I'm sure the rationale for why it's apparently Charter-compliant leans heavily on Section 1, but the courts have been far too generous in deferring to Parliament on use of Section 1 as a justification for "minor" infringements.
It has also never been invoked before, and hence has not withstood the scrutiny of a Charter challenge yet. It may not, in fact, be Charter-compliant.
Nothing is sacred or revered, to the extent that religion is being replaced by diy mysticism, ideology, politics, or Great Causes, be it climate or BLM or MAGA.
In my mind, the solution is cultural. We need shared values and deep understanding of the principles that govern our countries. We need good faith debate and review of outdated laws, revision or excision of bad ideas - racial language, weird moral errata, and finally a sufficiently detailed and rigorous regulation of novel technology that older concepts fail to account for.
Social media, adtech, and search engines aren't common carriers, but legislation shouldn't try to shoehorn regulation of platforms and communities into pre-internet legal paradigms. It's way past time for regulation and legislation of digital liberties.
The 2nd amendment in the US didn't account for nuclear weapons. The war on drugs and the current global legal system around drugs didn't account for human nature and civil liberty. Section 230 and phone companies and cable TV aren't concepts that map properly to the modern internet, and we'll probably see radical changes at an increasing rate. Nailing down basic things like digital privacy rights, penalizing surveillance, rewarding innovation and fixing patents and copyright are crucial, but apparently it doesn't test well, so nobody is fundraising for that platform.
Canada is not bad, but things can break down rapidly. Trudeau will fail on the side of authoritarian control, so any actual damage resulting from that should be fodder for debate on refining the system and protection from abuse. And if no damage is done, recognizing and reinforcing the fail-safe structures in government is probably necessary.
What a wild straw man argument. On the one hand, I generally agree with you. On the other hand, I am fairly confident I wouldn't trust anyone to decide for me what limits there are on "revision or excision of bad ideas".
So much of what you argue for relies on trust- trust that we are all working towards a common goal, primarily. However, there really doesn't seem to be a clear path forward when both sides assume the other side is arguing in bad faith.
I'm not aware of any military that deploys a precision marksman without a spotter. That makes a precision rifle a two-soldier job. .50 caliber machine gun? two, maybe three boots? Squads will have members with DMRs or LMGs but they aren't suitable for the same task -- they just extend the capabilities of the squad.
Extend that to thinks like fighter jets, nukes, comms, etc. etc. and the actual threat of any of those is drastically reduced outside the crazy people do crazy things category of events, and even then, you're going to need a big group of crazy people.
The replacement and actual threat already exists and was popularized in the Middle East in the 70s and arrived here in the 90s but it isn't sensational but I'm not confident I wouldn't end up on yet-another-watch-list by saying it explicitly. So, yay, freedom.
This is the mainstream prescription since there has been bellyaching about the woes of the age (i.e. forever, or provably, since the invention of writing).
One idea that I think is more interesting is Machievelli's - he pointed out that the Roman state was at its most dynamic and powerful when it was locked in permanent internal contradiction: between the landless and landed.
One can easily carry the analogy along. The 60's, in its time, was seen as a moment of social disintegration and civilizational collapse. In retrospect however, we can see that an america that had not had the 60's would be a scary, oppressive place, a perpetual 1955 of the human soul.
Or, to others, a nightmare.
Only one was an embarrassed Southerner. The rest were nonplussed or outright angry that the article and confessions were published. There are black people alive today who were alive then, it hasn’t been that long.
The 1950s were not nightmarish for anybody actually living in them. Racial minorities, though still mistreated, were mistreated a heck of a lot less than in decades prior and had much more economic opportunity though they were starting from lower on the ladder on average than white people.
That economic opportunity is what everyone wants back.
The fact that you can consider the 1950s in the US a "nightmarish historical moment" is nonsensical, to put it very, very charitably.
Well, you can go upthread and read about the lynching of Emmet Till, or familiarize yourself with any of the many ways in which the Jim Crow laws were formally and informally enforced. You can look at the photograph of Emmet Till, even, before or after he was lynched.
Maybe you have thicker skin than I, but I think living in a community where you could be brutally killed for any or no reason, and knowing that your killers would not be convicted, is a nightmare.
Funny you mention that. I was this >< close to preempting your comment by mentioning him but figured I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.
Ask yourself, why do you even know Till's name? Why did Till's killing spark national outrage when 20yr later that would have gotten barely a peep out of people? Because times changed and that kind of behavior was no longer excusable.
>but I think living in a community where you could be brutally killed for any or no reason...
Till was killed for violating social norms (that he presumably was not sufficiently aware of). His death was no different than that of a peasant 1000yr earlier killed for bad mouthing a local lord. It's tragic. But it wasn't without reason, though we may think the reason flimsy and disagreeable.
And this time I am going to head off the inevitable reply by pointing out that I am not defending or justifying Till's killers, just explaining the context.
Those who fail to understand history...
You are defending them; your 'context' is simply how these particular murderers justified their actions. The real context is that white people could kill black people with impunity. The context is not that black people kept on making mistakes.
People still felt the need to propose an anti-lynching law in 2020 [0] so maybe lynchings are an ongoing problem. There isn't anything to argue about without actual evidence.
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/anti-lynching-bill...
This particular lynching was obviously not the only proof of this reality in the decade.
Given the frequency of folks literally marching around with Confederate and Nazi flags, you've overstated your case here. Perhaps that's what you want, but there's a significant movement in support of a white ethnostate. That movement has representation in the Republican party, and for example Tucker Carlson is wont to voice its talking points and his show is one of the most watched on cable TV.
Pretending that racism was just a blip in the past and not a present and ongoing problem, or ignoring it because it didn't impact your parents, is at best naive. The Emmet Till case was a stark reminder to Black Americans that their lives were worthless in the eyes of the law and the white citizens who had the power to change it. To call that event terrorizing is not remotely a stretch.
I doubt people in the '50s thought "we are evil and we enjoy being evil so we shall be evil". If you read contemporary magazines and newspapers they actually thought they were quite modern and progressive. And why not? 1955 was as modern in 1955 as 2022 is today. It's only in retrospect that it looks backward and barbaric.
Many things that were seen as modern and progressive then are looked on in horror now (lobotomy, gay conversion therapy, insulin coma therapy, using asbestos in cigarette filters, segregation, redlining, anti-miscegenation laws, blacklisting communists, anti-sodomy laws, many others).
What will the list of "Oh my god can you even BELIEVE people did that?" look like in a couple of generations? I've got some ideas but they're almost certainly wrong because I can't see the future any more clearly than the 1950s people could. I would however bet my life savings that some of the values held by all right thinking decent people now will be seen as abhorrent in 70 years. I just can't tell you which ones. Conversely some things seen as shocking now, stuff that will get you ostracized from polite society, will be believed by all right thinking decent people in 2092. Again I can't tell you which ones (nor do I think it will even be related to race, disability, or LGBTQ+). But this does seem to be the pattern.
To be clear I am not saying consensus views were more right then, or that we are wrong now, or that I wish X, Y, or Z thing would make a comeback. I'm just saying I don't think we've finished history yet and we should wait till history is over before patting ourselves on the back.
Populism is democracy. That's what anti-populists hate about it: the idea that a simple majority can get its way.
Wrong. A democracy, at least a functioning and legitimate one, is not judged by enacting the will of the majority, but by protecting the rights of the minority.
Something to the effect of "Democracy is the idea that the common man knows what he wants, and deserves to get it, good and hard."
If a group of people, in a free and fair election, decide to elect in radical, repressive Islamists, is that not democracy functioning as intended?
Allowing everyone else to participate and weigh the totality of needs and wants is what makes democracy different.
Same misconception about what armed and regulated militia is. Its' Federal commanded state national guard units not individuals.
The principles don't have to be mine, and they don't need to be political, even. It's even possible with something silly... "America has the best fucking apples on the planet, and we're goddamn proud of that. Everything we strive and suffer for is for the best goddamn apple pie in human history, and if you wanna take that, you can pry it from our cold dead hands. "
Right now, we're socially fractured in every way possible to fracture under the threshold of combat, and even that is failing in some places.
We better figure out what it means to be American before there's no point to it, or before it fails so badly that continuing as an American means fatally corrupting any principles or ideals we claim to hold.
There are ideas for seasteads and crypto-nations that I find compelling, but I'm not a utopian. I think the Constitution is something admirable and the ideals are structurally important for any notion of liberty going forward in history. I hope that America finds its way back to some sort of cohesion but I don't see any paths toward anything resembling unity.
That feels accurate. The next question then becomes, how will that play and/or be exploited in the USA, it's neighbor.
Let's, for a moment, presume there are entities within the USA that would welcome the opportunity. Now back to Canada...how much outside (i.e., USA based) influence is being exerted on the situation in Canada to tilt things towards the authoritarian?
This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a simple extrapolation of history. Let's not be naive.
I think this feels "new" to Americans because it's on our border, and because Canada looks more like the US and is assumed to be more stable and less prone to authoritarian emergency measures than e.g. Venezuela or Argentina. But similarly extreme and extra-judicial banking controls have been implemented by other governments in the hemisphere when authoritarian left-wing parties in power feel threatened by right-wing populist movements they believe are at least partly sponsored by America.
Why? Canada already has a strong conservative movement, and NAFTA makes it damn easy for US-based companies to do as they please.
This reeks of the same forces that got Trump elected. Which would be a mix of billionaires, Russian money, and anyone who has an axe to grind against Canada, e.g. China (for the Huawei, et al, conflicts).
It's difficult to understand where the legit events ends and the outside influence begins. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's simply how these things work, with so many chef's in the kitchen (and that in general, the media can't be trusted).
It's complicated.
You could have provided a helpful link to said act. I would like to read it.
Although I do want to comment on the 30 days thing - this protest isn't that special. If a majority of politicians think it is appropriate to freeze people out of the banking system now, why will they have changed their mind in 30 days? This is going to be a routine response.
The specifics aren't exactly new (governments have been able to go after bank accounts for a long time) but the idea that it can be done on a mass scale is one of the most powerful arguments for crypto that I've ever seen. There is now a risk of being debanked for having the wrong sort of political opinions! These tactics are a horrific assault on the principles of liberty.
It isn't really the crux of the argument, but there are already concerning stories of it being abused [0]. Given the trend of dehumanising political opponents, it is easy how stories like this become less of a 1-off and people would still be making positive murmurings.
[0] https://bc.ctvnews.ca/social-media-post-from-b-c-politician-...
Not a risk, a reality.
So now the shoe is firmly on the other foot, and I can't help but wonder if folks will finally realize that disruptive protests are a necessary component of democracy, or if we're just going to keep going in circles because the entrenched politicians stay in power when their voter bases are at eachothers' throats.
It's so much more exciting to believe the government is freezing the accounts of political opponents than the boring facts about how crowd funding hasn't been subject to normal anti-fraud and anti-terrorism regulations.
I suspect most people commenting haven't even read the act. It's actually very short and would take you less time than reading this article. One should entirely get hung up on the text of the act -- it outlines exactly what is possible and the consequences. It's actually very reasonable but point that out doesn't produce enough outrage up votes or get articles published.