this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2025
109 points (94.3% liked)
Canada
9809 readers
677 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Related Communities
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Comox Valley (BC)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Guelph (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Windsor (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
- Main: c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montréal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
- Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
💻 Schools / Universities
- BC | UBC (U of British Columbia)
- BC | SFU (Simon Fraser U)
- BC | VIU (Vancouver Island U)
- BC | TWU (Trinity Western U)
- ON | UofT (U of Toronto)
- ON | UWO (U of Western Ontario)
- ON | UWaterloo (U of Waterloo)
- ON | UofG (U of Guelph)
- ON | OTU (Ontario Tech U)
- QC | McGill (McGill U)
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
🗣️ Politics
- General:
- Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- By Province (alphabetical):
🍁 Social / Culture
- Ask a Canadian
- Bières Québec
- Canada Francais
- Canadian Gaming
- EhVideos
- First Nations
- First Nations Languages
- Give'r Gaming (gaming)
- Indigenous
- Inuit
- Logiciels libres au Québec
- Maple Music (music)
Rules
- Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you're genuinely curious, you should probably watch the video. He makes a pretty good case.
I read the bill instead.
Why get it interpreted second hand?
Because you didn't. You're lying and I'm 100% sure of it.
For those interested, this is the bill, an absolutely monstrous document which when read on its own doesn't even convey the full extent of the changes because much of it is a series of paragraph amendments to other laws made out of context. To really understand what's being proposed, one must first understand the current state of all laws being amended, so it's really this giant document ×20 or so.
So unless it's your job to parse these documents, or you wrote it yourself, you did not read it.
I also did not read it, but at least I'm being honest about that. I did however skim through it looking for confirmations of what was mentioned in the video. What I found was enough to convince me that the video is accurate. What's more, the author has done the work of a responsible journalist: he cited his sources in the video description. Sources which were in turn written by responsible people whose literal jobs are to understand these massive changes and compile them into documents the public understand. You know, journalism.
Maybe you read the summary, which is much easier to parse, though still ridiculously long, lacking context and glazing over important details. Even in there though, there are clear mentions of allowing the opening of your mail, so if you read that and are still somehow cool with it then... well I guess it's true that we're all condemned to repeat history 'cause some people just refuse to learn.
Whether you're right or they are, it doesn't change the fact that you are acting unbearably smug and self absorbed. You aren't exactly demonstrating any redeeming or useful qualities if your entire comment is that level of hostile bitchiness for no reason.
Drop that personality off across the border in America where it belongs. Or if you absolutely insist on being Canadian, then piss off back to /r/Canada with the rest of your kind? That is, if you want a single person to change their opinion instead of doubling down because they are being yelled at by some expat Canadian. You know, because that's totally gonna change someone's mind.
You don't get to decide who's Canadian, so I'm really not concerned about how my tone makes you feel. The guy/girl was straight-up lying to show support for authoritarianism and government surveillance. I will not apologise for pointing that out.
Good that I didn't, huh? Considering I explicitly called you a Canadian and an ex-pat Canadian and said "If you insist on being Canadian." So already you're just inventing shit to be upset over.
No, I've looked through your comment history. You've made it abundantly clear you aren't concerned with what anyone thinks.
Oh I'm sorry. I was unaware that if you believe someone else is lying you are given cart blanche to be as unbearable as humanly possible and try to beat the arrogant smug with more arrogant smug of your own. Please. By all means. Do carry on.
Nor did I tell you do.
I simply said that you are never going to convince anyone to listen to you when you're behaving the way that you are. You are acting like a toddler. You are throwing a temper tantrum and lashing out. To anyone from the outside, it seems like a liar who made up reading the act is being yelled at by a child who cannot control his own temper.
Keep thinking that you won in this situation when you both lost.
Good luck with that. Just keep it in mind when you wonder why no one wants to listen to you, why no one cares what you think, and why everyone you talk to seems to utterly ignore your opinion.
Flies, vinegar and honey. Try googling it sometime. Have fun throwing your own pity party, don't expect the rest of us to show up to it.
I think we all need to take a step back here, and remember that there are human beings behind every account.
We're getting into increasingly into name calling territory. Can we get back to talking about the bill?
OK so I read the intro/backgrounder, and skimmed the full doc (it's 140 pages, like c'mon, unless you're a retired politico you aren't reading that), and I pretty much agree with most people here. I don't have much interest in the number of rich immigrants are granted access, but I am concerned about the increase in police search powers, and restrictions on asylum seekers. If they have a legitimate case, why would we impose a hard time limit on them?
Also the fact that fentanyl is specifically mentioned (and highlighted in a heading of the backgrounder) is... embarrassing.
I would love to see trakata address Daniel Quinn's specific questions, since they are probably one of the very few Canadians who has actually read the bill. I know people who work at CBC, and they haven't even read it.
The only thing you can be 100% sure of is that you’re projecting your own ignorance.
I enjoy how you fully admit you haven’t read it but take on the verisimilitude of a moral high ground after gently skimming and confirming your bias.
Very cute.
Gotta agree with Trakata here. It's in every citizen's best interest to be able to understand legislature. Even someone with just a high school-level education in civics can appreciate that there's more to participating in a functional democracy than just getting outside every couple years to vote.
That's the thing, Trakata isn't making the case that it's in our best interest to be able to understand legislation. They're making the claim that they read a document they did not read to show support for legislation that's both authoritarian and supporting of government surveillance in a time when our biggest problems will be solved by neither.
Understanding complex legislation is a difficult, time-consuming job that requires experts in the field. Experts like those who work with the CCLA and professional journalists that parse this complexity and make it easier to consume for the rest of the nation. In the same way that while it's in every citizen's interest to have clean water, we're not expected to source and boil our own: we have experts who maintain water treatment facilities. Trakata's smug "I read the bill and I think it's great" line is both (a) a lie, and (b) a deception intended to distract from the dangers of the bill.
It’s actually not that hard.
I understand it’s authoritarian in your eyes, I see that and understand the argument you’re making as well but you won’t accept that I know that.
Perhaps seek to look beyond your confirmation biases and assumptions of others.
I agree in part.
I'm genuinely curious, did you read the bill, or do you plan to? If so, I would seriously love to hear your take on it. I've read the backgrounder, and skimmed the actual bill. Even just doing that I'm sure I've read more of it than 99% of Canadians.
Generally speaking, if you've actually read and understand it, then I say it's your duty to help act as a vulgarizer so others can navigate it. It's easy to say that we value citizens' duty to educate themselves on their democracy, then figuratively cross our arms and say "well I read it and I don't agree" and refuse to elaborate, when asked for your informed (and valuable!) opinion--which is what certain people who claim to have read the bill in this thread appear to be doing.
I'm not trying to be cheeky. If you've (or anyone else has) read the bill and you care about our democracy, then please share your actual thoughts on the bill! So far all we seem to be doing is arguing meta amongst each about how to talk about bills, and not the fucking bill--pardon my language, this comment sections is frustrating me. it's not directed at you - you're cool. :)
I agree with you in part as well, I’ve made my opinions known.
I however have no intention of holding a serious conversation with someone who calls me a liar and stupid in the first breath.