. We have laws against 'inciting or promoting hatred'. So the use of the term "hate speech" is a clue that this is just political window dressing, without any real legal enforcement.

'Hate speech' is defined by law, the Criminal Code and Case Law. (See my post above.) To suggest that hate speech is defined by politicians is a ridiculous falsehood. From your link: ... a requirement that all platforms remove illegal content, including hate speech,

For reference ... https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html Criminal Code of Canada: Public incitement of hatred 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. Wilful promotion of hatred (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. Defences (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada. Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression: Legal Boundaries in Canada Background Paper https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201825E The Key Provisions and Case Law Which Define Hate Speech https://www.lawnow.org/the-key-provisions-and-case-law-which-define-hate-speech/ As the cases below will highlight, section 319(2) of the Criminal Code and human rights legislation (both federal and provincial) prohibiting the promotion of hatred and contempt have been challenged under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Despite these challenges, the Supreme Court of Canada has continued to hold that limits on expression are justified and in the process have continued to flesh out what is meant by terms such as “hatred”.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all! And most importantly, a Joyful Solstice as the days will start getting longer soon! Yay! https://m.imgur.com/t/awesome/1KytDTQ

The point of democratic leadership is a give-and-take between those elected leaders (MP's, PM) and their constituents. Leaders represent the views of constituents, and also at times inform constituents about factors that influence decisions. Democratic leaders are always accountable to constituents. "Red tape" is what protects us against projects that will fail because they do not have viable business plans in terms of environmental, economic, legal or human resource liabilities. No one can "force through pipelines". They are always ultimately accountable through the courts. For example, the low court may have ordered an injunction against Wetsueten people to allow the LNG pipeline construction to continue, but that injunction is still subject to appeal to the Supreme Court to hear the case for Aboriginal rights and title. (Meantime, Chevron has just pulled out its 50% investment due to the low price of gas, so the project is most likely no longer viable anyway, a 'stranded asset'.) Transmountain (TMX, Trudeau's purchase) oil pipeline construction continues on the Alberta side, but in BC there are court cases pending against it too. Also, its economic viability is also in jeopardy due to the low price of oil. So again, nobody can "force pipelines through", and nobody can guarantee that a pipeline won't end up abandoned as a stranded asset as the viability of the fossil fuel industry wanes. And ensure proper policy and focus on domestic terrorism by far-right white supremacist groups and individuals across Canada. Most of what you mention is already in place, already part of the process. Elders without their own financial resources ARE sponsored. Canada is fully capable of addressing crimes, fraud or otherwise, via our own legal and justice system. Stripping citizenship never was a viable legal option. Harper passed it for optics only, and Trudeau quickly reversed it, for legal reasons. According to International law, you cannot leave a person "stateless", so it can only be applied against people who hold dual citizenships and that would be an additional, harsh and discriminatory punishment against dual citizens that would never be applied for the same crime to a person holding only Canadian citizenship: Canadian courts would strike it down. Once a citizen, you are subject to the laws and punishments of Canada, and no more. Our point system for vetting of immigrants is just fine, imo. Can you point to any real problems with it?

Wages required to live (food, shelter, transportation for employment, and little else) vary a bit with cost of living across the country. LIVING WAGE CANADA allows you to calculate that info for various communities, for a family of four with two full time wage earners. http://livingwagecanada.ca/index.php/about-living-wage/calculating-living-wage-your-community/ The bottom line for viability of a business plan must be that it provides workers with a wage that they can actually live on. A business that can't pay workers a living wage can't afford to be in business. Thousands of businesses with faulty business plans fail each year, and deserve to do so. Propping up shoddy businesses by keeping workers at poverty wages increases our social costs, so it's not a viable proposition. Cheaping out on labour costs, facilities, supplies, equipment, ingredients, or any other business costs is a sign of a business that will fail.

I see you don't understand diplomacy. Not surprising. It's about maintaining human relationships, up close, about purpose: health and safety for all people. You really think it's a good idea for Canada to try to incite a war with China? Shooters think the only answer is to kill people and then kill themselves. Sociopaths giggle in glee at the carnage they provoke. Soldiers are programmed to follow orders for Canada's glory, but not 'why': For the profits of the few money elites. People are broken body and mind broken physically mentally by betrayal By sociopaths who, without regulation and direction, destroy the earth and it's people. Great idea. Lol I don't like fascists in Canada. Elsewhere ... diplomacy is better than war.

The US is going full on fundamentalist and condemning us to hell and damnation . Seems a bit over the top. Damage control in progress ... https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/PM-Trudeau-says-UN-vote-not-a-shift-in-steadfast-Israel-support-610437 "The government felt that it was important to reiterate its commitment to a two-states-for-two-peoples solution at a time when its prospects appear increasingly under threat,” Trudeau said in a statement."But let me be very clear. Our enduring friendship with Israel remains. We will continue to stand strongly against the singling out of Israel at the UN. Canada remains a steadfast supporter of Israel and Canada will always defend Israel's right to live in security. And we will always, always, speak up against antisemitism at home and abroad. You have my word," he added.

I see you'd like to escalate the situation. And I hope level heads are at work de-escalating. Different approaches, but I think mine is closer to how Canada has succeeded best in the past. International students bring money and jobs to Canadians. I just don't believe you're thinking this through.

Retaliation is a choice to ramp up a conflict. It's certainly not a good first choice, and in no one's best interests. I'd like to think there are important private discussions and negotiation going on, as that's the best route ... but we have no way of knowing that.

Ya, you and Yzer both did, which is why I was poking fun at it. Here's you: There will be scapegoats. I would expect those to be the usual suspects, immigrants, gays, transgenders, feminists, academics, peaceniks, etcetera, all the sacred cows of the left. The hunters will become the hunted.

More conspiring against Canada, eh Dougie!

Patrik Mathews, white supremacist disgraced ex-soldier on the run, in the news again. It was never clear why he ran, as he has no charges, (except perhaps illegally entering the US) but there is an open investigation on him: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/8xwwaa/neo-nazi-terror-group-harbouring-missing-ex-soldier-patrik-mathews-sources "The Base is a global, accelerationist organization intending to hasten the collapse of society through a future armed insurgency, and establish a caucasian ethno-state from the chaos of a “race war.” The Base is unique in the extreme-right ecosystem as it aims to create a coalition of online neo-Nazis, pooling members from street skinheads to other U.S. based terror groups like Atomwaffen Division, which has already been linked to a string of murders." Gee, sounds just like Dougie93's plan.