CloudwalkingOwl

Sorry to bug you, but what are you referring to with "22.07"? Do you mean the 7th clause of part 22? (There are only 16 parts.) Are you talking about Bill C-2 or are you referring to the existing legislation? I'm also having a hard time finding the title "Enforcement of Foreign Decisions for Production" in my copy of Bill C-2. Are you working from an original copy or are you referring to someone else's analysis? (I hope you aren't using a so-called AI program--.)

Would it be possible to provide an actual link to the part of the bill in question? If you are looking at the Bill on-line, I think you can just copy the anchor tag on the index part of the page and put that in your reply. That will allow me to find the exact part you are mentioning.

I looked at the links you gave me but couldn't find any actual reference to the relevant language. They are quite long and I don't have the time to do general research over a large amount of information. A large part of the reason why I produce Hulet's Backgrounder is because I find a lot of journalism doesn't offer enough detail of this sort to satisfy myself that what's being reported is actually true. And I have a background in activism, radical politics, and journalism---which has taught me to be wary of people to go off "half-cocked" on a wide variety of issues.

I'm not an expert by any stretch, so I'm happy to be corrected. But here's my response.

****About opening mail. ****How would you deal with things like smuggling carfentanil through the mail? It just seems to me that so few people write snail mail letters anymore that it seems kinda odd to make a big fuss about it--especially when large envelopes and packages have been routinely opened for years. (I worked in a mail room once in a while and remember seeing large manila envelopes with their corners cut off once in a while---I assumed that this was so a detector could test for illegal substances.)

About 'unconstrained by the rule of law': By definition, it would be constrained by the rule of law---Bill C-2 changes the law, it doesn't just rip of the concept of rule of law. Moreover, there is still a chain of command and a paper trail that would point out when the decision was made and who made it.

About empowered to compel the production. I wouldn't mind a specific reference so I could see what you are talking about. The big reason why I wrote that article was because I kept hearing statements on podcasts and reading them in articles, yet no one produced the actual wording they were so concerned about. And, as I also pointed out, it's very difficult to work through a government Bill and try to figure out exactly what it means.

About Lawful Access Again, if the law says something, anyone who follows that law is, by definition, following the law. There is a process for creating warrants and a paper-trail that identifies who was behind the decision to force access to the data centre. The law has been police are able to get a judge's say-so to bug a phone, plant a tracking device, or raid an office and seize all the paper records for a very long time. Sure thing this could be abused---but as I tried to point out in the article, there's also an opportunity cost associated with making the process of accessing data from server farms so difficult that it allows malefactors to get away with crime.

Beyond these quibbles, there's also the point to remember that this is just a first draft of a policy that is going to go through committee meetings both in the Commons and the Senate. So if there are substantive changes that should be made, there will be ample opportunity for people to raise them. And with a minority govt, there's every chance that these will be listened to if they are in good faith.

I'd say at least some of these problems are caused by the 'opportunity costs' I mentioned in the article. When I write my second article I plan on dealing with this issue. As I see it, most people fear that a strong govt will oppress the citizenry. In my case, I think we need a strong govt to protect people from the free market and capitalism. And I'd suggest the oppressive way our legal and bureaucratic system does things gets in the way of those politicians who might actually want to fix things. But until people of good will are willing to redefine what government needs to do, we aren't going to get to a better place. :-(

Trade will certainly be an issue. I've read that between switching to other countries, plus the boycott of American goods, and the reduction of visits to the USA, on a macro level we've managed to avoid some significant financial problems--so far. But that doesn't mean than some individual businesses and work forces aren't hurting already.

Carney also has to tackle the affordability crisis too. That means he has to find a way to build a lot more housing--both market-based and geared to income.

There's also a national-unity problem with Alberta too. More broadly, there has to be some way of dealing with the people out there who conflate their sense of identity with the oil industry.

Also, we have to get a handle on the disinformation flood coming from the non-fediverse social media. It's really damaging to the public good.

So we have lots of problems and I think going back to smaller, more dynamic cabinets could be one part of crafting solutions to these and other problems.

I suspect most people know that Pierre Poilievre is no friend of anyone who isn't a cis-white-male-Christian

Hmmm. I don't generally like human interest stories, and I grew up in a redneck part of the country, and have worked at a variety of gruesome jobs--so while never working as a rough neck, it sounds familiar. As usual, the title doesn't really describe the article, but you can't blame that on the author. At the end there was a little bit of information but beyond that it's just autobiographical narrative.

If anyone is interested, I've written four articles that give an analysis of how the oil industry has damage Alberta (collectively about the same size as the "Walrus" article): https://billhulet.substack.com/p/something-impossible-just-happened https://billhulet.substack.com/p/the-social-cost-of-oil-part-one https://billhulet.substack.com/p/part-two-about-oil-and-canada https://billhulet.substack.com/p/the-resource-curse

There're several points to this article: first that it's unhealthy to the Parliamentary system to put so much emphasis on the party leader, that this over-emphasis is a result of how they are chosen, second that politics is a lot more than just elections and progressive parties in particular have to work hard at things like public education and community organizing if they want to change the status quo, and finally that the Conservatives aren't really "conservative" anymore because they've formed an unholy alliance with some pretty unsavoury types who are trying to undermine our political system through disinformation campaigns led by neo fascists.

Hmmm.

I must have really screwed-up if your read of my article was that people shouldn't vote strategically to keep the Conservative from winning in their specific riding. I mentioned there is very little chance of the Conservative candidate winning in my particular riding and it's a race between the Green and the Liberal. It's about learning about your own riding instead of assuming that every riding is exactly the same.

Thanks for replying.

Did any of you read the article?

I was trying to suggest a nuanced way of looking at the issue that threads the needle of voting strategically where necessary but also voting for a progressive party where that's a feasible option.

I get that a lot of folks like to share 'hot takes' on issues to let others know how they feel. But I put a lot of effort into researching and writing these articles, and use social media to share them. I met with and listened to both our local candidate and Elizabeth May when I wrote this article, I've run as a candidate many times as a Green---and that experience informs the stories I write.

Should I not bother posting stuff on Lemmy? I get the feeling that a lot of folks on this social media site are really angry about the world and I'd just as soon not get caught in the cross fire.

Why don't you read the article and find out? ;-)

Certainly they aren't in the public imagination anymore. Indeed, I haven't heard a single news person or even the original policy brief mention them. More than anything else, I wanted to revive the term among my readers.

Huh?