[HN Gopher] Canada's awful new proposals on "harmful" content
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Canada's awful new proposals on "harmful" content
        
       Author : shadowprofile76
       Score  : 66 points
       Date   : 2021-08-14 13:43 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (pluralistic.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (pluralistic.net)
        
       | AlanYx wrote:
       | It bears emphasizing that Hacker News will likely be forced to
       | geoblock Canadian users if this legislative draft becomes law. It
       | applies extraterritorially and the absurdly large administrative
       | burden and financial penalties for noncompliance will make
       | serving Canadian users untenable.
       | 
       | There is also enough ambiguity in the proposal to worry about the
       | continuing availability of commercial unfiltered VPNs in Canada,
       | at least in the longer term.
        
       | cjdaly wrote:
       | Interesting that this is happening at the same moment Glenn
       | Greenwald is promoting (Canada based) Rumble as a free-speech
       | alternative to Youtube.
       | 
       | https://greenwald.substack.com/p/strengthening-substack-jour...
        
       | choronno wrote:
       | Never thought I'd say this, but this makes me want actual
       | Republicans now in Canada to fight such complete ordure.
        
       | gentleman11 wrote:
       | I'd you are Canadian, please visit the link to find the feedback
       | submission form and write your objections
       | 
       | https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/harmful...
        
       | eurasiantiger wrote:
       | This is China tightening the noose on another country.
        
       | codeecan wrote:
       | 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 punishable offence.
       | 
       | People with money and skills will continue to move south.
        
         | 908B64B197 wrote:
         | > 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.
         | 
         | Didn't the current premier's father do pretty much the same
         | thing (suspend constitutional rights) in the 70's for...
         | dubious reasons to say the least? He was also the man who paved
         | the way to normalize relations with China and Cuba, two nations
         | known for their respect of human rights.
         | 
         | > and the brain drain to accelerate.
         | 
         | On the hiring side I can tell it's happening.
        
           | leereeves wrote:
           | > 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
        
             | bbarnett wrote:
             | 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 bombs, diplomats are being kidnapped and
             | slaughtered, maybe declaring martial law isn't a completely
             | bad response.
             | 
             | And when you see this at the start of the article:
             | 
             |  _The Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, and the Mayor of
             | Montreal, Jean Drapeau, supported Trudeau 's invocation of
             | the War Measures Act_
             | 
             | Well, come on....
             | 
             | I personally find the current laws being passed to be
             | highly dangerous, and very disturbing, but trying to
             | compare it acts taken against domestic terrorists, and
             | lunatics, is a little wonky.
        
               | bbarnett wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | leereeves wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | bbarnett wrote:
               | 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?
        
               | bbarnett wrote:
               | 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.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | mdp2021 wrote:
         | 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; political (the purpose of the party) and
         | societal (the affiliation of the citizen with peers) crisis of
         | identity...
         | 
         | --
         | 
         | 1and Canada is the Country which promotes the relevant OECD
         | studies
        
           | zo1 wrote:
           | 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.
        
           | inglor_cz wrote:
           | The path of least resistance in 2021 is different from that
           | of 1951.
           | 
           | It is much cheaper now to move to another country and you can
           | stay in frequent online contact with your kin. Back then,
           | only serious oppression or poverty would force people to
           | emigrate. If the problems were more tractable, people stayed
           | and attempted to solve them in situ
        
             | mdp2021 wrote:
             | Yes, but unfortunately, this "impotence option" means the
             | relevant problems will get increasingly radicated.
             | 
             | Some of us are "on the run" in the hope for a better
             | society like nomads looking for natural resources, while
             | civilization was meant to be engineering a solution space
             | in a collective plan, building, not staying someplace until
             | it is spoilt.
             | 
             | It is a huge failure if the terms and conditions of the
             | social contract have come to include <<[practically]
             | intractable problems>>.
        
               | inglor_cz wrote:
               | You are probably right.
               | 
               | For example, within the EU, there is free movement of
               | people and workforce, which sucks out the best and the
               | most talented people from the peripheries like Andalusia
               | or Bulgaria and lands them in the very prosperous regions
               | of the north-west where they can find good and well-
               | paying jobs.
               | 
               | This is a major problem that cannot be solved by spending
               | extra money on building infrastructure in the
               | peripheries. Infrastructure is fine, but a new highway
               | won't heal anyone's cancer. Lack of doctors and engineers
               | cannot be easily countered with development projects that
               | tend to be mired in corruption.
               | 
               | Not even immigration can help that, because highly
               | qualified immigrants won't stay in the periphery, and
               | unqualified immigrants cannot provide the necessary work.
        
         | Barrin92 wrote:
         | 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.
        
         | lucasyvas wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | takenpilot wrote:
           | 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).
        
             | weiliddat wrote:
             | Singapore would be a toss up in terms of privacy, but it is
             | excellent and friendly for work-focused, law-abiding, norm-
             | conforming kind of people. I don't mean it in a bad way.
        
             | type0 wrote:
             | 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.
        
               | weiliddat wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | [deleted]
        
           | Mikeb85 wrote:
           | Yup I'm applying for an EU country passport myself (via
           | family ties). Canada is a terrible place if you want to start
           | a business, now house prices are getting insane and the
           | recent encroachment on freedoms as well as lack of pushback
           | from the population is pretty much the last straw for me. You
           | can make more money and pay less taxes while having more
           | affordable housing and better healthcare and education in a
           | number of countries.
        
           | zo1 wrote:
           | And when it gets worse there too, what then?
        
             | Mikeb85 wrote:
             | 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.
        
       | type0 wrote:
       | "Canada is considered harmful", "Australia is considered
       | harmful", "UK is considered harmful" etc
        
       | greyivy wrote:
       | > This discrimination is sticky, because SESTA caused the
       | shuttering of forums where sex workers advocated for their
       | rights. The more marginalised the speaker, the worst it is -
       | which is why the most heavily impacted group is trans women of
       | colour.
       | 
       | This can't be understated. _Who_ are these bills benefiting at
       | the end of the day? Because the most marginalized people in my
       | life -- and those who are most often the targets of hate speech
       | -- are being pushed even further to the margins by legislation
       | like this.
        
         | inglor_cz wrote:
         | "Who are these bills benefiting at the end of the day?"
         | 
         | Politically active people who want to feel good about
         | themselves?
        
         | eurasiantiger wrote:
         | "Who are these bills benefiting at the end of the day?"
         | 
         | Everyone's future overlords.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-08-14 23:02 UTC)