This reduces genuine horrors. Canada's residential school policy was obviously evil and cruel, separating children from their families, meaning-making traditions, and communities, and any attempt to diminish this by citing the benefits of assimilation or the impressiveness of swimming pools is misguided. Still, it appears that a law aimed at criminalizing those who "don't want to admit the schools inflicted those harms," as one survivor quoted in Murray's report put it, would bring Giesbrecht's blithe comment, which is better dealt with through opprobrium and counter-speech, into the realm of criminalization.The feasibility of criminalizing denialism should also be considered. If such a legislation were implemented and someone charged under it, residential schools would be effectively placed on trial. Ernst Zundel, a Holocaust denier, faced multiple trials in the 1980s for his pamphlets "Did the Holocaust Really Happen?" His trials effectively placed the Holocaust on trial, with the government bringing in Holocaust researchers and survivors to back up their case, while the defence called famous Holocaust deniers to the stand and cross-examined Holocaust survivors about the truth of their memories. Zundel used the proceedings to strengthen his claim that the Holocaust never occurred. It was an unpleasant and terrible scene.
Censorship cannot be used to combat ignorance
or prejudice in a free society. Attorney General Lametti is a renowned legal expert who was also my dean at McGill Law. He is well aware that Murray's planned measure is constitutionally dubious and should be halted.Even more spectacularly than expected, the federal government's attempts to become world leaders in rescuing journalism have not only failed, but have pushed the nation's private sector news industry to the brink of economic disaster.It is impossible to recall a more comprehensive public sector failure than that caused by Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez's stubborn and uneducated management of the Online News Act, also known as Bill C-18.The Globe and Mail's Andrew Coyne concisely characterized the situation on Twitter:"Never seen a government that so perfectly fused ruthless partisanship, ideological fanaticism and flower-child naivety."Michael Geist, an internet law specialist and law professor at the University of Ottawa, described Bill C-18 as "a massive own goal.""Cannot overstate the harm from this: news sector loses hundreds of millions, Canadians face degraded search results and prominence of low quality sources increase," tweets Geist. "Blame squarely on (Rodriguez) who did not take risks of flawed C-18 seriously."
After years of lobbying by a news media business
that had seen billions of dollars in advertising shift away from their suddenly less appealing products and toward the flashing lights and sensory balms of social media and search engines, the Canadian government decided to intervene. In doing so, it may have killed the industry.It targeted Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, as well as Google, which accounts for over 90% of Canadian online search activity. Hyperbolic and unfounded assertions that the web giants were "stealing our content" were made (a thorough examination by Montreal media analyst Steve Faguy is available here).Liberal and NDP leaders slammed Meta and Google's opposition as "bullying." Big IT executives were initially barred from House of Commons hearings and, when invited, were treated contemptuously by Chris Bittle, the parliamentary secretary to the heritage minister, and others. After watching their heritage critic, Rachael Thomas, be chastised by Postmedia for daring to raise fears that things might not end well, Conservative politicians just attempted not to offend some of their most loyal publishers.
Meta made it known as soon as C-18 was tabled
that it would have to consider discontinuing news coverage. Google was less transparent, although both businesses stated that they already had commercial and other agreements with over 150 Canadian publishers. Meta claimed that the free delivery offered by their platform was worth $230 million per year to news organizations, but it was not given credit for this. Google set the figure as $250 million. Both stated unequivocally that Bill C-18's structure, which demanded compensation on a per-link basis over which they had no control, their unlimited liability under the Act, its baseball arbitration format, unrealistic expectations from news publishers/broadcasters, and the enormous financial ramifications for them globally if Canadian legislation was replicated, combined to create a hill to die on.Their objections were dismissed with a wave of the parliamentary hand.Others, including this writer, Geist, and Coyne (who proposed in a commentary that publishersshould be paying Facebook), were accused of being shills for or paid by "web giants."So, certain that Meta and Google were lying, Rodriguez dismissed all critiques, suggestions, and cautions, and Bill C-18 was granted royal assent on June 22.Meta, true to its word, verified immediately that, once the Act went into effect, it will "comply" by prohibiting the publishing of links to Canadian news pieces within Canada. Google, still hoping to find a way to get off Rodriguez's hook in exchange for increased spending, was able to arrange a meeting with officials in the prime minister's office the night before the measure was signed by the Governor General. The next morning, Rodriguez summoned them to an emergency meeting to prevent them from declaring action similar to Meta's.
Comments
Post a Comment