Liberals Censure debate on C-11 Censorship Bill

[Halifax Tar]

I think Colin was trying to say that he has personal experience in this regard. You might want to listen to him.

Agreed.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Trudeau's values differ from yours (and others on here) but his values aren't fundamentally uncanadian, and he shares the values of a huge portion of the Canadian population.

I understand what you're saying here but it's also a sad truth when you consider his behavior and lack of ethics. It explains why so many Canadians don't care about shit like pressuring an attorney general to bend rules for strategic friends. Or losing billions of tax dollars.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Trudeau's values differ from yours (and others on here) but his values aren't fundamentally uncanadian, and he shares the values of a huge portion of the Canadian population.

Are you conflating Trudeau with the LPC ? Because JT's approval ratings are sub 40% at the moment, and falling. I am not sure his values are as much in line with Canadian society as you think.

Report: Trudeau’s Approval Rating Down, Canadians More Likely to Vote Conservative

Approval of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has dropped and decided voters are more likely to vote Conservative....

vocm.com

Trudeau Tracker -

Tracking Prime Minister Trudeau ‘Generational fairness’?: Seven-in-ten Gen Z, Millennials say Trudeau’s government not working in their interest April 24, 2024 No Bounce: Liberals’ hoped-for support surge in wake of under-40 targeted spending blitz has yet to materialize April 23, 2024 Load More

angusreid.org

Global Leader Approval Ratings

Morning Consult tracks the approval ratings of government leaders and country trajectories in 22 countries.

morningconsult.com

 

[Halifax Tar]

I understand what you're saying here but it's also a sad truth when you consider his behavior and lack of ethics. It explains why so many Canadians don't care about shit like pressuring an attorney general to bend rules for strategic friends. Or losing billions of tax dollars.

I actually think more people care than you and I realized. If you look at polling, and I know that's not always worth much, its not looking good for JT or the LPC in the next election.

 

[ArmyRick]

@Lumber , dude, your one of many "dangerous" people occupying this country.

What will it take for you to criticize Trudeau? Does he personally need to douse a bus full of disabled children and set them ablaze before you decide he is a "questionable" person?

Ethics convictions? SNC-Lavalin? We Scandal? Jody Wilson-Rabold? Celina Casear-Chavennes? Jane Philpott? Leona Allesev? Election 2021? Emergency Act? Chinese electoral interference?

I ask where is your integrity.

 

[Halifax Tar]

@Lumber , dude, your one of many "dangerous" people occupying this country.

What will it take for you to criticize Trudeau? Does he personally need to douse a bus full of disabled children and set them ablaze before you decide he is a "questionable" person?

Ethics convictions? SNC-Lavalin? We Scandal? Jody Wilson-Rabold? Celina Casear-Chavennes? Jane Philpott? Leona Allesev? Election 2021? Emergency Act? Chinese electoral interference?

I ask where is your integrity.

AR, thats not fair. @Lumber isn't dangerous. He is allowed to cast his vote as he sees fit. If he agrees with what JT has done and plans to do then he should vote in that direction.

We chew the same dirt, but lets take the high road brother.

 

[Spencer100]

I actually think more people care than you and I realized. If you look at polling, and I know that's not always worth much, its not looking good for JT or the LPC in the next election.

The media will get him over the line in the next election.

 

[Lumber]

@Lumber , dude, your one of many "dangerous" people occupying this country.

What will it take for you to criticize Trudeau? Does he personally need to douse a bus full of disabled children and set them ablaze before you decide he is a "questionable" person?

Ethics convictions? SNC-Lavalin? We Scandal? Jody Wilson-Rabold? Celina Casear-Chavennes? Jane Philpott? Leona Allesev? Election 2021? Emergency Act? Chinese electoral interference?

I ask where is your integrity.

Uhhh, I have criticised Trudeau? I've also never voted for a Trudeau liberal.

All I'm doing is trying to play the reasonable sober voice of reason.

What I see is a true blooded Canadian who shares the same values AND weaknesses as many other Canadian. His biggest personal flaw is his arrogance, but most of the other crap, IMO, is the result of the corruption that comes with having power that would effect all Canadians, not because he is somehow the most vile and morally Corrupt and traiterous person to ever walk the earth (which he's made out to look like some on.

What I mean is that I think ANY Canadian would be pulling the same kind of crap you just listed if they were PM, even if it was one of you people (let he who is without sin cast the first stone).

Also, @CBH99, I'm really trying to find time to reply to you. Thanks for your patience, lol.

 

[Good2Golf]

The media will get him over the line in the next election.

The bought media. At least The Line on Substack won’t be a part of his next win.

 

[ArmyRick]

AR, thats not fair. @Lumber isn't dangerous. He is allowed to cast his vote as he sees fit. If he agrees with what JT has done and plans to do then he should vote in that direction.

We chew the same dirt, but lets take the high road brother.

What I mean is this.

He is entitled to vote. Its his lawful right, in my opinion, its his DUTY to vote (If I was grand emporer, I would make Canadians vote by law).

How you use that vote is up to you.

When people are reckless, cultish, partisan or just plain dumb with their votes, we end up with a JT. Over and over again.

Its similar to a car. You can own one. You can choose to drive with care or be a reckless fool with it.

Now, an update. He says he did NOT vote Trudeau. I will take his statement as truthful.

I can not wrap my head around why he defends or excuses Trudeau's behaviour, and completely runs down Pierre.

Maybe dangerous is the wrong word. I have to let my brain simmer and find the right word.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What I mean is this.

He is entitled to vote. Its his lawful right, in my opinion, its his DUTY to vote (If I was grand emporer, I would make Canadians vote by law).

How you use that vote is up to you.

When people are reckless, cultish, partisan or just plain dumb with their votes, we end up with a JT. Over and over again.

Its similar to a car. You can own one. You can choose to drive with care or be a reckless fool with it.

Now, an update. He says he did NOT vote Trudeau. I will take his statement as truthful.

I can not wrap my head around why he defends or excuses Trudeau's behaviour, and completely runs down Pierre.

Maybe dangerous is the wrong word. I have to let my brain simmer and find the right word.

Meh, let him have his opinion.

I certainly make no qualms about voicing my bias and have nothing good to say about trudeau. I'm stubborn and near intractable in my view. It's my right, as it's his, to disagree.

Shadow banning and suppression of opinion is exactly what trudeau is trying to do to the Canadian public with his various bills that lead to censorship. Let's not start legitimizing his disgusting habits by acting the same way as him and his cabinet.

A good man and friend once told me, "We're friends, no matter what our politics are." or words to that effect.

 

[Spencer100]

The bought media. At least The Line on Substack won’t be a part of his next win.

And that is why C-11 and the others come in. They know what they are doing.

 

[QV]

There comes a point in time where sitting on the fence is so obviously a fraudulent stance. We've reached that with Trudeau.

For example, after everything else that has been going on and we get this: "Look he didn't raise his voice for 2 minutes. Yay!".

 

[Fishbone Jones]

There comes a point in time where sitting on the fence is so obviously a fraudulent stance. We've reached that with Trudeau.

For example, after everything else that has been going on and we get this: "Look he didn't raise his voice for 2 minutes. Yay!".

Well on his way to transmutation into pure light and consciousness.

 

[Lumber]

I can not wrap my head around why he defends or excuses Trudeau's behaviour, and completely runs down Pierre.

In a nut shell? I'm acting as an "anechoic" force. Echo chambers are dangerous. I'm sorry to say, but ALL of us (myself included) have flawed and incomplete opinions and positions. If you don't get challenged on your views/opinions, you won't ever better yourself and make better/more informed decisions.

So, Trudeau does something unethical. I see it in the news and I think "Yes. Bad." I come on here and see everyone already jumping all over it and trashing Trudeau, and I see no need or desire to get in on the action.

Suddenly, someone says something that is either a weak opinion, a stretch of the truth, or a downright lie. Now THAT I will jump all over, and I will do that regardless of the political leaning of the opinion/statement being made. So, I'm not defending or excusing Trudeau, I'm simply pushing back on statements/opinions/views that I think are objectively wrong, like claiming he's a traitor for the way he's running the country.

Why do I call out Pierre Poilievre? Because no one else is.

Maybe dangerous is the wrong word. I have to let my brain simmer and find the right word.

Lets see: I spent 16 years in uniform serving my country, and directly support the military in my current civilian job. I try to live my life in an ethical way and I try and treat everyone around me with dignity and respect, even when they've wrong me. When someone fucks up something of mine by accident, like when a roommate lost my dog, I don't freak out and get mad at them; I give them a hug and tell them it's ok. I'm trying to raise my girls to be the same way. I make a big deal about recycling and try to find ways to reduce waste when possible. I donate to charity. I call people out for their dishonesty and am always trying to educate those around me and help them better themselves. While my personal life and work/deployment schedules prevented me from actually going through with it, I've applied to be both a Big Brother and a volunteer Fire Fighter. I take a real interest in world events and Canadian politics and try and stay abreast of major social issues and generally just educate myself so that I can be a better person and understand the world better. I engage in online discussions <cough cough> to try and challenge my perceptions and learn more about myself and learn from perspectives that I don't necessarily have.

Dangerous indeed.

Edit: I thought of a better closing line:
"No no no. You were right! Dangerous indeed. But the guy who threw his Tim Hortons cup out his window while speeding through my neighbourhood in his pick-up truck with his "F*CK Trudeau" bumper sticker and who's never read a book in his life, he's ok! Because he voted conservative."

 

[Lumber]

Ok lots to unpack here. I have a few specific retorts and then I'll have a small summary at the end.

So let me start this off by saying I actually do respect your viewpoints & how you've written them here.

I disagree whole heartedly, but I appreciate the insight into why you view our situation the way you do.

I appreciate the civility you are bringing to the disucssion.

In terms of suspecting something under the surface vs face value...

To me, whether we look at what he says purely as it's said or written - and we do not infer ANY connection to an ulterior agenda - I still don't think he shares Canadian values.

We can start with SNC Lavalin as an easy example...

He's approached by the head honchos at SNC Lavalin who are asking him to change certain laws that are relevant to their situation.

Why are they asking him to change the law? Because they are breaking it, blatantly, in terms of corruption, bribery, racketeering, etc. They are under investigation by the RCMP and are nervous about being found guilty, because they are...however if Trudeau changed the law, they'd be off the hook.

Trudeau doesn't say "No, stop breaking the law!" or reject the idea out of hand. He actually considers accommodating it...so much so that he approaches the Attorney General about the idea.

Being that she's the Attorney General, she advises him to not change the law as it stands in order to accommodate people breaking it.

He didn't like that advise, so he fired her...

He fired the Attorney General for advising him not to break the law or assist others to do so.

^A majority of Canadians would most likely say they don't share this value


Or Chinese influence for something more recent...

Or more recently when it comes to the matter of Chinese influence over our elections, which really ultimately translates into China's influence over our government's decision making.

He was asking several, several times by the official Opposition as to whether or not he had been briefed by CSIS or the RCMP in regards to 11 Liberal candidates receiving donations from China during the election.

He clearly stated, more than once, that he had not been briefed & new nothing of the matter.

...Turns out, he was briefed. Multiple times...

He straight up lied when asked a simple yes or no question, during Question Period in the HoC, that has potentially MASSIVE national security concerns attached to his answer.

I'm willing to bet that most Canadians would say they don't share that value with him either

So, here you twice say that Canadians wouldn't share "this value" but you never expressly mention what value/moral/ethic is being violated here. I will assume you are referring to honesty and integrity. And I don't disagree with you. In both of these cases, Trudeau acted dishonestly and violated the trust of Canadians, in both cases for partisan reasons (I would assume).

In regards to Bill C-11, did anybody here find out about Bill C-11 by an official press release by the PMO?

Did anybody first hear about it in a speech by the PM?

(That's an open question...not rhetorical. I certainly didn't find out about C-11 because the PM made an announcement of it, but maybe he did?)

To be fair, I don't think I've ever learned about a bill from an official statement/announcement from the PM/PMO.

The point is, the bill will determine the algorithms used by various websites, including Google, that will limit what information Canadians can access.

Right now, Google has targeted 4% of Canadians with reduced access to information, as they work out the bugs for if this bill actually passes.

The government of Canada has not only introduced proposed legislation that affects what Canadians can access on the internet, but they are trying to bypass the usual safeguards we have in place and ram it through.

They even censored the debate about the bill, which ironically enough is about censorship.

Canadians DO NOT SHARE THESE VALUES, on mass.

While I certainly don't speak for everyone, I have high confidence that I'm not alone in feeling this way.

The bill is, at face value, designed to ensure the continued survival of Canadian content. It was easy when the only way to make "successful" content was to have a high quality production studio. Now, however, lots of people with nothing more than their cell phones and/or a half-decent computer can make highly successful content. So, in this case, either: a. the LPC really just believes that this is a morally acceptable way of protecting Canadian content, or b. the LPC is trying to give the CRTC more power, which would be corruption, but since the LPC knows they don't have too many years before the CPC takes over, what's the point?

Also, if you read WHY they "ended" debate on the bill, it honestly make sense. Sooo much debate had already happened on the bill, it made it through the senate, and everyone had already signaled enough votes to support passing the bill, so more debate was just wasting time, money, (and giving CPC talking a points). I think the CPC is actually HAPPY the liberals ended debate on it, because they new having more debate would have changed NOTHING, but cancelling the debate made the LPC look bad.

And ooouuu boy we're not going to agree on this one:

Final example, then I have to scoot for work...

The Freedom Convoys & the Emergencies Act, re seizing people's bank accounts.

I won't go over the whole Freedom Convoy thing because I think we all know & understand what the intended purpose was.

With 100% sincerity, THANK YOU.

But there's a few key things I want to point out...

- The protestors who attended the Freedom rallies were peaceful, very peaceful. Yes they were an inconvenience, but that's literally the whole point of protesting an issue - to cause enough disruption that the other side has to take the time to discuss the matter, and hopefully come up with a solution that works for both sides.

At risk of opening up the Freedom Convoy debate, they may have viewed themselves as peaceful, but when nominally peaceful acts (i.e. blocking streets and honking horns) start to negatively affect the mental health of others, they aren't completely "peaceful" anymore.

The government just froze their accounts with ZERO legal authority to do so, and a blatant violation of your right to due process under the Charter. And those accounts were just unfrozen over the last month or two.

Incorrect, they had enacted the Emergencies Act, which gave them the legal authority to do so.

Think about this...what happens if you have a family? We all have rent or mortgage payments, how do they pay rent? Buy groceries? Put gas in their car or pay their bills?

"RCMP agents contacted the “vast majority” of the remaining blockade participants in Ottawa before they sent their information to financial institutions to both make sure they were in fact still there and then warn them of the imminent freezing of their accounts if they didn’t leave.

“The RCMP contacted a number of people to ask them where they were. And a lot of them would answer that they were in the blockades and they were not leaving,” Beaudoin said.

Fuck around and find out. They were given the opportunity to leave to prevent their accounts from being frozen.

Who do they call for help? The CRA? A lawyer? Who?

They weren't donating to ISIS or a terror network. They weren't money laundering.

All of this happened because they donated a few bucks to their fellow citizens who all drove from various parts of this massive country to exercise their fundamental right to protest.

This is incorrect. Only around 210-220 accounts were frozen, and they were assocaited with people either AT the protest and refusing to leave, or those already suspected of illegal activities related to the protest. Ordinary donors of the Freedom Convoy did not have their bank accounts frozen.

Whether we agree with the Freedom Convoys or not, that isn't the issue. The issue is the federal government can take it upon themselves to freeze your bank accounts if you donate to a cause they don't want people donating to - and your supposedly guaranteed legal rights under the Charter don't mean jack.

Of your entire response, this is the only one that I have a real problem with. You're vastly oversimplifying the situation and making inferences that simply aren't true. You make it sound like the feds frooze bank accounts willy nilly, when that simply isn't true. First, as stated above, the federal government didn't free the bank accounts of donators. Second, they didn't freeze the bank accounts of people who's cause they disagreed with. Third, they didn't do it quickly or without authority. An actual major event happened. It continue and festered until it got to the point that a very powerful and seldom used law was invoked to deal with it. At that point, the bank accounts of a small number of specific people were temporarily frozen.

This does not sound to me AT ALL like the government exercises some terrifying power without reservation. It looks like the government begrudgingly using a concerning power in a very limited and temporary fashion to deal with a very specific problem.

.


Turns out I don't have time for a summary, but it was going to be something along the lines of:

"What really are Canadian values?"
"Everyone in Canada is routinely dishonest. I lie to my kids all the time (sorry I can't share, it's spicy. you wouldn't like it). If we considered everyone in Canada who lied to be a traitor to Canadian values, than we'd be a country of traitors."

Actually, I think way to much of my response here was on your points regarding the freedom convoy, so I'll be back with a more fulsome response to the face value vs nefariousness of Trudeau and his party.

Actually last piece, I 100% think Trudeau and the LPC are chronic cronies. I just don't think they are out to amass power and destroy freedom in Canada.

 

[OldSolduer]

Actually last piece, I 100% think Trudeau and the LPC are chronic cronies. I just don't think they are out to amass power and destroy freedom in Canada.

AND therein lies the problem. It is what is good for the LPC that drives JT et al - not what is good for Canada.

 

[ArmyRick]

@Lumber Your defending your views a lot here. Kind of telling. I still think your wrong. I still can wrap my head around how you come to your line of thinking but to each their own.

 

[Lumber]

@Lumber Your defending your views a lot here. Kind of telling. I still think your wrong. I still can wrap my head around how you come to your line of thinking but to each their own.

I think critically, refuse to be partisan, posses a healthy skepticism of politicians in general, have a general faith in the goodness of everyday people, and refuse to make assertions based on scanty information.

Do you not?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Between not destroying any freedom in Canada and destroying freedom in Canada, there's a spectrum of degrees of destroying some freedoms in Canada. If there's a side to pick, it's the "not destroying" one.