Federal New Democrats won't say how they intend to vote on a bill that aims to keep minors from accessing sexually explicit material online, while the Conservatives say they're prepared to work on amending the controversial legislation.
Meanwhile the LPC oppose the bill while the CPC would work to amend it.
What a joke politics has become. Since the 1990s “protect the children” has become a perennial excuse for absurd legislation that does nothing of the sort, and not one party has learned how to stand firm against the calumnious deceit of the people who habitually abuse it. The Liberals feel confident enough to oppose this bill only because they have their own which is almost as bad.
Strange to think that only a few generations ago Canada was known for “good government.”
Flavored tobacco was literally marketed to children, to get them addicted to cigarettes from an early age. The “protect the children” arguments are often used to ban things that made no impact or even positive impact in children’s lives (DnD, sexual equality). Or it’s used to justify surveillance and overreach (porn bans and she verification laws)
If anyone’s claiming that any of these things is equivalent to another it isn’t me, but marketing campaigns aimed at children (for tobacco and in general) are also something we’d be better off without.
Isn’t that already illegal? As far as I remember, ad breaks during my morning cartoons were either for other shows on the network or Swiffer and laundry detergent.
It is illegal, but kids get most content online now. So, although many countries have laws on the books against ads targeting children, it doesn’t mean that they don’t.
Juul got in trouble for doing this, using ads that were definitely not specifically targeting tweens/teens on websites for Seventeen magazine, cartoon network, and Nick jr.
What a joke politics has become. Since the 1990s “protect the children” has become a perennial excuse for absurd legislation that does nothing of the sort, and not one party has learned how to stand firm against the calumnious deceit of the people who habitually abuse it. The Liberals feel confident enough to oppose this bill only because they have their own which is almost as bad.
Strange to think that only a few generations ago Canada was known for “good government.”
Protect the children, they cry, while permitting flavoured tobacco or something else as terrible
Tobacco is the health hazard to children and adults alike, not the flavours added to it. But that’s another moral panic.
Flavored tobacco was literally marketed to children, to get them addicted to cigarettes from an early age. The “protect the children” arguments are often used to ban things that made no impact or even positive impact in children’s lives (DnD, sexual equality). Or it’s used to justify surveillance and overreach (porn bans and she verification laws)
These aren’t equivalent.
If anyone’s claiming that any of these things is equivalent to another it isn’t me, but marketing campaigns aimed at children (for tobacco and in general) are also something we’d be better off without.
Isn’t that already illegal? As far as I remember, ad breaks during my morning cartoons were either for other shows on the network or Swiffer and laundry detergent.
It is illegal, but kids get most content online now. So, although many countries have laws on the books against ads targeting children, it doesn’t mean that they don’t.
Juul got in trouble for doing this, using ads that were definitely not specifically targeting tweens/teens on websites for Seventeen magazine, cartoon network, and Nick jr.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/health/juul-vaping-lawsuit.html
Edit: correction on the websites
If you really want to protect children, start by going after fossil fuel companies