Mediaboss Marketing

Sign first, then well discuss the details.

Nobody would trust a real estate agent or used car dealership with that approach, but thats how the Trudeau government is trying to sell its plan to regulate the internet.

The government is trying to rush new censorship legislation through Parliament at lightning speed. Through Bill C-11, the Trudeau government plans to hand the CRTC the power to control what content Canadians can access online. This includes filtering feeds on popular apps like Netflix, YouTube and TikTok.

As if that wasnt bad enough, the government is deliberately choosing not to disclose the scope of these new regulatory powers until after the bill becomes law.

Such an approach runs roughshod over the democratic process.

If the government wants to ram through new censorship powers, at a bare minimum we deserve to know just how aggressively the CRTC will be instructed to regulate what we see and share online.

The government cant even get bureaucrats singing from its own hymn book.

Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez has promised up and down that user-generated content, meaning content a typical Canadian might upload to YouTube or share on Twitter, will not be regulated through Bill C-11.

But Ian Scott, the chair of the CRTC, which will be responsible for applying the regulations on the governments behalf, says user-generated content will be fair game.

Who should Canadians believe?

If the CRTC says it will have the power to regulate user-generated content through Bill C-11, and theyre the ones tasked with implementing it, Canadians should listen to the CRTC.

As the government attempts to give itself sweeping new powers, it is worthwhile to ask why the government wants bureaucrats to have these new powers in the first place.

The government claims it wants to ensure Canadians are exposed to enough Canadian content online. But this raises serious questions.

First, is the government competent to decide what should count as Canadian content?

Currently, the CRTCs process in making that determination is flawed. A biopic of the Trump presidency, entitled Gotta Love Trump, is considered by the CRTC as Canadian content, while The Handmaids Tale, based on legendary Canadian writer Margaret Atwoods famous novel, is not.

On the competence question, the answer clearly is no.

Second, what happens if the government decides it wants to use the CRTCs new powers to influence what we see and share online based on standards other than Canadian content?

Its easy to foresee mission creep. Today, the government wants to promote Canadian content. But tomorrow, with the CRTCs powerful new tools to regulate the internet, Bill C-11 could easily be repurposed to quiet dissent or promote favourable narratives. Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, for example, has mused about the government pursuing new regulatory measures for the sake of social cohesion.

With these clear risks, it is worth asking whether this legislation is even needed, as the government claims, to ensure Canadian content gains adequate exposure.

The truth is that Canadian content is thriving like never before. In 2020 alone, Canadas film and television industry enjoyed $6 billion in foreign investment, up five per cent from the year prior. And Canadian films and shows are easy to find on streaming services like Netflix.

If the sole rationale of Bill C-11 is to have Canadian content thrive and succeed online, then present data demonstrate that the legislation simply isnt needed. The government could just scrap Bill C-11 and call it a day.

The fact that Rodriguez and the Trudeau government are still aggressively pushing Bill C-11 in light of these facts demonstrates that the governments motive is not, as it claims, to promote Canadian content. Rather, it is all about control.

Jay Goldberg is the Ontario and interim Atlantic director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Troy Media.

Original post:
Opinion | Justin Trudeau's government is on a quest for censorship - Hamilton Spectator

Since the beginning of the year, 4,154 Egyptian migrants have arrived on the shores of Italy. This represents a threefold increase compared to the same period last year. Confronted with an economic crisis and wide-spread repression at home, they consider leaving Egypt by boat as their only option.

Beginning in the spring, small boats loaded with migrants started arriving in Italy almost every day. Rescued off the coast of Calabria, Sicily and Lampedusa for the most part, these new arrivals take enormous risks to reach Europe by crossing the Central Mediterranean, one of the world's deadliest migration routes.

According to the Italian interior ministry, 26,652 people arrived in Italy by sea between January 1 and June 27, 2022. Egypt comes in second after Bangladesh as the top nationality of people arriving irregularly in Italy. It was even the first nationality represented among the arrivals up until May.

The distance from the Egyptian coast to Italy is considerable: for example, more than 1,500 kilometers separate Alexandria from the Italian islands of Lampedusa and Sicily.

Of the total number of people disembarked in Italy this year, 4,605 were Bangladeshi (16%) and 4,154 were Egyptian (15%). This is a threefold increase compared to 2021, when 1,543 Egyptian nationals were counted.

The European Commission has called this "a spectacular increase", and in an internal note dated June 15 and consulted by the media Euro Observer, it pledged 80 million to the Egyptian government to prevent people from taking boats toward Italy.

Of this amount, around 23 million will reportedly be handed out this year for "maritime border surveillance equipment." The remaining 57 million will be doled out next year "for further equipment to be identified," the document stated.

The note further stated that increased controls of the Egyptian border with Libya and Sudan are also to be expected, but without further details.

Read more: Egypt town fears worst for local men lost en route to Europe

The factors pushing Egyptians to leave for Europe via irregular channels seem to be rooted in the dire eonomic constitution of their country.

For several years now, Egypt has been mired in a serious economic crisis from which it is struggling to extricate itself. In 2016, two years after Abdel Fattah al-Sissi became president, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released an initial bailout loan of 12 billion dollars. The government then planned to implement austerity measures while encouraging the development of an inclusive economy driven by the private sector, necessary to create jobs and reduce poverty.

"Only half of this plan was implemented," says Timothy Kaldas, researcher at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy. "Austerity has become the reality for millions of people. The state has cut subsidies for oil, natural gas and even electricity. For Egyptians, the bill has been hefty: the amount of money spent on electricity by the poor and the middle class has increased by 271% between 2011 and 2017-2018."

As a result, the poverty rate in Egypt has skyrocketed. According to official figures, it now stands at 29.7%, two points more than in 2015. The World Bank issued an even grimmer outlook in 2019, declaring that 60% of the Egyptian population was very poor or vulnerable.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have dealt the final blow to an economic situation that was already moribund. Before the Russian offensive, Egypt was one of Kyivs main clients, importing 30% of its wheat imports from Ukraine. The remaining 60% of Egypts wheat imports came from Russia. This situation of almost total dependence makes the threat of a food shortage in Egypt all the more likely, the consequences of which would be disastrous for the population.

Faced with the scarcity of imports and the price of food increasing by 17.5% in February, the Egyptian government has been struggling to continue subsidizing the traditional Egyptian "baladi" bread, which has fed 70% of the population for decades.

Already in 2020, the Egyptian authorities had made the population pay for their poor economic management. To maintain the price of bread at the subsidized level of 5 piastres, or around 0.0027, the government reduced its weight. From 110 grams in 2016, it went down to 90 grams in 2020. This represents a departure from the years 1988 to 2013, when Egyptians could buy a 130-gram flatbread at a steady price.

For Timothy Kaldas, "the authorities constantly accuse foreigners as the source of all the evils in the country. But Egyptians have been fighting daily for a long time. Many young adults who cannot afford to move out live with their parents to spend as little as possible. So after several years without improvements, and faced with a constellation of problems, its logic that they seek opportunities elsewhere.

In this context, many Egyptians are turning to the informal sector for work, which is certainly easier to access, but also more precarious. Some also choose entrepreneurship, a seemingly faster and easier way to earn a living. "But even starting your own business, the last resort for many people who cannot find work, is complicated. It is not uncommon to see the military arrive overnight in your offices, and close everything, if your activities do not suit them," says Kaldas.

The lucky ones are reprimanded. The others are thrown into prison. According to Amnesty International, Egypt currently has more than 60,000 prisoners of conscience, including "peaceful activists, human rights defenders, lawyers, academics and journalists detained solely for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association". For Bahey Eldin Hassan, an Egyptian pioneer of human rights exiled in France, the Egypt of Abdel Fatah al-Sissi is comparable to the "Syria of Bashar al-Assad" or "the Sudan" of former dictator Omar al-Bashir, as he said in an interview with TV5monde.

On April 27, the Egyptian president made concessions. That day, more than 3,200 detainees were released, on the anniversary of the "liberation of Sinai", a peninsula occupied by Israel from 1967 to April 25, 1982. The presidential pardon will not resolve eight years of restrictions, threats, and censorship. For Egyptians in search of a better life, it is difficult to imagine a future in a country with a leader who could technically remain until 2030, due to a revision of the Constitution carried out in 2019.

"I fear that migration has become the inevitable fate of thousands of Egyptians", says Hassan Abdel Rahman, a researcher. "The dream of a better future in Europe has become the main objective for many."

Excerpt from:
Poverty, restrictions, censorship: What's driving Egyptians to head for Europe - InfoMigrants

Tune In, Turn On: the Plug-In DrugIndia has been in the centre of this debate of content censorship on OTT Platforms. Online obscenity has created uproar in the country and produced more questions than it has answered evident from the recent demand for creation of a law to bring in censorship for OTT platforms and web channels to cull out obscene scenes. The regulation in this space will shift the sands of the media and entertainment landscape.OTT Platform has become one of the largest media markets in the world. They are subject to regulation of the State they exist in. Controlling internet space or the OTT Platform is not an easy task for any authority as the internet space is not completely controlled by any country except China and North Korea. Globally, countries are still in the process of bringing regulation in the space of OTT for example Australia has an eSafety Commissioner for digital media and the content in the country is regulated by The Broadcasting Services Act, 1992 which has detailed guidelines, a complaint mechanism and a refused classification to be prohibited.As provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 are applicable to the films meant for release in theatres and as such are not applicable to the ones which are transmitted through the medium of the internet. Any certifications of a film by CBFC do not apply to the contents streamed on OTT platforms, the OTT platforms enjoyed complete freedom unlike traditional cinema and this led to numerous instances where plethora of complaints were filed on grounds of obscenity, hurting of religious sentiments, child pornography so on and so forth hence the need of the hour to regulate this space. This was also observed by the Supreme Court while hearing the plea filed by Amazon Head and opined that Traditional film viewing has become obsolete. People watching films on these platforms has become common. Should there not be some screening? We feel there should be some screening At times they are showing pornography too, The court further stated that a certain degree of screening must be done before showing such films or web series to the general public.The online content lacks such specific provision governing content available on the OTT Platform nonetheless these content are subject to certain existing legislation, rules such as 1. Information Technology Act, 2000: Publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form is punishable offence under section 67-A, Publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form is a punishable offence under section Section 67-B and the Government under Section 69A has the power to block the access of certain material for public consumption.2. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Any person who indulges in the activities of selling and distributing any work of literature which is obscene is a punishable offence under Section 293. Any person who has the intention of outraging the religious sentiments with malice is punishable offence under Section 295A, releasing of defamatory content is punishable under Section 499 and if/and when any person insults the modesty of a woman is punishable under Section 354.3. Protection of Children from Sexual offences) Act: For protection of children from either online or offline offences. This is one of the key legislation which ensures the protection of children from various acts like sexual assault various harassments and web pornography.4. Indecent Representation of Women (Prevention) Act, 1986: this act explicitly prohibits the indecent representation of women in advertisements, movies, books, online content.Though our Constitution under Article 19(1) provides the right to speech and expression to all, thereby, any person has a freedom to express their opinion, ideas and thoughts but this right is not an absolute right and is subject to restrictions (in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence) under Article 19 (2).The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) discussed and consulted with several stakeholders on any form of regulation of OTT platforms to make the sector more efficient and the Government of India released Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules) which lays down the following guidelines for the intermediaries to follow which includes the OTT platforms under Information Technology Act-(a) The OTT platforms have to self categorize themselves into five age based categories such as U- Universal, U/A 7 years, U/A- 13 years, U/A- 16 years and A- Adult.(b) Parental lock needs to be provided by OTT platforms.(c) The digital media will also have to follow the Norms of Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India and the Programme Code under Cable Television Networks Regulation Act.(d) To establish a three level grievance redressal mechanism, where the first level is the self- regulation by OTT platforms, second- level would be for self- regulation by the self- regulating bodies of publishers and the third level for an oversight mechanism.(e) It also provides for the appointment of a redressal officer based in India for addressing the grievances within 15 days.(f) There must also be an additional self- regulatory body of publishers from amongst the retired judge of the Supreme Court, High court or an eminent person and not more than 6 other members.The recent past has seen stupendous increase in the number of OTT platforms launched in India (local and international) to cater to the diverse sensibilities of the Indian audience making India the fastest growing OTT Market in the world which however has caused a great deal of controversy, with many Indian and foreign shows being dragged into disputes over issues such as pornography, defamation and insulting religious sentiments and so on.The absence of the specific regulation for OTT and plethora of cases filed against OTT Platforms has posed a speed breaker for the OTT platforms. Apart from content removal notices, the OTT Platforms have been subject to various litigation across states. Cannot ignore the reasons given by players coming from other countries that there is lack of acquaintance with the law of the land such as defamation, hate speech, national security, cultural insensitivity, political compulsion, and so on and the absence of specific legislation dealing with OTT creates an unfavorable environment. Therefore, need of the hour A well defined comprehensive and a separate legislation in order to tackle the current issues which in a way will provide a safe environment for viewers and Platforms to flourish and prosper.(Khushbu Jain is practicing advocate in Supreme Court and founding partner of law firm Ark Legal: arklegal.in and can be contacted on twitter: @advocatekhushbu)

See the rest here:
Ott platform censorship: It's a necessary evil - The Sunday Guardian Live - The Sunday Guardian

Proceeds from an auction of an unusual edition of Margaret Atwoods classic dystopian novel The Handmaids Tale will go to the free expression advocacy group PEN America, as the group stands up to right-wing attempts to ban books in the United States.

The single copy of the novel is made entirely of flame-resistant material, as evidenced in a video released on May 24 in which Atwood herself attempted to light the book on fire.

Atwood and the publishing company Penguin Random House announced Monday that the book will be auctioned off at Sothebys New York, both to help PEN America fight censorship and as a challenge to enacted and attempted book bans.

To see her classic novel about the dangers of oppression reborn in this innovative, unburnable edition is a timely reminder of whats at stake in the battle against censorship, said Markus Dohle, CEO of Penguin Random House.

The publisher worked with Atwood, PEN America, the Toronto-based creative agency Rethink, and a bookbinding studio called the Gas Company to create the book.

The flame-proof copy is made of thin sheets of Cinefoil, an aluminum product, and was sewn together using nickel copper wire.

The creation of the book comes as attempts to ban books by lawmakers and school districts have surged to their highest level since the American Library Association began recording such censorship two decades ago.

The group reported 729 challenges to materials in schools and libraries. Last week, more than 1,000 childrens book authors and artists signed a letter condemning the efforts by organized groups to purge books from our nations schools.

The Handmaids Tale was banned in schools in Texas and Kansas last year.

According to PEN America, as Republicans center their 2022 electoral campaigns largely on protesting the teaching of the United States long history of racial injustice and discussions of gender identity in public schools, GOP lawmakers in 42 states have proposed nearly 200 pieces of legislation seeking to limit school discussions of such topics.

The unburnable copy of The Handmaids Tale is an unforgettable visual metaphor for the current political climate in the U.S., Atwood said.

Read more:
Battle against censorship: Fire-Proof edition of "Handmaid's Tale" released to fight GOP book-banning - Milwaukee Independent

One of the reasons that Russian media has been completely blocked in the West, along with the unprecedented control and censorship over the Ukraine war narrative, is the fact that western governments simply do not want their public to know that the world is vastly changing.

Ignorance might be bliss, arguably in some situations, but not in this case. Here, ignorance can be catastrophic as western audiences are denied access to information about a critical situation that is affecting them in profound ways and will most certainly impact the worlds geopolitics for generations to come.

The growinginflation, an imminent globalrecession, a festering refugee crisis, a deepening food shortage crisis and much more are the kinds of challenges that require open and transparent discussions regarding the situation in Ukraine, the NATO-Russia rivalry and the responsibility of the West in the ongoing war.

To discuss these issues, along with the missing context of the Russia-Ukraine war, wespokewith Professor Noam Chomsky, believed to be the greatest living intellectual of our time.

Chomsky told us that it should be clear that the (Russian) invasion of Ukraine has no (moral) justification. He compared it to the US invasion of Iraq, seeing it as an example of supreme international crime. With this moral question settled, Chomsky believes that the main background of this war, a factor that is missing in mainstream media coverage, is NATO expansion.

This is not just my opinion, said Chomsky, it is the opinion of every high-level US official in the diplomatic services who has any familiarity with Russia and Eastern Europe. This goes back to George Kennan and, in the 1990s, Reagans ambassador Jack Matlock, including the current director of the CIA; in fact, just everybody who knows anything has been warning Washington that it is reckless and provocative to ignore Russias very clear and explicit red lines. That goes way before (Vladimir) Putin, it has nothing to do with him; (Mikhail) Gorbachev, all said the same thing. Ukraine and Georgia cannot join NATO, this is the geostrategic heartland of Russia.

Though various US administrations acknowledged and, to some extent, respected the Russian red lines, the Bill Clinton Administration did not. According to Chomsky, George H. W. Bush made an explicit promise to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand beyond East Germany, perfectly explicit. You can look up the documents. Its very clear. Bush lived up to it. But when Clinton came along, he started violating it. And he gave reasons. He explained that he had to do it for domestic political reasons. He had to get the Polish vote, the ethnic vote. So, he would let the so-called Visegrad countries into NATO. Russia accepted it, didnt like it but accepted it.

The second George Bush, Chomsky argued, just threw the door wide open. In fact, even invited Ukraine to join over, despite the objections of everyone in the top diplomatic service, apart from his own little clique, Cheney, Rumsfeld (among others). But France and Germany vetoed it.

However, that was hardly the end of the discussion. Ukraines NATO membership remained on the agenda because of intense pressures from Washington.

Starting in 2014, after the Maidan uprising, the United States began openly, not secretly, moving to integrate Ukraine into the NATO military command, sending heavy armaments and joining military exercises, military training and it was not a secret. They boasted about it, Chomsky said.

What is interesting is that current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was elected on a peace platform, to implement what was called Minsk Two, some kind of autonomy for the eastern region. He tried to implement it. He was warned by right-wing militias that if he persisted, theyd kill him. Well, he didnt get any support from the United States. If the United States had supported him, he could have continued, we might have avoided all of this. The United States was committed to the integration of Ukraine within NATO.

The Joe Biden Administration carried on with the policy of NATO expansion. Just before the invasion, said Chomsky, Biden produced a joint statement calling for expanding these efforts of integration. Thats part of what was called an enhanced program leading to the mission of NATO. In November, it was moved forward to a charter, signed by the Secretary of State.

Soon after the war, the United States Department acknowledged that they had not taken Russian security concerns into consideration in any discussions with Russia. The question of NATO, they would not discuss. Well, all of that is provocation. Not a justification but a provocation and its quite interesting that in American discourse, it is almost obligatory to refer to the invasion as the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Look it up on Google, you will find hundreds of thousands of hits.

Chomsky continued, Of course, it was provoked. Otherwise, they wouldnt refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion. By now, censorship in the United States has reached such a level beyond anything in my lifetime. Such a level that you are not permitted to read the Russian position. Literally. Americans are not allowed to know what the Russians are saying. Except, selected things. So, if Putin makes a speech to Russians with all kinds of outlandish claims about Peter the Great and so on, then, you see it on the front pages. If the Russians make an offer for a negotiation, you cant find it. Thats suppressed. Youre not allowed to know what they are saying. I have never seen a level of censorship like this.

Regarding his views of the possible future scenarios, Chomsky said that the war will end, either through diplomacy or not. Thats just logic. Well, if diplomacy has a meaning, it means both sides can tolerate it. They dont like it, but they can tolerate it. They dont get anything they want, they get something. Thats diplomacy. If you reject diplomacy, you are saying: Let the war go on with all of its horrors, with all the destruction of Ukraine, and lets let it go on until we get what we want.

By we, Chomsky was referring to Washington, which simply wants to harm Russia so severely that it will never be able to undertake actions like this again. Well, what does that mean? Its impossible to achieve. So, it means, lets continue the war until Ukraine is devastated. Thats US policy.

Most of this is not obvious to western audiences simply because rational voices are not allowed to talk and because rationality is not permitted. This is a level of hysteria that I have never seen, even during the Second World War, which I am old enough to remember very well.

While an alternative understanding of the devastating war in Ukraine is disallowed, the West continues to offer no serious answers or achievable goals, leaving Ukraine devastated and the root causes of the problem in place. Thats US policy, indeed.

(The interview with Noam Chomsky was conducted jointly with Italian journalist, Romana Rubeo)

See the article here:
'Rationality Is Not Permitted': Chomsky On Russia, Ukraine And The Price Of Media Censorship OpEd - Eurasia Review