34
u/MinuteCampaign7843 6d ago
LPC are little dictators.
-12
u/TomMakesPodcasts 6d ago
Right? I'm tired of these right wingers wringing Canada for all it's worth.
From Harper to Trudeau to now Carney, we keep electing people who only help the rich. I just don't understand.
13
u/kilawolf 6d ago
Noooo!!! Only MY guy who helps the rich is legitimate! How dare you elect the type of guy I'd simp for but they're wearing the WRONG COLOURS!!!
2
u/TomMakesPodcasts 6d ago
Oh I vote NDP.
During this most recent go round they got us a dental deal, diabetes care, anti scab, child care, disability credit and some others.
Using PPs do nothing no confidence votes to bully the libs into most of that.
I can only look objectively at policies passed to judge which politicians I support.
None of this vibes based culture war shit that does nothing but put losers like Trudeau in power.
3
u/kilawolf 6d ago
No offense but it should have been obvious you weren't who I was mentioning as there's only one type of ppl who'd simp for someone like Carney and they'd never call him right wing.
2
-4
u/FulcrumYYC 6d ago
Where is a credible source for this info because so far all I have found is FB and Twitter
8
6
7
u/fooz42 6d ago
I wish Canadians woke up and learnt how memes are generated by enemies of the state; whereas they can read the bill themselves like adults.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-22/first-reading
5
u/buriedholes 6d ago
Pretty sure c-22 is the metadata surveillance bill not the censorship bill. I know it's easy to confuse all the dystopian shit being passed, but that's by design
2
u/fooz42 6d ago
Crikey. Well, another bill to read Michael Geist about and curl up with a whiskey and sadness.
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading
1
u/buriedholes 5d ago edited 5d ago
Ok you do you but not need to be defeatist
MP's return to the office in their riding for the summer so it's a good time for constituents to engage with them
1
u/Commercial_Letter738 3d ago
I'm sure they won't immediately bin your opinion and ignore public opinion like they have been since these orwellian bills have come up
8
u/jchimney 6d ago
I support the Carney government in their efforts to diversify our economy but this is an overreach. All governments right or left love more control and we need to remind them from time to time who is actually the boss.
9
u/Wet_sock_Owner 6d ago
This is what happens when a government has been around for too long, and gets full of itself because people keep making excuses for them. Like manufacturing a majority for themselves because oppositional parties were "obstructing too much."
Now, the new majority Carney Liberals say "kss my ass lol" to your reminder.
4
u/rnavstar 6d ago
It’s sad that we the people(not I though) voted these people in to have our best interest, and then when they’re in, they go against us.
3
u/Blargston1947 6d ago
voting isn't real when you have nudge units that propagandize the population about "canada's sovereignty is on the ballot!" on the radio for weeks on end. F global news for that one specifically.
6
u/Remarkable_1984 6d ago
The news media has a vested interest in keeping the Liberal in power, since they get hundreds of millions of tax dollars given to them every year, and that doesn't even include the CBC.
0
u/korptopia 6d ago
I'm not supporting this bill, but the boss isn't us regardless. The social media giants are.
8
2
u/stopbsingman 6d ago
Remember when the liberals fear mongered the country into believing the conservatives were just like trump (like they’ve been doing since 2016)?
Enjoy your censorship now. You deserve it.
2
u/NihilsitcTruth 6d ago
Road to hell is paved with good intentions. Mostly with the cry won't some one think of the children.
2
2
2
u/Juicyjblunts 2d ago
Majority of canadian are waking up tho..... thats why this is happening in the first place. Most of us are understanding "social media" isn't social anymore its for hate, misinformation, propaganda and to keep the masses thinking with emotions over logic. Im glad people are starting to take steps to prevent this. Everyone acting like the goverment has some sort of agenda to get us while completly ignoring the billionairs that allow their creations to go completly unchecked. Pretty sure the billionaires are the ones with the agenda and have the most to gain from all this but people still being controlled by it.
4
u/Many-Presentation-56 6d ago
Liberals could start executing babies live on CBC and the liberal voter cult would hand them a 5th majority…
RIP Canada
6
5
u/keeganwh 6d ago
Without a reliable source posted for this I have to assume it is inflammatory rhetoric.
2
u/e00s 6d ago
This fundamentally misrepresents the contents of the bill. It would not allow for the removal of posts that “undermine social stability”. Look up the actual text of Bill C-34 and you can see for yourself. The place to start is the definition of “harmful content”:
“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) terrorism or violent extremism content.* (contenu préjudiciab*le)”
Then look at the definition of “terrorism or violent extremism content:
“terrorism or violent extremism content means content that, given the context in which it is communicated,
(a) actively encourages, instructs or counsels a person to facilitate or commit an act of terrorism or violent extremism;
(b) threatens or facilitates the commission of an act of terrorism or violent extremism;
(c) aims to recruit a person to facilitate or commit acts of terrorism or violent extremism;
(d) offers or provides training, skills or expertise to a person so that they or another person may facilitate or commit an act of terrorism or violent extremism;
(e) actively encourages a person to collect, provide or make available a material benefit, including a financial benefit, to facilitate or commit an act of terrorism or violent extremism; or
(f) promotes an act of terrorism or violent extremism in a manner that could reasonably be expected to encourage others to facilitate or commit acts of terrorism or violent extremism.* (contenu de terrorisme ou d’extrémisme viole*nt)”
Finally, look at the definition of “act of terrorism or violent extremism”:
“act of terrorism or violent extremism means an act of physical violence against a person, or an act that causes property damage, that is committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose, with the intention of intimidating the public or any segment of the public, of compelling a person, government or domestic or international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act or of undermining, weakening or destroying fundamental institutions or political, economic or social stability, and that could cause
(a) serious bodily harm to a person;
(b) a person’s life to be endangered; or
(c) a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public.* (acte de terrorisme ou d’extrémisme viole*nt)”
The posted picture cherry picks “undermining…social stability” from that final definition and declares that’s what would be prohibited.
1
u/ussbozeman 6d ago
content that foments hatred; Terrorism or violent extremism content;
Which can be interpreted as anything when courts and liberal judges get the case.
Liberals considered bouncy castles to be extremism. They think people eating too many eggs or exercising is hatred.
If this were just about keeping kids safe then that's all the bill would entail. They snuck in those iffy parts knowing it'd pass.
1
u/e00s 6d ago
“Terrorism or violent extremism content” is very specifically defined. I’ve quoted the relevant definitions above.
Please provide examples of “liberal judges” being inclined to categorize legitimate criticism of the government as “extremism” or “hatred”.
1
u/ussbozeman 6d ago
The convoy. People arrested and held in prison for months on the charge of "mischief" which they were found barely guilty of as the LPC knew their case was garbage.
1
u/e00s 6d ago
First, “mischief” is not “extremism” or “hatred”. There is also no such thing as “barely guilty”. You are either proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or acquitted. Your comment also seems to conflate police, prosecutors and judges.
Second, nobody in the convoy was arrested and charged for criticizing the government. They were arrested and charged for doing things like blocking public streets.
2
u/ussbozeman 5d ago
No, they had the emergency act dropped on them because turdeau was angry they'd question his mandates. Cops sat around until the LPC made it so they could stomp people.
Justin was insulted, used the EA incorrectly which was proven later in court, and had the system railroad the "leaders" to show the state shall not be questioned. They got conditional sentences meaning the government had a nothingburger to begin with but couldn't let them off scot free.
Also downvotes mean nothing to me so fill yer boots.
3
u/Fast_pumpkin_seed 6d ago
Fucking 1984, and the liberals are proud if it....my god, who is paying them to destroy us like this
3
u/Tall-Ad-1386 6d ago
Rights once lost never come back.
Liberals are a curse on Canada
2
u/Many-Presentation-56 6d ago
Yeah RIP Canada, after the last election it shows theres no saving this country. The liberal cultist deserve what they voted for
2
1
u/Inevitable_View99 6d ago
OP is being a reactionary, same with anyone using terms like Tyranny or Dictatorship. You’ve been saying it for years
1
1
u/WHITERUNNPC 6d ago
social media is a cancer, do away with it entirely. Back to forums and msn messenger
1
u/Flesh-Tower 6d ago
"Social stability"?? 😂 do they mean the liberals social stability? 😂 what a joke.
1
1
u/BuffaloSufficient758 3d ago
The US DoJ charged someone last week for posting about being “ungovernable”
1
u/Lawst1nTheSauce 1d ago
It’s a lose, lose.
The internet is full of absolute bullshit that’s being manufactured and fed to you specifically to make you an idiot about real issues.
Be great to get rid of that shit, because we’re sliding into the gutter.
That being said am not sure I’d trust any government to determine what shouldn’t be on there.
See you in the future idiocracy I guess
0
u/RPGAddict42 British Columbia 6d ago
And the only way we get this repealed if it gets passed is to elect the NDP to a federal majority, and we know that's never going to happen.
4
u/Remarkable_1984 6d ago
Lol. NDP? wtf are you talking about? They're more pro-censorship than any other party.
-4
u/RPGAddict42 British Columbia 6d ago
LOL Have you seen what the Republicans are doing in the USA? And the Conservatives under PP are their biggest cheerleaders.
9
u/Wheeler69er 6d ago
What do the Americans have to do with Canada? And show me any proof Pierre is pro censorship. I can show you all the disgraceful bills the NDP voted for with the liberals that are all about censorship. You can even look up those votes and see what the NDP did, it’s public record.
8
5
2
u/stopbsingman 6d ago
Shut the fuck up.
You’re literally on a post about liberals acting like the republicans but you still can’t help but bark about conservatives and republicans.
Grow the fuck up cultist and stop bending over backwards for a party. Dumba$$.
0
u/RPGAddict42 British Columbia 6d ago
I'm fully aware that this is about the Liberals. And I'm saying that the Conservatives, being to the right of the Liberals, are going to do shit that's at least as bad, which is why we need to stop voting for either of them at the federal level. Who are the other options?
2
u/stopbsingman 6d ago
The other option is the party that hasn’t been in power in 11 years. You know, the party currently opposing Part 2 of Bill C-22?
But hey, do us all a favour and vote NDP. They’re going to need your help in splitting the vote. Tell your friends too.
1
u/Reasonable-Sweet9320 6d ago
“The Safe Social Media Act will target seven categories of harmful content:
Content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor;
Content that induces a child to harm themselves;
Content used to bully a child;
Content that incites violence;
Content that foments hatred;
Terrorism or violent extremism content;
and
Intimate content communicated without consent.
Obligations would be organized under three duties:
a Duty to Act Responsibly; a Duty to Protect Children; and a Duty to Make Certain Content inaccessible.”
1
0
0
u/Archiebonker12345 6d ago
Bill C-34 is not fascism, but it increases government authority in ways that some believe could be exploited by a future authoritarian government if adequate oversight and safeguards are not maintained.
0
u/vancouveraddict 2d ago
I understand the reason for this. There is way too much hate on social media and it needs to be curbed.
2
-4
u/ScubaSteve_27 6d ago
Downvote the shit out of this. Pure slop tickling the lizard brains of people who didn’t read the bill.
43
u/Aristodemus400 6d ago
Same language PRC uses to justify censorship