Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Says Public Forced Canadian DMCA Delay
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports
that a new WikiLeaks
cable confirms
that the Canadian Conservative government delayed introducing a
Canadian DMCA in early 2008 due to public opposition. The US
cable notes confirmation came directly from then-Industry Minister Jim
Prentice, who told US Ambassador David Wilkins that cabinet
colleagues and Conservative MPs were worried about the electoral
implications of copyright reform."
Where are those bank memos we were promised?
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
You know, this actually is somewhat promising news. It means that, if the Tories gauged it right, this is enough of an issue for the voting public to keep it from becoming law. Either they're worried about voters getting pissed off at new copyright restrictions, or they realize that bowing to international pressure from the US makes them look weak, which their rivals won't hesitate to exploit.
Either way, as long as a minority government remains in place, it means there's less chance of a pseudo-DMCA ever becoming law.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
You put the vote off on these laws until after the election.. So everybody will forget by the next election. They could've passed it without serious consequence.. Hell, nobody's protesting the wars. You think anybody gives a damn about this?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
...actually works out fine for Canada in the last couple years. Conservatives are concerned about losing votes and decide not to bring most controversial issues to the table (e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage), knowing that the oppositions can bring down the government at any time they like. On the other hand, oppositions do not obstruct legislation or stop the government from getting things done because they are also concerned about the votes. With a majority, the Canadian DMCA would have passed with ease.
All these comments about majority or minority governments, who's the better or worse person to lead the government, the question I'd ask from this Wikileaks document is why is the minister reporting to the U.S. Ambassador about the difficulty of getting such a piece of legislation passed? Why are we reporting to the U.S. Ambassador about our internal matters at all.
If they have that much control over our Parliament then why the hell don't we just cede Canada to the U.S. and let them work out what to do with Quebec?
I'm not disagreeing completely, but I just want to point out that the stated reason why he opposed the legislation was because of "the electoral implications".
Not for ethical reasons, not because it was the right thing to do, not because it was best for the citizens of Canada, but for "electoral implications".
So I guess that still makes him "a lying scumbag asshole politician". But, hey, whatever works.
MPs are toothless. If the party leader in Canada tells them to vote a certain way, or talk a certain way, they have to. Otherwise they get kicked out of the party. It has happened before; look at John Nunziata (Liberal fired by Prime Minister Chretien for voting with integrity), and Garth Turner (Conservative fired by Prime Minister Harper for daring to think on his own). Then next election no one will pay for their election campaign and they're for sure out of a cushy job. It doesn't matter much that they aren't given any opportunity to speak in the house during question period if they are independent (only MPs in parties get anything more than around (literally) two or three minutes talking time each year during question period).
I have no idea why we have to pay to have MPs elected in ridings. It would save a lot of money if we just elected the leaders and gave them each a weighted vote commensurate with what percent of the popular vote they got. If we get a majority government in Canada it amounts to a limited term dictatorship. If it is a minority government like we just had, it is a limited term oligarchy. We need reform so that we can have true representative democracy, where the MPs can really vote the way the people who elected them want them to. Then we wouldn't have the BS where everyone in the house yells to get the attention of the party leaders so they can be good dogs and maybe get a bone, and keep their jobs. The party leaders should have no say in how members vote and represent their ridings, nor in who the riding associations (Conservatives, Liberals, etc.) pick to run in elections. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way right now. Our democracy is broken.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
You obviously want to vote NDP this election but just don't know it yet. One of the things on Jack Layton's platform is election reform, specifically proportional representation which is exactly what you want. With proportional representation, issues won't be "rounded-out" by arbitrary dividing areas up into ridings. National issues say with about 10% interest will get 10% power in Parliament. Not swept under the rug as-is now because the member you want to vote for is half-way across the country and there isn't enough interest in your area to have someone on your ballot. Vote the NDP in, get the election system fixed and then vote as you will. Layton has a PhD in Political Science if you read that article by the way so he knows where the rough spots are.
Of course, voting in the NDP to fix the election system takes foresight to see that you can vote in the next election for whoever you want with a better system. Most voters don't want/can't see beyond one election so it's a difficult proposition to push.
Shh.
Does it seem with the wording of the cable that Canada is expected to fall into line with whatever the US would like?
There also seems to be a minor tone of irritation when 'the public' and 'Michael Geist' is mentioned.
Damn you pesky citizens of a sovereign nation, getting in the way of our plans for your country...
Seeing it explicitly laid out like that is just, well, disturbing.
It depends a lot on the MP. I called the office of the MP where I live (Scott Reid, Conservative), for help with an immigration issue. They asked me to fax in the relevant papers. I called two weeks later and they didn't know who I was. I reminded them that my two children had no mother because she was being jerked around waiting for her landed immigrant status. No action over the next two months.
So I called the office of the MP where I work (Peter Milliken, Liberal). Within two days they had faxed the immigration office in Manila and got them to return my wife's passport (the office demanded a new medical exam, which required the passport, but the office had had her passport for three months and would not respond to my requests to return it). Granted it was couriered COD, for $150, but at least we were able to get the paperwork done.
I have written several physical letters to Scott Reid's office and not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement.
Yeah, he was lying about being American. That makes a whole lot of sense. That's why he wrote in American English, knows about American economics and politics, and has a deep passion for American policy. He was lying because. . .well, who knows? But you know it's true because. . .he didn't fit a stereotype? Sure, there may be more Americans than any other nationality on Slashdot, but it's not exactly where you go to find stereotypical Americans. If you want an American stereotype go to a truck stop or a Wal-Mart.
Part of the whole 'land of the free' thing is that one is free to have their own opinion. Even if it's self-depricating and wishes ill on the country as a whole.
Side note: Almost all Americans want it to get worse. The Republicans want things to get worse so they have an excuse to shrink the government by way of massive cuts (Bush burned all that cash for a reason). That's their goal and the only way to achieve it is for the government to be in a financial crisis. It worked! The Democrats want it to get worse. Quality of life, even for the poorest Americans, is good enough so that most don't complain and don't see the need for a big education or health care overhaul. Until things get worse socialized medicine is a dream. Until it gets worse, no one will see the value of education and therefore no one will want their tax money to fund it. Independents want it to get worse. Until the Democrats and Republicans screw things up much worse than they already have, the old Simpsons line of, "Go ahead, vote independent, throw your vote away!" will ring true.
Everyone wants things to get worse because no one has a solution for our current problems without making it worse. The majority is far too complacent to care and will continue to be so until things get worse. Until the economic problems, the government spending, the piss-poor education and health care, and lobbyist-centric government interfere with the average American's life in a way they understand (the hard part: it's one thing to understand that you can't find a job, understanding why is difficult -- especially with the talking heads on TV all making sensationalist claims and that's where people turn for their 'information'), then nothing will change.
The foundation isn't solid. The house has to be taken down to repair it. But it will never happen as long as 'socialist' is a dirty word in this country.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."