Fox News North can't launch because regulation against lying in the news won't be repealed

[notyoueither]

Eh? The Charter is far easier to change than the US constitution. It's been amended a few times since the 80s. How many times has the American Constitution been amended since the 80s?

I was thinking of anything substantial.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yes, you are clearly the average American. Your life experiences exude Americana, don't they.

Oh, so we're playing the Average America game now? Asher, the average american doesn't give a **** about politics. Also, what the **** do you know that Kuciwalker doesn't?

You've now moved your goalposts Ben-style. I hope this is an implicit admission on your part that your argument is stupid.

[Kuciwalker]

What would happen is the CRTC would enforce the regulation. Then the channel would appeal to the courts, which would take a while to process it as they always do. In the meantime, parliament (especially under Harper, which is exceptionally populist/votemongering...I'm not going to bother explaining the politics of a minority government) would propose a law giving the regulation teeth. Then the legal challenge would ultimately fail.

It's not like there's no real precedent to this. The CRTC ruled that foreign companies couldn't own telecoms in Canada. The government, seeing the will of the people, overrode the CRTC and permitted a foreign owner of a new entrant in the telecom world. A year and a half later, the courts decided the government could not do that (it already did). So what is the government doing? Passing a law to let them do it. Voila.

Canada's government is extremely populist right now.

Asher, presumably that law didn't violate your charter. Your parliament can't actually override a court ruling in that way, unless I misunderstand the way judicial review works in Canada.

[Asher]

Oh, so we're playing the Average America game now? Asher, the average american doesn't give a **** about politics.

Why do you think I'm talking about cultural differences between the countries?

You've now moved your goalposts Ben-style. I hope this is an implicit admission on your part that your argument is stupid.

What goal posts did I move, exactly?

[Asher]

Asher, presumably that law didn't violate your charter. Your parliament can't actually override a court ruling in that way, unless I misunderstand the way judicial review works in Canada.

Of course the parliament can override a court ruling in that way. The parliament creates the laws, the court ensures they're following them. If parliament is found to have broken the law but wants to continue doing it, they simply change the law. The court ruled the government broke the law by permitting foreign ownership of a telecom. So the government is modifying the law so they don't break it.

The only difference the constitution makes is 2/3rds of the provincial legislatures would also need to agree. Which I don't think is a very big deal for an issue such as this. It's pretty ****ing hard to defend the right to tell lies to people and pass them as authoritative truths. In Canada, we have a problem with that.

[Hauldren Collider]

Why do you think I'm talking about cultural differences between the countries?


What goal posts did I move, exactly?

You've gone from ranting about specific corner cases to freedom of speech which are rooted in centuries of jurisprudence to claiming that Kuciwalker's opinions on American media are irrelevant because he isn't an Average American.

[Asher]

I'm getting bored, can another Canadian explain to Kuci the awesomeness of the notwithstanding clause?

One of the reasons it was added to the constitution is to get around the Supreme Court saying things banning hate speech is in violation of the constitution.

[Asher]

You've gone from ranting about specific corner cases to freedom of speech which are rooted in centuries of jurisprudence to claiming that Kuciwalker's opinions on American media are irrelevant because he isn't an Average American.

No, my claim was his individual experiences were irrelevant to the discussion about the systemtic culture differences between the US and Canada. I apologize if I my arguments are too advanced for you.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, you are clearly the average American. Your life experiences exude Americana, don't they.

I'm not sure why you believe the "average American" (is this the relevant category) "can't even rationally discuss what is right for the country" and is perpetually mired in "partisanship, venom, and lies", at least moreso than you would expect from anyone defined as average.

[Hauldren Collider]

It's pretty ****ing hard to defend the right to tell lies to people and pass them as authoritative truths. In Canada, we have a problem with that.

Don't you get it? This doesn't protect people from lies, it protects people from things that they think are lies. That's not actually protection. It's dangerous.

[Asher]

Don't you get it? This doesn't protect people from lies, it protects people from things that they think are lies. That's not actually protection. It's dangerous.

Reality disagrees with your theory.

Compare political discourse and broadcast news in Canada and the USA. Which is more informative and unbiased? It's really no contest.

Now compare all of the poor people persecuted under this law. Name one. The holocaust denier is one. Canada is not worse off for having him be victimized by the law.

[Egbert]

Spreading lies is dangerous too.

[Hauldren Collider]

One of the reasons it was added to the constitution is to get around the Supreme Court saying things banning hate speech is in violation of the constitution.

Well that's terrifying. Thank god Americans are more reluctant to amend our constitution.

[Asher]

I'm not sure why you believe the "average American" (is this the relevant category) "can't even rationally discuss what is right for the country" and is perpetually mired in "partisanship, venom, and lies", at least moreso than you would expect from anyone defined as average.

Yes, that much is clear.

Average Americans are more ignorant than most other developed countries. Not just about other countries, but about their own politics and politicians. There's an alarming apathy and ignorance.

And lately, people are not only becoming ignorant, but they tune in by the millions to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh and are now simply sheep.

[Asher]

Well that's terrifying. Thank god Americans are more reluctant to amend our constitution.

The notwithstanding clause was in there from the very beginning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedo ms

ection Thirty-three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or "la clause dérogatoire" in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter.

As you can see, Parliament can do what they damn well please as it pertains to this case.

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).