Trudeau tries to bring back online censorship bill

https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-trudeau-tries-to-bring-back-online-censorship-bill

by andrenth • 4 years ago

115 76 4 years ago

torontosun.com

multiplegeorges2• 4 years ago

Really surprised to see such a low quality editorial from such a weak newspaper as the Toronto Sun on HN.

Here's some actual expert content on this issue: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/02/not-ready-for-prime-time...

fartcannon• 4 years ago

Agreed, but the two sources are in agreement. It often feels like Canada is run by two groups: the energy companies on the centre-right, and the oligarchy of media giants on centre-left.

Here we see the media companies pushing Trudeau. We could regain our voting power with something better than FPTP.

mig39• 4 years ago

Trudeau famously promised to abolish FPTP.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-vows-to-end-...

multiplegeorges2• 4 years ago

They do agree, but if you only read the editorial you wouldn't be anymore informed than you were before. Except now you may think "Trudeau bad" with little to back up that opinion.

At least Geist goes into the substance of the legislation and the very real risks it poses.

You forgot the third leg on the Canadian oligarchy stool: banks.

FPTP can't die soon enough.

ipaddr2• 4 years ago

The article was informative and inline with other media news sources posted on hn. I've never heard a newspaper described as weak before, what strength should they possess that they lack.

wk_end6• 4 years ago

I'd say a strong news source probably doesn't need to lean on a "Sunshine Girl" [0] to sell papers.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Girl

rbobby• 4 years ago

As a Torontonian... the Sun isn't much of a paper. Good for sports and fish wrap. Breathless crime reporting too. City politics. That's about it.

AlexandrB• 4 years ago

Really surprised to see such a low quality editorial from such a weak newspaper as the Toronto Sun on HN.

Indeed. I wonder if the print version ran this next to the "Sunshine Girl".

clove• 4 years ago

Wait, why are you surprised to see "low quality" from a "weak newspaper?" Shouldn't that have been expected? Did you misspeak or am I missing something?

hiyer• 4 years ago

They were surprised to see it "on HN". OTOH despite the poor quality, the article seems to have spawned a healthy discussion, so maybe it belongs here after all :-).

908B64B19712• 4 years ago

This isn’t surprising. The father suspended the constitution (because that’s a thing over there??) over a manufactured panic over terrorists planting bombs in mailbox (Feds later got busted doing it, quite literally red-handed) [0]. He also maintained a close personal friendship with dictators such as Fidel Castro [1] [2], a man of great respect for humans right who didn’t hesitate to round up the gays in labor camps.

Seems like the son is trying to do the same with the truckers.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin...

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/world/justin-trudeau-castro-e...

[2] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-justin-trudeau-castr...

nneonneo• 4 years ago

I don’t know what specific “suspension of the constitution” you’re referring to, but if it was the October Crisis, that was the activation of the War Measures Act (martial law) in response to the FLQ kidnapping of a British diplomat and a regional politician, not bombings.

wk_end6• 4 years ago

The father suspended the constitution [...] over a manufactured panic over terrorists planting bombs in mailbox

Without speaking in support of it: as far as I know (and as far as your sources indicate) Pierre Trudeau's infamous 1970 invocation of the War Measures Act to temporarily suspend civil liberties had nothing to do with Operation Bricole, which didn't even start until 1972; it concerned the (real, not manufactured) kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte, among various other (real, not manufactured) terrorist activities. See [0] for more details.

Moreover: the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms didn't even exist in 1970, so it's not quite accurate to say that Trudeau "suspended the constitution" then. In fact, he's the one who, in 1982, led the charge to create a Canadian constitution and attendant protected rights [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and...

908B64B19712• 4 years ago

had nothing to do with Operation Bricole, which didn't even start until 1972

So the feds did get busted planting bombs to blame it on some terror organization. Just, not right away. That kinda makes what happened before they got busted suspicious doesn't it.

it concerned the (real, not manufactured) kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte, among various other (real, not manufactured) terrorist activities

But the feds did get busted for doing the same thing... so that was manufactured. But these incidents were real and not manufactured... ok... Weren’t they famously not even able to rule out a suicide and convict someone not even in the room when he died?

Moreover: the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms didn't even exist in 1970, so it's not quite accurate to say that Trudeau "suspended the constitution" then. In fact, he's the one who, in 1982, led the charge to create a Canadian constitution

Wow so there was not even a constitution to suspend? And didn't like, a third of the population just not sign it? Honestly the more I hear about it the more it sounds surreal. I don’t think this would fly in America.

9oliYQjP• 4 years ago

The FLQ kidnapped a British cabinet minister then murdered a Quebec politician responsible for immigration. There's a lot more to the October Crisis and the invocation of the War Measures Act than you are alluding to. I hope that you simply haven't been informed about the full picture here.

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/october-cr...

afterburner12• 4 years ago

"Manufactured panic"? The FLQ murdered the Vice-Premier of Quebec. (Premiers are like Governors in the US.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu...

sebastianconcpt• 4 years ago

Are we one step closer to loose freedom of expression?

stackedinserter5• 4 years ago

Where is Trudeau BTW? He's been hiding somewhere since truckers' protest started.

afterburner12• 4 years ago

He tested positive for COVID.

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1488162322187182085

Doug Ford, Conservative Premier of Ontario, has actually been hiding, no COVID excuse and no one's even threatening to overthrow him.

giancarlostoro7• 4 years ago

Would be nice if you provided a reference about Doug Ford hiding, or if he's just adhering to current law in his country.

stackedinserter5• 4 years ago

It doesn't answer my question. His tweet reads "I’m feeling fine" - where is he then? His twitter's been ridiculous, like nothing is happening in 100m from the Parliament.

What does Doug Ford have to do with that? Why did you bring him up here?

TurkishPoptart4• 4 years ago

How convenient to "test positive" when the truckers have come home to roost in Ottawa.

nameisname2• 4 years ago

Yeah pretty coincidence that happened to just line up in time with him being able to hurl generalized insults through his media conglomerate instead of being present and actually dealing with the situation as the leader of the country when you have people at your door step.

908B64B19712• 4 years ago

He's a disguise artist. Could be anywhere by now [0].

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49758613

mmastrac• 4 years ago

Sorry, this is a very low-quality source for this discussion.

mgamache• 4 years ago

Is there any compelling reason to limit free speech on social media by the government? There are already laws covering speech limits. Speech limits are myopic in nature, they solve a short term problem by muzzling specific people/views. But, they usually create longer term negative effects that are more difficult to see in the moment.

didibus8• 4 years ago

The CRTC regulations on broadcaster covers the following categories:

    > Protection of children.
    > Restrictions against hate speech.
    > Protection of national production and national culture.
    > Right of reply.
    > Restriction on the quantity of advertising, of ad for certain products (tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs), and on product placement

Today, no internet company is considered a "broadcaster", and thus is unregulated by the CRTC. The bill is to propose redefining what counts as a broadcaster so that online businesses also fall under the regulations.

At a high level, I think it means Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, etc.

The issue is that the internet made it easy for everyone to become a broadcaster. So the question with the bill is how will you distinguish an individual broadcasting a video they made, from a broadcasting business or entity that would need regulating?

And when would an individual broadcaster become an entity in need of regulating? Is having 100 million subscriber something that makes you an entity needing to be regulated? Is it if you make money from it? Is it if you're paid by others for what you broadcast?

Then there's also the question of what is a broadcast? Must it include video, must it include audio, what about images? Or video games? Or texts? Or other forms of multimedia?

didibus8• 4 years ago

While the details of the bill maybe needs another iteration, I feel the spirit of the bill makes sense to me, and I think the issues around it should be discussed.

Legislature hasn't caught up with the internet.

The CRTC will develop and implement regulations to ensure that both traditional and online broadcasting services, including web giants, offer meaningful levels of Canadian content and contribute to the creation of Canadian content in both official languages

That's generally been what the CRTC does, it makes sure that broadcasters have enough Canadian made content compared to non-canadian made content, and to also make sure it has content in both official languages, as well as to help support and promote content from minorities. And that the content meets some expected standards, like not advertising things to children or medical that aren't allowed in Canada.

    > Protection of children.
    > Restrictions against hate speech.
    > Protection of national production and national culture.
    > Right of reply.
    > Restriction on the quantity of advertising, of ad for certain products (tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs), and on product placement

These are the regulations currently applied to broadcasters.

The problematic ones for the internet would probably be the first two. The last three, I think most people would be quite happy to see more enforcement around for internet platforms.

Now for the first two, you can argue that the fine line between protecting children and hate speech could be used to censor anything that opposes the current ruling party. This greatly depends if you believe in Canada's institutions as fighting for democracy and liberty, which I think is more common in Canada, or if, like most Americans, you believe in the government institutions as constantly being the enemy of democracy and liberty and something the citizen need to constantly take upon themselves to watchdog.

That said, I believe there are other checks and balances that can be put in place here. As long as there would be mechanisms to challenge rulings, and that all such regulations was still done transparently. And that there were relatively unambiguous guidelines. And that there were still clear ways to publish things on the internet that are bad for children and hateful but wouldn't fall under broadcasting regulations, such as say your own website, email, downloadable content, etc.

In any case, I'm not here to spin my opinion of this, I'm not sure exactly what the reasonable set of rules and regulations should be here. But I'm just saying I think it needs to be discussed. Most people probably don't know that broadcasters currently must abide by this regulation, and that internet streaming platforms don't have too. So I think educating about these and discussing what regulation makes sense and what doesn't needs to happen.

908B64B19712• 4 years ago

it makes sure that broadcasters have enough Canadian made content compared to non-canadian made content, and to also make sure it has content in both official languages, as well as to help support and promote content from minorities.

To me this is completely bizarre, not unlike old soviet censors looking at movies and deciding what was “soviet enough” to get the approval from the bureaucracy. Disney and Marvel made billions of dollars simply making content people want to watch and pay for, why not simply do the same and compete in the marketplace? Imagine how ridiculous it would be if there were quotas on iPhone sold so that BlackBerry still had a legally mandated market share.

So Drake would get subsidies for being a Canadian minority but the government would try to limit the air-time given to Lil Nas (one, if not the first openly gay mainstream black rapper)… Tax dollars are paying for this?

Fogest2• 4 years ago

Radio stations in Canada already are required to have a portion of their content be "Canadian". And other than ads it is actually one benefit of getting away from listening to radio and switching to streaming services. You're able to go listen to what you want, not some forced content you hear all the time. Some stations who play things like the top hits will play Canadian songs quite a bit and it just gets boring.

I recall Netflix had a deal with the government where they commit xyz amount of money to producing content for their platform made in Canada. I have no problem with things like this as I have no obligation to watch that content. If that Canadian content happens to suck then I just won't watch it. But if Netflix instead had to artificially make me see this content more when I go to browse for a show that would be frustrating. Just like if Spotify had to have their curated playlists have xyz percentage of Canadian content. I don't want what I listen to being tailored based on first the country of origin and then second whether or not I will like the song.

I feel like these policies are happening because of pressure from big media companies in Canada. These companies are losing profit to American companies because now they are actually forced to compete and their average-to-meh tier content just isn't as passable anymore when people actually have options.

didibus8• 4 years ago

Culture and Media is inherently political, to me it makes sense to make sure that the media reporters, the opinion pieces, and the cultural heritage and lineage remains mostly in control by Canadians for Canadians, and that all Canadians get an equal representation, which considers and encourages minority groups to have a voice.

That doesn't mean that you block and censor media and culture from other countries to reach Canadians. A broadcaster is not a publisher. A broadcaster is inherently a curator, it's a promoter and censor in its own right. If you're the biggest distribution channel, but you are in control of choosing what content gets the most or best "air time", which is what a broadcaster does, you have an outsized control and impact on what content reaches Canadians and what content doesn't.

That means Disney could buy all Canadian TV and radio stations from money they acquired in the US market, and just decide to only broadcast US news, opinions, media, music and film, etc.

Or it means that Canadian broadcasters could choose to do the same because they make more money from big budget American productions than Canadian productions. But it seems wrong to me to say that news, media, and culture should all be driven and optimized purely on what makes the most money, and not on any other dimensions, such as cultural heritage and diversity, equal opinions and voices from Canadians of various groups and affiliations, etc.

Similarly, for online broadcasting, it means what does YouTube decide to recommend you? What do they decide to promote or show first in a search result? You'd want regulations to make sure that YouTube considers what's best for Canadians, by making sure it's equally showing Canadian content from various Canadian groups, and not that it's just demoting and making all Canadian voices and content hard to find while instead only recommending content that is optimized for clicks, revenue, outrage, or representing American, or Russian, or other foreign nations or groups.

That doesn't mean banning foreign content, it just means it can't get priority over Canadian content in broadcasts. You also can still sell and distribute it in Canada without problems.

sleepingadmin• 4 years ago

So lets discuss what happened here. In the middle of January the federal government made it mandatory to get vaccinated. Effectively putting many Truckers out of a job. They are also denied any benefits. So what are they to do? Tons of other major countries have already removed all restrictions. UK, Ireland, Scandinavia, etc. So we are sitting here wondering what's wrong with our government.

Hence the now unemployed truckers went to Ottawa to protest. Which is their human right? Even their charter right?

Before they arrived in Ottawa, 1 guy with a nazi flag walked around all over Ottawa and had photographers following him. There's a pretty large bounty to identify this dude, yet nobody can seem to do it.

However, the stories wrote themselves. From our state propaganda... They are a fringe minority of white supremacist truckers. Very unusually there were updates from the police on the highways saying the convoy was tiny, only a few trucks. Like an attempt to label this fringe minority tiny and can be ignored? Very unusual, never seen the police do this before.

The trucker convoy showed up in Ottawa and we discovered oh wait, they are a bunch of Indians. Not white supremacists at all. I dont know the statistic, but pretty significant portion of truckers are Indian. The number of videos mocking the propaganda media where not-white people are claiming to be white supremacists is pretty hilarious.

Then the media spun it again and now people believe the protest is against masks? LOL?

They raised significant $ on gofundme, who seized the funds and at first were going to be donating to left-wing charities. They have since autorefunded. However, what was the rule that they broke? It actually required the government to label the protest a military occupation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

This designation is very narrow international definition. The allegation by the Canadian government is that they lost control of Ottawa to the protestors. This fringe minority trucker convoy who hasn't invaded any buildings is labelled a military occupation in order to remove their human/charter rights.

It's worse, the propaganda media labelled the solidarity protests in various cities around the country as a 'nation-wide insurrection'

The ottawa police have also started arresting anyone who is bringing 'material support' to the military occupation.

So why the sudden need for an online censorship bill? The government who clearly removed the protestors human rights wish to go further. Remove their ability to counter the clear propaganda being produced against them.

Canada who has some of the most strict covid restrictions is ignoring the protestors and not joining much of Europe by returning our rights. They are planning to remove more of our human rights.

In other news: https://twitter.com/ChrisEnsingCBC/status/149088948355370598...

This bridge isn't the only way in and out but this shutting down is huge. Not much of a fringe minority eh?

Trudeau tries to bring back online censorship bill

Related Stories