Stoking Herkimer

When I turned eleven I graduated from the Cub Scouts and moved up into the Boy Scouts. We lived in the southern suburbs of Baltimore at the time, and every year our troop spent a week at a BSA camp in northeastern Maryland. A week of intense heat, mosquitoes, swimming, shooting, nature study — anyone who’s been in the Boy Scouts knows the drill.

Our campsite was medium-level when it came to fixtures and conveniences. In the more primitive sites, the scouts had to dig their own latrines and cook over a campfire. In the more swanky sites there was a little electrified building with a kitchen and a dining room, and not far away a modern latrine building.

Our site was in between. We had a latrine building of sorts, and a big canopy tent with picnic tables and a propane stove for a dining hall. And for hot water we had Herkimer.

Herkimer was a massive thick-walled cylindrical tank that we used as a water boiler. It sat over a fire on four big cinderblocks, and was fed by a water pipe from a well that served all the campsites in the area. I don’t know why it was called Herkimer — for some mysterious reason, that was the boiler’s name.

Herkimer had to be fired up before every meal, because the metal trays we used as plates had to be washed in very hot water. Our troop leaders explained the need for rigorous food hygiene, remarking that a failure to run those trays through boiling water would cause the troop to come down with diarrhea — which at scout camp was not a pleasant experience, even with a latrine building less than a hundred yards away.

So three times a day Herkimer was ravenous for wood. The camp management delivered a load of junk wood every morning that could be used for the fire, but it was never quite enough. We Boy Scouts would be sent out into the woods (which our campsite was in the middle of) to fetch whatever additional wood we could find. We weren’t allowed to cut living trees, but we could take down small dead ones, pick up deadfalls, and gather whatever else we could find. We broke up discarded packing cases and threw in big thick hunks of cardboard. Anything that would burn was fair game — I remember using a shovel to root out a large stump and break it up to stoke Herkimer.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Herkimer came to mind recently when I was contemplating the enormous political and cultural upheavals that are characteristic of our time.

Let’s take a look at the running of that big old water boiler as a process. We could break it down into three parts:

1.   The objective. The purpose of Herkimer was to generate sufficient quantities of boiling water to achieve culinary hygiene. One might devise other schemes for reaching the same objective, but at that particular place and time, a large metal tank with water piped into it and a fire underneath comprised the established system.
2.   The method. One opened the valve to let water into the tank and ignited the fuel underneath. Thermodynamics took care of the rest.
3.   Praxis. Two major components were required for operation, water and fuel. The former was taken care of by a well and a pump. For the latter a horde of grubby Boy Scouts was required. Again, one can imagine other schemes to achieve the same goal — paying top dollar for truckloads of charcoal briquettes to be hauled in, for example. But scrounging for junk wood was the chosen procedure.
 

There’s a socio-political Herkimer currently operating in Western Civilization. We’ve all observed the continuous onslaught against established religion, traditional customs, and cultural institutions that have been built up over the course of more than a thousand years. New rules and practices that would have been unimaginable a generation or two ago are being forced upon a populace that never desired or requested them. I’ll give some specific examples later on in this essay.

This destructive process is painfully visible in its innumerable manifestations, but teasing out the various strands of its three components is a tricky business. Nevertheless, we’ll give it a try.

1. The objective

What is the purpose of all this unpopular cultural coercion? The ostensible reasons — “human rights”, “diversity”, “social justice”, and so on — are obviously only the cover story. The real purpose is generally occluded, and can only be deduced by observing its myriad manifestations within our society.

The apparent goal of all these actions is lysis: the breaking down of long-established social structures. Lytic agents are being deployed throughout society to dissolve cultural membranes and connective tissue.

In the case of Herkimer, the overseers of the process — the camp management and our troop leaders — established the goal. The overseers of our societal Herkimer are of necessity less obvious. They are commonly labeled “globalists”, but a more accurate term might be “global socialists”, since socialism has always been a major component of the one-world utopias conceived by the visionaries of the blood-soaked century that preceded this one.

A new world is being built, and all the components of the old one must be disassembled before the new order can be constructed. That’s what the cultural Herkimer is for.

Continue reading

Mark Steyn: “If the alternative is surrendering our liberty over death threats, to hell with that!”

This morning Mark Steyn testified as a witness at a hearing on “online hate” held in the Canadian House of Commons by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. As you might expect, the occasion was one in which sanctimonious progressive pols hectored, badgered, bullied, and otherwise coerced witnesses to fall in line with Party doctrine on immigration, Multiculturalism, Islam, etc.

Mr. Steyn, however, refused to be bullied. He repaid his tormentors in kind, and threw in extra invective just for them.

He was superb. The next time I run into him I’ll say, “Steyn, you magnificent bastard! I heard your testimony.”

No video was allowed at the committee hearing (see Vlad Tepes’ post below for more on that), so the video below is audio-only, to which photographs have been added.

Before you watch it, a word on the cast of characters: Besides the witnesses, committee members are present in the hearing room. However, since I can’t see their faces, I can’t identify any of them. I assume the committee chair, Anthony Housefather, is one of those asking the questions.

Below is a list of committee members, taken from Wikipedia:

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

Anthony Housefather, Chair (Liberal)
Randy Boissonnault (Liberal)
Ali Ehsassi (Liberal)
Colin Fraser (Liberal)
Iqra Khalid (Liberal)
Ron McKinnon (Liberal)
Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary (Liberal)
Michael Cooper, Vice-Chair (Conservative)
Michael Barrett (Conservative)
David MacKenzie (Conservative)
Tracey Ramsey (New Democratic)

You can also find a list of members on the House of Commons website.

The “Mr. Garrison” mentioned in the transcript is Randall Garrison, an MP for the New Democratic Party, who for some unexplained reason was allowed to ask questions, even though he’s not a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (he sits on the Defence Committee).

The article by Mark Steyn referenced in one of the questions is “The Future Belongs to Islam”, which was published by Maclean’s on October 20, 2006.

I transcribed and timed this four-minute excerpt, and Vlad Tepes was kind enough to subtitle it:

Below is Vlad’s take on Mr. Steyn’s appearance before the Star Chamber parliamentary committee:

Short segment of parliamentary committee badgering Mark Steyn on ‘hate speech’

This morning an odious procedure took place in Canada’s increasingly Soviet-like parliamentary committee on ‘hate speech’, where three worthy witnesses, Lindsay Shepherd, John Robson, and Mark Steyn, defended freedom of speech, which is to say they are against the Trudeau government’s proposition that Section 13 of the Hate Speech Act be reinstituted into the criminal code of Canada.

A reporter from RAIR Foundation, at the hearings this morning, explained to me that had they committed an actual crime and been on trial for it, their lawyer, and quite probably the judge, would never have allowed the defendant to be treated the way these volunteer witnesses for freedom had been treated.

Before you watch the video, it may help you to understand the intentions and fairness of this committee to know two things.

1.   The Committee voted before this started not to televise the video of it. So there is only audio of it. We can only guess as to why they chose not to broadcast video, as it was a “non-debatable motion” not to broadcast to which most agreed not to broadcast, and one abstained.
2.   They passed another odd motion: not to name the New Zealand shooter and not to quote from his manifesto, even though it was irrelevant to this hearing. However it does relate to an event last week where a conservative MP used facts from the manifesto to counter a false claim, and for which he was immediately reprimanded. This second motion, as I see it, is Orwell’s last prediction. Loosely quoting: “The future is a boot on humanity’s face for pretty much all eternity”.
 

Video transcript:

Continue reading

They’re Coming to Take Me Away, Ha Ha!

The urge to create the above image was prompted by the latest of uncountably many incidents in which a Muslim perpetrator of an atrocity was identified as having mental problems. In this particular case, it was a Tunisian man in Sweden who was described as having “psychological problems” after he stabbed an elderly Jewish woman and then fled the country.

The general rule seems to be this: If (1) there is a single perpetrator acting alone, and (2) his victims are unrelated to him and not among his acquaintances, then he has “psychological problems”. The incidence of the application of this rule by the media seems to be approaching 100%. When was the last time you read a news report about a “lone wolf” mujahid where he was not described as “having a history of psychological problems”, or words to that effect?

Contrast this practice with the immediate and routine description (often without evidence) of any white non-Muslim who commits an atrocity as a “racist”, a “Trump supporter”, a “white supremacist”, a “right-wing extremist”, etc. In other words, the motive for the deed is always described in ideological terms. But if the perpetrator is Muslim, the initially assigned motive is never ideological — as if adherence to Islam were not in fact evidence of adherence to an extreme political ideology.

Mind you, that doesn’t make the description wrong. Devout adherence to Islam is quite clearly a form of mental illness. Either people with mental problems are drawn to Islam, or being exposed to Islamic doctrine induces mental illness. Or both.

(Feel free to use the graphic for meme pics.)

One Man, One Border

The mandate for a multicultural society necessitates the removal (or at least the neglect of) national borders. Since citizens are no longer protected at the national level, they must protect themselves at the individual level — creating, as it were, tiny borders around themselves by various means. Women in particular must take unusual measures to guard against rape, sexual assault, and other forms of violence perpetrated by culture enrichers.

In the following video, Vlad Tepes has compiled a useful and thought-provoking selection of these “tiny borders”:

Samizdat in the Age of Digital Totalitarianism

A couple of days ago we posted about the blocking of BitChute in Australia via a process known as “DNS poisoning”. It seems that the emergence of BitChute as a source of uncensored videos was enough of a threat for the Powers That Be in Oz to decide that it must be neutralized.

During the same time period the process of de-platforming dissidents has accelerated. Almost anyone who is well-known and has a slightly right-of-center political opinion can expect to have Tweets and Facebook posts deleted, YouTube videos pulled, and — if he is prominent enough to require complete excommunication — the closing of his account. Dissidents with the greatest celebrity status, such as Tommy Robinson and Milo Yiannopoulos, can expect to lose their accounts on multiple platforms simultaneously, as if their suppression were being coordinated by some trans-national censorship board.

Vlad Tepes is on BitChute and BitTube now, which is why the topic of DNS poisoning came up. His videos are now going up and staying up, thanks to BitChute; hence the establishment’s efforts to cut off viewers’ access to BitChute.

As it happens, all of these methods of censorship and repression are being implemented not by the state, but by private corporations. This gives repressive governments cover so that they can deny responsibility: “Facebook [or Twitter, or Instagram, or Google, etc.] is a private company, and may enforce its terms of use without government interference.” The ISPs in Australia that are sabotaging BitChute’s IP on their domain name servers are also private corporations, as far as I know — the Australian government doesn’t have to do the dirty work.

This doesn’t mean that governments are not arresting, charging, trying, and convicting citizens for “hate speech”. Britain, Sweden, and Germany seem to be vying with each other to see who can rack up the largest number of state prosecutions for hate speech. The rest of Western Europe, Australia, and Canada are no slouches, either. The USA has the First Amendment, so it’s not so bad here, but we’re only hanging on by the skin of our teeth. If Hillary had been elected in 2016, and had thus been able to appoint two Supreme Court justices, we’d probably be following the Canadian model right now.

Nevertheless, private companies are doing most of the heavy lifting when it comes suppressing free speech. Some of them are probably following the inclinations of their CEOs (think Mark Zuckerberg), but a quiet government word about antitrust action or a tax-evasion investigation must do wonders to convince them to help the state suppress Internet dissent.

A few days ago we posted an interview with a French communist MEP from back in 1992. This was one of Vlad’s videos, so it was uploaded to BitChute. However, I happened to find a mirror of it on a minor YouTube channel, and posted that instead.

How was that channel able to post the video? Even if Vlad still had a YouTube channel, that video would have been immediately deleted by Google, because it said naughty things about the European Union. How come the other channel gets a pass?

The answer is obvious: Vlad’s channel was very popular, and had turned into a major influence in the realm of online videos. The other channel is relatively minor, and evidently doesn’t attract enough viewers to warrant being suppressed.

There’s a lesson for us dissidents in that.

Continue reading

The Quebec Legislature Debates Bill 21

A law (Bill 21) proposed by Quebec Premier François Legault would restrict the wearing of religious symbols by public employees. Among the symbols to be prohibited is the hijab, which has predictably caused a fierce controversy about Bill 21.

The video below shows excerpts from a hearing in the Quebec legislature about Bill 21. It features retired Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, who angered the Gutmenschen by linking the Islamic veil with female genital mutilation, forced marriage, and honor killing.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Muslim Teachers in Quebec Support No-Veil Law

The following video features an interview with three Muslim schoolteachers in Quebec who support the recently passed law prohibiting public employees from wearing hijab. What distinguishes these three women from the zealous proponents of the veil is that they’ve been living in Quebec for a much longer time.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

St Patrick’s Day – When the Irish Invaded Canada

Who knew?

This fine fellow researched the whole tilting-at-windmills brouhaha — including all the internecine fighting that kept that Hunger Generation from succeeding.

It’s here:

When the Irish Invaded Canada: The Incredible True Story of the Civil War Veterans Who Fought for Ireland’s Freedom

The thing is, those fighting Irish didn’t actually want Canada; they simply thought they could use it as a hostage to gain freedom for Ireland and they worked hard to make it happen.

The new Irish immigrants flooded to America in order to work for something to eat. Thus, they fought on both sides of the U.S. Civil War and then kinda, sorta joined forces afterward to secure Canada. The rationale was that if they held Canada hostage then the English would have to let much-poorer Ireland go in exchange.

Several things came out of the attempt. First, the British moved the capital further in from its border with America in order to make it more secure. Secondly, the overdue idea of founding a confederation of Canada’s territories became a reality much sooner than might have been the case otherwise.

‘Tis a fascinating book if you’ve the necessary DNA component which allows one to read gobs of stories about in-fighting and betrayal. Though he mentions it, what the writer doesn’t cover sufficiently, me thinks, is the reality of America’s desire for grabbing Canada its ownself. We had taken Texas from Mexico by then and bought Alaska from Russia. Bringing in Canada had great appeal for many Americans. For Canadians, not so much. They are too peaceable; being part of the rowdy U.S. would cause a profound unease. They weren’t called Loyalists for nothing.

Back during the Irish shenanigans, some of America’s politicians bloviated about the desirability of owning the whole hog, but those who did have an eye on the North wanted someone else to do the dirty work. There was little dirty work the Irish weren’t willing to do to get the English out of the Emerald Isle.

A recent video of the author’s talk in Lawrence Massachusetts about this bit of history is below the fold.

Continue reading

Samizdat on a $5 Bill

It seems that forbidden information is circulating on paper currency in Canada:


(Click to enlarge)

Samizdat on loonies! Who’da thunk it?

Our long-time reader and commenter leCanadien, who sent us the photo of the bill, explains how he came by it:

I just received this interesting $5 Canadian bill from a bank machine.

You could call it: ‘News Dissemination Iron Curtain Style’

It says: Senate Committee on the Trudeau Regime Letting ISIS Terrorist into Canada

On the left side it says: Google You Tube

Just think of the ramifications of this remarkable new medium for expressing dissent. In the Soviet Union, the government inhibited the production of samizdat by (among other methods) making paper difficult to obtain. But there’s no shortage of loonies in circulation — in fact, as the value of the Canadian dollar drops, more of them will be printed. As long as the government continues pretending to pay people, there will be plenty of paper for dissidents.

I suppose the government could always restrict the supply of felt-tip pens, however. In that case the dedicated producer of samizdat will have to draw his own blood and scratch his message on a (CAD) $1,000,000 bill using a toothpick or torn-off piece of fingernail…

Amy Mek Interviews Vlad Tepes About YouTube’s Jihad Against Him

As we reported a couple of weeks ago, Vlad Tepes’ YouTube channel was abruptly shut down by Google.

He has other platforms, of course. The most recent one is BitTube. And his
BitChute channel has an archive of all his videos for the last couple of years, so nothing important has been lost.

But the YouTube channel had a huge number of subscribers, giving Vlad an enormous reach. Which, given the politically incorrect nature of his material, is probably why YouTube decided to take him down.

The following interview with Vlad by Amy Mek serves as an instructive sequel to Matt Bracken’s report on his latest Facebook suspension. This is the Brave New World that dissidents are forced to inhabit here in Techno-World.

NOTE: There are problems with the audio in this clip — Vlad’s voice is much quieter than Ms. Mek’s. I advise you to turn up the volume so you can hear Vlad properly, but be prepared to hear a much louder voice when Amy Mek speaks:

Vlad’s YouTube Channel Has Been Taken Down

For the last few days there has been a concerted push by Google to age-restrict dozens of videos on Vlad’s channel, some of them years old. He also got a “community guidelines” strike, which is more serious. When the second such strike came in early this morning, YouTube pulled his channel.

We don’t know what caused this sudden wave of persecution. His videos have become more popular lately, and have been embedded at several major sites, so that may be part of the reason — he grew so tall that his head had to be cut off.

Anyway, for many months everything he has posted on YouTube has been mirrored on his BitChute channel. I don’t have time to go back and replace all the YouTube embeds in our posts, but if you’re looking for a particular video, you can find it at the BitChute Channel. And visit Vlad Tepes for more information and updates.

A Bridge Too Far

Tabitha Korol’s latest essay concerns a recent event staged by the “Interfaith” movement — which, as Maj. Stephen Coughlin has so assiduously documented, is simply a cover for infiltration and indoctrination by agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, in which naïve Christians and Jews become unwitting dupes.

A Bridge Too Far*

by Tabitha Korol

It was brought to my attention that Westmount Temple Emanu-el Beth Shalom in Montreal hosted a Muslim-Awareness Interfaith Shabbat Dinner on January 25, 2019, to pay homage to the six dead and nineteen wounded from a lone attack on a Montreal mosque two years previously. Such well-meaning, but naïve, efforts were hijacked by Muslim apologists to promote their false victimhood status to garner sympathy from others.

One might wonder why there was no outreach from Jews or Muslims for the desecration attack in March 2018 on a synagogue in Thornhill, and no homage paid for the October, 2018 massacre of eleven congregants of the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, inasmuch as Canada and the US are connected in many ways. Neither was there any form of condolence or apology offered when a small Canadian Arab newspaper, Al Saraha, published an antisemitic article that posited why Hitler killed the Jews, stated that the number of six million Jews killed during the Holocaust was severely inflated, and asserted that Jews are to blame for Germany’s economic collapse, sexual license and promiscuity.

Inasmuch as the Jewish-Muslim Interfaith Dinner so closely preceded Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day designated to confront the hatred and crimes against the Jewish people, it begs the question as to why that was not incorporated into the outreach, except that Muslims do not grant victimhood status to others, and they continue to deny the Holocaust as the systematic murder of six million Jews. Our FBI records show that Jews still experience the greatest number, by far, of attacks and assaults, yet nothing was done to honor those victims and awaken the attendees to the dire situation of antisemitism that is once again upon us.

It is pertinent to include herewith a few unpalatable facts. Muslims have killed 669 million people over 1400 years, a number quite astounding, but correct. Those who were not killed — the Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and others — were forced into captivity and conversion. They became the ancestors of today’s 1.6 billion Muslims, including the masses who are now committing unspeakable crimes in Sweden, Germany, France, England — 29 countries worldwide.

Arab-Islamic attacks on Jews began with the Battle of Khaybar in 628 AD, against Christians with raids into Byzantine lands in 630, and rapidly engulfed the non-Arab people of North Africa, Spain, Persia, and beyond. In 1801, the Barbary pirates attacked American shipping, and in 2000, the USS Cole. The World Trade Center was attacked twice, in 1993 and 2001, followed by group bombings, shootings, stabbings, and property damage — hate crimes. However, in a country the size of America, the imams have informed their jihadis that eventual conquest must be achieved by other means — through civilizational or stealth jihad. Hence, our government now has an inordinate number of Muslims in office. Unashamedly antisemitic and anti-American, they are working to change our laws to be increasingly socialist and then sharia-compliant.

Continue reading

The Wanton Slaughter of Free Speech in America

Long-time readers will remember Michael Hansen, a.k.a. “The Dane”, a Danish-American documentary maker who produced two ground-breaking movies, Killing Europe and Killing Canada. He was scheduled to show the latter film in Canada, but the venue cancelled the showing at the last minute. Ironically enough, he was then booked to speak in Ottawa about what happened to Killing Canada, and the implications for free speech, but that appearance was also cancelled at the last minute.

His experiences in Canada prompted him to examine the state of free speech in the USA. The result was a movie called Killing Free Speech. He showed an early version to local representatives of the border patrol officers’ union in San Diego, and they liked it so much that a screening was planned for the national organization in Washington DC. However, when word got out about what was happening, that showing was — you guessed it — cancelled.

Late last year Mr. Hansen released his final version of the movie. You’ll see quite a few familiar faces among those interviewed for the film — Bill Warner, Jim Hoft (of Gateway Pundit), and Diana West, among others. My favorite parts were his interviews with Antifa members and anarchists, and especially his trip to the southern border to talk to border patrol agents and see for himself the sorry state of our border security.

Here’s what he said about his movie in his press release:

Allow me to introduce myself: I’m Michael Hansen.

I just put out a movie called “Killing Free Speech”. It’s about the Left’s attempt to control the narrative through an all-out assault on free speech. Its operatives range from Antifa in the streets to politicians in the upper echelons of the Democrat Party.

One consequence of this process manifests itself in what is happening at the border, and, more importantly, the false narrative being pushed by the Left about the border issue.

In my movie I accompany the border patrol on location and let the facts speak for themselves.

The border patrol union liked the movie so much that the San Diego chapter arranged a screening for its agents and those of other law enforcement agencies. They also wanted to set up additional screenings for local chapters of the border patrol union in Texas.

However, after the media heard about the event, these were the headlines…

Now as to their claims of white nationalist… I’m not sure if they are referring to this guy this guy or that guy.

…It is completely fake news — in the articles they never actually identify who these alleged “white nationalists” are.

Other than proving the movie right about the fake news media, why did these “journalists” do it?

Because they wanted to shut down a movie that actually gives the border patrol a voice about the realities at the border.

Sadly enough, the media articles accomplished their intended purpose. The national border patrol was put under so much pressure that any additional screenings were taken off the table. Thus, for the time being, the media have been able to silence the border patrol.

Which brings us to the government shutdown and the border wall.

Why is the Democrat Party so dead set against the border wall that they are willing to shut down the government?

In my movie, border patrol agents demonstrate that a border wall will work.

Because of this, I have decided release my movie to the public for free viewing until we get the wall.

Now, making movies isn’t cheap, and I am not Michael Moore with millions of dollars of Soros funding. I did this all by myself, so please make a donation. Your contribution will allow me to make another movie for the 2020 election.

Thank you.

Given the current dire condition of political discourse in the USA, Michael Hansen has decided to make Killing Free Speech available for free viewing on YouTube. I highly recommend watching the entire documentary:

Mr. Hansen also wrote an article for Jihad Watch about the attempts to suppress his movie:

Continue reading

The Canadian Government Moves to Crack Down on Internet Dissent

It seems that the Canadian government is looking to suppress what remains of independent journalism in the country by further regulating content on the Internet. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) — which is melded with the CBC in some mysterious fashion — has submitted its recommendations to the government for changes to legislation governing telecommunications and media in Canada.

Ezra Levant thinks they will use it to shut Rebel Media down:

A brief snip from the MobileSyrup report may be found atPuget Sound Radio:

CRTC wants legislation to optimize competition, encourage CanCon, enable affordable access

Canada’s telecom watchdog has filed a preliminary submission to the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel

By Sameer Chhabra, MobileSyrup.com
January 10, 2019

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has formally filed a preliminary submission to the panel responsible for reviewing the country’s broadcasting and telecommunications laws.

The CRTC’s January 10th, 2019 filing comes one day before the January 11th deadline, and urges that any new telecom legislation proposed by the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review panel should focus on “outcomes that will benefit Canadians in an era of hyper-connectivity by optimizing competition, enabling affordable and innovative services and extending these services and the facilities necessary to access them across the country.”

The Commission’s use of the phrase “optimizing” is explained by its belief that “varying degrees of competition” have already been introduced to Canada’s telecom market.

The submission filed by Canada’s telecom watchdog also outlined recommendations for changes to Canada’s broadcasting framework, referencing points raised in the Commission’s May 2018 programming distribution report.

According to the CRTC, new broadcasting legislation should encourage the production and consumption of Canadian content (CanCon), while also ensuring that all participants in the country’s broadcasting industry should “participate in appropriate and equitable—though not necessarily identical—ways to benefit Canadians and Canada.”

A lengthier report was published by The Star. Some excerpts are below:

‘Smarter’ rules would ensure all digital players pay for CanCon, panel told

By Terry Pedwell
The Canadian Press
Friday, January 11, 2019

OTTAWA — Federal lawmakers need to make foreign content providers, such as Netflix, YouTube and Amazon Prime, pay their fair share into producing Canadian content, Canada’s broadcast regulator and its public broadcaster argued this week.

What that share looks like, however, remains uncertain as the federal government moves to tear down and rebuild the country’s broadcast and telecom regulations.

In written submissions to a seven-member panel, both the CRTC and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation also called on Ottawa to create new rules that encourage news content distributors to deliver accurate and trustworthy information to Canadians.

The submissions, which were due Friday, are part of a wide-scale review of Canada’s Broadcasting Act, Telecommunications Act and Radiocommunication Act that was started last June by a panel of experts chaired by former Telus Corp. executive Janet Yale.

[…]

“What we’re asking for are new and different powers to regulate in a different way,” Scott said in an interview with The Canadian Press. “It doesn’t mean more regulation. It means smarter, better, flexible regulation. A new toolbox.”

The CRTC has asked for explicit statutory authority and flexible mechanisms to regulate audio and video services, both foreign and domestic, including online.

That would help the regulator ensure that any service provider making money from Canadian viewers and listeners also somehow pays toward the creation and distribution of Canadian content, as domestic broadcast companies do now.

Currently, traditional broadcasters in Canada contribute millions of dollars to bodies including the Canada Media Fund and directly pay for original Canadian productions.

But a shift by Canadians to viewing content online has eaten away at funding models that rely on subscriptions and advertising revenue.

Scott said regulators need the authority to reach agreements with new digital platforms to ensure they contribute “equitably” to the creation of that content.

[…]

The CBC’s submission Friday was nearly identical in tone, saying the government needs to ensure that digital companies profiting from the Canadian cultural marketplace also help pay for the creation of Canadian programming.

It also called for mechanisms to ensure Canadians have access to “trusted news and information” through entities including Google and Facebook.

I tracked down the PDF of the “CBC/Radio-Canada submission to the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel” at the CBC website. It’s a monster at 46 pages and 29MB; however, most of that space is taken up by lavish color graphics, so it’s not quite as long as it seems. There’s also a lot of repetition; nevertheless, the core material consists of dense PC/MC bureaucratic bumf that demands a lot of determination and caffeine to slog through.

I’ve only made a preliminary survey of the contents, and will simply present some of the highlights here. First, the Executive Summary:

Continue reading