Freedom of opinion under threat in Canada

[Ka-El]

I love how, when your debate tactics are called out, you literally have nothing left to say.

I love how you are completely oblivious to the fact these are the debate tactics employed by a good number of the partisan right-wingers on this board (worst offenders), and efforts to get clear arguments out of them is normally met by such profound arguments as 'disgusting leftist nonsense" or "so stupid" (or the good old favourite from grade two: "that's what you are but what am I?") meriting nothing more than mockery. Why form an argument when you know certain posters are incapable or unwilling to critically and/or objectively consider it. Look at the work hobbyguy puts into posting. Look at the (lack of) effort or thought certain posters put into their response to his posts. You want to see change? Be the change you want to see.

[Mordu]

Pardon me, I believe this clip is from the Strasbourg press conference on the UN Global Migration Compact, but who is this fellow and who-which country does he represent?

Does anyone here have a reference to the full context video from which this was taken? If so will you please provide it?

And is this what he’s talking about?

GLOBAL COMPACT FOR SAFE, ORDERLY AND REGULAR MIGRATION

FINAL DRAFT

http://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/de ... raft_0.pdf

7. This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. It fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no State can address migration alone, and upholds the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law.

. . .

OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration

33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.

To realize this commitment, we will draw from the following actions:

a) Enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants, and train law enforcement and other public officials to identify, prevent and respond to such crimes and other acts of violence that target migrants, as well as to provide medical, legal and psychosocial assistance for victims

b) Empower migrants and communities to denounce any acts of incitement to violence directed towards migrants by informing them of available mechanisms for redress, and ensure that those who actively participate in the commission of a hate crime targeting migrants are held accountable, in accordance with national legislation, while upholding international human rights law, in particular the right to freedom of expression

c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media

d) Establish mechanisms to prevent, detect and respond to racial, ethnic and religious profiling of migrants by public authorities, as well as systematic instances of intolerance, xenophobia, racism and all other multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination in partnership with National Human Rights Institutions, including by tracking and publishing trends analyses, and ensuring access to effective complaint and redress mechanisms

e) Provide migrants, especially migrant women, with access to national and regional complaint and redress mechanisms with a view to promoting accountability and addressing governmental actions related to discriminatory acts and manifestations carried out against migrants and their families

f) Promote awareness-raising campaigns targeted at communities of origin, transit and destination in order to inform public perceptions regarding the positive contributions of safe, orderly and regular migration, based on evidence and facts, and to end racism, xenophobia and stigmatization against all migrants

g) Engage migrants, political, religious and community leaders, as well as educators and service providers to detect and prevent incidences of intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas and support activities in local communities to promote mutual respect, including in the context of electoral campaigns

[Mordu]

Okaaaay, this is best context I can come up with this morning. Anybody else?

It's from an ENF (Europe of Nations and Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_of ... nd_Freedom) press conference in Hungary, and it contains a couple of other opinions on the Compact.



Also, the first fellow is Marcel de Graaff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_de_Graaff)

It looks like he’s an interesting fellow.

http://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/art ... t-comments

[Mordu]

Allrighty, from what I saw in the ‘context’ video, and then from what I haven’t been able to find on Google, it looks like the press wasn’t too interested in reporting Dergaff's opinion. Censorship must already be at work, eh?

[Mordu]

And here I thought Canada liberated Holland.

[Gone_Fishin]

Scheer tells it like it is.

[Pete Podoski]

Apparently, the complaint came from a fellow who said, "Uhhh, ummm, you have to pull these uhh, umm, articles, umm, because ahh, umm, diversity is uhh our, uhh, strength."

CBC allegedly pulls fact-based firearms article for being too “pro-gun”

Ali Taghva January 28, 2019


According to Tracey Wilson, a staff member of the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR), the CBC removed a four-part written series from the Radio Canada International website, for being too “pro-gun”.


The now halted series aimed to challenge many of the unsubstantiated claims recently made by the federal government as well as anti-gun lobbyists across the nation.

For example, in the first part which can still be accessed through an archiving site, the content takes on illegal firearms purchases, the origin of illegal guns, as well as the practice of straw purchases, while the second part discusses assault weapons. The third and fourth part was never released.

In an interview with The Post Millennial, Tracey stated that she believed this was removed due to a complaint which found the content to be “too pro-gun.”

She found that quite perplexing given the nature of the article itself, which aimed to point out the illogical claims made by individuals who do not adequately understand firearms.

When the very things you are discussing are technical and factual in nature and not emotion based ideological arguments, there is no “other side”. Facts are facts so it is impossible to show two sides when there is only truth.

Tracey Wilson

Even more pressing, with the Canadian election rapidly approaching, you would assume removing any and all unsubstantiated claims on guns would be important to the public broadcaster.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/cbc-p ... oo-pro-gun

[hobbyguy]

Apparently, the complaint came from a fellow who said, "Uhhh, ummm, you have to pull these uhh, umm, articles, umm, because ahh, umm, diversity is uhh our, uhh, strength."

CBC allegedly pulls fact-based firearms article for being too “pro-gun”

Ali Taghva January 28, 2019


According to Tracey Wilson, a staff member of the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR), the CBC removed a four-part written series from the Radio Canada International website, for being too “pro-gun”.


The now halted series aimed to challenge many of the unsubstantiated claims recently made by the federal government as well as anti-gun lobbyists across the nation.

For example, in the first part which can still be accessed through an archiving site, the content takes on illegal firearms purchases, the origin of illegal guns, as well as the practice of straw purchases, while the second part discusses assault weapons. The third and fourth part was never released.

In an interview with The Post Millennial, Tracey stated that she believed this was removed due to a complaint which found the content to be “too pro-gun.”

She found that quite perplexing given the nature of the article itself, which aimed to point out the illogical claims made by individuals who do not adequately understand firearms.

When the very things you are discussing are technical and factual in nature and not emotion based ideological arguments, there is no “other side”. Facts are facts so it is impossible to show two sides when there is only truth.

Tracey Wilson

Even more pressing, with the Canadian election rapidly approaching, you would assume removing any and all unsubstantiated claims on guns would be important to the public broadcaster.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/cbc-p ... oo-pro-gun

Just for reference, and to show contrast with an even remotely Canadian value set: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-defends-canadian-diversity/article711236/

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a ringing defence of cultural diversity yesterday, rejecting calls for Canada to be less open to immigration as a way of curbing terrorism.

"I believe, actually, the opposite is true," Mr. Harper told the opening session of the United Nations' World Urban Forum here.

"Canada's diversity, properly nurtured, is our greatest strength.""

And yes, the CBC editors are quite correct to NOT air what is clearly stilted propaganda and misinformation. The Rebel will be happy to pick it up and keep it where it belongs - in far right la-la land.

[floppi]

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a ringing defence of cultural diversity yesterday, rejecting calls for Canada to be less open to immigration as a way of curbing terrorism.

"Canada's diversity, properly nurtured, is our greatest strength.""

[Pete Podoski]

Apparently, the complaint came from a fellow who said, "Uhhh, ummm, you have to pull these uhh, umm, articles, umm, because ahh, umm, diversity is uhh our, uhh, strength."

CBC allegedly pulls fact-based firearms article for being too “pro-gun”

Ali Taghva January 28, 2019


According to Tracey Wilson, a staff member of the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR), the CBC removed a four-part written series from the Radio Canada International website, for being too “pro-gun”.


The now halted series aimed to challenge many of the unsubstantiated claims recently made by the federal government as well as anti-gun lobbyists across the nation.

For example, in the first part which can still be accessed through an archiving site, the content takes on illegal firearms purchases, the origin of illegal guns, as well as the practice of straw purchases, while the second part discusses assault weapons. The third and fourth part was never released.

In an interview with The Post Millennial, Tracey stated that she believed this was removed due to a complaint which found the content to be “too pro-gun.”

She found that quite perplexing given the nature of the article itself, which aimed to point out the illogical claims made by individuals who do not adequately understand firearms.

Even more pressing, with the Canadian election rapidly approaching, you would assume removing any and all unsubstantiated claims on guns would be important to the public broadcaster.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/cbc-p ... oo-pro-gun

Just for reference, and to show contrast with an even remotely Canadian value set: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-defends-canadian-diversity/article711236/

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a ringing defence of cultural diversity yesterday, rejecting calls for Canada to be less open to immigration as a way of curbing terrorism.

"I believe, actually, the opposite is true," Mr. Harper told the opening session of the United Nations' World Urban Forum here.

"Canada's diversity, properly nurtured, is our greatest strength.""

And yes, the CBC editors are quite correct to NOT air what is clearly stilted propaganda and misinformation. The Rebel will be happy to pick it up and keep it where it belongs - in far right la-la land.

[Mordu]

Betcha this goes woosh.

http://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/ ... ns/201825E

[hobbyguy]

Pete -perhaps you could elucidate your point more clearly. It certainly appears that you were taking a swipe at the diversity that is at the heart of Canadian values.

It also appears that you were taking an NRAesque swipe at the CBC editorial board, and forgetting that gun ownership in Canada is not a right, it is a privilege. The CBC has no obligation to accept NRAesque propaganda as content, nor are folks obliged to switch from Fox "News" to CBC.

[Mordu]

Apparently, the complaint came from a fellow who said, "Uhhh, ummm, you have to pull these uhh, umm, articles, umm, because ahh, umm, diversity is uhh our, uhh, strength."

CBC allegedly pulls fact-based firearms article for being too “pro-gun”

Ali Taghva January 28, 2019


According to Tracey Wilson, a staff member of the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR), the CBC removed a four-part written series from the Radio Canada International website, for being too “pro-gun”.


The now halted series aimed to challenge many of the unsubstantiated claims recently made by the federal government as well as anti-gun lobbyists across the nation.

For example, in the first part which can still be accessed through an archiving site, the content takes on illegal firearms purchases, the origin of illegal guns, as well as the practice of straw purchases, while the second part discusses assault weapons. The third and fourth part was never released.

In an interview with The Post Millennial, Tracey stated that she believed this was removed due to a complaint which found the content to be “too pro-gun.”

She found that quite perplexing given the nature of the article itself, which aimed to point out the illogical claims made by individuals who do not adequately understand firearms.

When the very things you are discussing are technical and factual in nature and not emotion based ideological arguments, there is no “other side”. Facts are facts so it is impossible to show two sides when there is only truth.

Tracey Wilson

Even more pressing, with the Canadian election rapidly approaching, you would assume removing any and all unsubstantiated claims on guns would be important to the public broadcaster.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/cbc-p ... oo-pro-gun

Verified account @Smellali
Replying to @TWilsonOttawa @RCInet

http://twitter.com/Smellali/status/1089979987753545732

We assessed both articles as incomplete. We plan to produce a long format on this important debate. The different points of view will be expressed and the facts verified. Citizens will then be able to form their own opinion.

[Pete Podoski]

Pete -perhaps you could elucidate your point more clearly. It certainly appears that you were taking a swipe at the diversity that is at the heart of Canadian values.

It also appears that you were taking an NRAesque swipe at the CBC editorial board, and forgetting that gun ownership in Canada is not a right, it is a privilege. The CBC has no obligation to accept NRAesque propaganda as content, nor are folks obliged to switch from Fox "News" to CBC.

Why would C.B.C. run two episodes then abruptly reverse course, and try to scrub any sign of these episodes from the internet?

And why would that coincide with Chief Blair's bullcrap-filled tour of Canada, on the same subject?

Quit pulling your "N.R.A." card out of your *bleep* in an attempt to deflect, and address the issue at hand here, which is clearly political interference in the public broadcaster.

C.B.C. pulled the series because it refuted much of what Blair was trying to peddle to the public. Nothing more, nothing less.

Explain why you don't care that the government is censoring shows on the C.B.C. that don't nicely fit the government's narrative.

[Mordu]

Please excuse me for interjecting again.

But people may want to read the two articles that were 'pulled', by Soleiman Mellali, Chief Editor, Radio-Canada.

I think he may have a point with the reason he gave, and then he did go on to make a promise . . ..

Verified account @Smellali
Replying to @TWilsonOttawa @RCInet

http://twitter.com/Smellali/status/1089979987753545732

We assessed both articles as incomplete. We plan to produce a long format on this important debate. The different points of view will be expressed and the facts verified. Citizens will then be able to form their own opinion.

“The Gun debate in Canada: Where lies truth? Part-1”

http://web.archive.org/web/201812051351 ... th-part-1/

“The gun debate in Canada: Part 2 – ‘Assault weapons’”

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... =1&vwsrc=0


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The above links come from the article that Pete Podoski posted here viewtopic.php?f=27&t=79420&start=255#p2445384 .

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/cbc-p ... o-pro-gun/