Stop Bill 367

[Zeitgeist]

As Canada continues to bring in so-called anti-hate speech laws that increasingly narrow the range of free speech, this latest bill removes the ability to oppose alternative sexual lifestyles and gender ideology on the basis of religious exemption.  It strips away the basic constitutional right to express one’s religious beliefs. This will no doubt require silence before the accelerating sexualization of children and the attack on the traditional family. How much more destruction do we allow our government and courts to do to family life? This is all of course in a context of falling birth rates and more and more government interventions and restrictions on how citizens choose to express themselves.

”Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has passed numerous pieces of legislation prohibiting free speech in Canada, yet nothing has been as restrictive as Bill C-367, an amendment to the Criminal Code that will prohibit Canadians from expressing “an opinion based on a belief in a religious text. If passed, people can be arrested for quoting the Bible on Canadian soil.” Armstrong Economics 

Please note that if you are reading this in Canada, due to government restrictions, you may not be able to open the following links:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/great-reset/canada-moves-to-ban-christianity-changes-to-bill-c-367/

 

Edited March 12 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

48 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

As Canada continues to bring in so-called anti-hate speech laws that increasingly narrow the range of free speech, this latest bill removes the ability to oppose alternative sexual lifestyles and gender ideology on the basis of religious exemption. 

Do you have a non YouTuber who can back this up? Because if this was true, it would be a gigantic constitutional issue that every mainstream source would be talking about.

So do you?

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you have a non YouTuber who can back this up? Because if this was true, it would be a gigantic constitutional issue that every mainstream source would be talking about.

So do you?

Do you have one that says it doesn't? Because unless you do then until that matter is resolved the bill should not be allowed to pass.

And frankly every mainstream source IS talking about these concerns.  Hell - Margret atwood of all people came out against it for these very reasons

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-margaret-atwood-online-harms-bill/

Margaret Atwood calls online harms bill ‘Orwellian,’ notes potential for abuse

 

As usual mike,  you offer nothing but demand others provide sources that you could have looked up yourself.  You're a dishonest poster.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Do you have one that says it doesn't? 

The onus is on the claimant to provide a valid cite.

Lucky for him, this person has his white knight, ie. you.

I will read the article, thanks.

Edited March 12 by Michael Hardner

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

The onus is on the claimant to provide a valid cite.

Bullshit. He provided a source that makes the claim and explains why.  IF you wish to dispute that claim then the onus is on YOU to refute it.

So lets see your source.  Well? you agree that posters should provide sources to back up what they claim don't you - you claim this isn't true, lets see your source. Unless you're backing down and saying it IS true.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

So lets see your source.  

I didn't refute the post. I asked for information. You're doing that weird thing again. Where you look at a question and you Kyle all kinds of strange paranoid assumptions on it. Go outside and pet a cat.

I read the Globe and mail piece, and I concur with the OP.

[Zeitgeist]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you have a non YouTuber who can back this up? Because if this was true, it would be a gigantic constitutional issue that every mainstream source would be talking about.

So do you?

You can Google like anyone else.  Why would I make this up?  This is where your lassitude catches up with you. Pay attention to current affairs.

[Zeitgeist]

31 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Do you have one that says it doesn't? Because unless you do then until that matter is resolved the bill should not be allowed to pass.

And frankly every mainstream source IS talking about these concerns.  Hell - Margret atwood of all people came out against it for these very reasons

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-margaret-atwood-online-harms-bill/

Margaret Atwood calls online harms bill ‘Orwellian,’ notes potential for abuse

 

As usual mike,  you offer nothing but demand others provide sources that you could have looked up yourself.  You're a dishonest poster.

Well done to cite Margaret Atwood, an acceptable human in Mikey’s elite world. Maybe she went to his alma mater.

[Michael Hardner]

44 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You can Google like anyone else.  Why would I make this up?  This is where your lassitude catches up with you. Pay attention to current affairs.

Read the rules. Nothing catches up with me, you had a white knight come in and do your chores for you. Say thank you.

I have read a legitimate source and I'm now updated.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you have a non YouTuber who can back this up? Because if this was true, it would be a gigantic constitutional issue that every mainstream source would be talking about.

So do you?

I believe the bill does the opposite.  You can say something hateful if it's from a religious belief/book.

A lot of Youtubers are trash and just want clickbait.   If misinformation gets eyeballs it will continue.  Everybody can now publish the National Enquirer from their bedrooms.

Edited March 12 by Moonlight Graham

[Dougie93]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well done to cite Margaret Atwood, an acceptable human in Mikey’s elite world. Maybe she went to his alma mater.

 growing up on the Downtown Eastside at Parliament & Gerard

I've known Margaret Atwood for many years ( she lives in Cabbagetown )

my wife is an all Canadian girl, Margaret Atwood fangirl therein

so it was my pleasure to introduce her to Margaret Atwood once

" hello, Dear, have you met Margaret Atwood ? She was a neighbour of mine when I was a boy "

I was BMOC on that day, as you might imagine, my wife was in awe of her

tho I will say that Margaret Atwood has come through for me as well, as an ideological libertarian

God bless her

Edited March 12 by Dougie93

[Zeitgeist]

58 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

 growing up on the Downtown Eastside at Parliament & Gerard

I've known Margaret Atwood for many years ( she lives in Cabbagetown )

my wife is an all Canadian girl, Margaret Atwood fangirl therein

so it was my pleasure to introduce her to Margaret Atwood once

" hello, Dear, have you met Margaret Atwood ? She was a neighbour of mine when I was a boy "

I was BMOC on that day, as you might imagine, my wife was in awe of her

tho I will say that Margaret Atwood has come through for me as well, as an ideological libertarian

God bless her

She’s one of Canada’s greats, and she’s from my alma mater.  

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you have a non YouTuber who can back this up? Because if this was true, it would be a gigantic constitutional issue that every mainstream source would be talking about.

So do you?

I just did a search for Canadian bill C367 and it comes up right away.   Why can't you do that?  It is so simple.  It is a private member's bill, which may be why media doesn't bother much with it.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Hell - Margret atwood of all people came out against it for these very reasons

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-margaret-atwood-online-harms-bill/

Margaret Atwood calls online harms bill ‘Orwellian,’ notes potential for abuse

From the G&M article:

Ms. Atwood said she has been the frequent target of “hate speech, online vilification, lies, threats and doxxing” and is “no fan of this kind of online behaviour.” But, in an e-mail exchange with The Globe and Mail, she said she is “also no fan of unsupervised authority acting under vague laws, without any oversight.”

Presumably she'd be open to it if there was oversight.

In any case she's hit on the same solution many people argued against here when it came to preventing kids from accessing online porn.

“If people really didn’t want children subject to online harm, they would not permit them to have smartphones before a certain age,” Ms. Atwood said.

[Michael Hardner]

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

I just did a search for Canadian bill C367 and it comes up right away.   Why can't you do that?  

It's mostly a matter of principle, but also a practical one. If I Google it, I can find a source that's supportive of the ideas. You are critical of it and I want to stay true to the spirit of the thread that you started.

Edited March 13 by Michael Hardner

[Zeitgeist]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's mostly a matter of principle, but also a practical one. If I Google it, I can find a source that's supportive of the ideas. Your critical of it and I want to stay true to the spirit of the thread that you started.

I posted the Armstrong Economics article in the first post.  It provides facts about the bill, including the section of the Constitution that it nullifies.  How much more hand-holding do you need?

[Michael Hardner]

38 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

How much more hand-holding do you need?

You need to post real sources and you know what I mean.  If your YouTube guy wants to say something have him come here and post.  That's pretty easy to do.

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

....this latest bill removes the ability to oppose alternative sexual lifestyles and gender ideology on the basis of religious exemption.

You just wait until the Bible is desexualized and the Almighty is referred to everywhere as They, Them and There's.

Of course we'll want to bring back pubic stoning for those blasphemous binaries who refuse to get with the program.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You need to post real sources and you know what I mean.  If your YouTube guy wants to say something have him come here and post.  That's pretty easy to do.

No.  You’re not the arbiter of acceptable news sources.  I don’t know what you mean.  Get your head out of the sand.  You’re uncritical about many important issues, critical about the unimportant. I remember defending your moderation. That was a mistake.

That commentator on YouTube said nothing false or radical, but maybe you don’t like his accent or think that in some oblique way he’s MAGA or alt-right or some form of the unwashed? Or is it that he’s Christian? Such blatant biases and animosity are inappropriate for a moderator.

Edited March 13 by Zeitgeist

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

  I don’t know what you mean.   

Yes you do.  You wouldn't accept just any source of information.  If you did, you wouldn't survive.

[Zeitgeist]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes you do.  You wouldn't accept just any source of information.  If you did, you wouldn't survive.

There was nothing dubious about the sources.  How you characterized them was misleading and dismissive.  Only when you saw Atwood’s name in the mix did you ascribe legitimacy.  Apparently all YouTube content including the highly informative Rising is misinformation according to you. You also fail to see how mainstream media is frequently co-opted by officialdom.  The Minister’s redirection of readers to The Canadian Press (mentioned in the National Post article) is a perfect example.

Edited March 13 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

She’s one of Canada’s greats, and she’s from my alma mater.  

except she was largely ignored

Margaret Atwood suggested that the government was passing totalitarian laws

but Canada simply shrugged and then doubled down with even more draconian thought crime laws

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

There was nothing dubious about the sources.  How you characterized them was misleading and dismissive.  Only when you saw Atwood’s name in the mix did you ascribe legitimacy.  

The screenshot alone was enough to tell me what was going on. Do you buy snacks with a picture of a dog on the box?

There are signifiers and semiotics that tell us how to make decisions. You use them yourself.  Mainstream information knows how to make itself appear legitimate. There's bias that thinking people will be able to take away from the main information. But I don't buy dog snacks.

Of course Atwood's name communicates legitimacy.  Are you now denying the value of having a reputation?

That's really hard for me to follow this logic. If a stranger comes up to you and hands you something and says eat this, do you do it?

I'm starting to think that consumer society had a negative effect on evolution.

Sorry, no disrespect intended. Sincerely, I am flummoxed by your post.

Edited March 13 by Michael Hardner

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The screenshot alone was enough to tell me what was going on. Do you buy snacks with a picture of a dog on the box?

There are signifiers and semiotics that tell us how to make decisions. You use them yourself.  Mainstream information knows how to make itself appear legitimate. There's bias that thinking people will be able to take away from the main information. But I don't buy dog snacks.

Of course Atwood's name communicates legitimacy.  Are you now denying the value of having a reputation?

That's really hard for me to follow this logic. If a stranger comes up to you and hands you something and says eat this, do you do it?

I'm starting to think that consumer society had a negative effect on evolution.

Sorry, no disrespect intended. Sincerely, I am flummoxed by your post.

My point is clear but I’ll rephrase it: Before you write off entire media platforms because they aren’t the ones with which you grew up, and before you play the game of worldly superiority by writing off content before viewing it because it has the word “Christian” in its title, give a moment to considering your biases and ideological capture. I keep waiting for some kind of breakthrough where you realize it’s no longer 1995. I suggest you take a risk and get out of your comfort zone. Here’s some misinformation from a couple of dumb hacks. I wonder if you’ll see any value in it or if you’ll approach with the same pretence and miss an opportunity for growth.

 

Edited March 13 by Zeitgeist

[blackbird]

Canada is creeping toward becoming a Communist state.

"The Liberal government’s proposed Bill C-63, the online harms act, is terrible law that will unduly impose restrictions on Canadians’ sacred Charter right to freedom of expression."

I chaired the Human Rights Tribunal. It has no business policing 'hate speech' (msn.com)