blackbird
-
Posts
10,296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
I'm guessing you think it comes from God. That's really no help for us sensible agnostics.
The government has already proven they are anti-God and anti-Bible morality when they passed laws celebrating and protecting certain classes of people, who identify as non-binary, from anything that anyone might consider as hate speech. So for the government to bring in a bill to control speech on the internet is just another step in the direction of control of what Canadians can say, even if it contradicts their religious beliefs. You are obviously OK with that.
Canada Forces Government Speech and Bans Bible Verses | Answers in Genesis
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
Orwell is so over quoted and misunderstood.
No it is not over quoted. I have not even heard it quoted once on this forum. Making things up again are we?
The famous author George Orwell was visionary when he wrote that book. Who would have predicted even the existence of the internet when he wrote that book?
Who would have thought when Orwell wrote that book that the Thought Police would use a wire to spy on people? That was incredible insight. That is exactly what is happening with the internet which runs on wires throughout the telecommunications system.
-
2 hours ago, eyeball said:
No that would be in the municipality of Tofino. Encampments and raves etc in the Reg. Dist. are generally condemned and police get involved when the crowds start getting into the hundreds of people. Local 1st Nations patrol the area and gates on the roads are locked at night.
You are talking about wilderness areas that do not belong to FN. These are areas that FN claim as their "traditional areas" around such places as Kennedy Lake, a very large uninhabited area. FNs claim the whole province of B.C. as their "traditional areas". They do not own the province or the areas around the west coast and Tofino.
But politicians in Tofino and regional district are sucking up to FN, putting them on the regional district board and generally caving into their red power demands. They are essentially using FN red power people to intimidate tourists and campers to force them out of the area. That is criminal. Since when have you stood up for the public on the regional district board?
Also banning people from camping in the wilderness is a violation of freedom of movement and is being done to try to force a few more people to go into Tofino and pay to stay in their high-priced west coast resorts. The whole thing is crooked coersion.
There are no hundreds of people or raves. That is highly doubtful and is probably a lie by the extortionists. A group of people who want to camp in the bush is not a rave. That is a fake claim. Don't forget the area is a highly desirable tourist destination because of Long Beach and the west coast scenery, fishing, whale watching, etc., and does not belong exclusively to the resort owners and business people in Tofino. Who are you representing on the regional district? Not the ordinary people who don't have a fortune for the resorts.
Apparently they are not even allowing anyone to sleep in their vehicle in Tofino. It is an extortion racket.
-
"How often, and on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire (computer terminal?) was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everyone all the time. But at any rate they would plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live--did live--from habit that became instinct--from the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized." Orwell's book, 1984.
-
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
2. Do you know where our legal rights come from? Here's a hint.. the word legal is right in there. And who passes laws?
Wow!!! Well, thank you again sir for telling me my right to speak comes from the government. I would never have realized my very existence and right to breath, speak and everything else was due to the benevolence of our big brother, the Trudeau government.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, eyeball said:
It's not loony at all to laugh at, mock and dismiss ridiculous criticism and critics when they habitually ask for it.
Take your ridiculous habit of comparing Hitler and Trudeau for example.
Do you still work on the board of the regional district that condemns people that slept in a vehicle in the town of Tofino instead of paying for accommodation in the ridiculously high-priced resorts? Do they actually send the police after people who camp in the wilderness in the area?
-
“The idea of any hierarchical politico deciding what a man or woman is allowed to write to fit a proscribed national agenda is a horrid thing. I am wondering if anyone on the staff of our Minister of Canadian Heritage understands this.”
“I think, overall, we have lately become a land of scapegoaters and finger pointers, offering accusations and shame while believing we are a woke society. Cultural committees are based as much in bias and fear as in anything else.”
“No decree by the CRTC could, in any way, tell us what Canadian content should or should not be, or who should be allowed to bob their heads up out of the new murkiness we have created. "
Rex Murphy: Trudeau-appointed senator gets it right in condemning government censorship (msn.com)
This C11 is right out of Orwell's book 1984 where big brother watches and controls every inch of everyone's life.
"There was no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork." Orwell's book "1984".
This is what we can expect from the highly-paid bureaucrats in the CRTC who will be authorized and expected to carry out this mandate.
-
5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
The government has to do a better job of making it clear that freedom of expression is okay, well it aims for the goals that we mostly support..
Really??????????? So you actually hold the Orwellian belief that government has the right to tell me that I have the right to freedom of expression?
Well, thank you sir for being so benevolent and allowing me to believe I receive this freedom from the government. I didn't know I needed their permission to have it.
-
"Forcing or attempting to force YouTube, TikTok or other platforms to prioritize Canadian content may be well intentioned, but it is naïve… Forcing people to view content because it’s Canadian does not encourage people to like that content. It is more likely, I feel, to breed negative perceptions of Canadian content from the user," testified digital creator Stewart Reynolds, perhaps better known online as Brittlestar.
"If they know a video is being shown to them primarily because it’s Canadian and not because it is what the user is searching for, it can make the video seem inferior regardless of whether it is or not. It’s like going to a restaurant with corn content or corncon rules. Even though you order the Alberta sirloin, you receive a bowl of corn. Good, perhaps, but not what you wanted," Reynolds told the Senate committee."
Online streaming Bill C-11: What you need to know | CTV News
The neo-Marxist mentality is that they think if they force feed the population something, it will be accepted. People are not that stupid. They will know when something is of inferior quality and will reject it. This could mean so-called Canadian content will be judged more harshly because it is being force fed on the people.
I know there are movies that are made in other countries like Germany, the U.S.A., and Europe that are of incredible quality. Nobody should be forced to watch something of poor quality just because it comes from one's own country. Good quality movies can come from anywhere in the world and the citizens should not be stopped from being able to choose what they want to watch.
An unforgettable movie in my opinion was "As Far As My Feet Will Carry Me". Produced by a German company and using a very large number of staff. The list of people who produced it is endless. It is in the German language but has English subtitles so is still easy to watch and understand.
As Far As My Feet Will Carry Me ( 2001) - YouTube
-
"Throughout its efforts to update Canada's Broadcasting Act regime, the government has remained adamant that Bill C-11 is focused on ensuring social media and streaming giants are subjected to Canadian content requirements and regulations comparable to traditional broadcasters, and as a result promote and pay their fair share towards Canadian creators.
This insistence has come in the face of alarms being sounded by certain industry voices, the Conservative party, and platforms such as YouTube, Google and Meta, which have suggested that the Liberal proposal could have knock-on effects for user-generated content and content creators, as well as free-speech implications. In their efforts to lobby against this bill, some of the tech giants have gone to great lengths.
For example, this fall, YouTube ran a campaign warning users who earn money making videos about how the legislation could impact their livelihoods.
YouTube, TikTok say streaming bill fails to protect creators
Critics have also made the charge that, due to the "discoverability" provisions that would empower the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to compel platforms to promote Canadian content, it's a bill aimed at censoring what gets seen online."
Online streaming Bill C-11: What you need to know | CTV News
I see two serious general problems with this:
1. Government control of what platforms put on the internet with the purpose of promoting Canadians content. This means content will not be judged on its merit, but rather platforms will be forced to promote it even if it is sub-standard and of low quality. This is not the kind of entertainment Canadians should be forced to watch and pay for. Also small individual creators could be harmed with the bureaucracy and interference by the government.
2. There is still a belief by many that this bill also intends to censor and control what individuals post on social media or on youtube. If this is the case, it could be a violation of freedom of expression. When governments are given a chance to control media, the bureaucrats doing it might be given the freedom to do whatever they think. This is dangerous censorship.
The big problem is that the government views the internet as a broadcast medium when its not that at all. It is more of a communications medium between people.
How can social media even be considered as broadcasting similar to radio and television. It is not broadcasting. The government has no business in regulating or controlling what people post on social media.
This bill is a revolutionary change in that it brings the internet under the authority of the CRTC as if it is a public broadcaster. Authoritarians like this idea of controlling the communications and thoughts of the population. I would not be too sure that this is not the direction this bill is heading.
-
20 minutes ago, West said:
We should be able to subscribe and listen to content we like free from government manipulation and control.
Ahh but we are living in Trudeau's (or Orwell's) 1984 era of big brother knows what is best for us to watch.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
Yes, this is about protecting Canadian Culture and Jobs just as Mulroney, Trudeau and every sane PM did in the past.
I listened to the YouTuber and I don't agree with what he said.
It's weird how people want to protect Canadian jobs but only sometimes:
-Oilfields Workers
-Lumber Industry Workers
-Fishers
-Dairy Farmers
-Manufacturing Jobs
-Fast Food
-Actors and Creators
Why are some of these jobs worth protecting more than others ?You need to study C11. I don't think you have much idea of what it is all about. You seem ok with have the CRTC bureaucracy controlling the internet in certain ways but you don't understand what it is all about.
Considering how poorly this government has managed many departments, it is surprising you would trust them with managing anything on the internet. We need to dig deeper into this bill to learn exactly what it means before making too many broad nonsensical comments.
Just one small example of government mismanagement is the pandemic hotels. The government spent millions of dollars renting hotels for quarantine and many times they were hardly used. Try Google and see how many millions dollars they spend on one hotel in Calgary for a small number of people. Yet you trust them with everything.
They are also under the microscope for giving contracts worth a vast amount of money to McKinsey corporation for advice. Trudeau writes cheques like money is water.
-
2
-
-
Ironically one good thing about this appointment is that there are news reports that many politicians in Quebec are unhappy about this appointment. Almost all politicians in Quebec oppose this appointment.
-
Political Islam does not believe in individual freedoms and rights. Creating this special position is another step toward controlling or infringing on freedom of speech by Trudeau.
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, herbie said:
She shouldn't have been appointed as she has a personal opinion?
Or because she has personal opinions that you not a Liberal, do not agree with?I don't think she is qualified for the position she has been given because of her past comments. That's what the issue is.
-
5 minutes ago, herbie said:
She shouldn't have been appointed as she has a personal opinion?
Or because she has personal opinions that you not a Liberal, do not agree with?She should not be appointed because she has opinions I do not agree with and most people would not agree with. Did you read a previous post by I am Groot? They point out a lot of very bad ideas she has. Guess you have no idea.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
I agree with the second part of your post but You are wrong on the first part. Democracy does not mean we have to let in criminals and mass murderers and unable to deport them. If this is your democracy I want dictatorship.
I think we agree on that. I believe we should not let in questionable people. This is not a question of democracy versus dictatorship. Dictatorship is a disaster in every way. We don't want that. But I am glad we agree about the kind of people that should not be in Canada. I think the great majority of people would agree with us on that.
Our system is however failing in many ways as I have said often on various issues. For example, it looks like they are going to bring in people who hold Canadian citizenship but went to fight for ISIS or marry ISIS fighters and support them. This is a serious problem. A federal judge ruled Canada has to bring them back.
-
11 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
As mentioned they seem to have found their way in and Trudeau government is doing nothing about it. Also I don't believe fanatics in Canada are any different than fanatics in Iran or elsewhere if God forbid somehow they gain power they will do the same.
Yes, if certain extremists or supporters of the terrorist regime are found, they should be sent back.
-
8 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
As mentioned they seem to have found their way in and Trudeau government is doing nothing about it. Also I don't believe fanatics in Canada are any different than fanatics in Iran or elsewhere.
That is true, but don't forget we live in a democracy which means we are supposed to have basic freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion which must be respected as long as we don't break the law.
The government let them in and we have to live with it. But we should still defend our freedom of speech for everyone. The liberals want to control speech but we must resist that using reasoning. Sometimes you cannot reason with fanatics. If they break the law, throw them in jail for a long time or deport them. The government should be screening people very carefully before they are allowed into the country. This was not done.
-
3 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
You wish to debate with this bunch!!!!
I am not speaking about Iran. I know of course they do not have democracy or freedom speech in those kind of countries. I was referring to Canada where we still have a certain degree of freedom of speech and must defend it.
-
10 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
Yes but if they wish to close the bars where boys and girls mixing or ban the sale of alcohol or force hijab on non-believers (even if their own family who have grown up in democracy) or criticize our way of life having freedom and equality then they have no right.
The way to respond to those things in a democracy is to use reasoning why it should not be done. Debate and discussion is how we operate in a democratic country. That's why it is a dangerous path to try to silence people as some liberals and left want to do.
-
One of the problems is what does the word Islamophobia actually mean? If it means one disagrees with the Islamic religion, the Quran, and Sharia Law, I guess many of us would be described as Islamophobic. That's why the it was a poor choice to use that word and make it the centerpiece of policy by the Liberal government.
-
8 minutes ago, I am Groot said:
Why we don't like her? Terry Glavin is reasonably succinct on that point. She represents that sneering progressive attitude that despises Canada, its traditions, values and history, and says we're all racists and 'settlers'. Why would we not have contempt for such a person.
As an activist and frequent opinion-pages contributor, Elghawaby has adopted all the respectable standpoints with just the right degree of transgressive élan, rarely too strident or too squishy. She called for removing the Queen as Canada’s head of state and dismissed Canada Day as a festival of “Judeo-Christian storytelling.” She’s been gushing in her praise for Trudeau and backs the Trudeau government’s extremely contentious moves to regulate commentary on the internet. She’s argued in favour of Muslim prayer rooms in schools, and once blasted the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper as having done more harm to the image of Canadian Muslims than al-Qaida’s atrocities in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.
What the point of her appoint is.
The whole thing is a mess, and it’s as just as jumbled and fractious as Elghawaby’s appointment, which is as Trudeau described it — to “build bridges.” But it’s to build the Liberal party’s bridges to Muslim voters.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/amira-elghawaby-being-used-by-liberals-to-woo-muslim-votes
I agree. Well said. Those are real reasons why she should not be appointed.
-
4 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:
but they have no right to try to impose it on others
Don't forget people still have the right to freedom of expression in Canada. We used to see Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons coming to the door to try to get converts or spread their message. That is part of freedom of expression and freedom of religion which is a fundamental right in Canada. Nobody is having a religion "imposed" on them by people handing out tracts or trying to talk to people. You have the freedom to decline to discuss anything with them. Freedom of expression is all about having the freedom to speak your beliefs, whether true or false. We do that in the political realm all the time. People do that in their social circles constantly. That is what life is all about. You are free to believe what someone else says or not believe it. But we don't try to silence other people from speaking on certain topics if that is their desire. That is what they do in totalitarian states or dictatorships. We don't do that here because that would be a violation of basic freedoms. We cannot interpret people speaking their truth or belief as "imposing". That looks like trying to stop people from speaking.
The only exception to this principle would be people in positions of authority should not be using their positions to impose their religion on people who must deal with them as in the debate over bill C21 in the Quebec secularism law. That is why I agree with the law. I would view wearing religious symbols when you are in a position of authority, such as a school teacher, as imposing some religion on the students and should not be allowed.
Canada passes controversial Bill C-11 (Trudeau's unacceptable views bill)
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
"Now what do “discrimination, hate propaganda and hate crimes” mean? The Ontario Human Rights Code mandates “the use of genderless pronouns on request.” Does this mean those who do not agree with transgender ideology and decline to use genderless pronouns will be convicted of hate crimes? If a pastor quotes from Scripture and condemns homosexual behavior as sinful, as the Bible does, is that a hate crime? Is it “hate propaganda” for someone to share God’s truth that we were created male and female (Genesis 1:27) to a friend who is thinking about transitioning from one gender to another? Telling people they are wrong can be offensive, even if done in the most gentle and loving way possible. Will offense be the standard by which we judge hate crimes?
Telling people they are wrong can be offensive, even if done in the most gentle and loving way possible.
Groups against this new bill claim this is “government mandated speech” and that “this law will not be used as some sort of 'shield' to defend vulnerable transsexuals, but rather as a weapon with which to bludgeon people of faith and free-thinking Canadians who refuse to deny truth.”
Canada Forces Government Speech and Bans Bible Verses | Answers in Genesis