Time Immortal

I guess the Olympic Games only ushered in a temporary period of openness on the part of China’s government. Looks like they’re going back to the “same old, same old” of limiting access to sites on the internet, and even taking it one further: patrons of Internet cafés will now have their photos taken, and will have to submit their ID card for scanning.

Now, one expects this sort of crap from the Chinese, as surely as one expects it from any essentially dictatorial government that depends, in part, on the ignorance of its citizenry in order to remain in power.

But could it happen in Canada?

Well, yes, quite possibly. Already, the CRTC is looking for ways to expand its regulatory control, and is considering turning its sights on “the new media” (read: the Intertubes). Among the questions they are asking:

• Are incentives or regulatory measures necessary or desireable for the creation and promotion of Canadian broadcasting content in new media?
• Are there issues concerning access to broadcasting content in new media?

Which, to my mind, translates out as a question as to whether the CRTC needs to “step in” and regulate the content posted to e.g. private blogs, like this one and thousands of others. Now, admittedly, that’s not the same level of Censorship that China is prone to exercising; bloggers probably won’t be required to submit personal photos to some massive state-run database. Then again, if the government is going to impose regulations on private websites as to what forms of content are and/or are not acceptable, that’s not exactly a step in the direction of human rights and freedoms, is it?

Ah, well…at least our brothers and sisters in the United States won’t have to put up with this crap, right?

Yeah, about that…

Barack Hussein Obama stands a good chance of winning the next presidential election. Okay, caveats: polls aren’t exactly meaningful, and it’s not like John McCain is out of the race, nor is he even close to being out of the race. But there’s still a good chance of an Obama presidency. Which has some really negative implications for the freedoms that American bloggers currently enjoy.

And I’m not just talking about the Fairness Doctrine (the currently-not-on-the-books law that stipulated that media outlets — a category which, pace the CRTC’s investigations, could be expanded to include private websites, under the label of “new media” — must present, at all times, balance in their analysis and portrayal of controversial topics. Which sounds, on its face, reasonable…until one considers that it would be used, by an Obama administration, to force pro-life websites to publish content which, for example, treated Planned Parenthood in a favourable light, or to force conservative websites to publish content expressing positive opinions about progressive political initiatives.

In other words: the end of freedom of expression. Or, at least, severe limitations on it, which is practically the same thing.

Think I’m being unreasonable? This is the same Barack Obama who has openly stated that he thinks that most Americans are “basically decent…basically sound,” provided they’re not listening “to the wrong talk radio shows” or watching “the wrong TV networks.” This is the same Barack Obama who does nothing to rein in (and perhaps even tacitly gives encouragement to) his supporters when they attempt to co-ordinate organized vilifications of those critical of Obama or his policies, when they aren’t trying to get people who disagree with Obama arrested.

Suddenly, China’s wanting to take pictures of Internet users sounds…almost reasonable by comparison.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Demands 50% Canadian content in its…er…”programming” selection.

Your tax dollars at work, O Reader.

Luanne writes in with some potentially concerning news, and a question.

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/NEWS/RELEASES/2008/r080515.htm

Should conservative bloggers be concerned about the CRTC regulations review in Canada?

I think it’s possible that there is a concern in the proposed regulations changes at the CRTC, yes.

The news release notes that the intent of the review is thus:

“The Commission has a responsibility to ensure that the broadcasting system is in a position to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, today as well as in the future,” said Konrad von Finckenstein, Q.C., Chairman of the CRTC. “New digital technologies and platforms are creating opportunities for the broadcast of professionally-produced Canadian content that simply didn’t exist a few years ago. Our intention is not to regulate new media, but rather to gain a better understanding of this environment and, if necessary, to propose measures that would support the continued achievement of the Broadcasting Act’s objectives.”

I’m less than inclined to trust any statement made by a bureaucrat, but I am especially leery of trusting one which begins “our intention is not to regulate…” Not that the CRTC would really need to take a hand in regulating or censoring Internet content in Canada, if the CHRC and its provincial equivalents are allowed to remain in operation and if they, say, convict Maclean’s either as an outcome of the British Columbia hearing or at a national level.

That said, were the CRTC of a mind to conform Canadian-generated Internet content to the stipulations of the Broadcast Act, the implications could be…severe, and then quite restrictive of freedom of expression. But all of that is still within the realm of possibility, and it’s equally possible that such a review as this will amount to nothing. Methinks it might do well to review the Broadcast Act itself and see what its various stipulations are, and then perhaps to do a little mental exercise to see if one can imagine how the Act might be applied to e.g. blogs.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Not all of them, admittedly — just the ones with which he personally disagrees.

I’ve written about how Richard Warman, the former Canadian Human Rights Commission staffer who is now the CHRC’s biggest customer for thought crime complaints, has tried to censor Canadian libraries in British Columbia and Ontario.

But the largest libraries in the world now, of course, are online. And defamation suits and human rights complaints — Warman’s preferred tools of Censorship — don’t work as well if the libraries and other websites in question are based in the United States. Their robust First Amendment means that U.S. defamation law is not an effective censorship tool, and that country does not — yet, at least — have anything as pernicious as Canada’s various thought crimes laws.

Well, if a Canadian can’t censor U.S. websites, can he get Internet companies here in Canada to block those U.S. sites from Canadian internet users, like Communist China does with politically incorrect sites? That’s exactly what Warman sought to do in an application to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

I’m not an expert in telecommunications law, but from what I gather, Canada’s big Internet companies like Rogers and Bell are governed by the Telecommunications Act (apparently little ISP’s aren’t). Section 36 of that Act specifically bans communication companies from interfering with content without government approval — and that includes censoring websites:

Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.

Well, that’s what Warman — and the censors at the Canadian Jewish Congress — asked the Commission to do. In the written application to the CRTC filed by his lawyers, Warman asks not only for the CRTC’s “permission” under section 36 to ban two particular U.S. websites, but he also asks for:

Directions on procedure… whereby Canadian carriers and other interested parties can present their views as to whether the blocking of these URLs should be made a final order of the Commission and whether the blocking of these websites should be mandatory for all Canadian ISPs.

Say…isn’t that what the Chinese do, more or less? Oh, wait…yeah, it is, as Ezra points out above. Censorship, plain and simple.

But remember, O Reader…Richard Warman prefers that you not call him a censor! Okay, fine, whatever. Were the CRTC to ban access, within some or all of Canada, to certain American websites, that would, by definition, be an act of censorship. By what name, then, shall we call someone who lobbies for just such an action to take place?