I agree with maybe 99% of what Atwood ever says in interviews. She is the quintessential well-reasoned centrist. The result is that she ends up annoying both sides haha. :)
Could you elaborate on what you’re agreeing with?
Just to further elaborate on my inquiry.
This is Atwood’s tweet from the article which is a pretty big cop out. You can’t just say whatever you want and potentially walk back on it because you preface it by saying it could be false.
If this account of the bill is true, it’s Lettres de Cachet all over again. The possibilities for revenge false accusations + thoughtcrime stuff are sooo inviting! Trudeau’s Orwellian online harms bill
This is the account\article she is referring, which references Jordan Peterson for credibility.
People should offer less credence and attention to people who heard something from someone then has a really significant opinion on something. The same article has a much better source and first hand assessment
former chief justice of the Supreme Court Beverley McLachlin said society is changing.
“It’s our responsibility as responsible citizens, it’s the government’s responsibility, to deal with new media, new harms, new things that develop in society. So I applaud the government for taking this on, as many other countries have,” she said.
But she cited potential problems with the bill’s proposed changes to the Criminal Code, such as an increase in the maximum punishment for four hate propaganda offences.
Someone found guilty of advocating genocide, for example, could face life imprisonment, up from five years in prison.
“I do predict that this is going to be challenged in the courts,” McLachlin told host Edward Greenspon.
“We have not seen this in speech law, expression law, to my knowledge — life sentences for sending out some words. That’s heavy. And it will, I suspect, be challenged.”
This is the actual bill if anyone wants to read it. https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-63/first-reading
