Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I don’t see a lot of difference in intent between something like Bill C-11 and PP’s promise to enact financial penalties on Universities that don’t allow certain speakers.
On one hand, government wants Canadian content on platforms streaming in Canada, threatens financial penalties to make it happen.
On the other, party wants controversial speakers to speak in University campuses, threatens financial penalties to make it happen.
I assume people who are disqualifying the Liberals because of C-11 are at least very nervous about the types of authoritarian overreach that the Conservatives are interested in? Or is it OK for the government to control content for some things and not others?
|
Let's look at the potential consequences of overreach in each instance:
1) Bill C-11 - taken to it's extreme effectively empowers the Government to censor or block sources for any/all content on all media that's available including youtube, print media available on online platforms, etc. Most people consume 3-4 hours of some sort of media on their phones, TV, Internet, etc.
2) Taken to it's extreme, universities could get fined for not letting someone like Ann Coulter speak - which would only be an issue if there's an audience large enough to warrant someone like that showing up in the first place
It's not like both of these imperfect policies come out in a wash. Maybe you should look through Bill C-11 with a different lens - imagine a future where a populist 'Trump-like' figure somehow leads the CPC to a majority electoral victory with like 38% of the popular vote and then proceeds to eject all appointees from all government positions including the CRTC and replaces them with extreme partisans. Are you happy that bill C-11 is the law of land knowing that it's rather likely that sooner or later the government will be run by people you disagree with?