Broadcasting Amendment Act to Control Online Content?
In past and future Canadian democracy, Canadian scholar Janet Ajzenstat writes: “It follows that real Canadians will naturally prefer gun control. It corresponds to our identity. But think! What about the opponents? Should we consider them less than entirely Canadian? “According to Justin Trudeau’s liberals, the answer is yes. When Ajzenstat writes: “It is one thing to lose a debate in legislation. It happens all the time. It’s part of life in a liberal democracy – but it’s another thing to question national identity, ”Justins Liberale shrugs his shoulders.
Bill C-10 and our democratic rights
It has been like this for decades. Take our current situation with Bill C-10. The federal government wants control over your social media feed. You want to decide which media to watch. You want to select content creators and grant them funding and special privileges. That’s how things work in this country. Through the power of the CRTC, the government tells TV and radio stations what to play and when. They protect a corporate cartel from competition at home and abroad. The idea is to promote Canadian content. Keep us away from “bad” foreign content, especially from the US.
They call it CanCon
It is the government that decides what is sufficiently Canadian. It is based on any point system. It can be cheated to your advantage. Or disadvantage. It’s just a bureaucratic way of allocating resources. In this sense, media success. The free internet relies on the consensual behavior and action of billions of people.
Internet content depends on what Ottawa thinks, according to Bill C-10
Justin’s Liberals want social media and streaming services under the CanCon system. Why? Because the government is concerned about the type of content you are consuming. It’s the same excuse they use with cannabis. Individual Canadians are no better off now. But the CEOs welcome the change. Check out major licensed producers created by Stephen Harper’s now unconstitutional medical cannabis laws. They benefited greatly from legalization. And when Bill C-10 was introduced, Bell boss Mirko Bibic tweeted positively. It’s almost like the government doesn’t represent us …
Why should the government worry about what we see? And what rules will they create if Bill C-10 is successful?
Parliament’s bills are deliberately broad. Leave interpretations to the bureaucracy. Executive agents tasked with enforcing details that they create themselves. Unbridled power. The cannabis law took time in parliament. Due to its historical nature, the MPs worked out many details. But C-10 is not treated the same. First, Justin’s Liberals closed the debate. Now they are asking you to trust them. You do not deserve it.
Check out what Justin’s Liberals did to the legal cannabis market
Retail stores are driving corporate weeds. BC Bud dances the regulatory shuffle. People are still going to jail. No advertising. All packaging is plain and unattractive. Warnings of – allegedly – negative health effects of consuming the product. There is an overabundance of plastic and trash. It is, as economist Milton Friedman said, if you held the federal government responsible for the Sahara in five years, you would run out of sand. Indeed, the provincial governments lost money selling cannabis. Let that take effect. You lose money selling weeds.
Effects on the Internet
Imagine if Netflix pulled out of Canada. Maybe Justin will finally be ousted from the throne. For example, if they need to stream 40% CanCon, they can simply reduce the total number of movies and shows on their Canadian servers. Whatever makes regulators happy. Your YouTube homepage may no longer represent your settings. Imagine a mild account of the values the government of the day is pushing for. Bill C-10 stresses that these are Justin’s Liberals: “Canadians from racialized countries [sic] Communities and Canadians from diverse ethno-cultural backgrounds. “Just as the government destroyed the cannabis market, they are now trying to destroy the internet. To attempt. The underground cannabis market still exists, as do virtual private networks (VPNs). Even the Soviets had their samizdat.
Why? Are the people in the federal government really that morally superior? Who should decide what Canadians should watch or avoid en masse? What kind of excuse is it this time? Public Health and Safety? National security? Combat hate and counter-narrative information? Why should they decide who deserves more success in the media? Is it beneficial that you do that? Would you prefer Canadians to hear George Stroumboulopoulos as Joe Rogan or Lex Fridman? If the media shape our worldview, who then determines the narrative? An unelected government agency only responsible for the chaos in parliament? Or a spontaneous order of individuals? People who act together, following their own preferences.
“Canada’s fd … you are so locked up and I don’t see why you think this is a good thing.” – Joe Rogan
Source: The Joe Rogan Experience, episode # 1641
The internet is free. It crosses borders. It enables people to engage with their niche hobby groups.
Regardless of ethnic origin, nation or state. It enables people to see themselves as individuals in a world with other individuals. And sure, it enables people to come together as groups to hate other groups. But we already have laws against violence and its threats. With the internet we can freely explore the world outside of our borders. But like his favorite dictatorship, Justin and his liberals want to seal us off. They want to limit our freedom based on their superficial idea of what media should be. What is it about being Canadian. Justin’s Liberals offer cultural fascism with an apology.
There is no absolute right to freedom of expression in Canada. Historically, the United States’ first change wasn’t a big guarantee either. We are here alone. The cultural preference of millions could be to oppose cannabis. Descend next to alcohol and tobacco. Or worse, heroin and cocaine. And then especially against freedom of speech. If this is the cultural norm, then this is the end of cannabis content. C-10 and future laws like this will make cannabis content harder to find. Cannabis Life Network, Pot.TV, Cannabiskultur or High Times. Why stop at social media? Why not put pressure on the website’s physical servers? After all, votes that are not approved by the corporate state can disappear instantly. We can reset the media clock before the internet.
Liberal MP Julie Dabrusin outlined her theory behind Bill C-10
It seeks to prevent “the credibility of our institutions, basic trust in the Canadian public service and the institutions that support the very important work in our country from being compromised”. But is blind obedience to the institutions really a sign of liberal democracy? I’m not “chopping” off Canada’s cannabis regime. We need criticism of the institutions when they have lost touch with their purpose. In a liberal democracy everything is up for debate. Including the benefits of liberal democracy. This makes you no less Canadian than enemy gun control. Or promote a laissez-faire cannabis market. But soon we may lose the freedom to easily communicate this idea.
Post a comment: