suds

Two of Canada's main civil liberties groups the CCLA and the CCF both claim that professional regulators are subject to the Charter (as they should be). They also claim that in Peterson's case there was regulatory overreach especially in demanding Peterson take a re-education program (at his own expense) that had nothing to do with his profession. So, I'm just assuming things but I would assume that the Charter be the big Bible in this case, and whatever restrictions the regulators scribbled down would be the little Bible. Or what's the point in having a Charter? I realize that no two cases are the same but this sure sounds like regulatory overreach to me. Someone at the CCF even suggested that maybe the regulators should be re-educated (at their own expense) in a course on fundamental freedoms. Yeah, that might work eh?

From what you've written here, you don't have a clue what freedom actually is. To put it simply, freedom is the state of not being subject to coercion by the arbitrary will of others. Did Peterson break any laws? Not that I know of. Is there such a thing as the right to not be offended? I don't think so either. I'd say it's a little more than some philosophical concept.

It's good to be King!

That's something else entirely depending on what they're discussing. I thought the topic was freedom of speech, truth/disinformation, and censorship.

Yeah, right. If this is 'truth' why not back it up with some evidence?

Trump has a habit of saying a lot of things not because that's what he wants, but to use as a bargaining chip to get what he really wants. Last time in office he used it as a threat to get Nato members to pay the full 2% of GDP that they were committed to paying. Now they're discussing raising it well above 2%. Why would someone who wanted out of Nato coerce/shame other members into paying their fair share. You tell me.

When we suppress free speech nobody wins. It's like NATO.... an attack on one is an attack on all.

Well that would be the nuclear option. 😉

Ok, so this 'nod to God' in the preamble of the Constitution will keep our politicians in government in line while they're screwing around with our rights? You're kidding of course. 😜

Please explain how 'ordinary people' could possibly distinguish between truth and disinformation? Or even artificial intelligence for that matter? How often does the professional media get it wrong? I'm also not so sure that 'ordinary people' couldn't be persuaded to arrive at certain conclusions if you paid them enough. Or that their political beliefs wouldn't interfere with their judgements. I would say leaving things the way they are would be the better of two evils. We the people are also social media. Let them debate it out, not behind closed doors but in the public sphere as they (we) do now. I tend to believe that Orwell would have preferred it that way.

Whether you love him or hate him, he stood up for what he believed in. Now self censorship is the norm because there's too much at stake to risk. We could use a few more just like him.

Orwell's novel '1984' was published in 1949. He had witnessed two world wars (where truth is always the first casualty) and periods of fascism and Stalinism (think 'Animal Farm'). He lived in a time when public discourse was relatively limited and no one could possibly imagine the emergence of the internet, social media, algorithms, or artificial intelligence. Perhaps he was more reactionary than visionary. Whatever, 1984 was a warning to all of us especially in the West. So was Solzhenitsyn's 'Gulag Archipelago'. So we all took a big sigh of relief when 1984 came and passed, but now it seems that we are standing at the precipice and our liberties are at stake. Public oversight eh? Now where is that in our constitution?

The 'Ministry of Truth' of course. I mean, what else is there other than something the same but with a different name? However, according to Orwell, his Ministry of Truth was more concerned with the manipulation of information for government's own selfish purposes. Orwell was quite the envisionary.

Pumping more money into the military to meet our NATO commitments isn't likely to get anyone anymore votes at election time. And it's a disgrace.

What is it with these large public service unions anyway? I realize that unions can't be blamed for the conduct of some of its members, but in many cases the antisemitism that seems to be so prevalent comes straight from the top. Are not unions supposed to be looking out for the best interests and welfare of all their members??? I belonged to a relatively small union for over 30 years. Never seen or heard of anything like this. Not a peep. Why aren't these union officials who preach all this antisemitism bullshit thrown out?

I don't see it as being all that complicated. Clinton interfered in Russian elections while Secretary of State, and Putin interfered in Clinton's second run for the Presidency in 2016. So since then, the Democrats have this hate on for Putin, but are cozy with China because of China's dealings with the Biden family. The Republicans on the other hand are the exact opposite with their relations to Russia and China. I guess it's just the petty way international politics mixed with domestic politics works. The old saying .... 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' seems to hold true. But in certain respects they're all playing with fire.

I draw the line when foreign actors start messing around with our electoral process. Other than that, am more concerned about government overreach on our opinions and what we watch, hear, and read (all in the name of protecting us from 'disinformation' of course). There are two sides to every story. Taking the Russian/Ukraine war for example, I'm pro Ukraine, but not adverse to hearing the Russian side of the story regardless of where it comes from or the funding behind it. I'm not a child and resent being treated like one.

Scalise said it best when when commenting on Hunter's pardon.... 'They never play by the same rules they force on everyone else'.

As for the striking part, I believe the government can order essential workers back to work as long as they agree to some type of independent arbitration process to take affect. Anyways, the limitations clause clearly spells out that no rights are absolute. Nor can they be for a democracy to function properly.

Thanks for the link. Interestingly enough Canada's Bill of Rights (1960) which is a Federal law and not applicable to the provinces, may have been the precedent for the Charter's Section 33. From the Bill of Rights.... Construction of law 2 Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to (a) authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person; (b) impose or authorize the imposition of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment; (c) deprive a person who has been arrested or detained (i) of the right to be informed promptly of the reason for his arrest or detention, (ii) of the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, or (iii) of the remedy by way of habeas corpus for the determination of the validity of his detention and for his release if the detention is not lawful; (d) authorize a court, tribunal, commission, board or other authority to compel a person to give evidence if he is denied counsel, protection against self crimination or other constitutional safeguards; (e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations; (f) deprive a person charged with a criminal offence of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, or of the right to reasonable bail without just cause; or (g) deprive a person of the right to the assistance of an interpreter in any proceedings in which he is involved or in which he is a party or a witness, before a court, commission, board or other tribunal, if he does not understand or speak the language in which such proceedings are conducted.

I agree about it being a 'negotiating tactic'. Border immigration, NATO contribution, and supply management come to mind. Not exactly new issues either, but issues that have been kicked around the last time Trump was in office. A 25% tariff would kill us especially if it included energy.

People shouldn't take election results so personal. Republicans need Democrats as much as Democrats need Republicans. When the ole pendulum begins swinging too far one way, it has to swing back the other. It's why Trump won in 2024 and Poilievre will likely win in 2025. In the long run it's better for everyone. But to some, it's the end of the world if their side loses. And then you have these celebrities who have more money than brains.

Don't know where you find the patience....

Regarding Ms Khan....... I support your right to free speech, but F**k You too.

Another reason to get a jump start on this is that the cost of resources to build infrastructure will likely sky rocket at some point when demand increases and resources are harder to find and more costly to extract. It took over 100 years to build the infrastructure for fossil fuels that we have today when money for such projects was relatively cheap and available. Now it's going to cost more and we don't have 100 years to build it.