Wow. I'm somewhat stunned by this response. It wasn't even complaining about their insistence on forcing CanCon onto streamers. How could anyone want to allow their government - any government - to have a say in what you can and can't express on a forum? I know you love to argue with me, but on this I thought we could agree. 

Allowing any group - in this case, the less than accountable CRTC - to be able to censor expression they don't like is abhorrent and against anything I would guess most people would think is appropriate. Who gets to decide what's acceptable? Them? You? The NDP? The Conservatives? Who? How would you feel if I censored your reply because I didn't agree with it or that it wasn't proper? 

I would never do that. Do you trust the CRTC to have that same ethic? Or future CRTCs?

If they're insisting they won't use this newfound power, why not remove it altogether? They won't miss it - there are other laws in effect, including libel, slander, hate speech etc., that should be able to accomplish the same thing without the heavy hand of some faceless bureaucrats being able to just take your rights away. 

As for other countries, when the Prime Minister went to Europe for various summits over the past few years, there were several government representatives from other countries who were interviewed and expressed concern about what the feds were planning. I recall one of them asking, "What is Canada thinking?" And these are our allies!  So no, it wasn't just "opinion" pieces.

Yes, other nations have taken steps to make the Internet accountable, although for the most part, such Australia, it's more about getting payment for national journalism to ensure its survival at the hands of the Googles and Facebooks, which are profiting off the work of others. That's fine. They can do it. But not one of them has put in any provisions that allow their officials to oversee what their own people can put up on the web. 

This is a no-brainer in my opinion and yes, as a strong free speech advocate, I take it seriously. Want to impose CanCon rules? I hate it, but I can live with it. Want to help journalism? Good idea. 

But giving any elected entity the power to say, "You can't say that here, because we don't like it," is way too far. It's unconscionable. And it feels too close to say, what Russia is doing to its media - only say what I allow you to say, or suffer the consequences. Yes, this doesn't go as far as Putin's edicts, which involve jail and even death. But it's close enough in principle in some ways to scare the hell out of me. 

Why it doesn't do the same to you is also pretty frightening. 

So I ask again - if they have no intention of using these powers, what harm is there in taking them out of the bill before it passes? No one will miss something they won't use.

You should ask yourself why they're still there, despite all the warnings and all the experts who have decried this over and over and over. The only answer I can come up with is they want to use them eventually. And by then, it will be too late. 

So speak now. Before they one day decide to make you forever hold your peace.

Got to side with RA on this issue.

paterson1 wrote:

The problem with RA's posts are that they are misleading exaggerations.  C-11 is not about you or I disagreeing about something and the government censoring us or taking down a comment.  It is not about what you can and can't say in a forum. And the dark scenarios of the government reading every word you post are laughable.   But every time this is what RA tries to peddle.   I will call him out on it every time.  

 RA likes to say that the government censoring expression is abhorrent.  Well I guess the limits on what is allowed on twitter, facebook, youtube, tik tok  must be abhorrent as well?  The large social media sites have been shamed into getting a better handle on what is showing up on their platforms.  They are also being shamed to be more responsible. 

Freedom means nothing without responsibility. 

Ms. C. wrote:

g121 wrote:

Freedom means nothing without responsibility. 

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose

 

Hi Geo.
 

paterson1 wrote:

The problem with RA's posts are that they are misleading exaggerations.  C-11 is not about you or I disagreeing about something and the government censoring us or taking down a comment.  It is not about what you can and can't say in a forum. And the dark scenarios of the government reading every word you post are laughable.   But every time this is what RA tries to peddle.   I will call him out on it every time.  

I wasn't really going to weigh in on this again, but there's one thing that needs to be pointed out from this response. p1 seems to think I'm the only one expressing extreme concerns about the specific provisions in this bill. But what he conveniently ignores is that I'm not the only one. People far more qualified and impressive than I'll ever be have also come out 100% against it. 

I've mentioned the former Chair of the CRTC, and two separate former CRTC commissioners, who have also expressed serious reservations. And so has noted legal and Internet expert Michael Geist, a very respected expert from the University of Ottawa. Free speech advocates, who tend to lean left and would be more likely to support the current government in power, have also issued big concerns. 

But there's more. Many members of the Canadian Senate have also resisted this thing and in fact, in a rare moment of dissent, they refused to fast track the law through the "chamber of sober second thought" because they believed it was dangerous and needed another look. 

It is very, very unusual for the Canadian Senate to refuse to pass a law that got through the House of Commons. It almost never happens. But even they knew how troubling this could be. They asked that it be sent back for further review. That happened when it was Bill C-10, and it thankfully died when the last federal election was called.  

From June 2021:

'An insult to Parliament': No interest in fast-tracking Bill C-10, senators say

The fact that it's been reintroduced despite all the hue and cries it raised the first time tells you how desperate the government is to get it passed. You should ask yourself why that it is.

As for promises that yes, "we will have the power of Internet censorship but we'll never use it," may I remind you of what happened recently during the so-called trucker protest in Ottawa (which by the way, I did not support.) When the feds created the Emergency Act, they also said they were never likely to use it.

Until, of course, they did.

So forgive me if I have no faith in a politician from any party telling me to "Just give us the power, even though we'll never use it."

Again, if that's their position, then take out the offending clause and everyone's happy. You have to ask yourself if that's their feeling, why won't they do it? 

Based on recent history, I fear the answer is obvious. 

And with that, I think I've said all I really need to on this.  

I promised I would not respond to any more on this, having had my say, and I won't.

But I wanted to post an article from the Toronto Star that directly addresses this argument. 

Could the federal government regulate your cat videos on YouTube? Maybe, former CRTC vice-chair warns