Readers weigh in on the federal government's new 'online harms' bill, why Canadians are angry right now, and more

Re: Online harms bill is Trudeau’s illiberal manifesto — Jordan Peterson, March 7; Online harms act makes hate speech akin to murder — Jesse Kline, Feb. 28; Under Bill C-63, an online comment could cost you thousands — Christine Van Geyn, March 8

Bill C-63, the so-called “online harms” bill, effectively resurrects the infamous Star Chamber, which was abolished by the British Parliament for good reason in 1641.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Don't have an account? Create Account

Bill C-63 introduces many of the same evils: it would create a body (the Digital Safety Commission) made up of appointed (and thereby unaccountable) officials. It would give the commission the power to police free expression on social media for “harm,” which the commission could define however it sees fit (kiss free speech goodbye). Transgressions of Bill C-63 could result in fines of up to $50,000 and jail sentences of up to life imprisonment.

The concept violates several of Canada’s unwritten constitutional provisions, the Habeas Corpus Act (1679) which bans arbitrary detention and the Bill of Rights (1689), which mandates equality before the law and prohibits excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. It also would likely violate any number of international agreements, such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

It’s hard to say which is more appalling: that the Trudeau government is unaware of Canada’s constitutional freedoms, or that it would trade them for cheap political advantage.

Edward Sager, Cochrane, Alta.

This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Platformed will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Re: Guilbeault accusing premier of immoral lawbreaking is the height of hypocrisy — Don Braid, March 6

Commenting on Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s refusal to remit carbon tax on natural gas heating to Ottawa, Don Braid quotes Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault as asking, “What if somebody tomorrow decides that they don’t want to respect other federal laws, criminal laws?”

If Guilbeault were at all concerned with the plight of Jews in Canada these days, he would obviously know the answer to his query. Nothing would happen. Nothing has happened. The lawlessness escalates, and governing politicians continue to cower.

Perry Medicoff, Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Affordability fuels Canadian anger — not conspiracy theories — Michael Higgins, March 11

Michael Higgins makes the case crystal clear. With creature comforts — including rising food and housing costs — continuing to rise; with clashes between unions and government looming (i.e. a potential Air Canada pilot strike and a possible migration of pilots to the U.S.); with Western provincial governments at odds with federal government policy; immigration out of control; the costs of higher education skyrocketing; near riots with participants spouting hateful vitriol engendering physical fear in Canada’s major cities with seemingly little appropriate police intervention; and with our feckless leader focused on his image and where he will fly next, along with his unholy deal with the NDP keeping him in office until late 2025 and thereby tying voters’ hands, why wouldn’t Canadians be angry?

Ron Hoffman, Toronto

Re: Canada’s family doctor shortage: 10 million will soon lack access to primary care — Sharon Kirkey, Feb. 16

In the conversation with the National Post, Dr. David Barber underscores a significant effect of the shortage of primary care providers in Canada — the progressive fading of the comprehensive approach, which, in turn, can have a negative impact on preventative care and lead to worse health outcomes. While increasing the number of family physicians is a pressing matter, elevating the number of nurse practitioners should also find its way to the top of the decision-makers’ priorities.

British Columbia is one of the examples of how putting more emphasis on increasing the number of nurse practitioners could prove beneficial. In the OurCare survey mentioned by Sharon Kirkey, as many as 27 per cent of respondents from the province do not have a primary care provider they could refer to. Despite that, there are only four programs that lead to a nurse practitioner certification recognized by the BC College of Nurses and Midwives. Only one of those programs is taught in Metro Vancouver and offered an average of 33.4 seats per year between 2018 and 2022. The scarcity of nurse practitioners is compounded by the extent to which it is difficult to access nursing schools, as shown in a 2021 report about Nova Scotia by the CBC, which called attention to the unavailability of seats and very high admissions averages. In other words, it is not only hard to become a nurse practitioner but also to get into the nursing profession in the first place.

There is substantial evidence underscoring the benefit of broader integration of nurse practitioners into primary care, including better access to health care and the potential to save money. Canadian provinces should consider expanding access to nursing to those wanting to become nurse practitioners — this could preserve preventative care and allow the governments to save money and reinvest it in diverse priority areas.

Hubert Michalus, Vancouver

National Post and Financial Post welcome letters to the editor (200 words or fewer). Please include your name, address and daytime phone number. Email letters@nationalpost.com. Letters may be edited for length or clarity.

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

The top athletic green powders that can take your health to new heights

Three buzzed-about beauty products we tried this week.

Nazima Qureshi, registered dietitian and nutritionist shares details on how to calculate daily protein intake

A complete guide to buying a mattress online

A skin care business backed by some strong family credibility, Youth To The People recently expanded its offering to include body care.

QOSHE - Letters: Kiss free speech goodbye with Liberal 'Star Chamber' - National Post
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

Letters: Kiss free speech goodbye with Liberal 'Star Chamber'

7 0
13.03.2024

Readers weigh in on the federal government's new 'online harms' bill, why Canadians are angry right now, and more

Re: Online harms bill is Trudeau’s illiberal manifesto — Jordan Peterson, March 7; Online harms act makes hate speech akin to murder — Jesse Kline, Feb. 28; Under Bill C-63, an online comment could cost you thousands — Christine Van Geyn, March 8

Bill C-63, the so-called “online harms” bill, effectively resurrects the infamous Star Chamber, which was abolished by the British Parliament for good reason in 1641.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Don't have an account? Create Account

Bill C-63 introduces many of the same evils: it would create a body (the Digital Safety Commission) made up of appointed (and thereby unaccountable) officials. It would give the commission the power to police free expression on social media for “harm,” which the commission could define however it sees fit (kiss free speech goodbye). Transgressions of Bill C-63 could result in fines of up to $50,000 and jail sentences of up to life imprisonment.

The concept violates several of Canada’s unwritten constitutional provisions, the Habeas Corpus Act (1679) which bans arbitrary detention and the Bill of Rights (1689), which mandates equality before the law and prohibits excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. It also would likely violate any number of international agreements, such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

It’s hard to say which is more appalling: that the Trudeau government is unaware of Canada’s constitutional freedoms, or that it would trade them for........

© National Post


Get it on Google Play