The Trudeau government’s latest promise not to censor your grandma’s cat videos doesn’t mean they aren’t trying once again to regulate the internet in a very bad way. The new Bill C-11 is entirely aimed at bringing the same kinds of regulations we have on Canadian TV and radio to the online world.
Vancouver public school officials have placed restrictions on a Catholic students club, requiring its members to have “general discussions” rather than share their faith with fellow students.
According to Blacklock’s Reporter, Rodriguez made the comment Tuesday in response to a question about Bill C-10, a sweeping update to Canada’s Broadcasting Act that critics have called an attempt to regulate Canadians publishing content online.
The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has banned a plethora of European children’s literature and destroyed 5,000 books for being “offensive.”
As reported by the National Post, some 30 books were burned for “educational purposes” and then the ashes were used as fertilizer to plant a tree.
Former Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commissioner Timothy Denton has some very direct words for Canadians regarding our Liberal Government’s proposed Internet Censorship legislation.
Existing laws already give the government the ability to confront hate both online & offline. Power-hungry politicians like Trudeau ignore that reality, in order to ‘justify’ restricting your right to speak freely.
Public health officials and politicians continue to be targeted by the anti-vaccine movement, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) told Global News that increasingly violent online rhetoric around the “arrest and execution of specific individuals” is a growing cause for concern.
A decade ago Quebec comedian Mike Ward made fun of an underaged, physically disabled boy’s physical appearance. He gave money to the child understanding the boy was going to die. He expressed frustration when the boy didn’t die, saying he wanted to drown him.
Canadian politicians, both Liberals and Conservatives, have denounced Facebook for the suspension of the Tamil Guardian’s Instagram account. Instagram suspended the account of the Sri Lanka-based outlet for over 48 hours earlier this week.
The irony is that the same politicians that have called for more online censorship are the ones that have complained when social media’s algorithms have failed to censor what they want, and instead censored what they don’t want to be censored.
Earlier this year, the bill died in the Senate before the end of the last parliamentary session. Now that the Liberals have a minority government, they want to make regulating the internet a top priority.
The Canadian government is considering new rules to regulate how social media platforms moderate potentially harmful user-generated content. Already, the proposed legislation has been criticized by internet scholars — across the political spectrum — as some of the worst in the world.
According to a network statement, the CBC and five subsidized press associations pledged to “advocate for initiatives to reduce if not prevent online harm,” according to a network statement. The advocacy comes ahead of internet censorship bills by Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, including a proposal to block websites and appoint a chief censor called the Digital Safety Commissioner.
Immigration is Canada’s most under-analyzed social policy. It’s justification being reduced by government and media to the most simplistic of rationalizations:
Immigration policy exists in response to an aging population. Add to this an aging workforce. Stop the press. An exaggeration this may be, but not one without a point. This specious approach has for decades served to cover-up a plethora of related implications.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday night after the French leaders’ debate in Gatineau, Que., Singh said existing hate speech laws are not sufficiently preventing radicalization, though he didn’t explain at what point he thinks protected speech becomes “hate speech.”
The Department of Canadian Heritage has proposed a new legal framework to deal with “harmful” content. The framework would establish new regulatory entities with broad authority over speech and information shared on platforms like Twitter or Facebook. The rules it creates for platforms sound good on paper, but that’s about it. They disregard international experience with past laws and similar proposals around the world, as well as recommendations from legal and human rights experts inside and outside of Canada.
