597
submitted 11 months ago by MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

Other right-wing accounts variously reacted by describing the move as Orwellian, lamenting the death of free speech and even contemplating leaving Canada for good.

Oh no. Not that. Please no.

<Tee hee!>

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That train of thought doesn't make sense. "We need to pass this new law because [gestures at this case] existing laws already work"? If anyone were trying to drum up public support, they would want cases where people got away with it, and this ain't it.

I might also add that if everyone is misunderstanding what you're trying to say here, you're either not explaining it very clearly or your theory simply doesn't stand up.

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

That’s my entire point. Existing laws work.

But yet they’ll say “there’s so much of this that we need new laws”

In fact if you Google it, they’re trying to push new ones through now. Coincidence? Maybe.

So since you’re right, the argument doesn’t make sense, why do you believe that the following proposed laws exist?

https://globalnews.ca/news/10178476/liberals-online-harms-bill-not-regulating-speech/

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Two things can both be true without one being caused by the other.

  1. Current laws work
  2. The Liberals are trying to enact laws that excessively curtail privacy, similar to those in the UK

This doesn't mean that 2 is caused by 1 or that they have anything to do with each other at all. Not everything has to play into some grand conspiracy. If anything, this case severely undermines the Liberals' position.

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

We have an agreement!

This current case undermines the suggestion that new laws are needed.

I would agree that the two are unrelated, but I’ve found that all too often one is used as a false stepping stone to the other.

The classic “won’t someone please think of the children!” Argument.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

If I may make a suggestion, I would approach future discussions by pointing to this case as a good thing for privacy, since it shows we don't need to implement draconian measures like the Liberal proposal in order to prosecute crimes. Your negative framing here is what threw others off track.

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Noted.

I still maintain that this article is meaningless rage-bait designed to garner support for new laws.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

I genuinely believe the opposite is true. Anybody opposing those laws should wave this in the Liberals' faces. "See? The system already works."

[-] ArbiterXero@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I hope you’re right.

this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
597 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7202 readers
288 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS