Canada passes controversial Bill C-11 (Trudeau's unacceptable views bill)

[WestCanMan]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't understand this sentence.  Of course you have the right, and it's good if government restates that.

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?

 

Good God man, do you have even the slightest concern for free speech?

Isn't this part just a little bit alarming:

Quote

The Senate also removed a clause in the bill that Sen. Paula Simons described as giving "extraordinary new powers to the government to make political decisions about things."

Isn't this worth looking into?

Why didn't CTV say some things like:

- "Hey, thanks for taking that out, I think...? Was it really all that bad?"

- "Could you expand on these "extraordinary new powers" just a tad?"

- "What kinds of "things" are these decisions about, precisely? Are they things like "whether or not online content could show/glorify graphic violence against women", or more like "whether or not people could be fined for saying something like BSL4 lab" after CBC has already been advised by the TNI board that the topic is forbidden?

- "The gov't was elected to make "political decisions", wtf do you mean by that part?"

- "Could you tell us exactly what the section says?"

- "Could you provide us a copy, or a link to it?"

 

For God's sake, the FBI spent tens of millions of dollars and committed actual crimes to find out why Trump wisecracked about getting Russia to find Hillary's missing emails. 

When all of the elected members of the Liberal and NDP parties vote as 1 to create broad new powers for the gov't to curtail freedom of speech, isn't that worth a look-see? They're clearly not joking. 

Our PM has already been called out by millions of concerned citizens, even some prominent leftists, for his fascist tendencies. The CBC is already part of a global media network which has "control of political narratives" as their stated goal. The TNI actively participated in the "laptop is Russian disinformation" narrative and the "saying BSL4 lab is not allowed" campaign, among others. Why is the CBC taking any marching orders at all from foreign corporations? And how are they so wrong all the time when they do it? It's all quite disconcerting, to say the least. 

At what point do you raise an eyebrow, MH? 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

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. 

Jurisdiction and control over un-ceded territories here as elsewhere is still under negotiation and these are definitely powerful times for 1st Nations.  Around here treaty settlements are probably one of the biggest economic drivers in the area. 

Quote

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?

Politicians, Forest companies as well as Federal and Provincial parks services are certainly partnering with 1st Nations but everyone is involved with enforcement where appropriate and required.

I'm not on the board which is for elected members, FN board members are chosen amongst their own folks.  I'm a volunteer on one of its many advisory planning commissions. APC members have many reasons for being there, anyone can join.  Interestingly it's been many of the same faces for the 40 odd years I've been involved.

 

Quote

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. 

Regulating camping is not banning.  The whole thing is quite acceptable to locals.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.

Quote

 

Ucluelet’s mayor said it’s no secret a small number of visitors is setting up camp on back roads where there are no facilities, with some even holding large parties — including “borderline raves” — in the wilderness.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7319019/its-just-craziness-out-there-tofino-and-ucluelet-urging-visitors-to-respect-covid-19-protocols/

 

 

Quote

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.

Yes it is and people are still free to do these things but in a more regulated way. It's just that kind of world now

Quote

Apparently they are not even allowing anyone to sleep in their vehicle in Tofino.  It is an extortion racket.

I'm pretty sure they're talking about people who roll out the RV canopy and BBQ on side streets and such but yeah it's a word gone mad alright.  Nothing now but Nazi's, commies and heathens.

[blackbird]

27 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Good God man, do you have even the slightest concern for free speech?

Isn't this part just a little bit alarming:

Isn't this worth looking into?

Why didn't CTV say some things like:

- "Hey, thanks for taking that out, I think...? Was it really all that bad?"

- "Could you expand on these "extraordinary new powers" just a tad?"

- "What kinds of "things" are these decisions about, precisely? Are they things like "whether or not online content could show/glorify graphic violence against women", or more like "whether or not people could be fined for saying something like BSL4 lab" after CBC has already been advised by the TNI board that the topic is forbidden?

- "The gov't was elected to make "political decisions", wtf do you mean by that part?"

- "Could you tell us exactly what the section says?"

- "Could you provide us a copy, or a link to it?"

 

For God's sake, the FBI spent tens of millions of dollars and committed actual crimes to find out why Trump wisecracked about getting Russia to find Hillary's missing emails. 

When all of the elected members of the Liberal and NDP parties vote as 1 to create broad new powers for the gov't to curtail freedom of speech, isn't that worth a look-see? They're clearly not joking. 

Our PM has already been called out by millions of concerned citizens, even some prominent leftists, for his fascist tendencies. The CBC is already part of a global media network which has "control of political narratives" as their stated goal. The TNI actively participated in the "laptop is Russian disinformation" narrative and the "saying BSL4 lab is not allowed" campaign, among others. Why is the CBC taking any marching orders at all from foreign corporations? And how are they so wrong all the time when they do it? It's all quite disconcerting, to say the least. 

At what point do you raise an eyebrow, MH? 

Michael just doesn't care.  You notice he explains nothing in detail but simply repeats the same remarks of adoration for whatever the government does.   Usually just two or three sentences.  He knows if he says more than that, he will trap himself because he really has no answers.

This government is strictly a one-man band show.   Trudeau appoints whoever he wants to be minister and the main qualification is they must be compliant to his wishes totally or they will not be there.  That's why he appointed Christia Freeland to be Finance Minister and Deputy PM.  She is totally in awe of him and does exactly what he says like a jumping trick dog.  Same with the other ministers such as the radical Greenpeace activist and the one who brought in C11.  Both jumping trick dogs that do what they're told.

[blackbird]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Jurisdiction and control over un-ceded territories here as elsewhere is still under negotiation

You make it sound like FNs actually may own the land, which is completely false.  FN red power activists and their left wing supporters are the ones spreading the myth that it is somehow  "unceded land" or their territory.  That is complete nonsense.  When the British government took over it became crown land and belongs to the British Crown as the representative of Canada.  It is not native land just because they claim hundreds and thousands of square kilometers as their "traditional territories".  They have hunting and fishing rights, but they do not have sovereignty over the land.  They were given reserves to live on.  The left wing NDP and Liberals are causing enormous trouble that will be very difficult to sort out.  Unfortunately the people living on the island and those who come to enjoy it will pay a heavy price and are paying now.  There are many examples of the insane things the NDP are doing with FNs that are going to harm the other 95% of the population in parts of B.C.

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Michael just doesn't care.  You notice he explains nothing in detail but simply repeats the same remarks of adoration for whatever the government does.    

I am not a Liberal supporter.  Pretty typical quip from the cracker munching crowd.... "you love Trudeau, the Nazi Marxist" etc. etc.  

 

What I have said, over and over, is that the conspiracy folks are the greatest gift to him because they are unable to articulate reasonable criticism.

Of course legislation like this is problematic, as was the content rules from CRTC, Mulroney's cultural exemption from the FTA.

I simply ask them for the alternative, but not one of the frothy types can calm down and explain that to me.

I do have my own concerns over this law as I said. 

[I am Groot]

On 2/3/2023 at 3:06 PM, dialamah said:

Because it's a bill Trudeau's government brought in.  If a Conservative government brought in the same bill, it'd be greeted with open arms by the naysayers here.

No it would not be. The Harper government tried to bring in a milder version of this and few conservatives supported it.

[I am Groot]

The bill is bad in all aspects, from what I can see. But it continues this government's almost bizarre fixation with regulating everything to the Nth degree, and insisting on multiple forms from anyone and everyone involved. So it is with this bill. The surface purpose seems unlikely to produce any lasting results other than to drive small producers out of business, unable to meet the regulatory burden to be recognized as 'Canadian content'. 

Right now such people are pushed higher on the search functions because they're local. If Google obeys this law they will be declared 'unCanadian' and pushed to the bottom.

Getting a production certified as Canadian requires a raft of paperwork to prove, among other things, that its crew comprises a minimum of Canadian citizens, and that any funding is at least 75 per cent Canadian.

Not only is it a fair bit of red tape to drop on Canada’s not-insubstantial cottage industry of internet content creators, but in the collaboration-heavy world of YouTube and Instagram much of their work would not meet the CRTC threshold.

This was one of the reasons Liberal appointed Senator (and writer) David Richards was so angry about the bill. And why Margaret Atwood echoed him.

 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/liberal-senator-censorship-bill

Margaret Atwood has weighed into the debate about Bill C-11, saying “bureaucrats should not be telling creators what to write.”

In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Ms. Atwood said bureaucrats also should not be deciding what’s Canadian.

“All you have to do is read some biographies of writers writing in the Soviet Union and the degrees of censorship they had to go through – government bureaucrats,” she said. “So it is creeping totalitarianism if governments are telling creators what to create.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-margaret-atwood-on-bill-c11-and-why-bureaucrats-shouldnt-tell-authors/

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

The bill is bad in all aspects, from what I can see. But it continues this government's almost bizarre fixation with regulating everything to the Nth degree, and insisting on multiple forms from anyone and everyone involved. So it is with this bill. The surface purpose seems unlikely to produce any lasting results other than to drive small producers out of business, unable to meet the regulatory burden to be recognized as 'Canadian content'. 

Right now such people are pushed higher on the search functions because they're local. If Google obeys this law they will be declared 'unCanadian' and pushed to the bottom.

Getting a production certified as Canadian requires a raft of paperwork to prove, among other things, that its crew comprises a minimum of Canadian citizens, and that any funding is at least 75 per cent Canadian.

Not only is it a fair bit of red tape to drop on Canada’s not-insubstantial cottage industry of internet content creators, but in the collaboration-heavy world of YouTube and Instagram much of their work would not meet the CRTC threshold.

This was one of the reasons Liberal appointed Senator (and writer) David Richards was so angry about the bill. And why Margaret Atwood echoed him.

 https://nationalpost.com/opinion/liberal-senator-censorship-bill

Margaret Atwood has weighed into the debate about Bill C-11, saying “bureaucrats should not be telling creators what to write.”

In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Ms. Atwood said bureaucrats also should not be deciding what’s Canadian.

“All you have to do is read some biographies of writers writing in the Soviet Union and the degrees of censorship they had to go through – government bureaucrats,” she said. “So it is creeping totalitarianism if governments are telling creators what to create.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-margaret-atwood-on-bill-c11-and-why-bureaucrats-shouldnt-tell-authors/

I have been unable to find any free article to read on what her opinion is about C11.

Unfortunately, there is no article to read at the last link because it requires subscribing to globe and mail. Also did a brief search and could find no free article on her opinion.  Maybe someone else can find one.

Edited February 5, 2023 by blackbird

[I am Groot]

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Unfortunately, there is no article to read at the last link because it requires subscribing to globe and mail. Also did a brief search and could find no free article on her opinion.  Maybe someone else can find one.

I don't believe this is for subscribers only. The G&M paywall is a soft paywall that allows you to read a given number of articles per month before it blocks you. So if you delete the cookies it installs on your PC you're free to read articles - except for those marked subscribers only.

There's also 12 foot ladder to help see over paywalls. It usually works on the Globe.

 

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I don't believe this is for subscribers only. The G&M paywall is a soft paywall that allows you to read a given number of articles per month before it blocks you. So if you delete the cookies it installs on your PC you're free to read articles - except for those marked subscribers only.

There's also 12 foot ladder to help see over paywalls. It usually works on the Globe.

 

They want me to subscribe for $1.99 a week or sign in with Facebook or Google and give my Email address. I am not willing to give my info and perhaps credit card number just to find out if I can read it for free.  Jumping through hoops that are geared for them to sell subscriptions.

[Nationalist]

Perhaps this would be a good time for this?

 

[Dougie93]

Margaret Atwood calls the Government of Canada "a creeping totalitarian Soviet"

Liberal Senator, Member of the Order of Canada, compares Canada to "Nazi Germany"

yeehaw

[I am Groot]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

They want me to subscribe for $1.99 a week or sign in with Facebook or Google and give my Email address. I am not willing to give my info and perhaps credit card number just to find out if I can read it for free.  Jumping through hoops that are geared for them to sell subscriptions.

Who wants you to do that? Not 12 foot ladder...

Anyway, I just tried it and for some reason it doesn't seem to be working on this story. Not sure why.

You should be able to read the story on the Globe site if you delete their cookies on your computer or phone.

Edited February 5, 2023 by I am Groot

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

They want me to subscribe for $1.99 a week or sign in with Facebook or Google and give my Email address. I am not willing to give my info and perhaps credit card number just to find out if I can read it for free.  Jumping through hoops that are geared for them to sell subscriptions.

Try incognito mode.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Try incognito mode.

What is that?

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What is that?

Try Google.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Try Google.

I googled it.  To go incognito mode requires an involved process.   That is still no guarantee you will be able to read the article without registering with Globe and Mail.   Did you try it yourself?

incognito mode edge - Search (bing.com)

 

[Michael Hardner]

On 2/4/2023 at 4:51 PM, blackbird said:

 

 Why wouldn't they protect content as they did with TV?

Why do people want to protect some jobs but not others.

The mind boggles.

[blackbird]

" When this bill mentions how we have evolved, it is simply a suggestion to comply. Some of those who have so evolved into the new Canada have torn away books and slashed many writers whom I have admired — an evolution of sanctimony and an advancement in quelling the voices we might disagree with. By this bill, we have entered the very realms we have fought to depose over the last 70 years. Bill C-11 might be more subtle than the German Stasi or the cultural section of the Central Committee of the former Soviet Union, but never think it is not intertwined."

Sen. David Richards: Liberals' Bill C-11 is 'censorship passing as national inclusion' (msn.com)

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

I googled it.  To go incognito mode requires an involved process.   That is still no guarantee you will be able to read the article without registering with Globe and Mail.   Did you try it yourself?

incognito mode edge - Search (bing.com)

 

I've used it lots of times. There's nothing complicated about it. I think just about any decent browser has it.  Just open a window or tab in incognito instead of normal mode. It's not 100% guaranteed to open everything that's behind a paywall but it should expand your access to stuff overall.