> the only thing that could make a difference is if apple, whatsapp
That is literally what is going to happen if this legislation is allowed to pass. WhatsApp will block Canada, and Apple will remove any impacted service from Canada, like iMessage.
> If that's true, wouldn't it be a good thing? It would be repealed.
The Liberals will not be able to quickly reverse the legislation when that happens, and they may even be stupid/evil enough to double down on it. It can also take a year or more for the Supreme Court to strike down the legislation.
> But I don't think that's true. They will comply. They always comply.
It is true. Apple for example removes impacted services when a country targets it, like ADP in the UK. So iMessage will no longer work for Canadians.
WhatsApp will not compromise their global security and value of their brand for a tiny market like Canada.
The law in the UK that makes ADP illegal is basically the same as the Canadian one: it says all messaging and cloud storage (for consumers) has to be backdoored. Apple responded by disabling the non-backdoored version, which is ADP. They'll do the same in Canada, and WhatsApp was always backdoored so doesn't need to change.
Raise awareness about the legislation and what it means for the average person (bans on iMessage, WhatsApp, Signal, VPNs, etc...) You need to also start emailing and calling members of the Senate, telling them to reject the bill.
Canada is relatively unique among the common wealth countries as its founders were smart enough to remove parliamentary supremacy and have real judicial review.
I just wish that they would have also included a constitutional review council that reviews legislation before it comes law like France did (Constitutional Council), because a massive amount of damage can be done while waiting for the Canadian Supreme Court to rule on something.
Judicial review is below parliamentary supremacy. Judicial review can be easily corrupted and relies on a few persons. Parliamentary supremacy on the other hand cannot be easily side stepped as more members needs to be corrupt to do corrupt things. Swiss type cantons/districts and direct democracy by people is much more stable system.
Just recently there was a large number of anti-encryption and anti-private messaging news reports/articles in Canada. They all came from a single shitty article from The Canadian Press News that was written by Nono Shen.
Major Canadian news outlets like CTV News were blindly following that article, and saying "something has to be done" about encrypted messaging: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLHkcOmcZOA
CTV news anchor Carolyn Jarvis was continuously pushing for AI-powered mass surveillance of all private messages in Canada throughout the news segment. And CTV News also falsely labeled Liz Repking as a "cybersecurity expert" and let her promote her anti-privacy views: https://www.ctvnews.ca/video/2026/10/07/they-have-a-shared-r...
Other articles on the subject had various anti-privacy/anti-encryption dog whistles like "going dark" included in them.
All of this can be true without stupidly calling it "state sponsored."
The US mainstream media is equally stupid -- "liberal" or "conservative" -- CNN or Fox both make me want to gouge my eyes out.
Those of us on the (real) left have been pointing out the problem with the broadcast media for decades. Concentration of ownership and private interests are the problem, and frankly the CBC is the least worst of the bunch here in the country.
Canada is currently under a mass nationalist fervour under which the Carney gov't is getting away with a lot. The thing is the stuff he is getting away with... is exactly the stuff the Conservatives also wanted to do anyways. So people on the right frothing at the mouth about the liberals just baffles me. He is literally implementing the full CPC platform from the last election.
Bell is highly integrated with the government to the point of being defacto state funded. CTV does defend the interests of Bell, which includes continuing to get nice government contracts and free money to build out their infrastructure. What would be the value of being a dissenting voice? Bringing CRTC scrutiny?
> Compulsory voting is an instrument to build authoritarianism, not to prevent it.
On what basis does someone make this claim? Authoritarianism is a broad stroke. Most of the time, they eliminate voting, not make it compulsory.
Classically, an authoritarian power only care about voting to initially take hold of power. Every attempt to coerce voting (one way or the other) after that is performative, not instrumental.
> Most of the time, they eliminate voting, not make it compulsory.
No, that is totally not true.
Even North Korea doesn't eliminate voting. People there still vote, just very controllable by the government. Compulsory voting is one of the instruments that makes voting more controllable for the government. Voting in North Korea is mandatory.
> Even North Korea doesn't eliminate voting. People there still vote, just very controllable by the government.
I don't consider this voting. After a regime has already taken power (during which time voting is suspended), there is often (not always) allowed performative ritual as a cultural placebo. Regulated physical acts are not the same as suffrage.
Paula Simons is almost certainly against Bill C-22, so it probably won't be of any use to contact her about rejecting it. I would focus efforts on other Senators.
reply