Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada's awful new proposals on “harmful” content

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Canada's awful new proposals on “harmful” content

#21

Post by zo1 »

mdp2021 wrote: post #5
codeecan wrote: post #2

I expect Canada to become a police state (its already on the way) and the brain drain to accelerate. Bill C-10 and C-36 are horrific China emulating policies, loose definition of "hate speech", bypassing courts in favour of human rights tribunals with 100% conviction rates and no requirement of evidence, preventative enforcement by police. With C-36, even saying something truthful, if causes perceived harm is a punis…

An elephant in the room is worth noting: democracies were built to avoid dystopias, yet there are growing trends of "it is better to leave" in long established democracies - "Contact your representative then" increasingly seems to no longer be an established, working idea. Several factors may accompany this phenomenon: polarization; perceived failures in education¹; sometimes anti-centrism in the government; politica…

Could also be the absolute futility that "contact your representative" represents now? I think more and more people are realizing that change can't happen that way anymore, particularly as you can't even organize grass roots movements without media and social-media approval these days. The only things that can get critical mass now to enact change from a citizen perspective are popular causes that are essentially "approved". Good to guard against bad movements like say commies or nazis, but absolutely horrible for popular but "not in the right direction" movements.

Re: Canada's awful new proposals on “harmful” content

#22

Post by b112 »

b112 wrote: post #20
leereeves wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Didn't the current premier's father do pretty much the same thing (suspend constitutional rights) in the 70's Yes, it was called the October Crisis.[1] I don't think we should be judging Justin Trudeau for his father's actions, but we should judge him because when he was asked to apologize (on behalf of the government) for the October Crisis, he refused. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

I think you both need to read a bit more, and also, listen to released (more than 50 years, such recordings must be released) recordings of private meetings at the time. While no PM is perfect, when the Premier of Quebec phones the PM, and says (paraphrasing here) that "the separatists are everywhere, I don't know who to trust in the police, my own staff, they're all around me", while little girls are being killed by…

To give a bit more clarity....

Canada is not a police heavy state. And you get a premier, and mayor, saying the police cannot be trusted.

You cannot deploy troops domestically for police action in Canada, without the war measures act.

What would you do?

I find it best to ask such a question. What would you do?

You weren't there. You aren't even fully aware of the complete history, nor what the RCMP domestic terrorism unit said to the PM.

what do you do?

Not that, you may say. Well, arm chair quarterbacking seems all too easy, to me, and is often wrong.

Re: Canada's awful new proposals on “harmful” content

#23

Post by Mikeb85 »

zo1 wrote: post #19
lucasyvas wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am Canadian. No offense to my southern neighbours, but if it ever comes time to move because of this, my direction won't be south. I'll probably play twister and hope the direction it lands is a good one. North American trends have not been great lately in general. Maybe I'll finally get that European passport I've been putting off.

And when it gets worse there too, what then?

There seems to be a lot more pushback against government overreach in most EU countries as well as the US.

In Canada, most people applaud more government overreach. Just like everyone was more than happy to snitch on their neighbours during the pandemic.

Re: Canada's awful new proposals on “harmful” content

#24

Post by type0 »

takenpilot wrote: post #4
lucasyvas wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am Canadian. No offense to my southern neighbours, but if it ever comes time to move because of this, my direction won't be south. I'll probably play twister and hope the direction it lands is a good one. North American trends have not been great lately in general. Maybe I'll finally get that European passport I've been putting off.

Same. Am Canadian, already south. This is not the place. I'm looking at Northern Europe (good privacy laws) or Singapore (the rules are draconian, but very clear).

Netherlands, although not perfect still has some classical liberal ideals. Singapore is a "Disneyland with the Death Penalty", who in their right mind would go there.

Re: Canada's awful new proposals on “harmful” content

#25

Post by Barrin92 »

codeecan wrote: post #2

I expect Canada to become a police state (its already on the way) and the brain drain to accelerate. Bill C-10 and C-36 are horrific China emulating policies, loose definition of "hate speech", bypassing courts in favour of human rights tribunals with 100% conviction rates and no requirement of evidence, preventative enforcement by police. With C-36, even saying something truthful, if causes perceived harm is a punis…

There's a lot oF China comparison in that article too, but if you compare China to India, isn't it accurate to say that China's policies in this domain have actually prevented brain-drain and created a significant domestic industry, the exact opposite of what the author and your take suggests?

looking at the globe I don't really see a strong correlation between the success of technology, even directly in social media and freedom of expression.

Nowhere on the globe do 'digital sovereignty' style politics seem to benefit American companies. Just seems like an ideological take. I think it's pretty likely that a Canadian or European firewall would actually just promote Canadian or European operated business, because natives tend to have an edge when local values are baked into the system.

Re: Canada's awful new proposals on “harmful” content

#26

Post by leereeves »

b112 wrote: post #22
b112 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you both need to read a bit more, and also, listen to released (more than 50 years, such recordings must be released) recordings of private meetings at the time. While no PM is perfect, when the Premier of Quebec phones the PM, and says (paraphrasing here) that "the separatists are everywhere, I don't know who to trust in the police, my own staff, they're all around me", while little girls are being killed by…

To give a bit more clarity.... Canada is not a police heavy state. And you get a premier, and mayor, saying the police cannot be trusted. You cannot deploy troops domestically for police action in Canada, without the war measures act. What would you do? I find it best to ask such a question. What would you do? You weren't there. You aren't even fully aware of the complete history, nor what the RCMP domestic terrorism…

Suspension of civil liberties in response to political unrest is not an uncommon response. We've seen it in the US. That doesn't make it right.

I'm not Canadian, so perhaps I shouldn't arm chair quarterback Canadian history, but you asked what I would do.

I'll respond to a similar scenario that hits a lot closer to home for me: would I have supported the detention of hundreds of Muslims after 9/11, without any evidence they'd committed a crime?

Absolutely not.

And on that basis I feel perfectly comfortable saying that the detention of 500 people in Quebec, without any evidence they'd committed a crime, was wrong.

---

Edit: I'm "posting too fast" so I'll respond briefly here to the posts below:

> so democratic that we have allowed votes on separation over the years

Canada hadn't allowed such votes before the October Crisis. The first referendum on Quebec sovereignty was in 1980.

Holding a referendum in 1970 would have been preferable to the violence and the suspension of civil liberties, but only the [mostly anglophone] government could have called such a vote, and it wasn't done. Not then, and up to that time, not ever.

So when you say that the Quebecois were trying to separate "by force, without vote", remember that such a vote was not an option available to them.

Re: Canada's awful new proposals on “harmful” content

#28

Post by b112 »

leereeves wrote: post #26
b112 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To give a bit more clarity.... Canada is not a police heavy state. And you get a premier, and mayor, saying the police cannot be trusted. You cannot deploy troops domestically for police action in Canada, without the war measures act. What would you do? I find it best to ask such a question. What would you do? You weren't there. You aren't even fully aware of the complete history, nor what the RCMP domestic terrorism…

Suspension of civil liberties in response to political unrest is not an uncommon response. We've seen it in the US. That doesn't make it right. I'm not Canadian, so perhaps I shouldn't arm chair quarterback Canadian history, but you asked what I would do. I'll respond to a similar scenario that hits a lot closer to home for me: would I have supported the detention of hundreds of Muslims after 9/11, without any eviden…

The difference is, a province in a democratic nation, so democratic that we have allowed votes on separation over the years, yet we had terrorists deciding they're going to split a province, without vote, without democracy, by violence. That they intend to seize power by force.

It was a very, very tumultuous time. It was the civil war that almost was.

And with many civil wars, 99.99% of the population did not want violence, but would have been caught bleeding, dead on the street.

Was it right? I don't know. But I know enough to restate this ... how can I judge?

Re: Canada's awful new proposals on “harmful” content

#29

Post by b112 »

b112 wrote: post #28
leereeves wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suspension of civil liberties in response to political unrest is not an uncommon response. We've seen it in the US. That doesn't make it right. I'm not Canadian, so perhaps I shouldn't arm chair quarterback Canadian history, but you asked what I would do. I'll respond to a similar scenario that hits a lot closer to home for me: would I have supported the detention of hundreds of Muslims after 9/11, without any eviden…

The difference is, a province in a democratic nation, so democratic that we have allowed votes on separation over the years, yet we had terrorists deciding they're going to split a province, without vote, without democracy, by violence. That they intend to seize power by force. It was a very, very tumultuous time. It was the civil war that almost was. And with many civil wars, 99.99% of the population did not want vi…

I'll add a little more here; context.

Were the muslims trying to break 1/5th of the landmass of the US, and 40% of the population, by for force, without vote?

Was there evidence those muslims were part of the group which caused 9/11? And that group held political prisoners, were blowing up random things, and threatening even more violence and death?

It is hard to find parallels here.

EDIT

Heh, I hit that filter just now...

Anyhow...

The votes for separation were not federal, but provincial. Quebec chose when to hold such votes, not Ottawa.

The premier at the time was french.

Also note that more than half our Prime Ministers have been french.

Re: Canada's awful new proposals on “harmful” content

#30

Post by weiliddat »

type0 wrote: post #24
takenpilot wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. Am Canadian, already south. This is not the place. I'm looking at Northern Europe (good privacy laws) or Singapore (the rules are draconian, but very clear).

Netherlands, although not perfect still has some classical liberal ideals. Singapore is a "Disneyland with the Death Penalty", who in their right mind would go there.

And the death penalty is applicable to a tiny proportion of the population (disproportionately drug smugglers). It might not be your ideal, but please refrain from implying someone else is crazy for living there.
Post reply on HN