“Canada’s descent into tyranny is almost complete”, writes David Collins in the Telegraph.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is threatening his most tyrannical attack on freedom yet through his government’s proposed Online Harms Act (currently Bill C-63). Brought to you by the same farcically-named “Liberal” party who froze the bank accounts of the truckers who protested vaccine-mandates, the OHA is the government’s overzealous attempt to promote online safety.
The proposed legislation supposedly achieves this by requiring operators of social media services to adequately mitigate the risk that their users will be exposed to harmful content through measures such as publishing standards of online conduct, providing blocking tools and ways to flag and label harmful content. The OHA would create a Digital Safety Commission to administer and enforce its rules along with a Digital Safety Office to support social media users and advocate for online safety. These agencies can investigate complaints, summon people to testify in hearings and to produce records. Costs of all this will be paid by unspecified charges on social media platforms, presumably contemplating Canada’s planned Digital Services Tax on big tech platforms.
Most controversially, the OHA’s provisions on posting hateful content would require amendments to Canada’s Criminal Code as well as its Human Rights Act. While the victims of online “hate” may be comforted by tough new penalties, the changes are radical, particularly a new hate crime offence which can lead to life imprisonment. Worryingly, the criminal provisions of the OHA would give judges the ability to put people under house arrest because they might commit a hate crime in the future. The potential criminal could also be made to wear an electronic tag if the Attorney General requests it.
Emphasis added. The phrase “Canada’s descent into tyranny” comes across as hyperbole until you get to the bit about putting people under house arrest because they might commit a crime in future.
I always used to think that jokes about “Canuckistan” were a little overblown, but they’re as bad in their own way as the Taliban.
Buh-bye, Canada.
Canada needs to split into two countries. 50% of the population sits as a close suburb to the USA’s woke NE ( https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1600907559216390146 ) and effectively controls the entire country’s government. The entire rest of the country is not happy.
Doesn’t the monarch in London need to give his Royal Assent or his Royal Governor or someone? Why are none of the people who are supposed to be the backstops preventing Castro’s son from being a tyrant not doing their jobs? Or just allow the law to pass and then issue blanket pardons to everyone convicted of thought crime?
I think the best odds of a “revolutionary event” in a Western nation is probably “Canada”, and I’ve no idea where it will wind up going. Typical Canadian I talk to out here in the western US, who normally is coming south to shop for cheap goods and gas, has rather more in common with the “truck protesters” than they do with the idjits running Ottawa. I remember the Canadian soldiers we worked with as being similarly inclined, and distinctly cynical about their politicians.
So… Yeah. I don’t know where this is going, but I’m just going to throw out there that the idea of a “Black Swan” Canadian revolution ain’t entirely out of the question. The Western provinces are particularly tired of the stupidity from Ottawa, and feel as though they’ve been economically raped on a continual basis to keep Quebec solvent, particularly. Some of the folks I’ve talked to see Trudeau as an occupying power…
One rather hopes it works out, but… Don’t lay your money down on it all remaining stable and copacetic. Canada could well be the canary in the coal mine, insofar as “government overreach” goes.
I think I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: The idjit classes in all of our countries have made a fundamental error in their assumption, which is that everything will always continue on as it always has, no matter how much they do to change the underlying assumptions. Which reminds me of a local gravel pit operator, that just “assumed” that since the mountain of overburden hadn’t moved in decades, that it would stay in place while he steadily undermined it… I think there are still several million dollars in buried heavy equipment up there. It didn’t work out so well…
Things will go on until they can no longer go on, and then something else will take their place. The fact that you’ve got control of the current governmental arrangement does not imply that said arrangement will still exist after you have your way with changing the rules, and there’s nothing to say you’ll still be in charge if it somehow survives your efforts. You might find yourself sharing the fate of a certain Dutch prime minister that I’ve pointed out before.
As with the US and Texas, the fact that there is a tier of government between the people and the nutters in Ottawa may help to relieve tensions rather than exacerbate matters.
The Governors of the provinces and territories of Canada are getting tired of Ottawa’s constant drains on their treasuries and if they started saying “No” to Justin Castro and his imperial demands, he’d struggle to do anything about it other than stamp his feet, hold his breath and “skweem and skweem until I’m sick”.
Western Alienation is a real force across British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. These are grudges long held about the power imbalances in Canada and a Western Secession wouldn’t be impossible, especially with some US connivence.
It’s not like Canada has nukes, is it?
Still, this is mostly hyperbole and the most we can expect to see is Western obstructionism at the provincial level against Justin Castro and his tyrannical ambitions.
When the Liberal Party falls again, all of this shit will be flushed down the toilet with him.
After his trial, natch.
requiring…. providing blocking tools
If I don’t want to see the Daily Mail, I simply………. do not read the Daily Mail. Why should the Daily Mail be compelled to hang around the newsstand and grab me and stop me browsing their paper?
Unfortunately, “Canada’s descent into tyranny” isn’t hyperbole, though I wish it were. In March 2022 we had full martial law in the capital, with police checkpoints and a whole slew of lawless, unconstitutional actions by government and police. This was after many, many unconstitutional Covid measures like curfews and arbitrary police stops in particular in Quebec.
There were no brakes on the rush to tyranny, no institutional checks and balances, no meaningful objection by any level of government or meaningful action by the courts to act within the bounds of the law or respect the rights of the population. While the frozen bank accounts have been unfrozen and the martial law measures have been officially reversed many people are still being subjected to offensive lawfare and the courts are mostly happy to be hosts for the proceedings rather than protectors of rights. I don’t know why the rot seems so much more advanced in Canada than many other western countries but right now Canada is definitely a cautionary tale and should be watched closely. Certainly Britain and Australia are suffering from many similar ills, but in some ways the situation in Canada is more acute. And it is wishful thinking to believe all of the problems will be washed away once Trudeau is finally deposed. Loathsome as he is, the problems go well beyond the one man and will persist well past his inevitable departure.
The reversal of the word “liberal” from lover of liberty to hater of liberty, is complete.
“Progressive” is a different case – in politics it always meant hater of liberty. But the word “liberal” has had its meaning turned round 180 degrees – it now means the reverse of what it once meant.
I know practically nothing about international law, but what I don’t understand is if the various SM companies just simply shut down any offices or presence they have in the country, these laws seem utterly unenforceable. Of course Canada can then block the services from coming in to their country if they wish, but I’d say that if they thought the trucker protest was bad, just wait to see what you get if you block all your teenage girls from accessing Pinterest, Instagram or SnapChat.
Unless, of course, you run the Canadian version of Samizdata, and Bad Speech appears on it. I imagine that the East Coast Canadians will be policing all those other Deplorable Canadians quite carefully.
these laws seem utterly unenforceable
Indeed, if you look at Canada’s experience trying to enforce Bill C-18 you see that these people are very, very stupid. Bill C-18 was the online news act, which tried to shake down the big tech companies for linking to and directing traffic to Canadian news sites. This was prepped with a mass propaganda campaign accusing them of stealing Canadian news and saying they had to pay for all traffic that they directed to Canadian news sites. So they said fine, we’ll stop stealing Canadian news, and traffic to Canadian sites has plummeted.
But the fact that they are very stupid doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous. Their plans for penalizing online content they don’t like are very chilling, indeed.
@bobby b
Unless, of course, you run the Canadian version of Samizdata, and Bad Speech appears on it. I imagine that the East Coast Canadians will be policing all those other Deplorable Canadians quite carefully.
That is kind of my point — if Facebook has no staff and no facilities in Canada, I don’t see how the Canadians can enforce this law. And if they do, presumably they can shut them down, fire all the staff, and be good to go. Shame for those people, but blame your government not Zuck.
It is sure as hell what I’d do. In fact you see it in little bits, like SM removing access to newspapers in Australia due to laws there, and all the things going on with Apple in the EU.
You can run a social media company largely entirely from one free location (Dubai perhaps 😀. And the governments can’t do anything except snip the wires. Just remember, India has some cities with more people than Canada, so who cares what they think? Petty little tyranny that it is.
That, anyway, was the theory of the “Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it” theory.
Because they are too busy ushering in such legislation over here, perhaps?
As an Australian, I hate Meta, and all such companies, because they don’t want to pay any compensation for news gathered from local sources. Fortunately, I am not on Facebook, but the idea that any company could demand free news seems like an attempt at blackmail.
@Nicholas (Locals, Rule!) Gray
Fortunately, I am not on Facebook, but the idea that any company could demand free news seems like an attempt at blackmail.
That doesn’t make sense. They are demanding nothing, they are saying — if you want your news on our platform then we will host it but we won’t pay you. If that agreement doesn’t work for you then we will not display it. What exactly is wrong with that? There is no blackmail, the newspapers want paid and facebook said no thanks. Then the government comes along and says that facebook isn’t allowed to host news for free, so they stop hosting it at all. Again, it is a stupid law interfering with freedom of contract, but facebook did nothing wrong.
And I say this as a person who really loathes facebook.
But what if PdH and crew were IN Canada, and were the registered agents of Samizdata-Canada? That’s my point – this WILL work to shut down local work.
A Canadian friend of mine runs a conservative website in Canada. That person is truly threatened by this proposal.
Trudeau should immediately be removed from Office because he might lose a future election. Same logic isn’t it?
Meanwhile, in Toronto:
https://www.thedrive.com/news/toronto-police-just-let-the-thieves-steal-your-car
How long before they pass a law that you must leave your keys in your car?
llater,
llamas
@Llamas:
Don’t forget that Canadians have no absolute right of self-defence, so if they attack and kill home invaders, but had the ability to retreat, that can count against them in defence and they could theoretically (at the discretion of the judge) become liable for the death of their home invaders in that circumstance.
So a lot of stupidities like “leave your key fob in the hall for home invaders to steal” are essentially the default position given the inability to stand your ground with legal clarity.
Even compared to the UK that’s a nightmare and I wouldn’t choose to live in Canada under those circumstances.
Were I a British Parliamentarian, I would table a motion declaring, on account of the descent into tyranny in Canada, the King of Canada persona non grata in the UK.
Steven R 13.03.2024 6.58 PM
The King of Canada acts through the Federal Governor-General, and Charles III has as much power as President Kalllinin, instructed by Stalin to sign the decree sending his (Kallinin’s) wife to the GULAG. The Governor-General is a President in all but name, and if the last 4 years have shown us anything, it is that there are no checks at all on State power in the UK, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. The King of Canada is a separate legal person to the King of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the UK, personified in the same real person. All the decisions of Trudeau and his parliamentary majority are rubber-stamped by the Governor-General. The last time this was an issue was in Australia in the early 1970s, when the Labor Federal Prime Minister was dismissed by the Governor-General and new elections called. It later transpired after the release of official papers that Elizabeth R in London was kept informed by the Australian Governor-General, but did not take any decisions in regard to it.
So why do we bother with this farce?
Most papers here in Australia talked as though Meta was trying to blackmail the country. As for why the Monarch, or the representative of the Monarch, has ‘reserve’ powers, nobody wants to become a Republic!
Mr Ed – because the ritual and ceremony are all we have left.
Even in the 19th century legal historians such as Maitland mocked the idea of basic principles of natural law limiting the power of Parliament. What had been the foundation of the position of Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke and Chief Justice Sir Thomas Holt, and of the Old Whigs (and many Tory folk to) was now regarded as silly and alien – even in the Victorian Age. People such as Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham (opposed in the 17th and 18th centuries) were now the mainstream – no rights against the state, and humans NOT beings – just machines without free will (moral agency).
The United States joined the parade in 1935 – when the Supreme Court (5 to 4) de facto decided that the government could rob the population and violate all contracts, public and private.
Sit John Holt – not Sir Thomas Holt. I apologise for my error.
Here, here! @Paul Marks
“What had been the foundation of the position of Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke and Chief Justice Sir [John] Holt, and of the Old Whigs (and many Tory folk, too) was now regarded as silly and alien – even in the Victorian Age. People such as Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham (opposed in the 17th and 18th centuries) were now the mainstream – no rights against the state, and humans NOT beings – just machines without free will (moral agency).
The United States joined the parade in 1935 – when the Supreme Court (5 to 4) de facto decided that the government could rob the population and violate all contracts, public and private.”