Critics 'stunned and furious' at Liberals rejecting Senate amendment from controversial online streaming bill

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, suds said:

1. Liberals reject senate amendment limiting the scope of CRTC powers over online content (in particular, including the EXCLUSION of social media content from the bill).

True.

1 hour ago, suds said:

1. "After the bill passes, the government will issue a policy direction to the CRTC on how to implement the legislation. It has refused to make that document public until after Bill C-11 becomes law."

 

Also true.

1 hour ago, suds said:

 

Does this sound familiar to anyone? It sounds a lot like the Canadian version of 'you have to pass the bill in order to see what's in the bill'. Or rather in this case.... what the liberals true intentions are. If I were a senator, i would not pass this bill. No Canadian should support this bill. This is not what I would call open or transparent.

 

I can see why you feel that way - but to be honest this is not entirely uncommon and it puts the senate in a pickle for a few reasons, let me explain:

Broadly speaking we have two things in law in Canada - Acts and Regulations.  Acts are the actual laws. They are an Act of parliament Or an Act of the legislature or what have you  but they are the law. They cannot be changed easily and require ANOTHER act of parliament to make changes.

However - an Act can create 'Regulatons'.  A Regulation must have an Act which authorizes it (called the enabling act) but once an Act enables the regulation,  a regulation can be changed anytime without changing the ACT itself. Parliament will not vote on the regulation. This is because regulations frequently have to change. Fishing and hunting regulations - you wouldn't want an act of parliament every time you changed how many salmon someone could catch.

It is very common for an Act to be approved without the regulations published or in place. So "how the act will be applied" comes later. This is an everyday thing, so how does the senate raise a fuss about that now'? They can't very well say "sure we passed the last 1000 bills like that but not this one".

And the libs are exploiting that - putting some of the application into the regulations and saying 'well of course you don't get to see the regulation before you pass the act, we never do that".

The senators are ONLY really allowed to look at what's in the ACT -  not the regulations it will enable. Those can change at any time anyway in accordance with the act.

I agree this is NOT transparent. I agree that this is a horrible bill and everyone should be against it.  I agree that the liberal party has many terrible people in it that want to take your rights and this bill is an example.

But that doesn't make it easy for the senators. They can't vote on what they can't see, and at the end of the day if there's an abuse of the bill it's up to the VOTERS to deal with it by crushing that party.

This bill is so bad the senate may still shoot it down, but not for that specific reason.

 

[suds]

Good stuff. It's even scarier then I thought. I would like to put out one other question though. This type of message board that we're on now is considered social media.... right?  Illegal hate speech is already regulated by the criminal code.... right? But if Bill C-11 passes with the inclusion of social media content, would the CRTC as regulators be allowed to regulate legal speech on these types of boards? Call it whatever you want, misinformation/disinformation, political speech, none-politically correct speech, or whatever. What could they do, how far could they go, before they start treading on our rights to free speech?

[CdnFox]

25 minutes ago, suds said:

This type of message board that we're on now is considered social media.... right? 

I shall forego the obvious joke that some days it's more 'antisocial media', but go on

 

25 minutes ago, suds said:

Illegal hate speech is already regulated by the criminal code.... right? But if Bill C-11 passes with the inclusion of social media content, would the CRTC as regulators be allowed to regulate legal speech on these types of boards? Call it whatever you want, misinformation/disinformation, political speech, none-politically correct speech, or whatever. What could they do, how far could they go, before they start treading on our rights to free speech?

Well there's the problem. How far it could reach is a little unclear. The language certainly would allow for this board to be affected with the proper regulations passed. That was the big fight - putting in a clause that prevented controlling content created by private individuals not for profit. The board could well be forced to participate in that and censor us.

Remember that a large part of this law was to stop the spread of 'misinformation'. And the biggest purveyors of misinformation in Canada right now is the liberal party. Remember when the convoy was funded mostly by americans and had been started by the Russians? 

There is  very real chance that they may make certain subjects or viewpoints 'unlawful'.  Remember during the us election when biden's notebook had been found and all the media platforms rallied and said "you're not allowed to talk about that or you'll be banned'  trying to claim it was 'misinformation' which hadn't been 'verified'? (of course it had been). Imagine that on a larger scale. 

They could literally tell platforms that talk about 'chinese interference' is not allowed because it's racist disinformation. And anyone posting that must be banned immediately or they risk a fine. or to be shut down entirely.

They keep saying they woudln't use it that way. But - they didn't take the clauses out that allow for it either.

 

[myata]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So that's pretty much how all of our politics goes. Every model is an exercise in compromise. If there was an obvious clear solution that was best everyone would be using it.

No.  The problem is clear, even obvious: absence of any meaningful checks on majority governments that have total control over majority houses (this is no Parliament really, in its real and true essence, they are representatives far less than "employees" as everything here, confused, diluted of substance and compromised).

There are compromises and compromises. A bad, senseless system isn't the same as an imperfect one. Just because it worked somehow in the past is no guarantee for the future.

In a system with no real checks on the governments, problems will emerge, develop and spread to consume all of the public administration. Because no limits. Because they can. There's nothing unknown here, in history. Nothing new to learn.

[CdnFox]

Just now, myata said:

No.  The problem is clear, even obvious: absence of any meaningful checks on majority governments that have total control over majority houses

Heh - i was once young and foolish myself   (i'm saying that fondly not derogatory)

Ok    i doubt you'll come up with anyhting i haven't heard of or thought of but lets test your supposition out. Describe a model that doesn't have those weaknesses and is still democratic to a resonable degree  and lets see how you do.

[myata]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Describe a model that doesn't have those weaknesses and is still democratic to a resonable degree  and lets see how you do.

Seriously? The short answer is: any. Intelligent, responsible thought through model of democratic governance is more effective; and make more sense than its absence, neara absolute vacuum of meaning and thought. It looks very much and increasingly so that nobody, ever gave a minute's thought: how is this going to work, in reality? Maybe that wasn't deemed an important part of it.

The cornerstones, 1860 - .....

1. Cement the entitlement to power (eliminate meaningful competition)

2. Remove all responsibility for wrong decisions and their consequences

3. Protect the culture of privilege and entitlement

This is how it works. What "Parliament", why?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Seriously? The short answer is: any.

So why are you having trouble naming or describing one.

Go on. Give me an example of one then because if it's "ANY" other than ours you have a lot to choose from around the word.

Painted yourself into a bit of a corner didnt'cha

Sorry, some of the brightest minds in history have tried and failed. It always comes back to the same issues - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Any system of checks and balances has to do a balancing act with freedoms and effectiveness and protections etc.

Your 'cornerstones'  are kind of just childish rantings. Most of that is the voter's job, but voters really don't do their job anymore these days.

Look at you - you're all worked up about this, how many policy conventions have you attended in your life? None? Have you even volunteered for a local campaign before? Or even scrutineered? Right. tell me all about how it's the system that's the problem.

Its true that good governance is a difficult balancing act between the leadership having enough power to do it's job without hinderance and enough constrains not to go off the rails, and increasing the one means decreasing the other as a rule.

But the lynchpin in the system is the people. The people who help build the policy, help recruit the candidates, who pick the leaders and who help set the agenda and then vote the parties in and out of power based on performance. That is the final check and balance - and we've just seen two elections where the people KNEW the gov't was corrupt and voted them back in anyway.  That's a bigger problem than what system we're using.

[myata]

No troubles. Just south, a great thought went into creating an intelligent, durable system that can identify problems and renew itself. It includes: 1) independent and empowered executive and legislative authorities that can check each other 2) a strong tradition of independent and impartial justice (that is beginning to erode, slowly, under the pressure of the partisan division, an inevitable result of FPTP) and 3) a strong tradition of independent institutions empowered to check and prevent abuses of power at any level and 4) a strong tradition of independent media (sadly, eroding) based on even stronger tradition of free speech. That's four or close. Now compare it to: 0 (nothing, none). What would be the ratio, from the school math? That's better, right?

You should watch the China story, it may not be for nothing that its playing out right now and right before our eyes. They had a great and wise collective system with zero independent checks too and look what it takes. One determined authoritarian boss and a bit of luck. And you just worshiped the Holy Quarantines just on a word from wise gurus without as much as a second thought. I would be worried, really.

Edited March 11, 2023 by myata

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, myata said:

Just south, a great thought went into creating an intelligent, durable system that can identify problems and renew itself.

And look what a huge failure that was. The amerian system became so rigid that only two parties were ever developed and it's basically impossible for new ones to get started. What were you saying about wiping out competition? The corruption is rampant, the politicians spend more of their time fundraising than working for their constituents (true fact,)  NUMEROUS Predsidents have committed crimes for which they got off scott free, they've had influence peddling of every sort etc etc.

They are far worse off than we are. Canada's democracy is actually objectively stronger than the us's at the moment.

As to the actual working of the gov't again ours is much more effective at the moment. We don't shut down the entire country because we can't agree on a budget.  When there's a minority the parties know they have to find ways to work together to get business done.

So lets go through your points

1)  But don't. More and more the president takes power into his office and the house hasn't been able to stop it, AND because the PARTIES are still linked to a president they're not really independent in practice. If presidents weren't allowed to belong to a party it would be different but If the president and the house are both of the same party - there's no checks and balances.  So it's utterly meaningless.

2) Well you note it's erroding but really it's gone. Remember when trump was running against clinton? Both stood up in a debate and PROUDLY said they would appoint judges that would support their way of thinking - clinton on gun control and trump on abortion.  They literally BRAGGED they were going to find judges that would NOT rule on the basis of law but on their beliefs.  And there is AMPLE evidence that frequently the justice department is used for POLITICAL ends. Remember when  Bill Clinton ran across the tarmac to talk to the AG and suddenly his wife got off the hook? The justice system has been compromised

3) That doesn't exist and never has.  There is no 'strong tradition' of 'independant' institutions capable of holding the gov't in check. They're all political one way or another.

4) You must be joking. That has devolved into the worst kind of tribalism imaginable. If anything the media in the states more than anything else will prevent them from ever being a united country again and has interfered with their voting and elections in a HORRIBLE way. Remember when biden's laptop story got surpressed during an election so voters coudln't know about that corruption till after?

Sorry but the US is a disaster right now. We're actually better off, and that's really setting the bar low. 

There are always pros and cons and no system is going to give you perfect or even great results or resist corruption. The people have to be the circuit breaker that prevents that.

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Fishing and hunting regulations - you wouldn't want an act of parliament every time you changed how many salmon someone could catch.

No, what I'd like to see is an Act of Parliament that allows the public to attend a meeting between a lobbyist for Galen Weston's fishing company and DFO ministers in their discussion over who should be allowed to catch salmon.

Imagine how much misinformation could have been nipped in the bud if the public were allowed to attend meetings between say, health ministers and vaccine manufacturers.

Edited March 11, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, what I'd like to see is an Act of Parliament that allows the public to attend a meeting between a lobbyist for Galen Weston's fishing company and DFO ministers in their discussion over who should be allowed to catch salmon.

the various acts already allow for that.  They just don't do it.

26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Imagine how much misinformation could have been nipped in the bud if the public were allowed to attend meetings between say, health ministers and vaccine manufacturers.

The public couldn't get the information they WERE given right, i doubt that would have helped. You have to remember that 50 percent of the public is below average.

I would like to see more transparancy for sure.  But if every gov't interaction is done in public on the big screen then nothing gets done because everyone's more worried about how their hair looks and sounding 'good' than they are working to find solutions.

The press and the public can take every single word said out of context and frequently does.  Zelanzki says "if we don't stop them here then your sons and daughters will wind up having to fight them later", and the press and the public hears "you should send your sons and daughters to help us fight right now".  I mean .. seriously, how does letting people that stupid listen to every word in a negotiation help?

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The press and the public can take every single word said out of context and frequently does.  Zelanzki says "if we don't stop them here then your sons and daughters will wind up having to fight them later", and the press and the public hears "you should send your sons and daughters to help us fight right now".  I mean .. seriously, how does letting people that stupid listen to every word in a negotiation help?

It doesn't if they refuse to go back and read it again and specifically point out what they're confused about.

[CdnFox]

Just now, eyeball said:

It doesn't if they refuse to go back and read it again and specifically point out what they're confused about.

read it again? You're doing amazingly well to get them to read it the first time. Most will only listen to the talking points of someone ELSE who read it and assume they got it right and that now they know everything they need to.

And then there's those who don't even do that, they listen to someone who's listened to someone.  it gets to be like that game played by kids where you pass a secret around a circle of people and laugh at how distorted it is by the time it gets to the end.

It's a serious problem in today's world. You'd think with the internet more people would review the source material but the opposite is true.

[eyeball]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

read it again? You're doing amazingly well to get them to read it the first time. Most will only listen to the talking points of someone ELSE who read it and assume they got it right and that now they know everything they need to.

Yes well that would be the talking points of people who are most impacted by the potential outcomes of closed door meetings.  In the case of Galen Weston and DFO meeting that would be other fishing sectors DFO is responsible for allocating fish to.

In a country where processes such as these are open to the public I wouldn't need to attend a meeting between a corporate corn grower and an agricultural Minister because I'd know smaller corn  producers would be in the room protecting their own interests.  Like the rest of the public I would know what I mostly need to know which is that the process of being governed is being guarded at as many steps along the way as possible by the people affected the most.

Its like acting locally while thinking globally.  The nuts and bolts of the corn industry are not as important to me as simply knowing that no one is being screwed over because that often has consequences that we all end up paying for. Like having to compensate or buy out a weaker smaller sector that's been dispossessed or driven into bankruptcy by policy decisions based secret meetings between government officials and more powerful sectors. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Senate passes Bill C-11, the online streaming law.

Yeah but we probably won't notice any immediate dif,345oq82349  0w9847  q308q0w98 qwy yqw[w [CENSORED]

[myata]

The title of this topic is hilarious. You give a sleazy, self-minded individual the keys of your place, full access, no checks or controls do whatever. In a few days you wake up to a few surprises and what? You're are "stunned and furious", yes? Isn't there another word for that? Need help with finding it?

[myata]

On 3/11/2023 at 10:55 AM, CdnFox said:

3) That doesn't exist and never has.  There is no 'strong tradition' of 'independant' institutions capable of holding the gov't in check.

Numerous attorneys investigated presidents and some brought charges. Name one serious (that is, not of the kind "we aren't sure if PM can allow themselves anything so let's just drop it") investigation of PM by RCMP. Or a minister. This is because we have the good, so much better system here, right. A joke or parody, pick one.

.. by the way, what language was that? Would like to hear it from the expert.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, myata said:

Numerous attorneys investigated presidents and some brought charges.

In 300 some odd years all i can think of is nixon. Who else had charges brought against them?

And that still doesn't hold the 'gov't' in check. At best that means that one guy who broke the law got caught but the gov't itself was largely unaffected.

4 hours ago, myata said:

 

Name one serious (that is, not of the kind "we aren't sure if PM can allow themselves anything so let's just drop it") investigation of PM by RCMP. Or a minister. This is because we have the good, so much better system here, right. A joke or parody, pick one.

It's about the same. There have been investigations by the RCMP before during adscam and also an investigation of the finance minister and his staff for insider trading back in paul martin's day, so it has happened but it's really really rare and the police DO usually say 'meh, we can't do anything even if there is a crime here".

4 hours ago, myata said:

.. by the way, what language was that? Would like to hear it from the expert.

Well check the settings you used for google translate, that should tell you

[myata]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Well check the settings you used

Won't take responsibility for your own creation? OK let's get to the root cause of it, shall we: dumb; cowardly; or l-ing? Plus any combination of course, simple math telling us, four. You choose.

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, myata said:

Won't take responsibility for your own creation?

My own creation? Look - if you're trying to claim i'm your father then i'm gonna definitely need to see a blood test. And a therapist.

22 minutes ago, myata said:

OK let's get to the root cause of it, shall we: dumb; cowardly; or l-ing?

I think you're a little of all three but it's REALLY hard to be sure. Your english is so poor it's often very difficult to follow you. Honestly it's horrible. You speak in sentence fragments, you are unable to clearly articulate your views, you frequently don't even let us know what you're talking about. You're like this small angry little random word generator

 

[myata]

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

My own creation? Look.. a therapist

Yeah you can't even admit your own stupid mistake, can't own it what's there to talk about? Case closed. Good luck, l-r.