Liberals Censure debate on C-11 Censorship Bill

[Fishbone Jones]

Liberals Censor Debate on Censorship Bill C-11!​

 

[Halifax Tar]

Isn't this about regulating streaming services?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It is about the government deciding what you can see and what you can say. Another Charter right being dismantled.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Here's the actual text of the bill; still not sure how it's censorship, vice trying to apply existing CRTC and Canadian content to streaming services (and also like taxes and fees). Counterproductive money grab? Sure. Ineffective way to create Canadian jobs in film and tv? I get that. Censorship? I don't see how, and usually market forces already do more self-censorship than what you typically would get from CRTC, and it's not the government suing Fox news in the states for billions of dollars..

https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-11

 

[Lumber]

Here's the actual text of the bill; still not sure how it's censorship, vice trying to apply existing CRTC and Canadian content to streaming services (and also like taxes and fees). Counterproductive money grab? Sure. Ineffective way to create Canadian jobs in film and tv? I get that. Censorship? I don't see how, and usually market forces already do more self-censorship than what you typically would get from CRTC, and it's not the government suing Fox news in the states for billions of dollars..

https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-11

Yes, but it's a liberal bill and therefore censorship.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes, but it's a liberal bill and therefore censorship.

Didnt they shut down debate on the bill ?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Here's the actual text of the bill; still not sure how it's censorship,

The video is about the Liberals censoring the debate about bill C-11. It sounds like they're trying to shutdown discussions on it.

 

[Lumber]

The bill will force canadian content into your feed on sites like YouTube. Similar to how TV stations need to broadcast a certain amount of Canadian content. So this means, instead of only seeing videos chosen by the algorithm (based on your likes, dislikes and watched content) a percentage will be Canadian content randomly forced onto your feed. This is no different that current CRTC CanCon rules that already apply to radio and television.

The Liberals, for their part, claimed the debate closure was warranted because the House and the Senate already spent countless hours pouring over the bill. “Within this House we spent 34 hours debating that bill, plus an additional 22 hours in committees,” said Liberal MP Jean-Yves Duclos. “This is history because this is the longest ever time that the Senate took— clause by clause— looking at the bill.”

 

[Kirkhill]

The bill will force canadian content into your feed on sites like YouTube. Similar to how TV stations need to broadcast a certain amount of Canadian content. So this means, instead of only seeing videos chosen by the algorithm (based on your likes, dislikes and watched content) a percentage will be Canadian content randomly forced onto your feed. This is no different that current CRTC CanCon rules that already apply to radio and television.

The Liberals, for their part, claimed the debate closure was warranted because the House and the Senate already spent countless hours pouring over the bill. “Within this House we spent 34 hours debating that bill, plus an additional 22 hours in committees,” said Liberal MP Jean-Yves Duclos. “This is history because this is the longest ever time that the Senate took— clause by clause— looking at the bill.”

Curious. The Senate worked.

I appreciate this probably results in the House not being familiar with what comes next but I thought, after the Senate has soberly given a bill a second look then the House was expected to look at the Senate's suggestions during third reading and then decide if the suggestions had merit and should be included in the final bill.

If the Government doesn't like what the House finally decides on, it can always withdraw the bill and rework it.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Curious. The Senate worked.

I appreciate this probably results in the House not being familiar with what comes next but I thought, after the Senate has soberly given a bill a second look then the House was expected to look at the Senate's suggestions during third reading and then decide if the suggestions had merit and should be included in the final bill.

If the Government doesn't like what the House finally decides on, it can always withdraw the bill and rework it.

That would require the Government to adhere to Parliamentary process within our constitutional construct.

That is often at times too inconvenient for folks who are used to governing via OIC.

 

[Lumber]

Curious. The Senate worked.

I appreciate this probably results in the House not being familiar with what comes next but I thought, after the Senate has soberly given a bill a second look then the House was expected to look at the Senate's suggestions during third reading and then decide if the suggestions had merit and should be included in the final bill.

If the Government doesn't like what the House finally decides on, it can always withdraw the bill and rework it.

So, what happened was is that the senate made numerous recommendations for amendments, sent it back to the HoC, the government looked at it and said "no, we don't agree, we're keeping it as per the original version we sent you." So, they then went to the NDP and QC and said "ya'll still good with this? I'm finna skip debate on this GOAT", and they simped hard and were like, "Bet. That piece is fire." And so the LPC figures there's no need for further debate, we've debated the shit out of it already. The CPC is all salty and starts clapping back at the libs because they feel the bill is low key sus.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The video is about the Liberals censoring the debate about bill C-11. It sounds like they're trying to shutdown discussions on it.

It has gone through three readings in Parliament, 3 in the senate, with yet another hour spent on it this week. If you are really bored read the Hansard from the other day; https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/house/sitting-173/hansard

Which is all fine, but the process has chugged along, amendments have been made from the Senate and incorporated. They are past the point of any real meaningful debate and it's just political theater. Either pass it or drop it, but lots of things need done so quit wasting very expensive time in Parliament on empty noises. Is there really a need to debate on things like a drafting error that transposed '2' and '1'?

Kind of a pedantic point, but alwyas get a chuckle at 'sober second look' vice 'second sober look'. The latter is a serious review of something that took a lot of work, the former is the morning after a night on the town. Seems like sometimes either would work!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It goes back to the Senate now. They held it up for a year so far. Hopefully they will again.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

LIVE: Defending your freedom of speech | Trudeau is ramming through his online censorship bill to control what you can see and hear on the internet. Conservatives are the only party fighting... | By Pierre Poilievre | Facebook

64K views, 3.2K likes, 885 loves, 3.8K comments, 1.9K shares, Facebook Watch Videos from Pierre Poilievre: Trudeau is ramming through his online censorship bill to control what you can see and hear...

fb.watch

 

[Halifax Tar]

So, what happened was is that the senate made numerous recommendations for amendments, sent it back to the HoC, the government looked at it and said "no, we don't agree, we're keeping it as per the original version we sent you." So, they then went to the NDP and QC and said "ya'll still good with this? I'm finna skip debate on this GOAT", and they simped hard and were like, "Bet. That piece is fire." And so the LPC figures there's no need for further debate, we've debated the shit out of it already. The CPC is all salty and starts clapping back at the libs because they feel the bill is low key sus.

WTF did you just say ? Is that English ?

 

[Eaglelord17]

Let CRTC die the death it deserves. Good content survives, crap content dies. Look at how things like ‘Squid Game’ made it into the mainstream viewings despite being Korean.

As a side note, I wonder what would happen if we actually started using our Senate properly, i.e. appointed by the king/governor general based off who they want. For that matter appointing the governor general by the king too. Might actually put some of the controls meant to be in our democracy back in it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

 

[Jarnhamar]

Story out of the Toronto Sun from Lorne Gunter.

Feds' attempts to have story pulled from social media shows dangers of Bill C-11​

It highlights the dangers opponents of the bill have been saying and how the government could potentially use "misinformation" to bury anything uncomfortable to them.

Also of interest is the story about a refugee draft (I don't remember if it was posted here) The draft in question looked to remove barriers for refugees claiming refugee status in Canada. Easy to see why this goofy idea was embarrassing to the government.

Of particular note were claims involving “intersectionality.” Intersectionality was defined as two or more of “race, religion, indigeneity, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, age, sexual orientation, culture, disability or immigration status” that “impact an individual’s lived experience of discrimination, marginalization or oppression.”

If Wex’s new criteria became IRB policy, refugees wouldn’t have to prove they faced torture or death if returned to their home countries. Nor would they have to meet the United Nation’s legal definition of a refugee.

Instead, as I wrote at the time, to stay in Canada refugees would only have to claim they have been discriminated against or persecuted for being poor and old or Indigenous and holding political views targeted by some developing country’s strongman.” In they could waltz.

 

[ArmyRick]

Bill C11, Bill C18, Bill C36 and the so called "On-Line Harms act" are NOT needed, not wanted and should be tossed aside as quick as possible.

 

[Spencer100]

Bill C11, Bill C18, Bill C36 and the so called "On-Line Harms act" are NOT needed, not wanted and should be tossed aside as quick as possible.

The problem is Not needed, not wanted by whom? Because we do know somebody needs them badly.