Canadian Politics Thread

[Satchmo]

4 minutes 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. 

I don't get it.  The libs propose a bill to combat bullying and hate speech.   How does Pornhub fit in to this?

[Master Mind]

3 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

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. 

 

In theory I agree, but people can lie.

 

3 minutes ago, 112 said:

Here's the wording within the bill:

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.

 

That sounds more reasonable, but still opens the door to subjective decision making.

 

3 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

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.   

 

No pleasure from that post. My main point here is that this proposal has subjectivity to it, meanwhile the porn id proposal (and even the notion of making social media more restrictive for kids) is mocked, despite being based on objectively improving mental health for kids.

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, Satchmo said:

I don't get it.  The libs propose a bill to combat bullying and hate speech.   How does Pornhub fit in to this?

Probably the section about revenge porn.

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

Probably the section about revenge porn.

Oh ok.   That would not be something I'd like protected by freedom of expression laws.

[Boudrias]

8 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

Trudeau banning speech he and a few others hate.  More authoritarian bullshit.  What a cuck 

I would suggest that ‘hate speech’ is used on this very thread. Does that mean Trudeau will monitor and deal with the problem posters? 

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, Satchmo said:

Oh ok.   That would not be something I'd like protected by freedom of expression laws.

I'm with you.  Sadly, the proposed restrictions on pornography limiting access to professionally created content will lead to revenge porn becoming more common.  Look at the Mailloux case for an example.

[Master Mind]

1 minute ago, Boudrias said:

I would suggest that ‘hate speech’ is used on this very thread. Does that mean Trudeau will monitor and deal with the problem posters? 

 

If I ever have a post removed, I hope Trudeau personally gives me a call to explain it -- NHL DOPS style.

[JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo]

6 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

In theory I agree, but people can lie.

 

 

That sounds more reasonable, but still opens the door to subjective decision making.

 

 

No pleasure from that post. My main point here is that this proposal has subjectivity to it, meanwhile the porn id proposal (and even the notion of making social media more restrictive for kids) is mocked, despite being based on objectively improving mental health for kids.

It's not the notion, it's the methodology people are questioning. Every device my kids have ever had, had parental restrictions on them. Besides them whining to watch some stupid YouTube video that was blocked, it worked very well. 

[Optimist Prime]

11 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

In theory I agree, but people can lie.

And your theory is that lie would jump the whole shark of police investigation, the crown prosecutor deciding it would likely be a conviction if it goes to trial, then a full trial that needs evidence to convict someone who is presumed innocent until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt GUILTY....

 

sounds like you would have the same issue with literally any law on the books not just this new one that is proposed. Wouldn't you say?

[Satchmo]

8 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

No pleasure from that post. My main point here is that this proposal has subjectivity to it, meanwhile the porn id proposal (and even the notion of making social media more restrictive for kids) is mocked, despite being based on objectively improving mental health for kids.

I think your subjectivity argument is weak (and subjective).   We could spend pages debating this but I hope we do not.

 

I do mock the notion of porn ids.  I do not mock the notion of making social media somewhat more restrictive to kids.

 

[Satchmo]

26 minutes ago, Wiggums said:

Trudeau banning speech he and a few others hate.  More authoritarian bullshit.  What a cuck 

We get it.  Trudeau is bad and any move he makes is authoritarian.

 

If you have such a distaste for authoritarianism why do you promote Trump and PP?

[Optimist Prime]

Well, I got the latest demographic breakdown on voter intentions. This weeks numbers, again looking at the 60+ age group as they are proven to be the least volatile in relation to the polling vs actual vote at the polls, while also being the demographic most likely to actually vote. It is behind a pay wall and breaks down into 8165 different trend lines, most updated weekly. I provided January 26th a few posts up this thread...if you want it open the spoiler:

Spoiler

January 26th among voters age 60 and higher in a nation wide polling model that is one of the best in Canada:
CON: 37.05%

LIB: 33.06%
NDP: 16.53%

GRN: 3.23%
PPC: 0.41%

 

February 23rd among voters age 60 and higher:
CON: 41.81%

LIB: 26.52%
NDP: 15.16%

GRN: 4.11%
PPC: 1.26%

 

In other trend lines cons are down from 54% to 42% overall in atlantic canada from Feb 2nd to Feb 23rd, showing some easing of the groundswell there.

 

In Quebec, overall, the BLOQ leads with 27ish, the Libs next with 26ish and the CONS sitting at 25ish. NDP at 16.5ish, Green at 4, PPC at zero.oh. wow. Zero is hard to believe..but that is what is says. The tightest numbers in Quebec since December 2015. 

 

CONS have their best numbers in Ontario since 2018, 45ish% to LIB 26% aand NDP 20%. 

 

Prairies as per usual, since before 2005 when this trendline began: CON: 49%, LIB 14%, NDP 28%(generally the NDP best since 2015in the prairies)

 

women's support for the CONS: 30%

men's support for the CONS: 51%

 

NDP and CONS statistically tied in the under 30 age group.

Between 30 and 50 years old folks prefer CONS, then NDP then LIBs

 

Trudea was the preferred PM by almost 10 points in September, and now Poilievre is the preferred man for the job by 18 points. 

 

That is the biggest hits i am seeing from a lot of data. I will try to remember to check it up in a couple weeks or a month as well. Hope folks like this kind of post. 

 

 

[Bob Long]

48 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

 

In theory I agree, but people can lie.

 

 

That sounds more reasonable, but still opens the door to subjective decision making.

 

 

No pleasure from that post. My main point here is that this proposal has subjectivity to it, meanwhile the porn id proposal (and even the notion of making social media more restrictive for kids) is mocked, despite being based on objectively improving mental health for kids.

 

There's no proof that the ID proposal stops access. Please provide it if you have it.

[King Heffy]

43 minutes ago, JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo said:

It's not the notion, it's the methodology people are questioning. Every device my kids have ever had, had parental restrictions on them. Besides them whining to watch some stupid YouTube video that was blocked, it worked very well. 

Seems the "parental rights" crew wants to offload parental responsibilities on the taxpayer.

[The Arrogant Worms]

Target specific types of harmful content

The government wants to target the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, including deepfakes generated by artificial intelligence and content that "sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor." The bill would also cover anything online that is used to bully a child or urge them to commit self-harm.

Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism, along with material that incites violence or stirs hatred, would also be subject to the new law.

There is overlap with five categories of content the government proposed tackling in a 2021 consultation document. One key difference: the earlier plan included provisions around hate speech writ large, whereas the new bill does not.


The government also plans to amend a current law that says it is mandatory for internet services to report instances of child sex abuse images on the internet. Changes would apply those rules to social media platforms and "create authority to centralize mandatory reporting" of such offences "through a designated law enforcement body."

The amendment would also extend how long such data can be preserved to assist in police investigations. It would also extend to five years the current two-year limitation period for prosecution.

[Ralph.]

23 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said:

Hope folks like this kind of post. 

 

 

At least some of us certainly do, thank you. 

[Satchmo]

6 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

There's no proof that the ID proposal stops access. Please provide it if you have it.

It all reminds me of another thread from long ago:

 

All we have to do is try it and it will work if we just put some effort in.

[The Arrogant Worms]

'Not consulted': Alberta health minister questions Ottawa's national pharmacare plan

https://www.timescolonist.com/national-news/not-consulted-alberta-health-minister-questions-ottawas-national-pharmacare-plan-8363437

 

EDMONTON — Alberta's health minister is questioning the need for a national pharmacare plan, saying the province already has a comprehensive program for seniors, those on a low-income and those who receive disability benefits.

 

The federal NDP said last week it had reached a deal on pharmacare with the Liberal government that would allow every Canadian with a health card to access free diabetes medication and birth control.

 

The coverage is to be included in the first piece of a national pharmacare program — a key pillar of the supply-and-confidence agreement between the two parties — with legislation expected to be introduced in the House of Commons this week.

 

"We were not consulted about the federal government’s plan, and although information available to us is limited, we have concerns about the proposed limited scope," Alberta Health Minister Adriana LaGrange said in a statement Monday.

 

"The province is willing to work and discuss ways that the federal government can invest in Alberta’s pharmacare program to enhance the existing program that is comprehensive and currently available to Albertans."

 

LaGrange said Alberta intends to opt out of the national program and wants its full per capita share to add into the province's health-care system.

 

She said the Alberta government already sponsors drug plans that provide coverage for over 5,000 Health Canada approved drugs.

 

That includes coverage in a number of drug classes to treat common conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, asthma and other respiratory diseases, she said.

 

Federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh told reporters Monday he believes provinces that are planning to opt out will eventually opt in.

 

"I think it will be very difficult for the premier in Alberta to explain to people in Alberta who can’t afford their diabetes medication why they’re turning down an investment that would cover everyone in that province for their insulin and for their medical devices necessary for diabetes," he said.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Target specific types of harmful content

The government wants to target the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, including deepfakes generated by artificial intelligence and content that "sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor." The bill would also cover anything online that is used to bully a child or urge them to commit self-harm.

Content that incites violent extremism or terrorism, along with material that incites violence or stirs hatred, would also be subject to the new law.

There is overlap with five categories of content the government proposed tackling in a 2021 consultation document. One key difference: the earlier plan included provisions around hate speech writ large, whereas the new bill does not.


The government also plans to amend a current law that says it is mandatory for internet services to report instances of child sex abuse images on the internet. Changes would apply those rules to social media platforms and "create authority to centralize mandatory reporting" of such offences "through a designated law enforcement body."

The amendment would also extend how long such data can be preserved to assist in police investigations. It would also extend to five years the current two-year limitation period for prosecution.

 

Sure but porn ID that's easily worked around is so much better because it's simple to understand. That other stuff feels subjectivey. 

[aGENT]

14 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

 

Nope.

 

Nor do I believe a majority Liberal government would have introduced the new dental plan.

As basically always, Liberal minority with NDP support is pretty much our best chance of getting policies that help actual Canadians.

[Warhippy]

3 hours 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.

Dude if I say you're bullying me, you're bothering me you're hurting me.

 

That's not subjective.  There's nothing subjective about it.  It's not for you to decide if your shitty behavior is ok or not if it negatively affects other people 

[Warhippy]

3 hours ago, Wiggums said:

Trudeau banning speech he and a few others hate.  More authoritarian bullshit.  What a cuck 

Trudeau pissing off people who can now no longer get away with using words that are slights against minorities and are upset about it

 

More whining bullshit.  What a joke 

 

I do love how Trudeau has that level of power though, to write these laws himself in a minority government 

Edited February 27 by Warhippy

[Bob Long]

3 hours ago, Wiggums said:

Trudeau banning speech he and a few others hate.  More authoritarian bullshit.  What a cuck 

 

Actually in this case the people upset about not getting to say what they want to are the cucks because Justin owns your speech.

[Wiggums]

21 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Actually in this case the people upset about not getting to say what they want to are the cucks because Justin owns your speech.

 

He's just creating even more division and helping breed a country full of weaklings.  That's all he's done since he's been here.  

 

55 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Trudeau pissing off people who can now no longer get away with using words that are slights against minorities and are upset about it

 

More whining bullshit.  What a joke 

 

I do love how Trudeau has that level of power though, to write these laws himself in a minority government 

Make believe identity politics.  People who aren't in tune with the real world believe his bullshit.  The left creates division and try too hard to make the other half seem evil, that's how they stay in power.  Simpletons will believe anything they see on the news

 

PP will reverse it when he gets in.  All good

 

 

 

Edited February 27 by Wiggums

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Wiggums said:

 

He's just creating even more division and helping breed a country full of weak cucks.  That's all he's done since he's been here.  

 

Make believe identity politics.  People who aren't in tuned with the real world believe his bullshit.  The left creates division and try too hard to make the other half seem evil, that's how they stay in power.  Simpletons will believe anything they see on the news

 

PP will reverse it when he gets in.  All good

 

 

oh please. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean he's "dividing the country." People that dislike your pov can whine the same thing if PP gets elected and you won't care one iota about dividing. 

 

PP also plays with identity politics, or haven't you noticed?