|
by blackwater 12/05/2016, 8:39pm PST |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I am certainly confused. The essay starts off preaching about how the eeeevil Canadian government is trying to infringe the country's freedom of the press by saying "no comment" to reporters (?). Then it tries to make some kind of distinction between freedom of the press and freedom of expression, which is never really spelled out, but is kind of hinted at. Wink wink, nudge nudge.
Apparently, in the next few paragraphs, the government has flipped from being eeeevil to being good, and now needs to protect us from freedom of expression. Because unfettered freedom of expression could lead to things like.... dum dum dum.... DONALD TRUMP.
Is "freedom of expression" Canadian for "freedom of speech"? There's some shit in there about Holocaust deniers, so I guess we're talking about freedom of speech again? And it's a bad thing, because of hate speech.
And then there's this: "When the government monitors our free speech, the way it is supposed to, it helps protect people from hateful attitudes and behaviours. When our laws are applied as they were intended, it’s a sign our democracy is still in working order... Over in the United States, Donald Trump openly mocked a disabled reporter. But here in Canada, thankfully, we’re still on the lookout for injustices like this."
So government monitoring is needed. So we can have all the freedom. And stay on the lookout for social injustices! Like incorrect pronouns. Or people making totally incorrect comparisons to 1984.
Is this kind of thinking actually mainstream in Canada? I'm asking for real. I am so old now, that I don't even understand what comes out of people's mouths when politics comes up. I also think Canada has always had a slightly different view about freedom of the press and speech than here in the US. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|