> National post is a respectable publication more akin to the Wall Street Journal.
Absolutely not, their American owner has cut so much into that newspaper that whatever reputation they had a decade ago is entirely gone. They used to be somewhat of a right leaning equivalent to the Globe and Mail, but this is no longer an equivalent, what comes out of that publication is now extremely poor quality, often entirely false.
At best you could compare them to fox news, but they don't compare favourably even to that. They are admittedly maybe not quite as bad as Breitbart but it's close enough in my opinion.
The globe falls on the conservative side of things. The star is currently in a weird middle ground where it was somewhat left but it is being moved somewhat right by its new owners. CBC is reasonably neutral.
Highly partisan news is generally not respected for good reason though.
The globe used to fall on the conservative side of things, now honestly the Toronto star is more to the right than the globe. Both got bought by new owners in the last decade and it shows.
Interesting choice of words - hasn't it been shown, repeatedly, time and time again, that conservative-leaning publications are generally not respectable? You want a neutral publication, not one with a lean.
The Atlantic is a highly respected publication and an argument can be made that they are conservative in that they promote a kinda of neo con foreign policy through David Frum et al's work
Are there any, anywhere in the developed world? Le Figaro in France might count, but pracically every explicitly socially conservative media I can think of has had at least some suspicious events that have lowered or destroyed its reputation.
Be it Fox News lying and then claiming they're entertainment, not news, so they're allowed to lie; The Telegraph giving a soapbox to various climate skeptics and COVID deniers and having to retract them, or publishing flat out lies by folks like Boris Johnson; the Sun needs no explanation; Sky News Australia (same owner as Fox News) having a "Misinformation and conspiracy theories" section on their Wikipedia; etc.
I cited this because they are accountable only to the telecommunications cartel. (in Canada telecommunications services are a the facto cartel) The effects of the banishment on the target are not taken into account and there is no compensation possible if this power is wrongly used.
nick__m quoted the wrong section, but there's an identical Factors section 15.2(6) that applies to 15.2(2)(d). There's also a non-disclosure clause. The headline is true.
Order
(2) If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation, the Minister may, by order,
...
(d) impose conditions on a telecommunications service provider’s provision of services to a specified person, including a telecommunications service provider;
...
Non-disclosure
(5) An order made under subsection (1) or (2) may also include a provision prohibiting the disclosure of its existence, or some or all of its contents, by any person.
Factors
(6) Before making an order under subsection (1) or (2), the Minister must consider
(a) its operational impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;
(b) its financial impact on the affected telecommunications service providers;
(c) its effect on the provision of telecommunications services in Canada; and
(d) any other factor that the Minister considers relevant.
...
No compensation
(10) No one is entitled to any compensation from His Majesty in right of Canada for any financial losses resulting from the making of an order under subsection (1) or (2).
The headline is not true because "impose conditions" is not "strip". "Strip" would look like 15.2(2)(e) and (f) except targeting the ISPs customers instead of their suppliers. Imposing conditions does not as a matter of statutory interpretation include the ability to prohibit or terminate.
> (e) prohibit a telecommunications service provider from entering into a service agreement for any product or service used in, or in relation to, its telecommunications network or telecommunications facilities, or any part of those networks or facilities;
> (f) require that a telecommunications service provider terminate a service agreement referred to in paragraph (e);
Moreover even if, say, 15.2(2)(f) referred to (d) instead of (e) the headline would still be entirely untrue because the charter would prohibit it and this law, like all laws, must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the charter.
Realistically the conditions I imagine being allowed under this statute are things like the customer doesn't use [this] hardware and the customer isn't given access to things like BGP.
Whatever conditions you impose they're going to have to
- Preserve access, because the wording of the law makes it clear that can't be removed.
- Be necessary to protect the telecommunications system from a threat (by the definition of 15.2)
- By the charter not be things that are punitive, substantially impact the ability of someone to speak (i.e. to access the internet), etc. For clarity free speech in Canada includes anonymity.
And I really don't see much of interest that complies with all of those. Were it not for the charter part I agree the conditions could be onerous, but "defacto termination of service" would likely be the bar where courts say that's too onerous without the charter.
They could make the ISP not be able to provision more than 0 kb/s of bandwidth to you unless some condition is met, which apparently could be anything that the Minister considers relevant.
---
You're "endangering national security" by "spreading harmful information online". Such speech is not protected by the charter. You are now banned from the Internet.
---
They probably won't do this right away, but the door is open.
And they shouldn't be able to do this to the ISP's suppliers either.
No, they could not, because laws are interpreted so that every word must have a meaning, and if "impose conditions" could include "the condition of 0 kb/s" it what have no different meaning then "terminate" and that would violate the cannons of statutory interpretation.
They also could not because the charter would prohibit it. While not all speech is protected by the charter (your categories aren't the right one, but there are categories like CSAM and hate speech), the government doesn't have the ability to prevent significant amounts of protected speech to prevent unprotected speech without invoking the notwithstanding clause (which this law does not).
You're right, 0 kb/s would be too obvious. Let's do 0.1 kb/s, or restrict their plan to 1 minute of use per day.
You realize that while the charter still safeguards your freedoms, it will eventually be overturned if the populace gets used to more and more control over time. Laws like this are cracks in the dam. If you pay no attention to it or give it charitable interpretations, then someday the dam will crumble.
>The headline is not true because "impose conditions" is not "strip". "Strip" would look like 15.2(2)(e) and (f) except targeting the ISPs customers instead of their suppliers. Imposing conditions does not as a matter of statutory interpretation include the ability to prohibit or terminate.
As we seen with the tariff court cases in the US (ie. does "regulate ... imports" mean the power to set tariffs?), vague language like this is exactly what an authoritarian government would use to justify their actions.
>Moreover even if, say, 15.2(2)(f) referred to (d) instead of (e) the headline would still be entirely untrue because the charter would prohibit it and this law, like all laws, must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the charter.
So they can crush dissenters and maybe get overturned in 2-3 years time, by which time everyone forgot? That's exactly what happened with the convoy protests.
Certainly don’t give your clicks to an outlet you consider conservative to find out that the liberals you ideologically side with have written a bill so the headline remains entirely justified.
As I've describe elsewhere in this thread I've read what appear to be the relevant sections of the bill, and have concluded the headline is entirely unjustified.
You're welcome to respond to those posts if you believe I missed a bit somewhere.
I didn't read the article not because I would have to click on it, but because it is paywalled and I'm not giving them my money, as I said in the post you replied to.
