Hmm, and here we go again. This is why providing references is often futile. One either ignores or denies the validity of the given references (rightly or wrongly), or one gives a plethora of references that counter it, but of which the scientific value is unclear. As you are aware, I'm not dissing scientific research because it nuances earlier research it (but one needs to read it to know what exactly is countered and what not), but I have little regard for 'real life examples'. Anecdotal examples have NO scientific value. Since your first two just mention some examples, but don't provide any references to research done on these groups that demonstrate your point, nor deal with scientific papers coming to a conclusion that corroborates your own, I'm inclined to ignore it altogether. A marginal search of that Church - and I'm not going to continue delving into it, sorry - shows allegations of child-abuse and what not. But that alone does not demonstrate something which is contrary to what I said, since I said: " It's true that humans do not always ACT on those feelings or lack thereof (one way or another; sometimes incest happens, too, after all), but the feelings themselves are there nonetheless, and can't be simply 'selected' away." and "Not acting on it is because we humans have no instincts (in the true biological sense) anymore which compels us to do anything on the desires we feel (unless one is pathological, perhaps)". So has there been done research to the pathology of the people in that sect? Did they have free choice in having sex with others outside the community? Etc.
Anyway, as said, a mere 'real-life example' tells us nothing on itself, if it ain't properly researched and statistically analysed.
So that leaves your last one, the third reference. That one seems more scientific, but alas, I can only read the abstract, so I can't comment on the content much. However, something that raises serious questions in my head to a degree which makes me fear for the quality of the rest he might claim is the following excerpt: "In this article, I not only challenge the commonly held notion that inbreeding is injurious, but also argue that inbreeding is often harmless and even fitness-enhancing." There is an overwhelming amount of scientific research in biology that clearly shows that inbreeding, certainly in first and second degree (for instance, fucking your mom and having babies) is NOT fitness-enhancing, but rather the opposite. Do that often enough through generations, and it gets detrimental to your whole bloodline. There is a plethora of evidence for this, so one paper now claiming there is nothing to it, makes *that* paper pretty dubious, not all the others. In fact, if memory serves well, even sex-prone animals as bonobo's avoid child-parent incestuous behavior. And one can hardly claim it's a matter of culture in the animal kingdom.
But anyway, I know this is going to be an endless back-and-forth, as usual on slashdot, and I really don't feel like going through it once again, so let me phrase it this way:
IF the Westermarck effect is real, you have your answer, and it's based on evolutionary biology. If not, it may or may not be biological or cultural, and it isn't (dis)proven one way or another.
Note that this is a behavior that starts (and primarily is working) through infancy/childhood, and that it deals with faces you see *constantly* not, 'once a day'.
But your request for studies is valid and reasonable.
Here you go:
- Shepher, Joseph (1983). Incest: A Biosocial View. Studies in anthropology. New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-639460-1. LCCN 81006552 - Shor, Eran; Simchai, Dalit (2009). "Incest Avoidance, the Incest Taboo, and Social Cohesion: Revisiting Westermarck and the Case of the Israeli Kibbutzim". American Journal of Sociology.
If you are talking about the expression of it (aka, how one acts on it): we've been doing that for millennia, in different ways in different cultures in different times. But the problem is, that to see it as a problem in the first place, is ALSO already a cultural artefact. Assholes, traditionally, had the more success, thus in many cultures and timeperiods, being an asshole was advantageous. While there are and have been many cultural differences when dealing with sexual or other conduct, in the end, even our culture is profoundly influenced by the basic biological urges of humans one way or another.
If you are talking about the sexual desire itself, it's pretty straight forward: it's ingrained in our biology, through thousand of years of evolution. If you want to get rid of that, you'd need to wait for another 100000-1000000 years and provide an environment during all that time where such behaviour of non-sexual desire is more successful in giving offspring than with those that have.
But he was right that sex is a market. And I think he wanted to say the general flow of things are more (statistically spoken) that women offer sexual services, and men rather SEEK those services and pay for it. Yes, you have male whores too that offer services, but far less. Yes, you have gigolo's too, but again: far less. There are FAR MORE women offering sexual services to men, then vice versa.
Heck, even the market knows this, because for porn-movies, women are paid far *more* than men, for the same action or scenes. (there is no earning-gap there - or rather, there is, but in reverse...;-))
So, if you interpret what he said in THAT way, he isn't entirely incorrect.
"Let's lay it clear - competition between males was rewarded. Not catcalling. Not rape."
Actually, that is not entirely true. What is 'rewarded' is having a lot of offspring, after all: that's the only 'reward' biology and evolution cares about. In that context, rape was a pretty useful way of disseminating ones' genes. Especially with other 'competitive' groups. That's why in almost all cases where wars are fought, there is always the raping of women (of the other side) too. There has not been one major war where there have been no rapes. Genetics have showed that this led to a fairly good (and necessary) spread of genes, which leads to strong specimens.
In modern times, dissemination of seed/genes between far-way populaces this way has starkly declined, but luckily tourism has filled the gap.
Mind you, I'm not talking about the morals or ethics of it. I'm just pointing out that in the context of evolutionary biology, rape was rewarding.
Yes, but then again THINKING about the cause of wanting to have sex in different cultures and time-periods as being proof of anything shows a misunderstanding of reality. Many, many cultures in many, many timeperiods had it wrong, after all.
The only way in knowing which different subjective stances comes the most close to reality, is through scientific research.
And scientific research has indeed confirmed that the drive to sex is hardwared in our biology to a large extend through millions of years of evolution. The EXPRESSION (how we act on the desires) is heavily culturally based, yes, but having the desire itself isn't. In ALL cultures, people wanted to have and had sex. Those that didn't, died out.
Of course, if you only wanted to say it ain't only men who want sex, but also women, then you're right. Women have as much a sexual drive as men. Well, maybe a bit less, seen the research done with looking at porn, but still considerable.
This obviously only applies to some degree or level. Otherwise NO-ONE would have sex with co-workers. Yet, research has shown a relative large percentage does - *including women*.
It's difficult to imagine co-workers fucking eachother, if all and everyone would never make it clear to anyone else they would like to fuck each other.
A mingled working place, is, after all, ultimately just another place where men and women meet each other. And when men and women meet each other, you'll ALWAYS have some sexual undertones here and there. If you can't deal with that, you can't deal with humans as a whole.
So it's not THINKING about how fuckable your co-worker is that is the problem, nor -as you imply - is it that that co-worker knows you think in a sexual manner that is a problem on itself, it's about HOW you make it clear, and how she (well, both parties) feel about it. Normally, you start subtle and sees how it goes from there, and if the response is good, then you get a bit bolder, etc. until it ends in sex (or it's clearly indicated that it's a no).
Is catcalling too unsubtle? Is making a compliment? Is a certain look? A smile? Some innuendo when you speak? Macho-behaviour? Some snowflakes will consider everything harassment, but in a normal setting with normal humans, most non-violent things will be considered ok and part of the normal process of getting on with eachother. The differences here lay mostly into the subjectivity of the individual (with as most extreme example a snowflake at one end, and a rapist on the other side), and within the culture you are born and lived in (what is culturally acceptable for one group, isn't therefor for the other).
As Vadim Makarov already explained, this, too, is evolutionary biology speaking. Scientific research has already indicated humans get more insensitive (aka; the desire/rutting stage gets less) when they hang out around the same faces, and the more you hang out with them, the less the sexual attraction plays. this already happens - unconsciously, thus - when we are kids, and the phenomenon even applies to people we see a lot (from childhood) even if they're not blood-related.
The reason for this is purely biologic/evolutionary, since in ancient times, when people lived in close family units and tribes, the people around you (who you saw the most, thus) also had the strongest blood-relation with you, and incest is bad for reproduction. Thus, we are still hardwared today to avoid sexual attraction with people we have had a lot of constant dealings with from a child's age.
This is the reason, thus (since you asked 'how it works'). It's a bit ironic, since you tried to argument that it's purely a matter of free will about 'being selective', while in fact, that to substantiates even further the notion that sexual desire (AND the lack of it) has deep roots in our biological nature. It's true that humans do not always ACT on those feelings or lack thereof (one way or another; sometimes incest happens, too, after all), but the feelings themselves are there nonetheless, and can't be simply 'selected' away. Not acting on it is because we humans have no instincts (in the true biological sense) anymore which compels us to do anything on the desires we feel (unless one is pathological, perhaps), but that still doesn't mean we can pre-emptively prohibit the feeling of desire itself.
Then again, I must admit it gave me a chuckle. I mean: all in all, it was funny, even if I agree with you to some level.
It's... I don't know...it's dubious.
There is little denying that the masses ARE often stupid and foolish (and irrational and emo-driven). It's true 'elite' or 'experts' don't have it right all the time neither, but that still doesn't mean the opinion of the hoi palloi is any better, and, in some instances, much worse, indeed. that's why we've moved away from the mob-rule to a more rational justice-system based on experts (judges, lawyers) too, after. yes, those can be pricks and can be wrong too, but they're - overall - still better.
At the very least, when groups of people make stupid decisions, they should pay and deal with the consequences of those stupid decisions. and not let other groups pay for it.
You made an elegant defence of why it would be better to use cheap components then more durable, expensive ones, were it not for the dubious premise you start with.
Let me explain the error in your train of thought. You say: " If you put a 7-cent part in a machine where a 3-cent part typically falls within the lifespan of the machine, you waste money (and labor)."
But that's just it. The *lifespan* of you machine goes up when you put high-quality parts in it. Ergo, when you replace the 3-cent part components with 7-cent part components, then what 'falls within the lifespan of the machine' is exactly that, which the higher components have elevated it to. It's not a fixed lifespan, based on 3-cent parts.
what you say here, thus, is only valid if one would replace a few 3-cent parts with 7-cent parts, AND LEAVE OTHER KEY-COMPONENTS (aka, which are critical to the working of the machine) with 3-cent parts. If you then still can't easily replace the 3-cent parts, then you're screwed over as usual, but while having paid a bit more.
But of course, that is a useless strategy, not only from the viewpoint of the manufacturer, but from the viewpoint of the EU/environment/implanted obsolescence etc. as well..
If one deals with that, then ALL key-components will be more durable, and thus your 'lifespan' will augment.
Does it augment enough? Well, there you're right in assessing the cost/benefit. However, in that assessment you also have to look at the environmental impact, which, ultimately, is also a cost. Say the 7-cent parts machine works double as long, then the 3cent parts machine has a slight advantage: after three machines, you could buy an extra 3-cent machine. Indeed. However, by that time, you'd have (more then) doubled the rubbish of the old ones (and let's face it, there is no such thing as truly 100% recycling), you exploit the resources twice as much (or at least 'more', even with some recycling) AND you polluted the environment more than twice as well.
One would have to calculate all that, to see if it's truly 'better' (cost-benefit), if you put value in those things as well, and thus take in those hidden costs as well.
Sometimes, it CAN be, that it's still better. But in most cases it won't.
Yes, it would have been strange if even google.ca wouldn't have a legal presence in Canada, yet google.com would have. (the court had to order someone, after all;-))
Anyways, was nice talking to you. I'm glad we arrived at some sort of conclusion/agreement, and stayed amiable and civil during the debate. That's not always a given these days on the internet (and certainly not in fora,/. included).
Well, I guess I can largely agree with what you said here. Google should have mounted a better defense. That said, I don't think one should be so naive to think the Canadian court thought 'the cloud' was a server IN Canada. Seen their wording, they already presumed it would be abroad. In which case, the 'overreaching' comes into play again.
It is not clear to me, however, if both the subsidiary google.com AND google.ca, both or neither have any servers in Canada, and/or if both or neither are legal entities with a headquarter registered in Canada. I would presume that it all depends on this, as far as possible answers 'google' may (have to) do. If google caves in, they're going for the short pain, but then they're wide open to similar claims from other courts and countries, with no end in sight. If they're smart, they'll just leave (only) google.ca either with it's own servers in Canada where the law applies, and/or simply make it impossible for them to delete stuff on other servers without consent of google.com or ALPHABET (which resides in the USA), where Canadian jurisdiction is null and void.
What, then, can the Canadian court do? they can't condemn google.ca for not complying if it *can not* comply, after all.
But that's the practical side. Google may not have said where the servers where, but I don't think the Canadian court was under the impression they were on Canadian soil, and they *still* ordered the removal world-wide, so they must have known it would also involve taking super-national jurisdiction. That on itself, is overreaching their powers - or so they should have known. There are examples enough (even in Canada) where they declared themselves incapable of judging something with extra-national jurisprudence, so they could have done it here too. Which would have been the most sensible thing. But they said 'fuck it', just like google said 'fuck it'.
So I guess we might agree with each other both were stupid idiots for doing what they did.
Well, as a pragmaticus I'll agree it will be difficult to appeal, since it's already the highest court, though they might do so on some WTO or NAFTA rules.
But it's still overreaching and implies extra-judicial power, which that court hasn't.
"I think that Google's problem is that google.ca is actually hosted outside of Canada (which isn't a stretch given that they don't have any data centers here and how Canadian infrastructure tends to connect southwards rather than cross-country)."
"Standing up in front of a Canadian (this really goes for any other country) court and saying "fuck you, you're not allowed to issue orders against google.ca" wouldn't go over well"
Those two sentences is exactly what I have troubles with. If it's hosted outside Canada, what jurisdiction does Canada have? None. Or do yu mean they don't have any servers in Canada, but the legal entity (aka, google.ca IS operating in Canada? Otherwise it doesn't make sense. Can China order IBM of Wallmart oversees to do something? No. They can only order it to the affiliates within their borders.
If they don't have any factories or shops in China, why would China have the right to order them anywhere else in the world? If they have a legal entity there, it can only effect that entity.
When push comes to shove, a country can only order to delete something from servers that are on their terrotory, that was my exact point. If google.ca is a legal entity that exists in Canada, but doesn't have any servers but abroad, it's even more simple for Google: they just make sure that legal entity does not have direct access to those servers to delete anything, or, alternatively, they can set servers in Canada, and comply there, but not elsewhere. the point is, however, that, as far as I can see it, the court didn't restrict itself to that. Meaning that, however you turn it, and even in the case of the servers of google.ca being brought or created in Canada, the order STILL would claim it needs to delete it on all other servers. It's that last part that is BS, while no-one would bat an eye if that court ordered to delete it from servers on Canadian soil.
Now, granted, it may be that google didn't handle this case well, but that doesn't change anything to the absurdity of the court decision/order of that court. It makes no sense. Take the paper analogue if it's not clear why: say a bookstore/publisher prints and sells something that one country, China, finds offensive. Now, China has the right to order that it's not printed, or only censored to not offend the Party in China, but how the heck would they have the extra-jurisprudence to order it to do so in every country, even when it's legal elsewhere? That's the very definition of overreaching. Yes, they can't enforce it, and yes, the bookstore can leave China, but both have no bearing on the issue of the validity and acceptance of such a claim.
If one *does* claim that, then it implies one assume one has that validity and that right. But if one makes that claim (be it directly or indirectly), being consistent and using reciprocity, it should also follow that that court acknowledges other courts in other countries ALSO have the right to order things to happen in their territory, even if it's not in their jurisprudence. If the Canadian court finds it can give orders for things to happen in other jurisdictions in other sovereign states, it should also accept the orders of other courts in other sovereign states to actions in their own jurisdiction and country. Do courts agree to that? No. A court order of another country is NEVER automatically accepted by whatever court from whatever country, since it has no jurisprudence there. That why, for instance, an extradition-order is ALWAYS reviewed by the court of the country the citizen is in, EVEN if another court in another country has already ordered that that person should be extradited.
Well, you can't have it both ways, unless one is a hypocrite.
So the court's decision IS overreaching. Whether and what google did w
In that case 1) is indeed strange and a blatant oversight of google.com, since they did argue exactly that in the case of the EU countries that tried to restrict it similarly. Your point 2)...seems rather to substantiate what I said. If it's done by the team OUTSIDE Canada, and thus are not citizens of Canada, then Canada has no say over it. If it's true it's the same team as google.com, then it falls inside the law of the USA, since google.com is a legal entity (as subsidiary under ALPHABET) in the USA (at least since 2015). There are a few exceptions, but normally google.com (as subsidiary) does not handle these actions locally in other countries, nor perform the administration or management from within specific countries with the google.com subsidiary. Compliance with local law is instead typically left this in the hands of the local/national subsidiary, which would be google.ca in this case - which is neither the parent company, nor does google.ca has jurisdiction over other servers located in other countries.
It could be Canada is one of the exceptions, but I doubt it. What *is* possible is that they've become complacent and did, de facto, place the physical servers of google.ca AND google.com there (thus, making only a distinction by virtual servers, or maybe not even that). If google.com uses physical servers located in Canada and/or the google.com team that deals with these actions live in Canada (well, in a legal entity in Canada that is situated under google.com, that is), you might have a point in your assessment.
And, granted, I've only read it cursory and not the whole thing in detail, but I didn't see any clear mentioning if that was the case. If it is, you have a point, if it's not, then the judgement and order is overreaching and absurdly claims extra-juridical power.
If it's the former, then it only pertains to servers locally, and thus the solution for google is clear: to remove google.com operations from the physical servers that are in Canada. If the team is outside Canada, and the servers (of google.com) are out of Canada, then the court has nothing to say anymore. As far as their order is concerned, this does *not* seem to be what they're saying, however. If they instructed google.ca to remove it world wide, it means they order them to remove it on servers that do not belong to google.ca, in countries where they and Canada has no jurisdiction.
Well, google.ca is a subsidiary company operating within Canada. Since Google split up it became multiple subsidiary companies, including one called Google. (Alphabet is now the holding company.) Google subsidiaries that are country specific typically have their servers in that country itself and fall under the national law of that country.
No, they have a right to order google.ca to delist something from google.ca. If google google.com (incorporated, the USA main branch, thus) has any servers in Canada, then the court may ask to delist it from those servers as well. For all the rest, they have no jurisdiction.
As said, there is jurisprudence for courts declaring themselves disqualified in matters of extra-jurisdictional issues, it's not uncommon. The reason is self-evident and obvious, since any court-decision in that regard invites similar court-decisions of other countries, and from the stance of reciprocity one would have to accept such court-orders as well, if one judges it a valid concept. That the court does not share this viewpoint, doesn't see the danger is such orders, doesn't think about the consequences, can't remain consistent if it now denies others what it itself has ordered others, can well be - but that's exactly why it's a foolish and absurd decision.
What is a precedent is a precedent, aka an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. It's clear that other countries may see it exactly that way. Being free to leave is not the issue, being compelled by an order to delete stuff even if it's not on their territory is. That Canada has no bite to actually enforce anything if google (I assume you're talking about google.com servers now) leaves does nothing to mitigate the principle of the matter, namely the disregard for the sovereignty of other countries and a self-restricted limit on extra-jurisdictionality. It means that, if it HAD bite, it would try to enforce it, regardless of other laws and countries, since it DEEMS it can order so. It's a repugnant and foolish idea, full of arrogance, and it leads to inconsistency and hypocrisy, since it wouldn't accept an order from another country neither. Or do you think the same Canadian court would agree with Cambodia to order google.com in Canada to remove any criticism of the king of MCambodia (lese majeste), even when there is no law forbidding it in Canada?
I don't think so. Even not when saying 'but they can always leave Cambodia'. Yes, they can. But that is not the issue. Cambodia can tell google in Cambodia to comply, it can't tell google in another country to comply. And if a Cambodian court would say it can, then that would be equally foolish and absurd.
It de facto IS declaring jurisdiction over other countries, since they do not restrict their order to google.ca, but to the whole of google, even on servers NOT within their borders. The intent of the law does not matter here, the consequences do, and this would be the consequence; that google would need to act upon a law, even on servers abroad, even in countries that have other laws and do not require google to do that, in countries where Canadian law does not exist and has no
Yes, they can compel it on the servers within their borders, but that's not the extend of what is being said; they want their ruling to apply world-wide. No-one here is denying they have jurisdiction over their own country, so 'any operations' there can be ordered to be halted, but NOT operations elsewhere, just like Saudi-Arabia can order google in their jurisdiction, but they can't order it to do so in other countries. So of course they whiffed it. It's not a matter of getting it narrowed down, as long as the consequences of the law implies agreement that one country can impose a world-wide ruling, regardless of the sovereignity of other countries, then THAT remains the major problem. Because even if it's a simple thing to rectify now, and could have been easily dealt with, it sets the precedent for the next country to do exactly the same.
The best thing they can do is getting all servers out that operate under google.com itself (leaving google.ca to comply) and ignore the ruling, and try to get it reversed, maybe within WTO rules.
The intent doesn't matter, it's the consequences that matter. If Saudi-Arabia has the intent to stimulate Islam and the introduction of the Sharia, and thus as a consequence of that, proclaims extra-juridical power around the globe, would that make it any more palatable, EVEN if it wasn't directly intended as having extra-judicial power?
Because a national court has no jurisdiction beyond it's own borders, and thus it should have declared itself to have no jurisdictional power on such matters. In fact, it's not that uncommon; there are many examples where the courts did exactly that, following the overriding doctrine that countries are sovereign entities, and national law is not to be expanded beyond ones' own citizens and ones' own borders. The *intent* of such a claim does not matter, it's the claim itself that creates a dangerous precedent. Seen the other examples of similar restrictions on google, in the EU for instance (France, and others), it was only normal to expect the same result, since THOSE countries at least understood the consequences of their actions, and limited the order to just the google subsidiary (google.fr). It was a perfectly reasonable assessment of google thus, since few countries are so idiotic as to try to impose - intended or not - their own laws world-wide.
Decreeing that your (a national court's) order should be carried out world-wide, directly *implies* you deem to have extra-judicial jurisprudence, otherwise you wouldn't say it.
Again: the CLAIM that they can do that is already a dangerous precedent. Whether they set conditions on it or not, the fact remains they - in principle - take the stance their ruling should be applied world-wide. Why couldn't another country do the same, with their set of conditions, then? If they follow their own premise and stay consistent, they have to conclude another country could do the same. Even under other conditions, because why would their conditions/laws/rules be the only ones applicable on the rest of the world?
The principle of one country deeming it's laws have jurisdiction over others, is the key issue here. Whatever conditions are set thereafter. If Saudi-Arabia says it's laws are applicable to all countries UNLESS they can prove evidence it's part of the sharia...what the f- does that matter on the principle they don't have the jurisdiction to order that in the first place?
It doesn't. Idem, Canada has no jurisdiction over other countries, WHETHER OR NOT those other countries can show evidence an order violates something there.
That's still not the point. Whether you are right or not to see this as a free speech issue or not, does NOTHING to the fact a *national* court decided it broke *their* laws and *they* decided it wasn't about free speech, thus has jurisdiction to order something world-wide, including other sovereign countries.
Now, what about every other country that decides it's against THEIR laws, and THEY decide it's not really a matter of free speech: do they get to tell your government and you what should be shown or removed or not, then? And, in effect, what if they decide it should be removed even if it's free speech, because their laws allow such a thing? I mean, it's fine that you or some Western countries think it's only a problem if it prohibits free speech and nothing else, but why would that mater? Why can't other countries have other laws and not find free speech an issue at all (a many do). The principle of claiming that national law has extra-judicial power over the rest of the world isn't depended on free speech laws, nor even being democracy, for that matter.
" Since Google is a legal entity in Canada the courts can require it comply with Canadian law in any way they rule is legal."
Yes, but they're also ordering google to do so in every other sovereign country, world-wide. If they only ordered it to google.ca (the subsidiary you speak of), none would have any problems with. It's with a national court ordering it world-wide, even outside its borders, which is overreaching and is illegal (or at least, should be illegal).
If they think their premise is right, namely that their jurisdiction should be applied over the rest of the world, they should also accept that another country (like china) can impose things world-wide, even in THEIR jurisdiction.
Ermmm...no...the key issue really is whether another country can apply their laws in another country. They ordered google to de-index WOLRD-WIDE. Whether google has another way of handling it has no bearing on the fact they deem their own national jurisdiction applicable to all and every other sovereign nation.
Only de-indexing google.ca SHOULD be deemed good enough for a national (Canadian) court, since it has no jurisdiction over other sovereign courts and their jurisdictions.
If people do not get what exactly is discussed here, they should apply an analogy that is exactly the same, but with more traditional means. Say, you have people in Canada wanting a list of the same things, but then on paper. They ask postorder-company (aka, google) to send them lists, and the (USA) company obliges and sends it to them. But then the Canadian court objects to that, and demands of google to destroy all lists, since it deems it illegal. Note they don't order that only to the google.ca post-order company that is actually on Canadian soil, but of ALL google postorder-companies worldwide, in whatever country, in whatever jurisdiction - including those that see nothing illegal in the listings.
THAT is the foolishness being described here.
Saying "but otherwise Canadian people can still order those paper lists" does NOTHING to mitigate the absurdity of such an overreaching ruling. What SHOULD be done by Canada, is what they do with all other things that Canadians ask for abroad but the government deems illegal; stop it at the border. Not say: we order all companies, even abroad, not to sell or show it anymore. There can be no law (without setting a dangerous precedent) deemed to be valid for other companies in other countries to not sell or show something if it's not illegal to show it under the laws of those countries. And if it IS (also) illegal under these other countries laws, then they can follow proper procedures and make a complaint and let THOSE jurisdictions then handle it.
One could argue it's difficult to intercept 'information' on the internet, but Canada's unwillingness to implement a form of border for it (aka, an nation-wide firewall, thus) is their own fault, not someone's else. That such a filtering will never work 100% isn't an excuse neither: normal, physical borders aren't 100% effective neither. It still doesn't mean their national courts get extra-juridical power over other countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm, and here we go again. This is why providing references is often futile. One either ignores or denies the validity of the given references (rightly or wrongly), or one gives a plethora of references that counter it, but of which the scientific value is unclear. As you are aware, I'm not dissing scientific research because it nuances earlier research it (but one needs to read it to know what exactly is countered and what not), but I have little regard for 'real life examples'. Anecdotal examples have NO scientific value. Since your first two just mention some examples, but don't provide any references to research done on these groups that demonstrate your point, nor deal with scientific papers coming to a conclusion that corroborates your own, I'm inclined to ignore it altogether. A marginal search of that Church - and I'm not going to continue delving into it, sorry - shows allegations of child-abuse and what not. But that alone does not demonstrate something which is contrary to what I said, since I said: " It's true that humans do not always ACT on those feelings or lack thereof (one way or another; sometimes incest happens, too, after all), but the feelings themselves are there nonetheless, and can't be simply 'selected' away." and "Not acting on it is because we humans have no instincts (in the true biological sense) anymore which compels us to do anything on the desires we feel (unless one is pathological, perhaps)". So has there been done research to the pathology of the people in that sect? Did they have free choice in having sex with others outside the community? Etc.
Anyway, as said, a mere 'real-life example' tells us nothing on itself, if it ain't properly researched and statistically analysed.
So that leaves your last one, the third reference. That one seems more scientific, but alas, I can only read the abstract, so I can't comment on the content much. However, something that raises serious questions in my head to a degree which makes me fear for the quality of the rest he might claim is the following excerpt: "In this article, I not only challenge the commonly held notion that inbreeding is injurious, but also argue that inbreeding is often harmless and even fitness-enhancing." There is an overwhelming amount of scientific research in biology that clearly shows that inbreeding, certainly in first and second degree (for instance, fucking your mom and having babies) is NOT fitness-enhancing, but rather the opposite. Do that often enough through generations, and it gets detrimental to your whole bloodline. There is a plethora of evidence for this, so one paper now claiming there is nothing to it, makes *that* paper pretty dubious, not all the others. In fact, if memory serves well, even sex-prone animals as bonobo's avoid child-parent incestuous behavior. And one can hardly claim it's a matter of culture in the animal kingdom.
But anyway, I know this is going to be an endless back-and-forth, as usual on slashdot, and I really don't feel like going through it once again, so let me phrase it this way:
IF the Westermarck effect is real, you have your answer, and it's based on evolutionary biology. If not, it may or may not be biological or cultural, and it isn't (dis)proven one way or another.
Note that this is a behavior that starts (and primarily is working) through infancy/childhood, and that it deals with faces you see *constantly* not, 'once a day'.
But your request for studies is valid and reasonable.
Here you go:
- Shepher, Joseph (1983). Incest: A Biosocial View. Studies in anthropology. New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-639460-1. LCCN 81006552
- Shor, Eran; Simchai, Dalit (2009). "Incest Avoidance, the Incest Taboo, and Social Cohesion: Revisiting Westermarck and the Case of the Israeli Kibbutzim". American Journal of Sociology.
If you are talking about the expression of it (aka, how one acts on it): we've been doing that for millennia, in different ways in different cultures in different times. But the problem is, that to see it as a problem in the first place, is ALSO already a cultural artefact. Assholes, traditionally, had the more success, thus in many cultures and timeperiods, being an asshole was advantageous. While there are and have been many cultural differences when dealing with sexual or other conduct, in the end, even our culture is profoundly influenced by the basic biological urges of humans one way or another.
If you are talking about the sexual desire itself, it's pretty straight forward: it's ingrained in our biology, through thousand of years of evolution. If you want to get rid of that, you'd need to wait for another 100000-1000000 years and provide an environment during all that time where such behaviour of non-sexual desire is more successful in giving offspring than with those that have.
Let's say they're both consuppliers. :-)
But he was right that sex is a market. And I think he wanted to say the general flow of things are more (statistically spoken) that women offer sexual services, and men rather SEEK those services and pay for it. Yes, you have male whores too that offer services, but far less. Yes, you have gigolo's too, but again: far less. There are FAR MORE women offering sexual services to men, then vice versa.
Heck, even the market knows this, because for porn-movies, women are paid far *more* than men, for the same action or scenes. (there is no earning-gap there - or rather, there is, but in reverse...;-))
So, if you interpret what he said in THAT way, he isn't entirely incorrect.
"Let's lay it clear - competition between males was rewarded. Not catcalling. Not rape."
Actually, that is not entirely true. What is 'rewarded' is having a lot of offspring, after all: that's the only 'reward' biology and evolution cares about. In that context, rape was a pretty useful way of disseminating ones' genes. Especially with other 'competitive' groups. That's why in almost all cases where wars are fought, there is always the raping of women (of the other side) too. There has not been one major war where there have been no rapes. Genetics have showed that this led to a fairly good (and necessary) spread of genes, which leads to strong specimens.
In modern times, dissemination of seed/genes between far-way populaces this way has starkly declined, but luckily tourism has filled the gap.
Mind you, I'm not talking about the morals or ethics of it. I'm just pointing out that in the context of evolutionary biology, rape was rewarding.
For the rest I largely agree with you.
Yes, but then again THINKING about the cause of wanting to have sex in different cultures and time-periods as being proof of anything shows a misunderstanding of reality. Many, many cultures in many, many timeperiods had it wrong, after all.
The only way in knowing which different subjective stances comes the most close to reality, is through scientific research.
And scientific research has indeed confirmed that the drive to sex is hardwared in our biology to a large extend through millions of years of evolution. The EXPRESSION (how we act on the desires) is heavily culturally based, yes, but having the desire itself isn't. In ALL cultures, people wanted to have and had sex. Those that didn't, died out.
Of course, if you only wanted to say it ain't only men who want sex, but also women, then you're right. Women have as much a sexual drive as men. Well, maybe a bit less, seen the research done with looking at porn, but still considerable.
This obviously only applies to some degree or level. Otherwise NO-ONE would have sex with co-workers. Yet, research has shown a relative large percentage does - *including women*.
It's difficult to imagine co-workers fucking eachother, if all and everyone would never make it clear to anyone else they would like to fuck each other.
A mingled working place, is, after all, ultimately just another place where men and women meet each other. And when men and women meet each other, you'll ALWAYS have some sexual undertones here and there. If you can't deal with that, you can't deal with humans as a whole.
So it's not THINKING about how fuckable your co-worker is that is the problem, nor -as you imply - is it that that co-worker knows you think in a sexual manner that is a problem on itself, it's about HOW you make it clear, and how she (well, both parties) feel about it. Normally, you start subtle and sees how it goes from there, and if the response is good, then you get a bit bolder, etc. until it ends in sex (or it's clearly indicated that it's a no).
Is catcalling too unsubtle? Is making a compliment? Is a certain look? A smile? Some innuendo when you speak? Macho-behaviour? Some snowflakes will consider everything harassment, but in a normal setting with normal humans, most non-violent things will be considered ok and part of the normal process of getting on with eachother. The differences here lay mostly into the subjectivity of the individual (with as most extreme example a snowflake at one end, and a rapist on the other side), and within the culture you are born and lived in (what is culturally acceptable for one group, isn't therefor for the other).
True.
As Vadim Makarov already explained, this, too, is evolutionary biology speaking. Scientific research has already indicated humans get more insensitive (aka; the desire/rutting stage gets less) when they hang out around the same faces, and the more you hang out with them, the less the sexual attraction plays. this already happens - unconsciously, thus - when we are kids, and the phenomenon even applies to people we see a lot (from childhood) even if they're not blood-related.
The reason for this is purely biologic/evolutionary, since in ancient times, when people lived in close family units and tribes, the people around you (who you saw the most, thus) also had the strongest blood-relation with you, and incest is bad for reproduction. Thus, we are still hardwared today to avoid sexual attraction with people we have had a lot of constant dealings with from a child's age.
This is the reason, thus (since you asked 'how it works'). It's a bit ironic, since you tried to argument that it's purely a matter of free will about 'being selective', while in fact, that to substantiates even further the notion that sexual desire (AND the lack of it) has deep roots in our biological nature. It's true that humans do not always ACT on those feelings or lack thereof (one way or another; sometimes incest happens, too, after all), but the feelings themselves are there nonetheless, and can't be simply 'selected' away. Not acting on it is because we humans have no instincts (in the true biological sense) anymore which compels us to do anything on the desires we feel (unless one is pathological, perhaps), but that still doesn't mean we can pre-emptively prohibit the feeling of desire itself.
True, true.
Then again, I must admit it gave me a chuckle. I mean: all in all, it was funny, even if I agree with you to some level.
It's... I don't know...it's dubious.
There is little denying that the masses ARE often stupid and foolish (and irrational and emo-driven). It's true 'elite' or 'experts' don't have it right all the time neither, but that still doesn't mean the opinion of the hoi palloi is any better, and, in some instances, much worse, indeed. that's why we've moved away from the mob-rule to a more rational justice-system based on experts (judges, lawyers) too, after. yes, those can be pricks and can be wrong too, but they're - overall - still better.
At the very least, when groups of people make stupid decisions, they should pay and deal with the consequences of those stupid decisions. and not let other groups pay for it.
You made an elegant defence of why it would be better to use cheap components then more durable, expensive ones, were it not for the dubious premise you start with.
Let me explain the error in your train of thought. You say: " If you put a 7-cent part in a machine where a 3-cent part typically falls within the lifespan of the machine, you waste money (and labor)."
But that's just it. The *lifespan* of you machine goes up when you put high-quality parts in it. Ergo, when you replace the 3-cent part components with 7-cent part components, then what 'falls within the lifespan of the machine' is exactly that, which the higher components have elevated it to. It's not a fixed lifespan, based on 3-cent parts.
what you say here, thus, is only valid if one would replace a few 3-cent parts with 7-cent parts, AND LEAVE OTHER KEY-COMPONENTS (aka, which are critical to the working of the machine) with 3-cent parts. If you then still can't easily replace the 3-cent parts, then you're screwed over as usual, but while having paid a bit more.
But of course, that is a useless strategy, not only from the viewpoint of the manufacturer, but from the viewpoint of the EU/environment/implanted obsolescence etc. as well..
If one deals with that, then ALL key-components will be more durable, and thus your 'lifespan' will augment.
Does it augment enough? Well, there you're right in assessing the cost/benefit. However, in that assessment you also have to look at the environmental impact, which, ultimately, is also a cost. Say the 7-cent parts machine works double as long, then the 3cent parts machine has a slight advantage: after three machines, you could buy an extra 3-cent machine. Indeed. However, by that time, you'd have (more then) doubled the rubbish of the old ones (and let's face it, there is no such thing as truly 100% recycling), you exploit the resources twice as much (or at least 'more', even with some recycling) AND you polluted the environment more than twice as well.
One would have to calculate all that, to see if it's truly 'better' (cost-benefit), if you put value in those things as well, and thus take in those hidden costs as well.
Sometimes, it CAN be, that it's still better. But in most cases it won't.
Yes, it would have been strange if even google.ca wouldn't have a legal presence in Canada, yet google.com would have. (the court had to order someone, after all ;-))
Anyways, was nice talking to you. I'm glad we arrived at some sort of conclusion/agreement, and stayed amiable and civil during the debate. That's not always a given these days on the internet (and certainly not in fora, /. included).
Well, I guess I can largely agree with what you said here. Google should have mounted a better defense. That said, I don't think one should be so naive to think the Canadian court thought 'the cloud' was a server IN Canada. Seen their wording, they already presumed it would be abroad. In which case, the 'overreaching' comes into play again.
It is not clear to me, however, if both the subsidiary google.com AND google.ca, both or neither have any servers in Canada, and/or if both or neither are legal entities with a headquarter registered in Canada. I would presume that it all depends on this, as far as possible answers 'google' may (have to) do. If google caves in, they're going for the short pain, but then they're wide open to similar claims from other courts and countries, with no end in sight. If they're smart, they'll just leave (only) google.ca either with it's own servers in Canada where the law applies, and/or simply make it impossible for them to delete stuff on other servers without consent of google.com or ALPHABET (which resides in the USA), where Canadian jurisdiction is null and void.
What, then, can the Canadian court do? they can't condemn google.ca for not complying if it *can not* comply, after all.
But that's the practical side. Google may not have said where the servers where, but I don't think the Canadian court was under the impression they were on Canadian soil, and they *still* ordered the removal world-wide, so they must have known it would also involve taking super-national jurisdiction. That on itself, is overreaching their powers - or so they should have known. There are examples enough (even in Canada) where they declared themselves incapable of judging something with extra-national jurisprudence, so they could have done it here too. Which would have been the most sensible thing. But they said 'fuck it', just like google said 'fuck it'.
So I guess we might agree with each other both were stupid idiots for doing what they did.
Well, as a pragmaticus I'll agree it will be difficult to appeal, since it's already the highest court, though they might do so on some WTO or NAFTA rules.
But it's still overreaching and implies extra-judicial power, which that court hasn't.
"I think that Google's problem is that google.ca is actually hosted outside of Canada (which isn't a stretch given that they don't have any data centers here and how Canadian infrastructure tends to connect southwards rather than cross-country)."
"Standing up in front of a Canadian (this really goes for any other country) court and saying "fuck you, you're not allowed to issue orders against google.ca" wouldn't go over well"
Those two sentences is exactly what I have troubles with. If it's hosted outside Canada, what jurisdiction does Canada have? None. Or do yu mean they don't have any servers in Canada, but the legal entity (aka, google.ca IS operating in Canada? Otherwise it doesn't make sense. Can China order IBM of Wallmart oversees to do something? No. They can only order it to the affiliates within their borders.
If they don't have any factories or shops in China, why would China have the right to order them anywhere else in the world? If they have a legal entity there, it can only effect that entity.
When push comes to shove, a country can only order to delete something from servers that are on their terrotory, that was my exact point. If google.ca is a legal entity that exists in Canada, but doesn't have any servers but abroad, it's even more simple for Google: they just make sure that legal entity does not have direct access to those servers to delete anything, or, alternatively, they can set servers in Canada, and comply there, but not elsewhere. the point is, however, that, as far as I can see it, the court didn't restrict itself to that. Meaning that, however you turn it, and even in the case of the servers of google.ca being brought or created in Canada, the order STILL would claim it needs to delete it on all other servers. It's that last part that is BS, while no-one would bat an eye if that court ordered to delete it from servers on Canadian soil.
Now, granted, it may be that google didn't handle this case well, but that doesn't change anything to the absurdity of the court decision/order of that court. It makes no sense. Take the paper analogue if it's not clear why: say a bookstore/publisher prints and sells something that one country, China, finds offensive. Now, China has the right to order that it's not printed, or only censored to not offend the Party in China, but how the heck would they have the extra-jurisprudence to order it to do so in every country, even when it's legal elsewhere? That's the very definition of overreaching. Yes, they can't enforce it, and yes, the bookstore can leave China, but both have no bearing on the issue of the validity and acceptance of such a claim.
If one *does* claim that, then it implies one assume one has that validity and that right. But if one makes that claim (be it directly or indirectly), being consistent and using reciprocity, it should also follow that that court acknowledges other courts in other countries ALSO have the right to order things to happen in their territory, even if it's not in their jurisprudence. If the Canadian court finds it can give orders for things to happen in other jurisdictions in other sovereign states, it should also accept the orders of other courts in other sovereign states to actions in their own jurisdiction and country. Do courts agree to that? No. A court order of another country is NEVER automatically accepted by whatever court from whatever country, since it has no jurisprudence there. That why, for instance, an extradition-order is ALWAYS reviewed by the court of the country the citizen is in, EVEN if another court in another country has already ordered that that person should be extradited.
Well, you can't have it both ways, unless one is a hypocrite.
So the court's decision IS overreaching. Whether and what google did w
In that case 1) is indeed strange and a blatant oversight of google.com, since they did argue exactly that in the case of the EU countries that tried to restrict it similarly. Your point 2)...seems rather to substantiate what I said. If it's done by the team OUTSIDE Canada, and thus are not citizens of Canada, then Canada has no say over it. If it's true it's the same team as google.com, then it falls inside the law of the USA, since google.com is a legal entity (as subsidiary under ALPHABET) in the USA (at least since 2015). There are a few exceptions, but normally google.com (as subsidiary) does not handle these actions locally in other countries, nor perform the administration or management from within specific countries with the google.com subsidiary. Compliance with local law is instead typically left this in the hands of the local/national subsidiary, which would be google.ca in this case - which is neither the parent company, nor does google.ca has jurisdiction over other servers located in other countries.
It could be Canada is one of the exceptions, but I doubt it. What *is* possible is that they've become complacent and did, de facto, place the physical servers of google.ca AND google.com there (thus, making only a distinction by virtual servers, or maybe not even that). If google.com uses physical servers located in Canada and/or the google.com team that deals with these actions live in Canada (well, in a legal entity in Canada that is situated under google.com, that is), you might have a point in your assessment.
And, granted, I've only read it cursory and not the whole thing in detail, but I didn't see any clear mentioning if that was the case. If it is, you have a point, if it's not, then the judgement and order is overreaching and absurdly claims extra-juridical power.
If it's the former, then it only pertains to servers locally, and thus the solution for google is clear: to remove google.com operations from the physical servers that are in Canada. If the team is outside Canada, and the servers (of google.com) are out of Canada, then the court has nothing to say anymore. As far as their order is concerned, this does *not* seem to be what they're saying, however. If they instructed google.ca to remove it world wide, it means they order them to remove it on servers that do not belong to google.ca, in countries where they and Canada has no jurisdiction.
Well, google.ca is a subsidiary company operating within Canada. Since Google split up it became multiple subsidiary companies, including one called Google. (Alphabet is now the holding company.) Google subsidiaries that are country specific typically have their servers in that country itself and fall under the national law of that country.
No, they have a right to order google.ca to delist something from google.ca. If google google.com (incorporated, the USA main branch, thus) has any servers in Canada, then the court may ask to delist it from those servers as well. For all the rest, they have no jurisdiction.
As said, there is jurisprudence for courts declaring themselves disqualified in matters of extra-jurisdictional issues, it's not uncommon. The reason is self-evident and obvious, since any court-decision in that regard invites similar court-decisions of other countries, and from the stance of reciprocity one would have to accept such court-orders as well, if one judges it a valid concept. That the court does not share this viewpoint, doesn't see the danger is such orders, doesn't think about the consequences, can't remain consistent if it now denies others what it itself has ordered others, can well be - but that's exactly why it's a foolish and absurd decision.
What is a precedent is a precedent, aka an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. It's clear that other countries may see it exactly that way. Being free to leave is not the issue, being compelled by an order to delete stuff even if it's not on their territory is. That Canada has no bite to actually enforce anything if google (I assume you're talking about google.com servers now) leaves does nothing to mitigate the principle of the matter, namely the disregard for the sovereignty of other countries and a self-restricted limit on extra-jurisdictionality. It means that, if it HAD bite, it would try to enforce it, regardless of other laws and countries, since it DEEMS it can order so. It's a repugnant and foolish idea, full of arrogance, and it leads to inconsistency and hypocrisy, since it wouldn't accept an order from another country neither. Or do you think the same Canadian court would agree with Cambodia to order google.com in Canada to remove any criticism of the king of MCambodia (lese majeste), even when there is no law forbidding it in Canada?
I don't think so. Even not when saying 'but they can always leave Cambodia'. Yes, they can. But that is not the issue. Cambodia can tell google in Cambodia to comply, it can't tell google in another country to comply. And if a Cambodian court would say it can, then that would be equally foolish and absurd.
It de facto IS declaring jurisdiction over other countries, since they do not restrict their order to google.ca, but to the whole of google, even on servers NOT within their borders. The intent of the law does not matter here, the consequences do, and this would be the consequence; that google would need to act upon a law, even on servers abroad, even in countries that have other laws and do not require google to do that, in countries where Canadian law does not exist and has no
Yes, they can compel it on the servers within their borders, but that's not the extend of what is being said; they want their ruling to apply world-wide. No-one here is denying they have jurisdiction over their own country, so 'any operations' there can be ordered to be halted, but NOT operations elsewhere, just like Saudi-Arabia can order google in their jurisdiction, but they can't order it to do so in other countries. So of course they whiffed it. It's not a matter of getting it narrowed down, as long as the consequences of the law implies agreement that one country can impose a world-wide ruling, regardless of the sovereignity of other countries, then THAT remains the major problem. Because even if it's a simple thing to rectify now, and could have been easily dealt with, it sets the precedent for the next country to do exactly the same.
The best thing they can do is getting all servers out that operate under google.com itself (leaving google.ca to comply) and ignore the ruling, and try to get it reversed, maybe within WTO rules.
The intent doesn't matter, it's the consequences that matter. If Saudi-Arabia has the intent to stimulate Islam and the introduction of the Sharia, and thus as a consequence of that, proclaims extra-juridical power around the globe, would that make it any more palatable, EVEN if it wasn't directly intended as having extra-judicial power?
Because a national court has no jurisdiction beyond it's own borders, and thus it should have declared itself to have no jurisdictional power on such matters. In fact, it's not that uncommon; there are many examples where the courts did exactly that, following the overriding doctrine that countries are sovereign entities, and national law is not to be expanded beyond ones' own citizens and ones' own borders. The *intent* of such a claim does not matter, it's the claim itself that creates a dangerous precedent. Seen the other examples of similar restrictions on google, in the EU for instance (France, and others), it was only normal to expect the same result, since THOSE countries at least understood the consequences of their actions, and limited the order to just the google subsidiary (google.fr). It was a perfectly reasonable assessment of google thus, since few countries are so idiotic as to try to impose - intended or not - their own laws world-wide.
Decreeing that your (a national court's) order should be carried out world-wide, directly *implies* you deem to have extra-judicial jurisprudence, otherwise you wouldn't say it.
Again: the CLAIM that they can do that is already a dangerous precedent. Whether they set conditions on it or not, the fact remains they - in principle - take the stance their ruling should be applied world-wide. Why couldn't another country do the same, with their set of conditions, then? If they follow their own premise and stay consistent, they have to conclude another country could do the same. Even under other conditions, because why would their conditions/laws/rules be the only ones applicable on the rest of the world?
The principle of one country deeming it's laws have jurisdiction over others, is the key issue here. Whatever conditions are set thereafter. If Saudi-Arabia says it's laws are applicable to all countries UNLESS they can prove evidence it's part of the sharia...what the f- does that matter on the principle they don't have the jurisdiction to order that in the first place?
It doesn't. Idem, Canada has no jurisdiction over other countries, WHETHER OR NOT those other countries can show evidence an order violates something there.
That's still not the point. Whether you are right or not to see this as a free speech issue or not, does NOTHING to the fact a *national* court decided it broke *their* laws and *they* decided it wasn't about free speech, thus has jurisdiction to order something world-wide, including other sovereign countries.
Now, what about every other country that decides it's against THEIR laws, and THEY decide it's not really a matter of free speech: do they get to tell your government and you what should be shown or removed or not, then? And, in effect, what if they decide it should be removed even if it's free speech, because their laws allow such a thing? I mean, it's fine that you or some Western countries think it's only a problem if it prohibits free speech and nothing else, but why would that mater? Why can't other countries have other laws and not find free speech an issue at all (a many do). The principle of claiming that national law has extra-judicial power over the rest of the world isn't depended on free speech laws, nor even being democracy, for that matter.
" Since Google is a legal entity in Canada the courts can require it comply with Canadian law in any way they rule is legal."
Yes, but they're also ordering google to do so in every other sovereign country, world-wide. If they only ordered it to google.ca (the subsidiary you speak of), none would have any problems with. It's with a national court ordering it world-wide, even outside its borders, which is overreaching and is illegal (or at least, should be illegal).
If they think their premise is right, namely that their jurisdiction should be applied over the rest of the world, they should also accept that another country (like china) can impose things world-wide, even in THEIR jurisdiction.
Ermmm...no...the key issue really is whether another country can apply their laws in another country. They ordered google to de-index WOLRD-WIDE. Whether google has another way of handling it has no bearing on the fact they deem their own national jurisdiction applicable to all and every other sovereign nation.
Only de-indexing google.ca SHOULD be deemed good enough for a national (Canadian) court, since it has no jurisdiction over other sovereign courts and their jurisdictions.
If people do not get what exactly is discussed here, they should apply an analogy that is exactly the same, but with more traditional means. Say, you have people in Canada wanting a list of the same things, but then on paper. They ask postorder-company (aka, google) to send them lists, and the (USA) company obliges and sends it to them. But then the Canadian court objects to that, and demands of google to destroy all lists, since it deems it illegal. Note they don't order that only to the google.ca post-order company that is actually on Canadian soil, but of ALL google postorder-companies worldwide, in whatever country, in whatever jurisdiction - including those that see nothing illegal in the listings.
THAT is the foolishness being described here.
Saying "but otherwise Canadian people can still order those paper lists" does NOTHING to mitigate the absurdity of such an overreaching ruling. What SHOULD be done by Canada, is what they do with all other things that Canadians ask for abroad but the government deems illegal; stop it at the border. Not say: we order all companies, even abroad, not to sell or show it anymore. There can be no law (without setting a dangerous precedent) deemed to be valid for other companies in other countries to not sell or show something if it's not illegal to show it under the laws of those countries. And if it IS (also) illegal under these other countries laws, then they can follow proper procedures and make a complaint and let THOSE jurisdictions then handle it.
One could argue it's difficult to intercept 'information' on the internet, but Canada's unwillingness to implement a form of border for it (aka, an nation-wide firewall, thus) is their own fault, not someone's else. That such a filtering will never work 100% isn't an excuse neither: normal, physical borders aren't 100% effective neither. It still doesn't mean their national courts get extra-juridical power over other countries.