The rationale behind this regulation is insincere, and in my view, it is an expression of weakness and fear by an out of touch governing class who know they hav

The rationale behind this regulation is insincere, and in my view, it is an expression of weakness and fear by an out of touch governing class who know they have overstepped their remit, however, the effects could be interesting. The interesting effects will be toward one of two poles: either the regulation will relieve conservative forums (if they even exist anymore) of the burden of dealing with people who abuse their tolerance with extreme behavior, which will improve their conversations and make the discourse of those forums clearer - or - the regulations will be used by a provisional group of party affiliated trolls who will flood opposition sites with "hate speech," to get them "investigated" and knocked offline using this as a pretext at key moments under the regulation. I suspect the latter will be the case. The actual path for Canada is something much more cynical. If this sounds extreme, it's worth remembering that Canada is not the US. It is not a republic, and it's only nominally a democracy, and its charter of rights has a "notwithstanding clause," which means a government can do whatever it wants. This regulation is part of a set of enabling acts for the Davos movement to form its own country using Canada as its first host. If that sounds like a conspiracy theory, we used to call it opposition criticism, but apparently that's not a thing anymore either. Discourse about policy in Canada is dead, and we are all but officially no longer a nation state, and so we are left to commenting on the realpolitik of our various administrators.