Protecting kids online seems like ‘common sense.’ So why is Pierre Poilievre opposing it?

[@swms1021]

The proposed bill is too vague and leaves the interpretation to the liberals which will use it to control any speech they don’t like. This is not about protection it’s about control.

[@RighAlban]

Much like the very similar bill here in Scotland, it's extremely vague and seems to be used very one sided, under religion it's free reign on insulting Christianity but anything involving Islam has seen people getting 3 months plus, LGB stuff will get you a door knock from the constabulary at minimum and they're already talking about an amendment to add misogyny to the bill, but obviously not misandry as that implies a two way street. It's exactly as you describe the Canadian version, it's not hate speech but speech they hate.

[@sonofawil]

Because censorship in the name of “won’t somebody please think of the children!” is insidious.

[@rhino3677]

you aren't protecting kids. You are censoring your opposition

[@nero3666]

I appreciate the protection of children completely, I am a liberal supporter. But this goes to far . I do not support it . Privacy must be protected.

[@JiggilySmash]

In Liberal make believe world Poilievre will openly oppose "protecting children", openly oppose "affordable housing", openly oppose "free" dental care, but then he *secretly* wants to ban abortion. Like usual, the Liberals ignore all of the reasons these programs should be opposed. Censorship is about control. Spending is trying to fix problems caused by government interference with more government interference. All this government cares about is control and making sure they project an image of righteous virtue. Let me ask you, is Trudeau a philanthropist with his own money? Sophie? The guy and his family can't even give a speech for a charity for free, something that would cost them *NOTHING.*

[@Irvingstine]

It's not hate speech... it's speech they hate.

[@kggl5079]

How about we just enforce the laws appropriately. I suspect it’s just more control over honest citizens who might oppose Liberal talking points

[@jasonplante191]

Wrong get ready to get voted out

[@hollywood5274]

Hate speech is the name, control is the game!

[@michaelsyntak5418]

Funny how the only prime minister to engage in hate speech is justin trudeau. No surprise that he won't be charged for it thanks to his corrupt lap dog the rcmp commissioner.

[@bobjohnson270]

who defines hate speech? If its up to trudeau its anything he disagrees with.

[@littlelittle5]

Parents should just use Parental Control

[@rondaniels9974]

Put your glasses back on Pierre. It's harder to mistake you for Mike Johnson without them - at least if you're not speaking.

[@gamingbigfats3934]

It’s designed to shut you up if You disagree with Turdo

[@tbl268]

Good, it should be opposed. PP for PM

[@JTJ1991]

I agree with all the desires of that law except hate speech. Speech should not be unlawful and describing it as hate speech is a very vague term. Who’s decides what is hate speech? If it hurts your feelings or don’t agree with it, don’t listen to it.

[@ajmckay4172]

🍁🍁🇨🇦PP only cares 🎉his own PP

[@raptordan6851]

Little pp says what

[@ajmckay4172]

@@raptordan6851 haha

[@fernendo4]

Always the pencil nck baldies

[@Vexed09]

Anyone who looks at this critically understands it is about censorship, not safety.

[@charlenem9174]

Because 1950s poilievre lacks common sense!

[@michaelsyntak5418]

Why do you support racism and misogyny?

[@smoothbomber9773]

So intelligence and critical thinking is a 1950's thing? You have to join the hive-mind to be considered current? Brain rot for 2024! good for you for being so "avant". L

[@smoothbomber9773]

Mr. Wackeau, would you appreciate it if I told you what to think, what you can and can't say, and ratted you out for something you might say in the future? No? So why do you think that we would want that from you? Time to pack it in big guy.