Alarming News From Canada

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
3,575
Location
A Barrier Island
I will only post the head line from the article today. You can find the complete story online easily. Question for the Canadian BITOG members, Is this true? If so, will you be at risk from posting on this forum? Also the banned subject matter includes discussion about oil as well.

I can't believe this is happening.

New Canadian Bill C-372 Would Ban You From Talking About Gasoline.​

 
I'm one of those people that when I hear about, "A new proposed law that is just terrible" I actually read it in its entirety. I also read many court decisions. They can be very long, but if you really want to understand what the proposal or judgement says, not just what you hear, then you have to read it yourself.

Some proposed new laws are so whacked out that they were never meant to pass, they are just messaging. Some court decisions say something much different than what you hear in the news.

Be informed.
 
I will only post the head line from the article today. You can find the complete story online easily. Question for the Canadian BITOG members, Is this true? If so, will you be at risk from posting on this forum? Also the banned subject matter includes discussion about oil as well.

I can't believe this is happening.

New Canadian Bill C-372 Would Ban You From Talking About Gasoline.​

Something to keep in mind. These moronic bills are brought up frequently by some lone representative knowing there's zero chance of it ever passing but promised to do it for some constituent in their district. In the US these types of bills occur most often in at the state rather than federal legislature and usually go unnoticed.

Sometimes, like in this case, it gets picked up by some news organization who's looking to increase viewership vis feigned outrage.
 
nothing alarming. just a normal Canadian bill among a seas of similar bills. in fact, i find this bill very moderate...
 
will you be at risk from posting on this forum?
Members here are effectively anonymous unless Canadian authorities subpoena this site. I don't know enough about "agreements" between the US and Canada but wwilson could very well be able to simply ignore the subpoena.
 
Its a private member bill introduced by a member of a party that has only 25 seats.

The bill has almost zero chance of passing.
That's hard to discern though, when it's presented to us here out of context.

It reminds me of a thread a few months ago, which was a totally fake headline, just meant to rile us up. But everyone assumes it's real, because why else would it be there on the screen? It wasn't April Fool's Day or anything.

Speaking of which, there's a Nigerian Prince on the other line, with an offer that will make me a billionaire.
 
Something to keep in mind. These moronic bills are brought up frequently by some lone representative knowing there's zero chance of it ever passing but promised to do it for some constituent in their district. In the US these types of bills occur most often in at the state rather than federal legislature and usually go unnoticed.

Sometimes, like in this case, it gets picked up by some news organization who's looking to increase viewership vis feigned outrage.
This is 100% true. A legislator will often introduce and sponsor a bill for a constituent, but then do nothing to advance it in the legislative process. So the bill gets introduced, referred to a committee for review, but then never reviewed, and dies on the vine.

Getting a bill introduced is like planting a seed. It will never germinate and grow into a tree unless there is a lot of effort to push it along.
 
The bill's purpose is to ban fossil fuel advertising, not limit your conversation topics..... I skimmed it and its about the same as the tobacco advertising ban. Has some provisions for not greenwashing any particular fossil fuel, etc
The preamble has some interesting facts,

Preamble​

Whereas climate change represents an unprecedented and existential threat to people in Canada and around the world;
Whereas extreme weather events, such as the 2021 heat dome in British Columbia, are already proving deadly in Canada and, according to Health Canada, they are expected to increase in frequency and magnitude due to climate change;
Whereas, in 2023, Canada experienced the worst wildfire season ever recorded as the country exceeded the largest area ever burned in a year, totaling more than 7.‍9 million hectares;
Whereas the Government of Canada has made international climate commitments to drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption and to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, which requires the timely phase-out of fossil fuels;
Whereas the protection of the environment is a valid use of the federal criminal law power;
Whereas air pollution caused by fossil fuels leads to millions of premature deaths globally, including tens of thousands of premature deaths in Canada alone, and is a major cause of cancer, respiratory illness, adverse pregnancy outcomes, children’s diseases and cardiovascular symptoms;
Whereas fossil fuel production and consumption has resulted in a national public health crisis of substantial and pressing concern, in a way that is similar to the public health crisis caused by tobacco consumption;
Whereas, in 1989, Parliament restricted tobacco advertising and sponsorship to reduce tobacco use to respond to that public health crisis;
Whereas, in the context of a climate emergency, fossil fuel advertising sends a confusing and contradictory message about the need to urgently end Canada’s reliance on fossil fuels;
It probably won't pass, and if it does, it won't matter much anyways, lots of tobacco is still being sold here and people are free to talk about it, just tobacco corporations can't advertise. Smoking/smokers are dying out, with very few young people smoking now, so perhaps an advertising ban is useful?
 
The bill's purpose is to ban fossil fuel advertising, not limit your conversation topics..... I skimmed it and its about the same as the tobacco advertising ban. Has some provisions for not greenwashing any particular fossil fuel, etc
The preamble has some interesting facts,

It probably won't pass, and if it does, it won't matter much anyways, lots of tobacco is still being sold here and people are free to talk about it, just tobacco corporations can't advertise. Smoking/smokers are dying out, with very few young people smoking now, so perhaps an advertising ban is useful?
The bill's specific wording is "promote", not "advertise". Those have very different meanings, and "promoting" is directly defined by the bill (bold added for emphasis):

promotion means a representation about a product or service by any means, whether directly or indirectly, including any communication of information about the product or service and its price and distribution, that is likely to influence and shape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours about the product or service.‍ (promotion)

And this is by people, not companies or groups:

It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel-related brand element or the production of a fossil fuel except as authorized by the provisions of this Act or of the regulations.

Regardless of whether this has any chance of passing or not, the fact that a government party wants to censor people from talking positively about fossil fuels should be a bit of a cattle prod.
 
The bill's specific wording is "promote", not "advertise". Those have very different meanings, and "promoting" is directly defined by the bill (bold added for emphasis):

promotion means a representation about a product or service by any means, whether directly or indirectly, including any communication of information about the product or service and its price and distribution, that is likely to influence and shape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours about the product or service.‍ (promotion)

And this is by people, not companies or groups:

It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel-related brand element or the production of a fossil fuel except as authorized by the provisions of this Act or of the regulations.

Regardless of whether this has any chance of passing or not, the fact that a government party wants to censor people from talking positively about fossil fuels should be a bit of a cattle prod.
Good points, although the legislation around tobacco promotion is about the same with naming people instead of corporations. It gives the government the power to stop a person/company to emphasize any positive effects of tobacco use, although science papers still report positive associations with reduction in some diseases for smokers...
I think in practice the anti tobacco promotion laws have only stopped advertising from companies, but I suppose if a large audience "influencer" starts promoting tobacco use then maybe someone will have a word with them?

I do agree that they should be rewritten as more of an advertising ban, than a discussion ban.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top