King Heffy Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 4 minutes ago, UnkNuk said: Because there is a limited amount of money available to spend. So choices have to be made. Again, I'm okay with spending more money on pharmacare. Or more family doctors. Or more surgeries etc. If the Alberta government is opposed to this plan simply because it's coming from the federal Liberals/NDP rather than the federal Conservatives then that is, indeed, ridiculous. I was simply trying to point out one argument that I read that I found reasonable. And,perhaps, that is the reason that the Alberta government has reservations about the plan. That would be reasonable if Alberta had a functioning government instead of the lunatic they have running their province. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4petesake Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 56 minutes ago, UnkNuk said: Isn't that what Alberta is saying? That they will decide how health dollars are spent? I don’t think the Alberta government can be trusted to spend health dollars wisely. They recently paid $80M for 5M bottles of children’s Tylenol from Turkey and were able to distribute less than 4700. The pills are low dosage and not approved by Health Canada yet Smith still defends the deal and says she will offset the losses by selling the remainder to other provinces. Oddly enough there are no takers. https://globe2go.pressreader.com/article/281556590568640 Footnote* the Turkish medical company is owned by Dr. Oz’s mother. Yes that Dr Oz with deep ties to US Republicans. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spur1 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 (edited) 11 minutes ago, 4petesake said: I don’t think the Alberta government can be trusted to spend health dollars wisely. They recently paid $80M for 5M bottles of children’s Tylenol from Turkey and were able to distribute less than 4700. The pills are low dosage and not approved by Health Canada yet Smith still defends the deal and says she will offset the losses by selling the remainder to other provinces. Oddly enough there are no takers. https://globe2go.pressreader.com/article/281556590568640 Footnote* the Turkish medical company is owned by Dr. Oz’s mother. Yes that Dr Oz with deep ties to US Republicans. No…say it isn’t so…she is already in bed with Tucker and Jordan. Must be getting crowded with Putin hopping in as well. Not to mention Millhouse. I am thinking that bouncy castle might just pop if Trump jumps in. Edited February 27 by Spur1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph. Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 8 hours ago, 4petesake said: I don’t think the Alberta government can be trusted to spend health dollars wisely. They recently paid $80M for 5M bottles of children’s Tylenol from Turkey and were able to distribute less than 4700. The pills are low dosage and not approved by Health Canada yet Smith still defends the deal and says she will offset the losses by selling the remainder to other provinces. Oddly enough there are no takers. https://globe2go.pressreader.com/article/281556590568640 Footnote* the Turkish medical company is owned by Dr. Oz’s mother. Yes that Dr Oz with deep ties to US Republicans. That has to be one of the biggest, dumbest uses of public health funds I have ever seen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 9 hours ago, UnkNuk said: Because there is a limited amount of money available to spend. So choices have to be made. Again, I'm okay with spending more money on pharmacare. Or more family doctors. Or more surgeries etc. If the Alberta government is opposed to this plan simply because it's coming from the federal Liberals/NDP rather than the federal Conservatives then that is, indeed, ridiculous. I was simply trying to point out one argument that I read that I found reasonable. And,perhaps, that is the reason that the Alberta government has reservations about the plan. Right but it's a matter of who we implements which programs. We already have a health transfer for the provinces, if Alberta wants more money for their own discretion they can fight for more of that. The Fed's also have their areas of responsibility, which AB wants to dip into as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 New Liberal 'online harms' bill to make online hate punishable up to life in prison Bill C-63 aims to force social media, user-uploaded adult content and live-streaming services to reduce exposure to online content deemed harmful https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-harmful-online-content The headline is somewhat sensational. Here's a link to the bill if anyone is interested: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 18 minutes ago, 112 said: New Liberal 'online harms' bill to make online hate punishable up to life in prison Bill C-63 aims to force social media, user-uploaded adult content and live-streaming services to reduce exposure to online content deemed harmful https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-harmful-online-content The headline is somewhat sensational. Here's a link to the bill if anyone is interested: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading its National Post, part of your subscription is a Trudeau match box to set your hair on fire. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 1 minute ago, Bob Long said: its National Post, part of your subscription is a Trudeau match box to set your hair on fire. True that. Here's a CBC article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-table-online-harms-legislation-1.7126080 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 1 minute ago, 112 said: True that. Here's a CBC article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-table-online-harms-legislation-1.7126080 Poilievre and his ilk are not going to like being restricted in spreading weird hateful stuff thats for sure. But porn ID, there's a thing. Lets follow rural Arkansas for Canadian policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 4 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Poilievre and his ilk are not going to like being restricted in spreading weird hateful stuff thats for sure. But porn ID, there's a thing. Lets follow rural Arkansas for Canadian policy. I think some posters here would share Poilievre's feelings. :^) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Liberals proposing we punish subjectively harmful things Conservatives proposing we make it tougher to access objectively harmful things 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 4 minutes ago, Master Mind said: Liberals proposing we punish subjectively harmful things Conservatives proposing we make it tougher to access objectively harmful things Seriously? 'Subjectively harmful'? I think you've got some 'splaining to do here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 6 minutes ago, Master Mind said: Liberals proposing we punish subjectively harmful things Conservatives proposing we make it tougher to access objectively harmful things Quote harmful content means (a) intimate content communicated without consent; (b) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; (c) content that induces a child to harm themselves; (d) content used to bully a child; (e) content that foments hatred; (f) content that incites violence; and (g) content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. (contenu préjudiciable) I don't see the above list containing 'subjectively' harmful content Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 2 minutes ago, Satchmo said: Seriously? 'Subjectively harmful'? I think you've got some 'splaining to do here. 1 minute ago, 112 said: I don't see the above list containing 'subjectively' harmful content Quote harmful content means (a) intimate content communicated without consent; (b) content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor; (c) content that induces a child to harm themselves; (d) content used to bully a child; (e) content that foments hatred; (f) content that incites violence; and (g) content that incites violent extremism or terrorism. (contenu préjudiciable) Some of these, such as bullying and hatred, definitely seem subjective to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 3 minutes ago, Master Mind said: Some of these, such as bullying and hatred, definitely seem subjective to me. Hatred is already defined within Canadian law. Bullying should probably be read as a variant of harassment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 7 minutes ago, Master Mind said: Some of these, such as bullying and hatred, definitely seem subjective to me. Those people who are the object of bullying or hate speech would disagree. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 30 minutes ago, Master Mind said: Liberals proposing we punish subjectively harmful things Hate speech laws are not subjective. If someone publishes something online that meets that bar, what's the problem? 30 minutes ago, Master Mind said: Conservatives proposing we make it tougher to access objectively harmful things No they are floating a balloon no one has proven works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 47 minutes ago, 112 said: True that. Here's a CBC article: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-table-online-harms-legislation-1.7126080 I will wait for the Rebel news article thank you very much. Dang i couldn't even type that with a strait face.....lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 12 minutes ago, 112 said: Hatred is already defined within Canadian law. Bullying should probably be read as a variant of harassment. If you're having to say that it should probably be read differently, that's not a great sign of a sound proposal. 7 minutes ago, Satchmo said: Those people who are the object of bullying or hate speech would disagree. This feels like you're trying to pat yourself on the back rather than look at it objectively. I was bullied plenty as a kid, so trust me when I say I don't like seeing people actually bullied. But at the same time, I can recognize that what one person considers bullying/hateful, is not the same for everyone. Hence it is subjective. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 4 minutes ago, Master Mind said: I can recognize that what one person considers bullying/hateful, is not the same for everyone. Hence it is subjective. The thing of it is though that if the bullied person feels bullied, and the bully thinks they are fine doing what they are doing: the victim is the one whose word we need to investigate. Not drop it cuz the bully says its all good. There is no bureau of looking for crimes that never happened: so the legislation would be used when someone reports that they have been victimized, an investigation would ensue and if likelihood of conviction was high enough, possibly charges laid, then a whole trial with presumed innocence et cetera: So I am left unsure of why this online hate legislation is being opposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
112 Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 5 minutes ago, Master Mind said: If you're having to say that it should probably be read differently, that's not a great sign of a sound proposal. This feels like you're trying to pat yourself on the back rather than look at it objectively. I was bullied plenty as a kid, so trust me when I say I don't like seeing people actually bullied. But at the same time, I can recognize that what one person considers bullying/hateful, is not the same for everyone. Hence it is subjective. Here's the wording within the bill: Quote content used to bully a child means content, or an aggregate of content, that, given the context in which it is communicated, could cause serious harm to a child’s physical or mental health, if it is reasonable to suspect that the content or the aggregate of content is communicated for the purpose of threatening, intimidating or humiliating the child. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The purpose has to be to threaten, intimidate or humiliate the child and the context of the communication has to potentially cause serious harm to the child. It's a high bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satchmo Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 2 minutes ago, Master Mind said: This feels like you're trying to pat yourself on the back rather than look at it objectively. I was bullied plenty as a kid, so trust me when I say I don't like seeing people actually bullied. But at the same time, I can recognize that what one person considers bullying/hateful, is not the same for everyone. Hence it is subjective. Seriously? If I accept that statement I'd have to say your back has been self patted as much as mine. How much pleasure did you take in typing your OP? It truly don't know where your trying to go here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarcore Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 I am all for protecting kids and victims but their fine structure is asinine and ultimately will result in blocking access for Canadians. Pornhub already has said that will be how they proceed. If their ad revenue isnt worth the hassle how many other sites that aren't purely porn related will also feel the same? The Libs are enacting more and more controls that I am finding I am against in some part or form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 1 minute ago, Gnarcore said: I am all for protecting kids and victims but their fine structure is asinine and ultimately will result in blocking access for Canadians. Pornhub already has said that will be how they proceed. If their ad revenue isnt worth the hassle how many other sites that aren't purely porn related will also feel the same? The Libs are enacting more and more controls that I am finding I am against in some part or form. No problem with keeping porn away from children. IMO that’s the right thing to do. The Internet needs a lot more restrictions. Make it like TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggums Posted February 27 Share Posted February 27 Trudeau banning speech he and a few others hate. More authoritarian bullshit. What a cuck 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.