Slashdot Mirror
Liberal Party of Canada Comes Out In Support of Net Neutrality
bryxal writes "The Liberal Party of Canada, currently leading in most polls, has announced yesterday that it supports Net Neutrality, saying, 'Internet management should be neutral and not be permitted for anti-competitive behaviour, nor should it target certain websites, users, providers or legitimate software applications. We must protect the openness and freedom of the internet, and maintain competition to spur innovation, improve service levels and reduce costs to users.'"
Faith in something you can't prove is religion. Can you prove how life started? Or can you guess and have faith you are right. Science is based on an agenda to promote evolution.
Sorry I was mistaken science is the religion and evolution is the belief system.
These theories are fact, whether in a biology curriculum or a gender study curriculum. Well than accept the fact that babies don't come out your butt. And as far a censoring once again can I go to your kids school and preach to them or would you try and censor me?
Historically, the Liberal party started out as a classically liberal party, but it has been many decades since it has behafved even REMOTELY liberal.
The LPC does what is politically expedient, and has no principles AT ALL. Policy and philosophy are shaped solely by opinion polls and the direction of the leader of the day. It is for that reason that I don't hold much promise at all that switching parties would help further the cause of net neutrality. How trustworthy are the Liberals, and can you believe everything Ignatieff says? The track record (of the party OR the leader) is not promising. The past two Liberal PMs made countless pre-election promises only to do nothing, or the exact opposite, when in office. Cretien promised to get rid of the GST because it was a "stupid" regressive tax that was forced onto Canadians--and in his many years and terms in gov't left it intact. Today the Liberals hew and cry over employment insurance being inadequate and not accessible enough, when it was the Liberal party that instituted the very policies they complain about now (when "UI" became "EI" and changed were made to reduce costs when Cretien was PM and another former PM, Martin, was finance minister).
Policies also change with new leaders. Cretien was slightly "left-leaning" but would abandon his principles out of expediency (such as putting Martin in as long-term finance minister, making them one of the more fiscally conservative Liberal gov'ts). Martin shifted the Liberals as far right as the Harper Tory gov't is behaving today. Dion swung the party towards a socialist policy stance so close to that of the NDP the Liberals more than once formally approached the NDP about a coalition strategy--the result of which was electoral disaster (they got the second lowest percentage of seats and lowest popular vote in the party's history). Now Ignatieff is leader, and history shows that the Liberals policy is shaped by the leader. The problem is that Ignatieff has not clearly defined his stance yet so what he says about particular policies cannot be fully trusted.
Ignatieff was the child of aristocratic Russian diplomats, born in Canada but raised much of his life overseas. As a pre-teen he was sent to an Ontario boarding school, then attended Harvard in the US and spent over 20 years in the UK before moving to the US for over 5. As a student he volunteered in Trudeau's election campaign, and because of those distant ties was enticed back to Canada to enter politics by friends who thought he'd be an eventual Liberal leadership contender (in part because his ties with the party WERE NOT that strong and the hope was that voters would see him as a fresh start). Many make the argument that it is closed-minded to discount a candidate because they aren't "Canadian enough" (more "snobby" Canadians point to the US presidency requirements as how "backwards" such thinking is), but let's be reasonable--not only did this man who would lead Canada spend over half of his life in other countries--it was the LATTER HALF of that life that he spent away. I'd have no problem if a 60 year old from overseas that moved here 20 or 30 years ago wanted to be PM but Ignatieff lived not a single day in Canada from the 1970s until mere WEEKS before he ran for office! How can he profess to know what Canada of TODAY is about when all he knows first-hand is the Canada of the 1960s and 1970s? He has been off the political radar in this country for ages--what does he stand for? Nobody knows exactly, and more than any other party in Canada what the leader thinks matters most for the Liberals. A lot of what he has said in the past completely counters what the Liberals stood for in the recent past--he is strongly supportive of military action in Afghanistan and even Iraq. Though his motives might have differed from Bush, Ignatieff was a SUPPORTER of the GW Bush gov'ts "troop surge" for example, and there is speculation he would support military deployment of troops to Afghanistan indefinitely. He says little about what he beli