The CRTC has posted their form for public comments on the Bell application to block websites.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I definitely understand your point, but it's always easier to prevent legislation from being passed, then to repeal an existing piece of legislation.

 

I am not suggesting you should let everything go through and then argue to have it repealed.  But that you should not use lateral arguments that aren't directly applicable.  Because we can always find another government that has abused such a policy somewhere in the world, Such arguments against can easily be dismissed when they are frequently used argue all new policy.

 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

28 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I definitely understand your point, but it's always easier to prevent legislation from being passed, then to repeal an existing piece of legislation.

Exactly, and that is why I think slippery slopes are a valid concern when it comes to situations like these.

So in this situation it is fairly easy to pass a law, difficult to have it removed, and other countries have shown that these types of legislations lead to slippery slopes.

 

The whole "just vote for another government" argument is not really practical either. When you vote for a government then you are not just voting on a single issue. You have to look at the parties as a package. What if all parties are either for the law being passed, or have things you more strongly disagree with? In that situation you are screwed. You have no option but to vote for the party that wants to pass laws you don't agree with.

 

But even if you do vote a different party into power, repairing the damage done is harder than to create it.

In that kind of asymmetrical situation I think you need to be extra careful.