A C-11 Editorial

I've never written anything quite like this, so please bear with me. And yes, it's long but it has a specific point. 

This is one of the most odious pieces of legislation in the history of Canada. And I'm not the only one who feels that way. It is also one of the most contentious ever, and I believe it spent longer being reviewed in the Senate with amendments than other proposed law in our nation's history. 

I have never made a secret of the fact I'm opposed to government interference in broadcasting, but this thing takes it to a new level that has alarmed not only many Canadians, but allies around the world. 

I'm not fond of forcing CanCon on the Internet - which I contend is not broadcasting, and thus not the CRTC's purview. (Remember one of the reasons the Commission was created was because there was scarce spectrum space and thus rules had to be created to decide who deserved a licence. That is NOT the case with the web, which is limitless.)

However, since I'm not a subscriber to either cable or streaming services, and would use a VPN in any event, this will not affect me. I object only on principle. 

What I cannot tolerate, though, is the idea of the CRTC, with government setting out the rules, being able to control or restrict user content for what are, at best, totally indiscriminate reasons. There is simply no excuse at all for this provision to be in the bill, and in fact, the government took it out briefly, only to stick in back in when they thought no one was paying attention. The Senate took it out repeatedly. But the Heritage Minister constantly reinstated it without explanation. 

Witness after witness at the hearings on this testified to the harm it can do. 

Content creators on YouTube pleaded with the feds to take out this clause, insisting it has the potential of destroying their income on the Internet, by shoving their product down in an adjusted algorithm so no one will ever see it. 

Others worry that the language gives the government the opportunity to censor opinions it doesn't like. 

And most think it's just too Draconian.

And it's not just me being reflexively against anything they do. Among those objecting to this law and that specific clause: acknowledged legal expert and university professor Michael Geist, former CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein, former CRTC commissioners Peter Menzies and Timothy Denton, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, advocacy group Open Media, dozens of Senators, including many who are Liberal, and author Margaret Atwood. Just to name a few. There are literally hundreds more. 

Most of those mentioned are not exactly hard-core Conservatives. But when those on the right and those on the left agree about anything, it tells you how dangerous this precedent is. All of them have begged and pleaded with the Heritage Minister to take out the clause regarding user content. And despite repeated reassurances that "They'll never use it," his government has continually and steadfastly refused to remove this one small but very consequential section. 

So you have to ask yourself why. And there's only one conclusion that makes any sense. It's because they fully intend to use it at some point or at least want the option.

I can only hope someone with deep pockets takes this to court. It is one of the single worst laws ever passed in a so-called democracy. And once it's fully instituted, I'm not even sure I would be able to post this. 

It is a terrible infringement on all of our rights to free expression, which I cherish above everything. And it should alarm everyone who expresses any opinion on the web. And yes, I know there will be those who say I'm vastly overreacting. And I sincerely hope they're correct. But do you really want to take the chance that I'm right?

And remember one last thing - maybe the party you support is in charge right now. But they won't be forever. Is this really the kind of power you want to give to an opponent you despise? If the answer is no, then you should object, as well.

RadioActive wrote:

Is Bill C-11 law now? Yes. What you need to know about the Online Streaming Act

It is behind the G & M paywall.

RadioActive wrote:

It wasn't when I originally posted this. Try this:

https://clearthis.page/?u=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/article-bill-c-11-online-streaming/

Thanks RA. This one worked.

Tomas Barlow wrote:

This is much ado about nothing.
Each of the internet giants will feature Cancon more prominently and we’ll all ignore it the way most men ignore the romance section on Netflix.
TVO was placed on channel 2 so there was a better chance of people watching it. Did it ever surpass Global on cable channel 3? Of course not.
Lots of video stores had Canadian sections. Did anyone here ever rent “Away From Her” staring Gordon Pincent and directed by Sarah Polley? I doubt it.
People might discover a new homegrown star or they’ll scroll right past the Canadian section. Either one is fine.

I agree, overall this is not a big deal or infringing on freedoms like some try to push.  Even senator Paula Simons who voted against the bill said that C-11 is not about censorship and people or groups that try to say it is are just fear mongering and attempting to raise the level of disinformation and confusion. 

Crave handles their cancon very well  and likely the best way.  All the cancon is mixed in with everything else.  So if the Canadian show is a drama, it is in with all of the dramas.  If a cancon TV show is a comedy it is in with all the others offered.  Personally I don't think any Canadian product should be separated in a "Canadian section" we are long past those days. 

Just make it available, and the consumer will decide after that.  The same way that they judge on any other show.

Last edited by paterson1 (April 29, 2023 9:06 am)