After years of contentious debates, Bill C-11, Canada’s Online Streaming Act has become law.
As we’ve written here (Senate Passes Controversial Internet Censorship Bill) and here (Canada’s Plans to Regulate the Internet), this bill poses many dangers for Canadian users and creators alike.
Open dialogue is an important tool for moving discourse forward and gaining a better understanding of the issues we face in our time. In the spirit of open dialogue, the following is my response to the essay Animal Rights and the Challenge of Activism.
In the essay, the author describes the different tactics used by animal rights activists to persuade non-vegans. She emphasizes the importance of free speech, open inquiry, and debate, in particular the importance of non-vegans’ ability to challenge vegans. But in doing so, she also unwittingly exposes how her own rhetoric might influence people in such a way that might undermine the animal rights movement. My response isn’t an attempt at a ‘take-down’ of the author, but instead it is a way to show how important language is in animal rights activism and how even those of us with the best intentions can fall into these traps.
On February 2, 2023, the Senate passed Bill C-11, also known as the Online Streaming Act, with 43 senators voting ‘yea,’ and 15 voting ‘nay.’
The Senate proposed dozens of amendments to the bill, including highlighting the promotion of Indigenous languages and Black content creators; proposing an age verification system to restrict access to certain content; requiring the CRTC to be more flexible on determining what is deemed ‘Canadian enough’; and requiring the CRTC to focus on commercial content only.
Acts of civil disobedience often emerge out of a sense of desperation in which citizens feel they are not being heard by decision makers by other means, and so they are forced to seek alternative ways to be heard and to affect change. The very function of civil disobedience is to protest against injustice—a requirement for any democratic society, though it is often portrayed as a foolish, juvenile activity reserved for people on the lower rungs of society.
The mediasphere has been buzzing with the news of Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover. The world’s richest man bought the platform for $44 billion under the guise of freeing the platform from the shackles of censorship and creating a 'common digital town square'. It should be noted that just weeks ago, Musk was desperately trying to back away from the deal, but a lawsuit eventually forced his hand.
The reaction to the news has ranged from sensible criticism to outright hysterics from all sides. Musk’s insufferable fanboys celebrated the move, elevating him to God-like tier status. To them, he is a savior who will do everything from reforming the Internet to saving humanity as we know it.
What constitutes harm?
This is the question currently debated by Canadian lawmakers surrounding the Online Harms Bill — a controversial bill currently under development that seeks to protect vulnerable people online and curb the dissemination of ‘harmful’ content.
Leftists have shamelessly abandoned the fight to preserve our fundamental freedoms and then have the audacity to turn around and condemn anyone else who seeks to preserve these same freedoms they’ve left behind.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of Kiwi Farms, it’s a step in the wrong direction to allow, and even celebrate tech oligarchs who arbitrarily decide what information should be permitted and what should be removed. This creates a dangerous precedent and assigns more power to a few people who already operate in secrecy. To put trust in the tech elite is naive at best, and dangerous at worst. It also has the unintended effect of motivating authoritarian regimes, as evidenced above, to demand other content be removed from the Internet—a move that disproportionately impacts marginalized groups and dissidents.
Somewhere along the way, the left abandoned free speech as a fundamental value and the right has since stepped in to defend it. Leftists now lead the charge in restricting speech to protect certain sensibilities, particularly the speech of those on the right, and the right has responded in kind by protecting speech at all costs.
This marked shift has been especially noticeable in Canada where Canadians' stance on free speech is largely shaped by their political affiliation.