Categorizing a political position according to some simple left-right scale of values leaves something to be desired. Political views cover such a wide variety of issues that it is impossible to describe adequately any one person merely by identifying where he sits on a lone horizontal line.
Use of the single left-right scale makes impossible a satisfactory description of libertarian (and classical-liberal) attitudes toward government. Libertarians oppose not only government direction of economic affairs, but also government meddling in the personal lives of peaceful people. Does this opposition make libertarians “rightists” (because they promote free enterprise) or “leftists” (because they oppose government meddling in people’s private affairs)? As a communications tool, the left-right distinction suffers acute anemia.
Nevertheless, despite widespread dissatisfaction with the familiar left-right — “liberal-conservative” — lingo, such use continues. One reason for its durability is convenience. Never mind that all-important nuances are ignored when describing someone as being, say, “to the right of Richard Nixon” or “to the left of Lyndon Johnson”. The description takes only seconds and doesn’t tax the attention of nightly news audiences.
Don Boudreaux, “Coercivists and Voluntarists”, The Freeman, 1997-08-01.
April 15, 2020
QotD: The limited utility of the “left-right” scale in political debate
April 9, 2020
You know you’re entering a police state when the police can just make up new “laws” to enforce
I was surprised to see the name of someone I used to work with pop up in a story about over-enthusiastic enforcement of imaginary “laws” in the Ottawa area:
On Tuesday, the City of Ottawa’s bylaw enforcement team tweeted out an important clarification to a recent news report: An Orléans man had not been and would not be issued a $700 ticket for “playing soccer with his son in an empty field.” Rather, the city maintains, he had only been issued a “verbal warning” for playing soccer with his son in an empty field.
One can understand the Orléans man’s confusion. As David Martinek told it to the Ottawa Citizen, he was kicking around a ball with his four-year-old son William, who has autism and “more energy than needed to power the City of Ottawa,” when a bylaw officer arrived, took note of his licence plate and mentioned the $700 figure. He quite logically expected a summons in the mail.
The good news, such as it is, is that Martinek is no poorer to the tune of $700 (though he could have crowdfunded that in about 90 seconds). The remarkable thing about the city’s clarification, however, is that it actually paints a more offensive picture. A ticket is something you can fight — and such a ticket would deserve to be fought unto its demise, because Martinek doesn’t seem to have been doing anything illegal. As such, the “verbal warning” serves only as intimidation against a harmless, indeed beneficial activity.
The City of Ottawa’s website lays out the “rules and restrictions” in force due to COVID-19. It notes that bylaw officers have been empowered to enforce Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. Regulation 104/20, made under said act, orders the closure of “outdoor recreational amenities that are intended for use by more than one family.”
It defines “outdoor recreational amenities” as off-leash dog parks, community and allotment gardens, “all portions of park and recreational areas containing outdoor fitness equipment,” “all outdoor playgrounds, play structures and equipment,” “all outdoor picnic sites, benches and shelters in park and recreational areas,” and “all outdoor sports facilities and multi-use fields, including baseball diamonds; soccer fields; frisbee golf locations; tennis, platform tennis, table tennis and pickleball courts; basketball courts; BMX parks; and skate parks.”
Considerable thought went into those very thorough prohibitions, you will agree. Yet they conspicuously do not prohibit two members of the same household kicking a ball around. Martinek says he questioned the bylaw officer as to whether they were on city parkland, but there’s nothing in the act prohibiting intra-household kick-arounds in parks or anywhere else. “Nothing in this order precludes individuals from walking through or using portions of park and recreational areas that are not otherwise closed and that do not contain an outdoor recreational amenity described,” the regulation reads.
April 6, 2020
The Precautionary Principle – “If it saves only one life…”
A guest post at Catallaxy Files on the madness of taking the Precautionary Principle as your guide:
Slide from a presentation by Patti Gettinger, 2011-07-11.
Original slideshow at https://fr.slideshare.net/regsgridlock/the-precautionary-principle-8656034
In the unprecedented trampling of rights characterised by the response to the global pandemic of COVID-19, the common justification is that it will save lives, as though no measure is too great to save even one life.
This has echoes of the Precautionary Principle, which has pushed aside ubiquitous risk management principles in such areas as climate change, invariably to justify unlimited spending which risk management principles would otherwise limit. In other words, it’s a principle which can be used to justify any measure. And here we are.
One fundamental difference between the competing principles is the concept of marginal benefit, which, simply put, is the point where the benefits of an action no longer outweighs the cost. Our new “rules” from the newly formed National Cabinet, of which no legal or constitutional standing exists, has far surpassed the point of marginal benefit.
A person fishing off the coast alone in a small boat is in breach of the rules, as is a person playing golf alone, or a person sunbathing on a rock in the outback, yet in none of these examples can any measurable likelihood of spreading it or catching the disease be identified. These situations would fail any risk management approach, but not the Precautionary principle. Any risk, that is, any potential risk that can not be confidently identified as absolute zero, is a risk not worth taking, but that is not how we live our lives, because we understand that everything involves risk. Driving a car, catching public transport, having a job, not having a job, leaving your house or indeed staying in it involves some level of risk.
Also central to risk management is the concept of mitigation; the potential actions that can reduce, transfer or eliminate identified risks. In the case of COVID-19, many mitigation measures have been identified, and implemented. Such mitigations implemented are travel bans (belatedly), banning large crowds (belatedly), temperature screenings, washing hands, social distancing, pandemic announcements (belatedly, again), face masks (very belatedly), and fit-for-purpose hospitals (you guessed it). All of these easily demonstrate a benefit greater than worst-case scenario costs, yet after being bystanders for weeks, leaders across the globe then overreacted far beyond the demonstrable benefits. At least benefits to us.
March 30, 2020
QotD: Free speech is the safety valve we must not eliminate
The system might have moved the downtrodden from those “exploited” by the industrial revolution, to “minorities” “third world people” and people with interesting colorations — mostly because the “exploited” workers kept rising up in the world and spitting in the eye of Marx, the ungrateful bastages — but it’s totally still true and the way of the future. Even if it requires conceptualizing a future where no one works and everything is free, since they’ve now tossed the “workers” out of their ideal society. (Again, ungrateful bastages who don’t know how “good” the intellectuals are for them.) But it is totally the future!
So all those people who say that it’s still spinach and to hell with it? They’re just trying to destroy the train of happiness leading to the station of utopia.
Which means they must be silenced. If they’re just silenced, then the system will work fine, and everyone will be happy and joyful.
So the latest attack is on free speech. Because free speech can be hurty and say things the left doesn’t want to hear. Bad bad free speech must be stopped.
They already have laws against “hate speech” or “harassment”, which according to a comment here is “saying something I don’t like more than once” in most of the world.
The US is holding fast in our unreasonable devotion to the first amendment which irks the left as much as our devotion to the second. Don’t we understand that bad speech hurts people? And leads to bad think?
In any institution they control, from companies code of conduct to deplatforming people on twitter, to Google strangling hits to dissenting blogs, etc, they are already silencing that nasty, evil feedback.
Because if only they don’t hear the whistles of rising steam, the engine will never explode.
Cotton stuffed in their ears, they keep feeding more coal to the engine of public opinion and stopping up the steam vents.
The end of this is what happened to Ceausescu and his repulsive wife: “Beloved leader of the morning, pile of cooling, bullet riddled meat in the afternoon.”
But they don’t see it. They’re convinced if they just stop the feedback, the machine will work fine.
And they’re going to take all of us into the explosion. Mind you, in the end we win, they lose, but it’s going to get very rough there for a while.
Unfortunately when dealing with true believers, there’s nothing you can do but let them utterly prove their system wrong, before sane people can build again.
Sarah Hoyt, “Breaking the Gears”, According to Hoyt, 2018-01-03.
March 14, 2020
“The people who write such things are thinking with their epidermis and genitalia, which is to say they’re not thinking at all”
In Quillette, Matt Johnson remembers the great anti-identitarian writer and speaker, Christopher Hitchens:
Christopher Hitchens speaking at The Amaz!ng Meeting held at the Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada on 20 January 2007.
Photo detail by ensceptico via Wikimedia Commons.
Hitchens thought fearlessly. As Martin Amis put it, he liked “the battle, the argument, the smell of cordite.” This is why he told the publisher of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything to organize a book tour that ran through the pulpits of the American South instead of remaining confined to the coasts. It’s why he relished every opportunity to lambaste Bill and Hillary Clinton in front of liberal audiences. It’s why he went after Mother Teresa and Princess Diana. He was an inveterate iconoclast — if there was a bloated reputation to puncture or a cherished dogma to deflate, he saw it as a duty and a pleasure to do so.
It’s no surprise that this oppositional inclination, coupled with blistering rhetorical ability, made Hitchens a deadly debater. After his death in December 2011, countless tributes and articles about Hitchens emphasized what a force he was in the studio and on the debate stage — his erudition and wit, his fluency, his seemingly superhuman memory. Hitchens is unforgettable for all these reasons, but people don’t miss him because he could turn a phrase or win an argument on CNN — they miss him because he thought for himself and refused to apologize for it. He didn’t want to write and speak as the representative of a community: “My own opinion is enough for me,” he told the audience at a debate on free speech in 2007, “and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority.”
“Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban,” Orwell wrote in his original introduction to Animal Farm (which was, ironically, suppressed). He continued: “Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.” While there was far more official censorship in Orwell’s time, we’re living through an era of pervasive self-censorship, and as Packer explains, this type of silencing is “more insidious than the state-imposed kind, because it’s a surer way of killing the impulse to think, which requires an unfettered mind.”
[…]
Hitchens detested tribal and parochial feelings of any kind, which is why he was dismayed when he witnessed the emergence of identity as a catalyst for political mobilization in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In his memoir, Hitch-22, Hitchens attacked radicals who thought it was “enough to be a member of a sex or gender, or epidermal subdivision, or even erotic ‘preference,’ to qualify as a revolutionary.” When Hitchens first heard the expression “the personal is political,” he knew “as one does from the utterance of any sinister bullshit that it was — cliché is arguably forgivable here — very bad news.” As he put it in a 2008 article:
People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of ‘race’ or ‘gender’ alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason.
It’s easy to imagine what Hitchens would have thought about a recent New York Times headline that declared “The Next President Should Not Be a Man” or a prominent writer and activist who announced that she “will not support white male candidates in the Dem primary.” The people who write such things are thinking with their epidermis and genitalia, which is to say they’re not thinking at all. You don’t have to bother defending candidates’ principles and positions when gender and race are the only relevant variables.
March 12, 2020
QotD: Cryptocurrency versus cash in a modern economy
If you try to deposit it in the bank, they will file a report, and you will shortly be explaining to the government where that money came from. Unless you have a good explanation, you will then be desperately trying to hire a lawyer in order to avoid a trip to the pokey.
Nor can you simply buy a house or a car with that cash, which will raise many, many eyebrows at the bank, and then at the government that bank reports to. You basically can’t make any large purchase in cash without raising a lot of questions. This is why drug dealers spend so much effort figuring out how to launder their ill-gotten gains. Unless you can find some way to put the money in a bank without the government getting suspicious, then all you have, in the words of Jason Bateman’s character, is (approximately) “groceries and gas for the rest of your life.”
And that’s dollars, which are indisputably legal tender. Your cryptocurrency will be even harder to spend. Who wants to trade you legal cash for scrip that’s only good for buying on the black market? How do you find that person? What discount will they demand for giving up their cash?
Bitcoin is currently good for transferring money out of failing states like Venezuela, because in those places, the local currency is so worthless that you’re better off trading it for bitcoin, or for that matter, cans of mackerel. But that presumes there are countries elsewhere with stable governments and strong economies where bitcoins can be turned into real goods. If bitcoins become a good way to evade those governments, those governments will ban them, and desperate people will go back to smuggling diamonds and dollars.
Megan McArdle, “Bitcoin Is an Implausible Currency”, Bloomberg View, 2017-12-27.
March 7, 2020
QotD: “Jim Crow” laws
Now, there is a debate as to the intent and the effect of these laws, mostly because the Left has re-imagined that period in American history. The official version of the Civil Rights era is a fantasy with little connection to reality. What is not under dispute is that these laws existed and they had a negative impact on blacks. Black institutions did not receive public support. Blacks were denied access to the legal system, which often denied them justice when the victims of white malfeasance.
The best argument against these sorts of laws is that they created a second class of citizens, as a legal construct. You cannot have democracy if you have second class citizens, as democracy assumes all men being equal before the law. If the effect of Jim Crow was separate and equal, then maybe they would fit into democracy. In reality, they were separate and unequal, even accounting for the differences in the races. Therefore, as a legal construct, they violated the ideal of equality before the law.
The Z Man, “The Jim Snow Laws”, The Z Blog, 2019-12-01.
February 27, 2020
Toby Young’s Free Speech Union (FSU)
Brendan O’Neill explains why Toby Young’s FSU is so important right now:
The beautiful thing about the mad reaction to Toby Young’s Free Speech Union (FSU) is that it proves why the union is so necessary. No sooner had Young unveiled his censorship-busting union than the illiberal liberals were out in force to mock it and ridicule it and to insist that, actually, there is no free-speech crisis in the UK. It’s a right-wing myth, they claim. There is no widespread censorship. People aren’t being shipped off to gulags for expressing an opinion. Apparently, the free-speech “grift” – God, I hate the word “grift” – is just a bunch of pale, male and stale blokes pissed off that they can no longer say the N-word or talk openly about women’s boobs. Freedom of speech is not under threat, the Young-bashers claim, and anyone who says it is is probably just an Islamophobe, transphobe or some other breed of phobe itching to spout bile with “no consequences”.
This rank denialism, this blinkered insistence that free speech is not in danger in 21st-century Britain, is exactly why we need the FSU and as broad a discussion as possible about the importance of the liberty to express oneself. Because the fact that so many inhabitants of the chattering-class bubble can’t even see that free speech is dying right now confirms how naturalised and uncontroversial the new censorship has become. They don’t even see it as censorship. They see it as perfectly normal, and good, in fact, that certain views cannot be expressed in public life or on social media. That’s how cavalier the new war on heretical opinion has become. At least in the past, from Torquemada to the McCarthyites, authoritarians were honest about being censors. Today’s self-elected moral guardians of correct opinion are so hubristic, so taken with their own mortal rectitude, that they don’t even see themselves as enemies of freedom, but rather as decent, unimpeachable maintainers of a natural intellectual order.
Things have come to such a pass that these people will literally seek to censor you in one breath and then express alarm at being called censors in the next breath. Hence the Guardian could publish a piece last week claiming that the idea that there is a culture of censorship in British universities is a “right-wing myth” while simultaneously defending censorship on campus. In an act of extraordinary moral contortionism, Evan Smith mocked the “idea that there is a free-speech crisis at British universities” and then, without missing a beat, he defended the policy of No Platform and the creation of safe spaces because “the university cannot be a place where racism and fascism – as well as sexism, homophobia and transphobia – are allowed to be expressed”. The Orwellianism is staggering. “There is no censorship on campus. Except the censorship I approve of. Which is not really censorship.” That is what is being said here. The intellectual dishonesty is almost impressive.
This Orwellian denialism of the existence of censorship by people who actually support and enact censorship cuts to the heart of the free-speech crisis in the UK. The reason the illiberal liberals and woke McCarthyites and Twittermobs don’t consider themselves to be censors – even as they gleefully agitate for the censorship of feminists, secularists worried about Islamist extremism, and right-wing people opposed to mass immigration – is because they have convinced themselves that certain forms of speech are not free speech. That certain beliefs should not be afforded the liberty of expression. You hear it in their telling, baleful mantra that “Hate speech is not free speech”. And if “hate speech” is not free speech, but rather some kind of toxin, a pox on public life, then crushing it is not censorship. It is more like an act of public health: cleansing the public realm of diseased thoughts that are liable to harm certain groups. These people see themselves not as censors, but as public-health activists delousing the community of germs spread by evil men and women.
February 24, 2020
QotD: Not the village, not the family … the individual
The conservatives reply, “No, it does not take a village; it takes a family.”
Both sides are wrong. It takes an individual. It takes an individual to accomplish even modest goals. It takes a special kind of individual to accomplish great things. More often than not, individuals accomplish what they do in spite of the family, or in spite of the village.
It takes an individual to think, conceptualize, plan, and create. It takes an individual to rise above mediocrity, fear, and toward new discoveries.
“Families” do not work, study, and make a living. Individuals do. “Villages” do not discover electricity, or cure terrible diseases. Individuals do. Families and villages are not mystical entities. The are comprised of individuals. It is the brightest, and most creative, of those individuals upon whom the family and village depend.
Michael J. Hurd, “It Takes An Individual”, Capitalism Magazine, 2005-08-11.
February 19, 2020
Christopher Hitchens – Why Orwell Matters
TheHitchensArchive
Published 24 Apr 2013October 21, 2002. Christopher Hitchens giving a speech based on his book about George Orwell at The Commonwealth Club.
February 13, 2020
QotD: Libertarianism
Dierdre Nansen McCloskey, Why Liberalism Works: How true Liberal values produce a freer, more equal, properous world for all, 2019.
February 11, 2020
Leaving the Left – Part 9: PJ O’Rourke
Economics in the Media
Published 18 Aug 2016“When I got my first paycheck I found that I netted $82.27 after federal income tax, state income tax, city income tax, Social Security, union dues, and pension fund contribution. I was a communist. I had protested for communism. I had rioted for communism. Then I got a capitalist job and found out we had communism already.”
– The Baby Boom, PJ O’RourkeParliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government
Full Interview with Peter Robinson
https://youtu.be/keJYIkxbieg
February 5, 2020
Free speech and social media
In Spiked, Brendan O’Neill says that even people who say racist things should not be censored on social media:
Katie Hopkins is a racist. Anyone who hadn’t already gleaned that from her dalliances with the vile race-baiters of Generation Identity types or her use of the word “cockroaches” in a column about immigrants will surely see it now following the speech she made at a phoney awards ceremony in Prague. Internet pranksters invited Hopkins to accept the Campaign to Unite the Nation Trophy (CUNT), during which Hopkins made a speech filled with racist epithets. She mocked Pakistani speech patterns. She compared Asians to epileptics. She described Muslims as retards who rape their mothers. She said that if you shout “Mohammed” in a British playground, thousands of “fucking” kids will come running, and “you don’t want any of them”. Vile, hateful stuff.
And yet Hopkins should not be banned. She should not be thrown off social media. Censorship is not the right solution to any problem, including prejudicial or hateful commentary. Last week, Hopkins, to the delight of the illiberal liberals who make up the commentariat and cultural elite in the UK, had her Twitter account suspended. Reportedly at the behest of Countdown host and campaigner against anti-Semitism Rachel Riley, and the chief exec of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, Twitter erased all of Hopkins’ tweets and prevented her from accessing her account. People are celebrating this as a victory of decency over hatred; in truth, it is a victory of corporate power over freedom of speech.
[…]
That’s the thing: once you empower Twitter and other capitalist-founded platforms to decree who may speak and who may not, you are green-lighting a sweeping, global system of censorship. Both right-wing libertarians and left-wing radicals, ironically, say the same thing in response to this concern. They say, “Well, Twitter and the rest are private companies, so surely they have the right to say who can and cannot use their services”. It is predictable that the myopic libertarian right would so cavalierly elevate powerful corporations’ property rights over the free-speech rights of individuals – but to hear leftists do that is alarming. Clearly, their woke intolerance, their urge to censor everyone they disagree with, has now gone so far that they will happily empower unaccountable capitalists over ordinary people and give a nod of approval to the corporate control of public discussion.
And then there is the more difficult part of this discussion. Even if Hopkins had said genuinely racist things on Twitter – as she did in her Prague speech and has also done elsewhere – still she should not be censored. One of the many great things about freedom of speech is that it allows us to see what people really think. And that is empowering. It means that the rest of us – the potential audience to an individual’s speech – can use our intelligence and our principle to counter that speech, to criticise it, to ridicule it, to prove it wrong. Freedom of speech doesn’t only empower the speaker. It also empowers the audience. It allows us to exercise our moral judgement. Censorship, in contrast – whether it’s state censorship or corporate censorship – is fundamentally infantilising. It insults us and demeans us by blocking words and images on our behalf, as if we were children. It weakens our moral muscles and intellectual savvy by discouraging us from ever thinking for ourselves. Well, why should we, when wise people in government or Silicon Valley will think for us?
Katie Hopkins should be reinstated on Twitter. Not because she has anything of value to say, but for these three reasons. 1) Everyone, even objectionable people, must have the right to express themselves. That is the entire nature of freedom of speech. If we limit free speech, for any reason whatsoever, then it isn’t free speech at all. It is licensed speech, something gifted to us by officialdom or capitalism so long as we say things they find acceptable. 2) We, the audience, must have the right to hear all ideas and to decide for ourselves if they are good or bad. Anything else is just pure, foul paternalism that turns us from thinking citizens into overgrown children who must be protected from difficult ideas. 3) Corporate censorship is as bad as state censorship. Calling on powerful people or rich people to police the parameters of acceptable thought, and to expel anyone who says something bad, is a catastrophically erroneous thing to do. Trust people, not power; prefer freedom over control.
“On this issue, Canada’s two solitudes could hardly be more starkly apparent”
Chris Selley on the vastly different reaction from Quebec media to the Trudeau government’s notion to turn the country’s news organizations into a modern version of Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda apparatus, pumping out approved-by-the-Liberals story lines:
On Sunday, when CTV’s Evan Solomon pushed Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault on the issue of issuing journalism licences to foreign media outlets, Guilbeault eventually just shrugged: “I’m not sure I see what the big deal is.”
Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, 3 February 2020.
Screencapture from CPAC video.The minister tried to walk it back on Monday, but the fact is many of his fellow Quebecers will also struggle to discern a big deal. There is simply much more tolerance of this sort of cultural gatekeeping among francophone Quebecers than in the Rest of Canada, and the tolerance extends well into the realm of journalism.
“In reading the (report’s) 260 pages and 97 recommendations, one word comes to mind” Sunday’s editorial in La Presse gushed: “Finally!”
Opposition to government regulation of journalism is firmly entrenched not just in anglophone Canada, but across the anglosphere. When the 2011 Leveson Inquiry proposed the British government create a powerful new press regulator, nearly every major outlet rejected the idea. Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator, famously vowed the magazine “will not attend its meetings, pay its fines nor heed its menaces.”
The same year, Laval University professor Dominique Payette’s report into Quebec’s struggling news media recommended the government legislate a “professional journalist” designation. The province’s largest journalists’ trade organization and the Quebec Press Council happily sat down with the government to bash out a power-sharing agreement on deciding who’s a proper journalist and who isn’t.
The English-language Montreal Gazette was dead-set against the idea, but Le Devoir called it a “logical outcome.” (The power-sharing discussions eventually fell apart, and the idea died a merciful death.)
February 4, 2020
CRTC regulating the internet – “Nobody elsewhere is proposing anything like it, and for good reason: because it’s insane”
Ted Campbell suggests that the Canadian government most recent brainfart is a “Tea Party moment” for Canadians:
One commentator on social media dubbed this […] the moment when Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault said that the Trudeau regime plans to license news websites as a “Boston Tea Pary moment.”
N. Currier. Destruction of tea at Boston Harbor, 1846. [New York: N. Currier]
Retrieved from the Library of Congress – https://www.loc.gov/item/91795889/She was referring to the protest, in December of 1773, when angry American colonists (many dressed as Native Americans to try and hide their true identities) dumped several hundred chests of tea, imported by the East India Company, into Boston harbour to protest the taxes, on almost everything, that had been imposed, by Westminster to pay for the Seven Years War. Westminster felt it was only fair to tax the colonists equally, along with the people of the British Isles, because much of the war, called the French-Indian War, now, by Americans, was fought to protect them and their vital commercial interests. The American colonists disagreed, many on the principle that they should not be taxed without being represented in parliament. We know where it all ended.
It’s a good question. Most commentators seem to agree with me that the Trudeau regime has seriously overreached in supporting the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel’s recommendations that, somehow, the distribution of “news” should be regulated by the government. That is a far, far greater intrusion into the liberty of free Canadian citizens than a tax on staples was to Americans in 1773.
Andrew Coyne, writing in the Globe and Mail, opines that “The whole thing is just breathtaking – a regulatory power grab without precedent, either in Canada or the democratic world. Nobody elsewhere is proposing anything like it, and for good reason: because it’s insane. This kind of bureaucratic micromanagement, with its obsession with ‘cultural sovereignty’ and ‘telling ourselves our own stories,’ would have been hopelessly outdated in 1990. In 2020, it’s just embarrassing.” He’s right to use the word “insane,” ~ the proposal is quite possibly unconstitutional, just for a start, it is, certainly based on a deeply mistaken idea of what the internet actually is ~ and he’s equally right to say that every Canadian who doesn’t, actively, protest against this must be embarrassed because each is, for no good reason at all that I can see, supporting a proposal that makes Canada less, far less, of a liberal democracy and more like Ethiopia and Senegal (both with scores below 6.0, the threshold for a Flawed Democracy in the well regarded Economist Intelligence Unit’s latest democracy index) where he will visit this week … perhaps to learn from the leaders of authoritarian regimes what his next steps should be to embarrass Canada further.
Michael Geist on the jaw-dropping performance of Trudeau’s Canadian Heritage Minister last weekend:
In June 2017, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage committee recommended implementing tax on Internet services in a report on media. Within minutes, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was asked about the proposal at a press conference in Montreal. Trudeau’s answer – which literally came as committee chair Hedy Fry was holding a press conference on the report – was unequivocal: No. The government was not going to raise costs of Internet services with an ISP tax. The committee recommendation was minutes old and the government wasted absolutely no time in killing the proposal.
Last week, the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel proposed a far broader regulatory vision for the Internet. Indeed, it is difficult to give the full breadth of this plan its due. I will be posting this week on some of the most harmful aspects of the plan, including regulating media organizations around the world with penalties in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for failing to obtain licences, regulating streaming companies despite their massive investment in Canada, regulating everything from app stores to operating systems, creating liability for harmful content that violates Canada’s commitments in the USMCA, undermining net neutrality, and increasing the costs of Internet-based services for Canadian consumers.
Over the weekend, Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault was asked about the proposal. In particular, he was asked about the proposal to licence foreign news sites (the example used was Breitbart but it could just as easily have been the New York Times, BBC, CNN, Fox or MSNBC). The answer should have been easy: no.
Instead of “no”, Minister Guilbeault’s response was that it was “no big deal.”
On Monday morning, the minister appears to have reconsidered being quite so blatant in indulging his inner authoritarian control freak:
Guilbeault walked back the comments on Monday, stating that the government had “no intention to impose licensing requirements on news organizations,” nor will the government “regulate news content.”
“… Our focus will be and always has been that Canadians have diversity to high-quality news sources,” said Guilbeault to reporters in Ottawa.
This announcement comes after deep criticism of a previous announcement by the Liberal government, where they said they would force news organizations to apply for a licence.
Guilbeault’s announcement faced intense scrutiny from across the political spectrum with some commentators suggesting that it would be a dangerous attack on the freedom of the press.
