Canada Encouraged US To Place It On Piracy List

An anonymous reader writes "Copyright, U.S. lobbying, and the stunning backroom Canadian response gets front page news treatment today in Canada as the Toronto Star covers new revelations on copyright by Michael Geist (who offers a longer post with links to the cables) from the U.S. cables released by WikiLeaks. The cables reveal that former Industry Minister Maxime Bernier raised the possibility of leaking the copyright bill to U.S. officials before it was to be tabled in the House of Commons, former Industry Minister Tony Clement's director of policy Zoe Addington encouraged the U.S. to pressure Canada by elevating it on a piracy watch list, Privy Council Office official Ailish Johnson disclosed the content of ministerial mandate letters, and former RCMP national coordinator for intellectual property crime Andris Zarins advised the U.S. that the government was working on a separate intellectual property enforcement bill."

Comments

Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[assemblerex]

Can't have people getting used to the truth now, can we ?

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't have people getting used to the truth now, can we ?

they already know that governments are full of lying sacks of shit. in fact all governments are liars and murderers. yes even yours. quit pretending yours is special because you were born in that country. patriotic rhymes with idiotic for a reason.

this is what happens when you celebrate hierarchial society and tell people you're either a "leader" or you're a nobody. makes positions of authority irresistable to sociopaths who will say or do anything to get them.

problem is what to do about it. who would you vote for to fix this?

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[roman_mir]

Obviously, they are a terrorist group.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[E IS mC(Square)]

But but don't you know? PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE!!!

(ignore... Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. - I know).

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Revealing the lying sacks of shit in the act gives lying a disadvantage it previously didn't have, leading, just maybe, to less lying.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[ge7]

It's not just governments - it's people in general. Same goes for relationships, business and since government is made of people, that too. There's nothing you can do about it. Well, except put computer algorithms to handle it, but even then the algorithm designers would try to cheat and get some advantage towards them. People in general are full of shit.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[causality]

It's not just governments - it's people in general. Same goes for relationships, business and since government is made of people, that too. There's nothing you can do about it. Well, except put computer algorithms to handle it, but even then the algorithm designers would try to cheat and get some advantage towards them. People in general are full of shit.

The kind of "full of shit" that most people experience is denial. Usually of their personal weaknesses, insecurities, shortcomings, etc. They protect and excuse these things because they are identified with them. Identification with them means that letting them go would feel like a sort of death. Mostly they mean well, they just don't objectively see themselves or understand that their motivations for doing most things are a lot less wholesome than what they imagine them to be. Believe it or not, most people who are manipulative don't realize it. They only know that people respond to them when they behave that way and it seems to get them what they want so it must be "correct".

A lot of people would, in fact, be horrified to actually realize the daze they are in that prevents them from seeing how selfish they really are. A side-effect is that almost nothing is done for its own sake because it is good to do. There is always a secondary motive. The saying is "most people have two reasons for what they do: the good reason, and the real reason." Usually the closest the average person comes to understanding this is to realize that they have a lot of inner conflict and have grave difficulty being at peace with themselves, truly relaxing, or being content without some kind of entertainment or distraction.

That's bad enough, and goes a long way towards explaining why they are so willing to tolerate liars and portray it as normal ("eh he's a congressman what do you expect, of course he lies"). Yet it's different from actively, knowingly and deliberately trying to deceive. There's a plan and a purpose combined with an awareness of what one is doing. It's perpetrated by people who are sworn to do what is best for the nation and entrusted with a lot of power with which to do it. There's an element of betrayal here that isn't present in the "little white lies" most people tell.

It's part of why, perhaps surprisingly, telling a really big lie to masses of people tends to work out more successfully than telling a small one. Hitler was quite explicit about this in Mein Kampf:

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.

Even there you can see a hint of ego perspective or selfishness. The people assume their leaders must be just like them. Therefore if they would be ashamed to tell a big lie, there leaders must be also. The inability to perceive that other people don't function anything like the way you do and would do things you would not do is part of what makes people vulnerable to this kind of deception.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[davester666]

...AND CHILDREN WILL BE RAPED!

(hey I got this too... Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. - I know)

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[Culture20]

patriotic rhymes with idiotic for a reason.

Because they both end with -iotic.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[osu-neko]

they already know that governments are full of lying sacks of shit.

Yes, true, but in many circumstances, it's important to know the specifics.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[petsounds]

I don't think it has to do with big and small lies. I think most people deep down want to believe that other people are good, or that they have the potential to be good (The Vader Effect). Of course, there are limits to this optimism. But a politician hoodwinking his or her constituents is no different than a grifter tricking an old woman out of her pension. They both rely on a psychology that may be instinctual to humans due to our species' predilection for social structure; we by default want to trust that people will act in ways that benefit the society and not harm it, and us.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Revealing the lying sacks of shit in the act gives lying a disadvantage it previously didn't have, leading, just maybe, to less lying.

These metaphors remind me of a quote from Mark Twain:

Politicians are like diapers; they need to be changed often and for the same reason.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[Stormthirst]

Someone recently did a mash up with the Cookie Monster and Tom Waits which did the rounds on FB recently which seems to fit the bill.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[Stormthirst]

How long before corporations have the same right?

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[hairyfeet]

I think it goes even deeper than that. I remember a director's commentary by Joss Whedon on writing villains and why so many got it wrong. He said "The thing about the villain is they never feel they are the villain because to them there is always a reason for their actions. I have known people IRL that have done truly horrible things. People that have gone out of their way to cause harm and pain to a fellow human being and they believed they were in the right as they had some reason, some excuse or justification for their actions".

I think that pretty much nails it right there. I bet if you locked these people in a room and REALLY talked to them, even the hard core right wingers that are wanting to seriously hurt the poor and be a giant douche to the people and kiss the corporate ass, they aren't going "Muh ha ha! That'll show 'em" it is simply they believe their actions are just either through logic hoops, or the end justifies the means, or the propaganda has been bought by them hook line and sinker, but I bet nearly all of them have SOME reason why they think they are right.

it is just in their little ivory coated, gold padded worlds where 10,000 dollar lunches and 35k bottles of wine are nothing they don't see what real harm they are doing, and frankly i don't know which is worse: Cartoon villainy or true believers that are delusional. Both end up with the common man fucked so i don't suppose it really matters.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[causality]

I don't think it has to do with big and small lies. I think most people deep down want to believe that other people are good, or that they have the potential to be good (The Vader Effect). Of course, there are limits to this optimism. But a politician hoodwinking his or her constituents is no different than a grifter tricking an old woman out of her pension. They both rely on a psychology that may be instinctual to humans due to our species' predilection for social structure; we by default want to trust that people will act in ways that benefit the society and not harm it, and us.

This is the denial of which I was speaking. The urge to trust someone who is manifestly not trustworthy (governments, shady businesses, etc) is a product of denial. It's an inability to see that there are red flags.

The "big lie vs. small lie" was an analogy. The point was that people want to relate to themselves something that may be relatively alien to them. There is a self-centeredness inherent in this that is the opposite of objectivity.

The solution is to neither trust nor distrust, but instead to completely ignore the words and look at what the actions tell you about the person. Those who are not trustworthy also suffer from that self-centeredness and once you understand what it is, you can identify it immediately. They will give themselves away, but not if you are too caught up in your own mind to observe.

Also I would add that people are born inherently good. The problem is that long before they reach adulthood or even their teenage years, they are corrupted with the phony choices offered to them. Be it media, schooling, peers, society, you name it ... the options they are left with boil down to two wrong choices. They can be a bully or they can be a pushover. So they find a place for themselves in a social hierarchy of some kind. It may be "jocks vs. nerds" etc in school or it may be the corporate ladder in adult life. Either way, there is someone they can push around who is expected to take it and in turn, there is someone to whom they are expected to be subservient.

Be it giving or receiving, it is always about domination and control and the struggle to achieve them. This is why sociopaths feel so justified in their deceptions. They perceive themselves as "having what it takes" to rise to the top and they regard it as a virtue they have earned. The result is that noble people with integrity who do not look for ways to control others, who want to live and let live whenever possible, who regard force as an option of last resort only after reason fails, those people are kept out of leadership positions and we inhereit the fucked up world we know today. It's an asylum, the inmates are running it, and all of the wrong things have lots of forces cooperating to make them happen, such as draconian copyright law. That's where the political clout is found.

If we had a perfect meritocracy then perhaps those at the top would have legitimately earned it. The problem is, we don't. It's not about how good you are, how skilled you are, how wisely you would govern, or how much you respect the rights of others. It's about being in the right clubs, knowing the right people, being one of the good ol' boys, and climbing to the top by climbing over the bodies of anyone who stood in your way. Sociopathy isn't just tolerated. It's actively encouraged and rewarded.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[Luckyo]

Knowing someone is "generally" a lying sack of shit, and knowing exactly where and when they lied and what were the contents of lies, is the same as artillery knowing where "generally" enemy is vs exact spotting co-ordinates.

Former is largely pointless for other then "watch out for them". Second is utterly devastating for targeted parties.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[Luckyo]

"There is no universal sense of justice - there are as many views on what is just as there are people on the planet. That is why wars are fought on all levels, from individual to world."

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[ultranova]

This is why sociopaths feel so justified in their deceptions.

Isn't the defining trait of sociopathy not caring about justifications, but simply doing whatever you want and think you can get away with?

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[ultranova]

That's bad enough, and goes a long way towards explaining why they are so willing to tolerate liars and portray it as normal ("eh he's a congressman what do you expect, of course he lies"). Yet it's different from actively, knowingly and deliberately trying to deceive. There's a plan and a purpose combined with an awareness of what one is doing. It's perpetrated by people who are sworn to do what is best for the nation and entrusted with a lot of power with which to do it. There's an element of betrayal here that isn't present in the "little white lies" most people tell.

Going by your own angle, I wonder if that's really true; after all, politicians are still humans and just as capable of human failings as everyone else. Yet the way you are talking of them makes them seem like they were exempt from this, and instead had perfect internal clarity, rather than just deceiving themselves that they are doing the right thing, just like everyone else does according to yourself. It would seem a lot simpler to assume that the people on top are pretty much like the people at the bottom, and simply have more opportunities to act out their flaws (and less support against that from peer pressure). Act the pressure of a position where utmost competence is required on someone who is not really any more competent than Joe Average, and it should come as no surprise that extreme behaviour and megalomania tend to result.

Also, I can't help but notice that this "element of betrayl not present in little white lies" stuff sounds an awful lot like an attempt to excuse said "white" lies. In fact, the very way you use the term "white lie" here seems to differ from the usual usage: you use it for self-deception, while the usual meaning is about lies told in situations where telling the truth would cause unneccessary pain or be otherwise morally wrong (like the classic "Gestapo comes asking if you have Jews hidden in your basement and you do" -scenario).

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[DrBoumBoum]

The thing about the villain is they never feel they are the villain because to them there is always a reason for their actions.

To be fair Socrates formulated that idea about 2400 years ago: "No one does evil intentionally."

Credit where credit's due.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[mpe]

they already know that governments are full of lying sacks of shit. in fact all governments are liars and murderers. yes even yours.

I'm not sure that politicians can be reasonably compared with bags of organic fertiliser. Since they are typically rather less use in helping plants to grow.
It also appears quite common in the "developed" world for people to believe that however bad past governments have proven to be the current one is fine or that members of a political party they support are much better than other politicans.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[mpe]

Yes, true, but in many circumstances, it's important to know the specifics.

But only really necessary if they are going to be prosecuted...

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[hairyfeet]

Well to be fair Whedon's take is a little different, what he was trying to get at is while their actions may be evil and they may accept that those actions are evil and know before doing it those actions are evil they feel morally justified in doing them, so that makes it "ok" in their eyes.

So in his take it would be like you flipped someone off in traffic so they follow you home and kill your family. To you it was just a minor traffic irritation but to the guy it could have been a grave insult which makes him feel morally justified in doing something horrible to you in return. So sorta similar but not.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[Evtim]

Excellent post!

That is why I have always claimed that the best advice of all time was the inscription at the entry of the Oracle of Delphi - "Know thyself"

However, knowing yourself is probably the most difficult challenge for a human being.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[causality]

This is why sociopaths feel so justified in their deceptions.

Isn't the defining trait of sociopathy not caring about justifications, but simply doing whatever you want and think you can get away with?

That could be rephrased as: "the fact that they get away with it means it was justified." In that way your answer is in your question.

But they always have a justification even if not for their own consumption. They recognize a need for one even if they do not personally desire one. No dictator ever came into power by saying "I want to be a ruthless dictator and rule over you with an iron fist and oppress you as much as possible." It's always for the children, to fight a national enemy, to deal with a failed economy, etc.

Re:Clearly wikileaks must be stopped !!!

[causality]

Going by your own angle, I wonder if that's really true; after all, politicians are still humans and just as capable of human failings as everyone else. Yet the way you are talking of them makes them seem like they were exempt from this, and instead had perfect internal clarity, rather than just deceiving themselves that they are doing the right thing, just like everyone else does according to yourself.

I'll give you a contemporary example.

Right now there are politicians in the US with a Democrat political viewpoint who advocate raising taxes on the wealthy in order to fix the deficit. The deficit is measured in trillions of dollars. So let's say you raised the income tax rate to 100% for everyone who makes $250k/year or more. Assume that no one changes their behavior as a result of this (a very big assumption). You would raise additional revenues measured in the tens of billions, in the ballpark of $50-75 billion.

$75 billion in more revenue is obviously not going to fix a deficit measured in trillions. So why would any politician continue to advocate it? Especially, why would they continue to advocate it once someone points this out to them (which has been done, repeatedly, assuming their own advisors didn't do it first)? That's easy. Because taxing wealthy people is a tenet of this political philosophy. They are merely trying to exploit a crisis to advance an agenda they had long before it was a crisis.

I won't get into whether I think progressive taxation is a good idea or whether it is justified to hate the wealthy. What I will get into is the fact that if you want to do it, this is a dishonest way to go about it. They are liars. They know they are lying. They are doing it anyway. This is just one example.

Sure, human foibles happen. Since you know that and I know that, it obviously isn't what I was talking about. I never understood the "discussion" style where you bring up things that don't fit the description given and ask me if that's what I meant by the description. It doesn't deserve its popularity.

Also, I can't help but notice that this "element of betrayl not present in little white lies" stuff sounds an awful lot like an attempt to excuse said "white" lies.

I didn't excuse anything. I mentioned small lies in the context of a quote from Mein Kampf. You don't have questions like this when you don't isolate something and take it out of the context with which it was presented.

Having said that, yes I recognize a distinction between a relatively innocent false statement and a deliberate, planned, intentional effort to deceive for personal or corporate gain. If you don't, that's your prerogative.

In fact, the very way you use the term "white lie" here seems to differ from the usual usage: you use it for self-deception, while the usual meaning is about lies told in situations where telling the truth would cause unneccessary pain or be otherwise morally wrong

Most of them are told to avoid offense. While there is a big difference between deliberately being a dick and merely being honest, I don't recognize anyone's right to never be offended. If telling the straight truth in a non-inflammatory non-malicious way causes pain, the right way to deal with that is to work on the situation until that thing is no longer true.

(like the classic "Gestapo comes asking if you have Jews hidden in your basement and you do" -scenario).

As Sun Tzu explained, all war is based on deception. Make no mistake, what Hitler conducted was a war on the Jewish people. Hitler's war was wrong and he did not deserve support. The one time it is absolutely acceptable to use deception, the time I will make no apologies whatsoever for doing so, is when I am confronted with a malicious adversary who cannot be reasoned with and wants to make war against me. This has nothing to do with "little white lies" however.

Could someone summarize the summary?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a mess of adjectives.

I think it says: one Canuck politician tried to get his way in a Copyright legislation deal by using America as muscle.

Re:Could someone summarize the summary?

[haruchai]

That Canuck politician is their equivalent of the POTUS. Obama only dreams of having the kind of control over the Democrats that Stephen Harper has over their Conservative Party.

Re:Could someone summarize the summary?

[drosboro]

Except that it wasn't Harper. Maxime Bernier (a Member of Parliament, formerly Minister of Foreign Affairs) comes off looking not so well, as does the bureaucrat Zoe Addington.

Re:Could someone summarize the summary?

[doccus]

Er.. wasn't mr Bernier already kinda known for accidentally leaving documents in inappropriate places?

Re:Could someone summarize the summary?

[mattcsn]

Conservative MPs, and especially cabinet ministers, don't dare sneeze without getting approval from the PMO. If a tory MP started a private project, it's a sure bet that it's because the PM approved.

Re:Could someone summarize the summary?

[haruchai]

Harper is well known for his tight grip on his Cabinet. It wouldn't be overstating the case to compare him to Roger Ailes.

Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[Yo Grark]

I know politics can get evil at time but seriously, WTF?

That's as close to treason as I can see to the tech industry.

Media Levies? Fine, thank you for protecting us from RIAA type tatics.

But then to turn around and sell out the entire COUNTRY to further your agenda? That's plain evil and I wish someone had the gonads to actually put people in jail over this.

Yo Grark

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well we, as Canadian citizens, can demand that this politician be sanctioned. All it takes is to make a bit of noise so that the right people feel they can't ignore the issue. Write to the media, to your local representatives, spread this story to your friends, on Facebook, and be sure to tell people "We can get the guilty punished, we simply need to act. Let's do it!".

I'm going to do just what I said above. Will you?

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[Anonymous Coward]

They won the last election. They got a MAJORITY (even if only by a couple thousand votes). They DO. NOT. CARE.

Look at all the scandals from income trusts to Gazebogate to Kairos and beyond. Look at how they cover up their wrongdoing to hide it from the Auditor General, and nothing happens. Look at how they instruct their political staffers to abuse their offices of government and the political staffers get fired/resigned for the election and sneakily hired back afterwards. Look at the RCMP investigation of one staffer that clearly and illegally interfered with Access To Information requests, admitted doing it, and then the investigation was dropped with no comment post-election. Look at how they first came into power, with the then RCMP commissioner abusing his office to make spurious claims against Liberal MPs mere days before the vote.

Sure, write to the media. I'm sure that Globalist TV and Corporate Television Vehicle will really care about what you have to say! The remaining option, CBC, will be too busy supplicating themselves to get the hard-right radicals to stop calling them communist (which they won't, unless the CBC turns into Conservative Pravda for real). And the newspapers? When the vast, vast majority are owned by the same small groups of people and near universally endorsed the Conservative Party last election even with all the many scandals?

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[cheekyjohnson]

You shouldn't be blaming the politicians, you should be blaming the voters who admire the leadership skills of these politicians.

Or just blame both.

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[korean.ian]

The reason the Conservatives won a (not so strong really) majority is primarily due to Liberals not fielding strong candidates and having shitty leadership from Ignatieff. I can't recall exact percentages, but the number of Liberal ridings that turned Conservative is astounding.
it should also be noted that this is Harper's first majority government, and if (when) he breaks the trust of the people who swung their vote to the conservative side, it will be back to a minority-coalition quagmire, unless either the Liberals or the NDP radically change things.
Still this is reprehensible bullshit and I will make as many people aware of it as possible.

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[jopsen]

I know politics can get evil at time but seriously, WTF?

That's as close to treason as I can see to the tech industry.

Treason might be a bit harsh, but abuse of office and failure to represent the country's best interest, probably. - I hope we'll see heads rolling over this.

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from arrogance and education, the Liberals and the Conservatives are both Right Wing. In fact the Liberals had the same type of draconian IP legislation planned for Canada long before the Conservatives reached the tipping point in their popularity. The only difference is that the Conservatives go out of their way to make themselves into assholes, while the Liberals (at cocktail parties at least) try to present themselves as the moderate alternative. Unfortunately, the Liberals are just the flip side of the same conservative coin.

Canada is like the U.S.. There is no real opposition. Unfortunately the NDP and Green party will never see enough popularity to have any influence in bringing Canada into a more moderate political sphere.

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[marcroelofs]

My first thoughts as well: Treason!

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[shutdown -p now]

That's as close to treason as I can see to the tech industry.

Why "close"? This is government officials, who have a duty to (and many are even sworn to) serve their country, intentionally placing the interests of a foreign country above theirs where there is a clear conflict of interests. My common sense tells me that this is textbook treason.

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[lonecrow]

We know that there election "messaging" is professional crafted to generate their desired emotional response in the electorate, (eg. a steady hand father knows best blah blah). And we also know that the reality of their policies and action only serve the plutocracy.

So the questions are
A. How do you combat undermine their public brand with, well...with the facts. B. When will the other parties finally do a better job of their messaging so that their brands succeed.

In this specific case, having the US put us on the "Privacy Watch List" puts us at risk of economic retaliations from the US: From Wikipedia

In response to countries being included on the Special 301 Report Watchlists the US Government may initiate dispute settlement proceedings at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or other relevant trade agreement, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The US Government can also eliminate tariff preferences unilaterally granted, such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).[10]

I wonder how many companies have policies about not hiring remote contractors from countries on the list? Anybody have first hand information of how being put on the watch list impaired their ability to work with American partners?

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[ceoyoyo]

"the NDP"

Are you referring to Her Majesty's Official Opposition? Recall that the minor (and regional) party that formerly held that position is now the government.

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[mpe]

Why "close"? This is government officials, who have a duty to (and many are even sworn to) serve their country, intentionally placing the interests of a foreign country above theirs where there is a clear conflict of interests. My common sense tells me that this is textbook treason.

According to the textbook it would be "treason" if it involved a regular member of the public. When an official of the state does this it is "high treason".

Re:Politics are bad mmmm'ka?

[alexo]

They won the last election. They got a MAJORITY (even if only by a couple thousand votes). They DO. NOT. CARE.

Then MAKE. THEM. CARE.

Make it a personal hobby of yours to do your best to prevent them from winning a majority, or even just an election, ever again.

Well, I am not shocked...

[iCEBaLM]

For those that don't know, we currently have had pretty far right leaning neo-conservative governments (still not as far right as the US tea party, but pretty bad).

They have been caught lying to parliament and making illegal backroom deals in the past, yet because the Liberals can't seem to field a leader who isn't a blithering idiot (Dion) or perceived as weak (Ignatief) our left of centre vote gets split between Liberals, NDP and Green (which combined makes up over 50%) and the right of centre vote goes all towards the Conservatives.

It just goes to show you, that first past the post doesn't work well...

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[mbone]

And what about the Constitutional Coup that Harper conducted with the Governor General ?

In my mind, that is sufficient reason right there for Canada to become a Republic.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignatieff may or may not have been able to do things more effectively as leader. But that's not anywhere near the whole story. The Conservatives, thanks to the fundraising efforts they made to collect major political subsidies, are sitting on huge piles of money. They have millions to waste in advertising even before the election. And they do spend millions in advertising before the election. Even Jesus Christ would have had trouble defending himself against all the slander backed by subsidised CPC ads. They got the Goebbels Big Lie out there early, and often, and the Liberals didn't have millions in ads to respond with. The Liberals didn't try pulling the same Nixonian dirty tricks against Harper either.

Ignatieff thought that his performance in the House of Commons (that few watch), his occasional appearance in the conservative media (hah), and his trips to meet and interact with groups of Canadians, would be enough. Sadly, it wasn't. The first two had no chance of countering defamation the ads' targets were inclined to go along with anyways and the last, by its nature, couldn't affect enough people.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[Anonymous Coward]

And also, for those who don't know, the Toronto Star is essentially a mouthpiece for the Liberal party, so take the article with a grain of salt.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[tqk]

And what about the Constitutional Coup that Harper conducted with the Governor General ?

In my mind, that is sufficient reason right there for Canada to become a Republic.

As if that's a cure-all solution. Cf. the USA.

I think what you really want is a government truly bound by a constitution with which it may not fsck, and barring a very messy and violent revolution, that's a pipe dream.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[Taty'sEyes]

I don't know why you have to slam the TEA Party. Do you know what the TEA Party wants? A smaller government. A government based on the founders' principles of minimalistic, well defined roles. Why did the founders want that? Because they knew people were fallible and would take advantage, regardless of party affiliation, of whatever situation presented itself. You can play your party bashing game all you want, but know that giving any one organization power will result in the same state of affairs.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[vux984]

Do you know what the TEA Party wants?

An intolerant white christian state, with no gay marriage?

A smaller government. A government based on the founders' principles of minimalistic, well defined roles.

Sure that too. But that's a plank all platforms pay lip service to. Mostly its the white christian state with no gay marriage that makes them the butt of the jokes though.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[belthize]

Which TeaParty ? TeaPartyPatriots.org, TeaParty.org ? Which one has the official TEA Party platform. They differ quite a bit in their specifics as to how to create limited government and balance the budget. Some of TeaPartyPatriots economic suggestions are fairly sound some aren't. TeaParty.org seems more of a front for the Michael Savages/Rush Limbaughs of the world.

Regardless official statements like this (off of TeaParty.org's 'about' link):

(Yes, We Are A Christian Nation) You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy freedom. The Tea Party welcomes all Red Blooded U.S. Citizens.

Make me fairly disinterested in anything they have to say. Which citizen's are not "Red Blooded" ? Gays ? Muslims ? Jews ? Liberals ? Progressives ? Neocons ? Atheists ?

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[arthurpaliden]

Don't blame Harper because they other leaders never read the Parliamentary rules of order nor thought their little pressure tactic through.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[Culture20]

A smaller government. A government based on the founders' principles of minimalistic, well defined roles.

Sure that too. But that's a plank all platforms pay lip service to.

maybe the R's, but no one else pays lip service to reducing the size of government (only lower taxes).

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[TheRaven64]

The "founders" lived in a land of farmers and small, independent businesses, where getting from town to town took a day, and from state to state took a week.

Judging by their policies, I think getting back to that is pretty high on the Tea Party's agenda...

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[iCEBaLM]

You can't form a majority government unless you win 50% +1 of the seats in the house. To do that you do NOT need 50%+1 of the vote.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[Taty'sEyes]

I see your point, but you have missed mine and only make a stronger case for what I said.

"A government based on the founders' principles of minimalistic, well defined roles. ... Because they knew people were fallible and would take advantage, regardless of party affiliation, of whatever situation presented itself."

These websites claiming to be mouth pieces have fallen into corruption and are using their new found power to advance certain political agendas. They speak for "groups" of people. As soon as you hear "group speak", you have found someone seeking dominance.

Until we stop viewing people as belonging to "groups" - ie. class warfare, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes. We are a country of individuals. The individual's right to liberty must be preserved. As soon as you (in the role of government) take from one and give to another because of that person's "group" status, you deny the first person's liberty and have taken the first step toward tyranny.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[m0nkyman]

Only true if there are only two parties. I'll let you do the math on what percentage is needed if there are three relatively equal parties, and it's first past the post. I'll give you a hint. It starts with a 3.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[zippthorne]

Hmm, that's a good point. We should sooner sell ourselves into slavery than consider the opinions of people whose words can be interpreted, regardless of intent, as even slightly racist, exclusionary, or cliquish.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[lexsird]

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -Steinbeck

"Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times." -Vonnegut

"It is a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?”"-Vonnegut

  Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.-Albert Einstein

Get the drift yet?

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[belthize]

Nice false dichotomy, or alternatively, right dichotomy wrong assignments.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[SuricouRaven]

That might be what they say they want, but American politics is a game of factions. The tea party movement is so intimatly tied to the religious right that there is, for practical purposes, no distinguishing them. If you take a group of self-identified tea-party supporters, you'd probably find that upwards of 95% of them want a federal ban on gay marriage, the ten commandments in every courthouse, Christian prayer in schools, criminalisation of abortion with the absolute narrowist of exceptions, and all the other positions you know to associate.

The religious right and the tea party both know that only in unity can they stand up to their shared nemesis, the liberals.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[TFAFalcon]

Why not make the churches change the word they use?
If they want to differentiate the people THEY 'properly' marry they can use any other word they like, but why should people that don't get married in churches (atheists do exist you know) suddenly no longer be considered married?

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[SuricouRaven]

I find this applies best to gun control. They lived in a time when the rifled barrel was known, but yet to see mass production, and there were no bullets. When they wrote about the right to bear arms, they were not considering that today we have combat shotguns that can take a door of it's hinges in two shots, and can carry twenty cartridges in their semi-automatic barrels - and still be so light that a reasonably trained person can duel-wield.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[haruchai]

If you have to ask, the answer is NO

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[haruchai]

You mean SEATS, not VOTES. This time around, it only required 39.62%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_2011

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[toriver]

Don't forget the slaves used for menial labor too. Wonder if the Tea Party wants to remove the right to vote from black people? Or women? How far back do they want to take politics?

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[haruchai]

The overall Democratic party hasn't been on the left quite a while - they're best described as center-right.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[Xest]

"It just goes to show you, that first past the post doesn't work well..."

Yes, it's one of those things you shouldn't have copied from Britain.

It's so bad that even our most left wing mainstream party is now well right of centre, so that rather than any hope of government that's representative of the people we have nothing but right wing idiocy, there's not even any hope of some rational centrism.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[shutdown -p now]

I think what you really want is a government truly bound by a constitution with which it may not fsck

Canada has the Constitution Act which sets out many limits on both feds and the provinces, and it seems to be adhered to more strictly (and reinterpreted less creatively) than in US.

For example, did you know that Canadian healthcare system (that many US liberals are quite jealous of) is actually run on provincial level, with voluntary cooperation and coordination via the feds? Furthermore, any province has right to opt out. This is because Constitution Act specifically enumerates healthcare as being under provisional authority. In another example, unemployment benefits (EI) program in Canada is run by feds, but this actually required an amendment to the Act, agreed upon by the provinces (since "welfare" was also defined as being under provincial jurisdiction).

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[tqk]

To all those who replied to my post, it seems you've (to varying degrees) missed this bit of what I wrote:

... a government truly bound by a constitution with which it may not fsck ...

Trudeau fscked with it when it was "repatriated", the US fscks with theirs in innumerable ways daily via multiple vectors (Congress, USSC, US Trade Reps, ...).

It ought to be a LAW ON GOV'T that specifies WHAT GOV'T MAY AND MAY NOT DO/GET AWAY WITH. It also should be worked over to death to ensure it's correctly crafted and all duties and responsibilities spelled out first, and it should be difficult as hell to change it by gov't or legal edict (assuming change by any party is desired). I don't care if that takes a century or two, as long as it's being worked on and the right thing has a chance to surface eventually. Scrap it and try again is much better than getting something weak that can't stand up to the test of time or special interests.

I'm no fan of gov't nor mobocracy. Gov't, even in its best forms is still a fire waiting and eager to get out of hand. Ditto Democracy (tyranny of the majority). Both may be the best we can do, and may be necessary evils, but eternal vigilance on our part is all that can keep either in check.

Congress critters/Parliamentarians/lawyers/lobbyists should have no rights whatsoever in this realm, and a proper constitution would allow them no room to involve themselves. This's none of their !@#$ business. It's our business, and they should not be welcome sticking their noses into our business.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[rohan972]

combat shotguns that can take a door of it's hinges in two shots, and can carry twenty cartridges in their semi-automatic barrels - and still be so light that a reasonably trained person can duel-wield.

I think you've been watching too many movies. Show me a semi-auto shotgun with 20 rounds that you think you can wield with one hand.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[SuricouRaven]

Very well. The AA-12. Actually, it's a full auto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoUVeyaY_8

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[haruchai]

That's going too far. But it does make a strong case for some form of proportional representation.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[ceoyoyo]

"did you know that Canadian healthcare system (that many US liberals are quite jealous of) is actually run on provincial level, with voluntary cooperation and coordination via the feds? Furthermore, any province has right to opt out."

Sort of. Health care is under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but most of the money to pay for it comes from the federal government. So health care gets very good protection because in most cases both the provinces and feds would have to cooperate to damage it. Unless you're Quebec and can pull random crap with the health care system because threatening to withhold funds from Quebec is a no no.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[ceoyoyo]

0% of Canadians voted for the party that formed the government. 100% of Canadians (who voted) voted for an individual to represent their local concerns in parliament. When Canadians remember that, our parliamentary system will work just fine.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[ceoyoyo]

"no government in Canada"

No government OF Canada. The NDP has formed several governments in Canada, at the provincial level.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[shutdown -p now]

Sort of. Health care is under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but most of the money to pay for it comes from the federal government.

True, but my point was that it is still a voluntary arrangement. Feds give the money under certain conditions which restrict how provincial healthcare programs must look (e.g. universal coverage), but a province can still opt out, and run their own thing, or even ditch that completely. That's what federalism is supposed to be like - it doesn't mean that subdivisions don't cooperate at all, and when they do, it's only logical to go through the federal center to do so.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[mpe]

Marriage was around long before the US government existed, and it was used by churches long before the US government existed,

IIRC there have been times in the past where Christian churches have been somewhat anti-marriage. What about temples, mosques, synagogues, etc? As well as a myriad of non monotheistic faiths.

and it always meant a union between a man and a woman.

Except that this isn't the case. The Bible (even in the New Testament) defines marriage to include one man and an arbitraty number of women. AFAIK it does not exclude any possible grouping. There's also an entity called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" which actually originates in the USA...

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[mpe]

The debate was never about forcing pedophiles^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpriest to marry gays in their church. It was about giving the same right and benefit to homosexual couples.

Which is still discriminatory. Against single people, also triads, Vs, groups, etc. The simplist way to eliminate discrimination would be for the state to get out of people's relationships. Which would also be the most obvious way to go about things if "smaller government" were actually being advocated.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[haruchai]

That doesn't explain the massive shift from the Bloc Quebecois to the NDP in the last election which saw very young and inexperienced candidates beat out incumbents of long standing.

Re:Well, I am not shocked...

[rohan972]

Shit! I stand corrected.

None of this is any surprise

[mbone]

None of this is any surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, they are not above being sleazy in the same way that the ocean is not above the sky.

Re:None of this is any surprise

[shutdown -p now]

It's not, but it is generally required to have some substantial evidence to string someone up, even when everyone around knows that they deserve it. Hopefully this is it.

You know ...

[Haedrian]

I think this sort of information should be forced to be disclosed legally.

How are people supposed to know who to blame for the mess of legislation if this sort of thing is done under wraps? I'm sure this guy wouldn't see another term in office if this sort of thing was known earlier.

I realise doing it in secret was the whole point of it, but these people should be held accountable, they are meant to represent the people, and the people need to know what they're doing.

Re:You know ...

[tqk]

... they are meant to represent the people ...

It's the 21st Century. Your naivete is showing.

the biggest leakers - governments

[decora]

and they typically 'leak' information for political reasons, for power and influence, for purposes of manipulation and propaganda.

that is why government prosecutions of 'leakers' are the ultimate hypocrisy. government itself is the biggest leaker of all.

Re:Here's the good thing

[PsychoSlashDot]

These cable leaks will effectively neuter the Conservatives for the next four years, since their entire policy is based on sucking American cock.

Are you kidding me? There are three types of us; those who know what's going on and act on that knowledge (a.k.a. politicians), those who know what's going on and don't act on that knowledge (you and I), and the vast, vast majority that don't read about any of this and wouldn't understand or care if they did.

All the politicians need to do is keep smearing each other with "they tax you too much" and "they are killing our health care/education/whatever" and "he's a pedophile". Nobody brings real issues into campaigning because the majority of constituents don't understand real issues not because they're stupid but because they don't want to.

Piracy schmiracy

[Antisyzygy]

I don't understand why people allow their governments to continue to crack down on piracy as if its some kind of major problem. Markets will adapt, and to give an example of one look at the gaming industry. Many people now get games through Steam because its convenient. You get it the minute the game comes out, and you get access to a bunch of other features, like automated updates, etc. It is impossible for them to pirate games on these platforms, and many publishers are coming up with similar system. Also, there are multiplayer capabilities in many games that require unique CD-keys, like Starcraft II, etc. Another example is Netflix and Hulu. They offer a streaming service whereby you get to watch what you want when you want to and don't bombard you with more advertisements than actual television. If Hollywood would just release new movies over some premium streaming service, no doubt they would cut down on bootlegging and piracy in general. It boggles my mind why everyone isn't in a complete uproar over this, as all of the measures governments take are inherently anti-consumer and only meant to benefit the corporations failing business models.

Re:Piracy schmiracy

[RobinEggs]

and many publishers are coming up with similar system

But that's a bad thing. Steam itself isn't too bad, but it's still prohibits resale without lowering prices and causes a lot of other irritation.

The appropriate reaction to multiple publishers all trying to make their own Steam-type platform is disgust and terror. More proprietary bullshit, more integrated systems to figure out when one (Steam) was enough from the consumer perspective (and that's ignoring those who hate Steam already), and more opportunities for situations like Sony's nightmarish mismanagement of game credentials and account information.

Digital delivery platforms don't presently look like a good future; they're generally ways of inconveniencing and restricting customers, not better catering their needs.

Re:Piracy schmiracy

[zippthorne]

Steam does lower prices significantly, frequently, and early-on, though. Further, the trade is not one-sided; you get some utility in exchange for the freedom you lose - the ability to re-download your entire game library for as long as steam continues to exist. And this includes downloading versions for OSs other than the one you originally bought it for, if those versions exist.

Re:Piracy schmiracy

[Antisyzygy]

Resale is not usually something most people do unless they are console gamers, and consoles have their own built in DRM. While I agree with the principal of being able to resale, the software industry as well as the government has basically frowned upon this practice for over a decade unless you are operating a console system. The appropriate reaction for one person is not the same as what you deem appropriate, because opinions differ.

Sony is a giant piece of shit, and this has been proven when people boycotted them for their DRM dvd's they produced, and when people traded in their PS3's for Xbox 360's after the PSN got hacked. Sony really doesn't have much going on for it anymore. I don't remember the last time I purchased a Sony product, since I refuse to. They publish too many sub-par games and require increasing control over them, even above and beyond industry standards. People are moving away from Sony products at a very rapid rate. The publishers producing the best games are not affiliated with one platform, and typically release it on Xbox, PS3, and many times PC.

I have no complaints about Steam, because they offer products for bargain rates, offer them deliverable the minute they are available, and/or as your connection will allow, and let you access them from any computer you are using as long as you are doing it from one computer at a time. This business model is INFINITELY better than the music and movie industry. Using them as an example was to show its possible to create a very profitable business that handles copyrights in a more consumer-friendly way.

Re:Piracy schmiracy

[Antisyzygy]

Let me correct myself and say I purchased a Ps2 about a year or so after it came out. That was a good console, and an example of when Sony was actually worth a shit.

Re:Piracy schmiracy

[ceoyoyo]

In Canada we don't. American-style copyright bills have been introduced multiple times and have withered away and died every time. The heritage and/or industry ministers usually lose their jobs over it too. That doesn't stop the government from TRYING though.

Re:Piracy schmiracy

[Antisyzygy]

Well, be prepared to welcome an immigrant.

Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Piracy is legally sanctioned in Canada by the surcharge added to the price of digital media to compensate for its use in making unauthorized copies of copyrighted materials. If you're NOT pirating media in Canada, you're not getting all of what you've paid for.

Re:Obviously

[quacking duck]

Strictly speaking, this only applies to CD-Rs, because the original late 90s legislation was passed in response to the music industry's demands. A few years later, hard drives and anything with them got a levy too, but they were dropped a few years ago. An opposition party member tried reintroducing the hard drive levy idea last year, but was shot down.

AFAIK, recordable DVDs do not and have never had a levy.

Re:Obviously

[jessejj]

I suggest you finally read up on this. It's a common misconception over a law that's over a decade old. The levy does not in fact legalize pirating media at all. "In conjunction with the levy, the Copyright Act allows individuals to make copies of sound recordings for their own private, non-commercial use. They may not distribute the copy." This means copying a CD you've purchased to your computer and then burning a copy for yourself. Not downloading an album (e.g. from a torrent site) and certainly not uploading an album. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Canada

Re:Obviously

[LanMan04]

allows individuals to make copies of sound recordings for their own private, non-commercial use. They may not distribute the copy." This means copying a CD you've purchased to your computer and then burning a copy for yourself. Not downloading an album (e.g. from a torrent site) and certainly not uploading an album.

Where does it say you can't download an album and then make a copy for yourself?

make copy? check
for private, non-commercial use? check
not distributing? check

Same thing happened in Spain

[Superken7]

The head of Spain's RIAA has been found to have encouraged Spain to be included in the "Special 301" list, as well.

This is especially irritating, since it is that same organization who has used "Special 301" as an argument to pressure the government into modifying our laws to combat webs which offered links to warez. It is worth pointing out that those same webs have been found to be completely legal for years, since they don't actually host the copyrighted material.

It is just amazing that a country will bow and modify its laws just because it was included in a "piracy list". Especially if what they intend to change is rather ineffective and too vague. Any web which links to material without the original author's permission can be blocked, which will probably result in 1. no less piracy and 2. abuse of this new law by others.

I don't understand why they would block the webs that link and do not host the material, instead of blocking those that do host the material.
Well, actually I do. It is, of course, because P2P links would be impossible to block (users would need to be blocked) without resorting to a HADOPI-style law - which they don't like because it is considered too impopular.

Re:Same thing happened in Spain

[shutdown -p now]

This is especially irritating, since it is that same organization who has used "Special 301" as an argument to pressure the government into modifying our laws

Of course, that's the whole point. That's exactly what they did in Canada, as well.

Re:Before tabled in Parliament?? Please, WTF?

[tomhudson]

This is the same Maxime Bernier who left his then-girlfriend (a , among others) secret documents.. He was forced to resign

Aren't Canadians wondering...

[John Hasler]

...what the hell all this stuff was doing in US diplomatic cables? A lot of it sounds like ordinary internal discussion that occurs while forming policy, but why was the US embassy in on it? Makes Canada look like the US puppet that the Bolsheviks always said it was.

Re:Aren't Canadians wondering...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is Canada carefully manipulating the USA, we just want it to look like we're the victim. The overall plan is to implement Canadian currency as the Common North American currency.
-eyeballs Mexico-

Re:Here's the good thing

[J Story]

With any luck, some weightier opposition MPs will make sure that the Conservatives get to wear this when appropriate. I remember when the bill was last before parliament and one of the opposition parties tried to broaden the media levy. The government response was that it "wouldn't work", but now it looks like the real writer of the bill was Obama (countersigned by Disney), so there was no real hope for change.

This isn't about Canadian politics

[rbrander]

This would have happened whether a "Conservative, right-wing" government was in or the Liberals. To understand, you need to read a 2008 story from the same watchdog, Michael Geist (to whom all Canada should be deeply indebted for tracking these issues for years):

http://www.thestar.com/sciencetech/article/443867

The key phrase in the story is "Canadian officials arrived ready to talk about a series of economic concerns but were quickly rebuffed by their U.S. counterparts, who indicated that progress on other issues would depend upon action on the copyright file."

Americans are sometimes surprised to learn (Condi Rice was one, which was disappointing from a foreign-affairs scholar) that Canada is the US' largest trading partner, more bilateral trade than with your #2 (China) and your #4 (UK) combined, nearly as much as China+Japan (#3). So imagine how large a trading partner the US is for Canada - 80% of the total, last time I checked, that is, 4X as much trade as with all other partners combined.

When the US really wants to lean on Canada at trade discussions, their only difficulty is choosing which levers to pull: making trouble over standard inspections of meat and grains? Lumber? Re-investigating whether Canada subsidizes iron ore, holding up imports while doing so?

So you can find some profoundly anti-Canadian stances being taken by Canadian trade officials - until you see the larger picture and find they were arranging to charge all Canadians an extra $100/year for media content ($3 billion from 30 million people) to smooth the path for $6B in exports - of the $76B total, they only have to pick less than 10% to threaten.

Re:This isn't about Canadian politics

[Anonymous Coward]

This would have happened whether a "Conservative, right-wing" government was in or the Liberals.

You are using the false-dichotomy logical fallacy (and propaganda technique) that most right-wing people use to try to distinguish themselves and their dogmas from the more negative aspects and implementers of their ideology.

For those who are not Canadian, I will explain that Canada has two right wing parties: the Liberal party, and the far-right Conservative Party. We have one party in the centre (between Right and Left) called the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois, which is centre-left.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives (and the Liberals) like to define people who are against their policies and being "left-wing". One Conservative municipal councilor in Toronto (Georgio Mammoliti) has consistently called people who are against his extreme Right Wing policies as being "communists".

So when ANYBODY talks about the Left, or "socialists" or "communists" in Canada they are either lying or are extremely ignorant and misinformed about politics in Canada. Usually I have found that people who talk about the "left" (in Canada) just have political or journalistic agendas to adhere to; truth be damned.

Re:This isn't about Canadian politics

[0123456]

Indeed. I'm glad that I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that joke about the Conservatives being 'far right'.

Re:This isn't about Canadian politics

[toriver]

Sure, if you look form a vantage point of either libertarian utopism or totalitarian fascism (both considered "far right") then everything else seems "left wing". To a European, with actual socialist and communist parties, there is quite a larger right wing.

Re:This isn't about Canadian politics

[haruchai]

Under Harper, they're somewhat right of center. Now that he has a majority and if he thinks he can get away with it, you'll see an ever-rightward shift, more so if Ontario elects a provincial Conservative party next month.

Re:This isn't about Canadian politics

[tomhudson]

except that a LOT of those exports, the US cannot threaten without hurting itself.

Petroleum products - Canada still is the #1 supplier to the US. What's the US going to do - ban Canadian oil? That's the equivalent of a permanent Hurricane Katrina shortfall, and there's nobody to take up the slack. $300/bbl oil if the US does that.

Auto parts - sure, if you want to shut down all US auto manufacturing.

And don't forget, the US then not only cripples itself, but also it's biggest export market. Canadian trade officials blinked when they didn't have to,

Re:This isn't about Canadian politics

[tomhudson]

A few points:

The Bloc Quebecois lost official party status at the Federal level when they were pretty much wiped out by the National Democratic Party (NDP); their leader quit, and you never hear anything about them any more.

You left out the Green Party. With Jack Layton gone, and the talk (even if nothing comes of it) of a merger between the Grits (Liberals) and the Dippers (NDP) diluting the lines, a good chunk of the left-of-center vote (and some of the centrist vote) is going to say "a pox on both your houses" and shift to the Greens next election. While they may not get many seats, they will affect outcomes.

Re:This isn't about Canadian politics

[j-beda]

You left out the Green Party. With Jack Layton gone, and the talk (even if nothing comes of it) of a merger between the Grits (Liberals) and the Dippers (NDP) diluting the lines, a good chunk of the left-of-center vote (and some of the centrist vote) is going to say "a pox on both your houses" and shift to the Greens next election. While they may not get many seats, they will affect outcomes.

I am not so sure - other than their environmental platform, the Greens are not particularly "left-leaning" in much of their policy - though I do think they are thought of as being left-of-centre.

Re:This isn't about Canadian politics

[ceoyoyo]

Which is why, whenever we contemplate something unpopular with the Americans like legalizing pot or withdrawing from Afghanistan and somebody brings up "well, the US is our biggest trading partner...."

Which has always sounded like an excellent reason to me why we SHOULD piss of the US and force ourselves to diversify a bit. Or even just find someone else to buy our oil. Ralph Klein, a former premier of Alberta took a lot of flack for being a right wing redneck, but instead of always appeasing the US he arranged several provincial trade missions to other countries.

Reporesenting corporate interests.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why people allow their governments to continue to crack down on piracy as if its some kind of major problem.

It is a problem to the corporate interests. No one else has pointed this out but can anyone see that we have corporate interests being politically promoted across borders? In other words, we have the governments of two sovereign doing their damnedest to represent the interests of moneyed corporations at the expense of their citizens.

Am I off base here and turning into some sort of pinko lefty?! Or is this what's happening?

Really clumsy politics

[91degrees]

Why is anyone paying any attention to this piracy list? Surely nobody's suggesting that the piracy level in Canada and Spain is anything like that in China or South Africa. Everyone realises that it's just there as a stick to try to bully these countries into capitulating to American demands.

But it's so obvious. Any politician who's remotely against American "cultural imperialism" is going to see it for what it is and actively work against the measures urged by the US. Surely the watch list does as much harm as good. There are much more subtle ways to get his message across.

Re:Really clumsy politics

[tqk]

Why is anyone paying any attention to this piracy list?

That is the question. Wasn't it the US' GAO that admitted it was worthless, considering it was made up solely of numbers provided by the *AAs?

There are much more subtle ways to get his message across.

I think they've come to the conclusion that the US House of Reps & Senate are so bought off now, subtlety's no longer necessary. Think about it: who even cares about this issue other than pirates, patriots, bought off legislators, and the *AAs? The rest of the population, considering their buying habits, clearly don't give a flying fsck about any of this, if they even know about it. I very much doubt that my iPhone loving sister knows about it, nor cares one whit about Disney's copyright related shenanigans.

"Sheeple" is becoming a more valid word every day.

Re:Really clumsy politics

[msobkow]

I wouldn't count on that. Downloading is rampant in Canada, because our government signed off on a surcharge for blank CDs that assumed everyone was using them to burn pirated music. As a result, downloading music is LEGAL in Canada -- we've paid for the privelege as a society.

Needless to say, the *AA are not happy about shooting themselves in the foot by pushing for that surcharge. They were just after the money, and didn't think about it's legal implications.

Re:Before tabled in Parliament?? Please, WTF?

[tqk]

"They also cite cabinet minister Maxime Bernier raising the possibility of showing U.S. officials a draft bill before tabling it in Parliament."

FYI, from TFA, the paragraph immediately following reads:

The cables, from the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, even have a policy director for then industry minister Tony Clement suggesting it might help U.S. demands for a tough copyright law if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list. Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list.

What strikes me as astonishing is how monumentally stupid this makes the US' powers that be look, as this action was immediately viewed with scorn and disbelief by pretty much anyone who noticed. Yet, has any of that scorn and disbelief made any dent in US policy intentions? Hell no, full steam ahead, ignore the peanut gallery. Let 'em eat cake.

Holy legislative capture, Batman!

Go Dig Around Opensecrets.org for US Politicians

[Greyfox]

Damn near every single Congressman gets a donation from the entertainment industry, usually in the 5 to 6 digit range. They like to say that campaign donations don't affect the legislative process, but it's very clear that they're firmly in the pockets of the industry. And they're obviously happy to throw their weight around and bully the rest of the world into passing laws to help their buddies.

Harper could school Machiavelli and Karl Rove.

[guidryp]

It had everything to do with the ends justify the means right wing politics of Harper.

Read the OP:

“In contrast to the messages from other Canadian officials, she said that if Canada is elevated to the Special 301 Priority Watch List (PWL), it would not hamper — and might even help — the (government of Canada's) ability to enact copyright legislation,” the cable says.

Days later, Canada was elevated on the piracy watch list.

Harper has been copying the republican play book throughout his term in politics. Manufacture a crisis that needs the response he wants anyway.

Re:Harper could school Machiavelli and Karl Rove.

[Anonymous Coward]

Harper has been copying the republican play book throughout his term in politics. Manufacture a crisis that needs the response he wants anyway.

That's not a republican playbook It's a universal play book for politicians.

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

- Rahm Emanuel

  If you want to pass something unpopular you need to make people want it. A crisses is a perfect. Even the fact that you see a difference between most of the left and right is mainly due to them wanting you to see it as a crises when the other party is in charge but same things usually get passed only different campaign contributors get kickbacks. Like down here in the USA, If McCain where president we still would have had the stimulus and some sort of Rodney care clone passed. The money would have wound up in different hands of course.

Re:Harper could school Machiavelli and Karl Rove.

[0123456]

Harper has been copying the republican play book throughout his term in politics. Manufacture a crisis that needs the response he wants anyway.

Um, no. That's been the _LEFT-WING_ play book for the last century or more.

Re:Harper could school Machiavelli and Karl Rove.

[Your.Master]

No, it's the "political faction I disagree with as contrasted to the one I agree with" play book for the last century or more.

Re:Harper could school Machiavelli and Karl Rove.

[Phrogman]

I am deeply ashamed that my country could elect a dishonest shyster like Harper. There are few limits on what the Conservatives will do to maintain their agenda and hang on to power. Sadly a huge demographic here in Canada is blind to their abuses of the Canadian people and keeps voting for them.

I don't think you can be a Conservative and also be a moral person. Harper is living proof.

Wish I was surprised....

[Commontwist]

Things are bound to get more interesting with Harper in majority and not in a good way. This is the Prime Minister who loves preventing the public to find out what's going on in 'his' government and is apparently going to move a bill that allows spying on the public's Internet.

Two Face is alive and well. We need Batman.

Re:How to lose friends and anger people

[SockPuppetOfTheWeek]

Go ahead, double dog dare ya. Just place foot, aim and fire!

Aim, and then fire?

That's putting the horse before the cart, don't you think? Anything worth doing is worth doing right now. When everything looks like a nail, all you need is a hammer.

Re:Just join the Canadian Tea Party

[Billly Gates]

The Canadian Tea Party needs your help now!

Click on the website and encourage other slashdotters to join.

Re:Here's the good thing

[PsychoSlashDot]

With any luck, some weightier opposition MPs will make sure that the Conservatives get to wear this when appropriate. I remember when the bill was last before parliament and one of the opposition parties tried to broaden the media levy. The government response was that it "wouldn't work", but now it looks like the real writer of the bill was Obama (countersigned by Disney), so there was no real hope for change.

Sure. But my point is that when the opposition says "the Conservative government did this" and describes the issue, the majority of the voting populace will hear "the PCs did something you don't understand or care about." Meanwhile the PCs will be saying "the opposition wants everything in your wallet, and the wallet itself. They're evil and greedy and not at all like us."

A bigger question - WHY was this redacted?

[SuperKendall]

If this is new information, I assume it stems from the recent full release of all documents.

So now you have to ask - just WHY was this redacted in the original set? This seems exactly like the kind of thing wikileaks is there to air. So why did they decide to hold this item back?

This is just further evidence that a third party has no businesses redacting anything. Any leaks group should act only as a conduit, not as a arbitrator who decides what stays secret.

Re:A bigger question - WHY was this redacted?

[dizzysoul]

"This is just further evidence that a third party has no businesses redacting anything. Any leaks group should act only as a conduit, not as a arbitrator who decides what stays secret." - - - AFAIK, that's exactly what Wikileaks was trying to do. They would categorize the leaks, sometimes by country or industry, and then give those leaks to the relevant media watchdogs so that they can do the redacting and releasing. Except now that Wikileaks has been stabbed in the back so violently by The Guardian, who knows what their current policy is going to be.

Re:A bigger question - WHY was this redacted?

[nstlgc]

If this is new information, I assume it stems from the recent full release of all documents.
This is just further evidence that a third party has no businesses redacting anything. Any leaks group should act only as a conduit, not as a arbitrator who decides what stays secret.
Making an assumption and claiming it as evidence. Really?

Contact your MP

[whisper_jeff]

Contact your Member of Parliament. Express your thoughts. They need to know we won't tolerate this.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx

Re:Just join the Canadian Tea Party

[AliasMarlowe]

The Canadian Tea Party needs your help now!

LOL, those pathetic Yankee Tea-baggers are probably green with envy - perhaps so "envious" they'll puke.

BAD BAD BAD

[SuperKendall]

AFAIK, that's exactly what Wikileaks was trying to do

Releasing it to other limited sources who would then redact is exactly the opposite of what I was saying should be done.

NO ONE outside the organization managing the information is qualified to say what should be redacted and what should not. In the end they are simply tools for groups furthering a political agenda with selected leaks.

As I stated this articles illustrates just how wrong that model was. Why was this information with end, when clearly no lives are endangered and it's exactly the kind of thing that should be called out.

Be Proud to belong in the 301

[Artemis3]

My country has been in the Priority 301 for a couple of years, and the fact that remains there means our government is not willing to bend and prosecute their own people to satisfy foreign interests.

The main reason is US pharmaceutical patents which we do not enforce. People's lives are above US corporations, period. And they can all leave for all we care; there is still a whole world willing to trade with us and many do so without "IP" restrictions (technology transfer) in many countries who "coincidently" appear in that list.

If a country is not in the list, it means their politicians are willing to prosecute their own people to defend foreign interests, acting like a subjugated colony of an imperialist state.

The US gov is quick to "qualify" others in issues like Human Rights, Trade, Drugs and Terrorism, but fail to apply the same measure against themselves, which would make them fail in all.

Also the US foreign policy is one of the dirtiest, as proven by cable leaks worldwide, they will never back down and continue to disrespect the international community: spy, bribe, incite countries worldwide to favor their interests (mostly commercial, to hell with freedom), as you will see they won't leave Libya to have Libyans manage their own resources in sovereignty; instead, they will pass "the invoice" and basically ransack the place until they revolt and again bomb the place to change leaders as they have done for decades in countries worldwide.

Without the soviet power to exert some counter balance, the US corporate machine simply acts like they own the world, accountable to no one, they continue to apply pressure to enforce THEIR (corporate) laws worldwide, disregarding whatever it is people think or care.

If your country is in this list, be proud. If not, be in shame.

Once again Conservatives are asslicking the USA

[lsatenstein]

The Conservative government wants the USA to favor Canada when we come to sell our dirty energy. I call the energy dirty, considering the source and present and past environmental damages.

Once again, the conservatives only want short term solutions.
The conservatives are splitting the country into three, with Quebec Nationalists gaining strength.

I am seeing Canada going into difficult political times in the very near future. The copyright law is only one aspect of a dictatorship type of government.

Re:Once again Conservatives are asslicking the USA

[ceoyoyo]

"with Quebec Nationalists gaining strength."

Um, you mean the BQ, who went from 47 seats to 4 in the last election? THOSE nationalists?

Re:Once again Conservatives are asslicking the USA

[lsatenstein]

No, internally in the province there is a rising and vigorous nationalistic pressure. There will be a good chance for a provinclal Partie Quebecois government within the next 18 months, and with it will be a steady withdraw of joint Canadian Quebec Programs, and the fiscal transfer of monies to Quebec for Quebec to do it alone. Quebec has been working to fully disassociate itself from Canada, and it will succeed because it has wealth, because of all the Hydro Electric and mineral resources. Canada will be split with a foreign country between the east coast and Ontario on the west side.

Re:Once again Conservatives are asslicking the USA

[ceoyoyo]

Uh huh. Sure it will. Just like it was going to last time around.

Quebec has great wealth, which it squanders. The infrastructure has decayed past the point where it should be condemned (almost all of it, not just a bridge or two) and any new construction has to pay the mafia tax. Unions and the culture mean that if you want a construction project done you need to hire workers from outside the province during the construction holiday.

I have a friend who was involved with an exploratory test well project in the shale gas fields north east of Montreal. A company from Alberta brought in a bunch of equipment and hired locals to run it. Except the locals wanted their customary hour plus lunch hour (plus travel time), smoke breaks, etc. With expensive equipment sitting idle, the company decided to call it quits. Not to mention Quebecers can't decide whether they even want to develop most of their resources in the first place.

Quebec gets a lot of leverage out of nationalistic threats, but I think the average Quebecer knows very well that separation would be a complete catastrophe. The province is far better off staying in the country and enjoying all its special privileges. Anyway, having the NDP sweep the province doesn't exactly say "nationalistic fervour."

Re:Once again Conservatives are asslicking the USA

[lsatenstein]

I used to think as you do, and as Federalists do, that Quebecers will suffer with independance. Now I realize that it might even be good for Quebec to go it alone. We have resources, we export electricity, and we have abundant mineral wealth.

Is that a reason for Separation or is it the fear by Francophones that their language and culture will disappear in the next 75 years. In my view, separation is a sociological solution to a 6 million population in a sea of 350 million English speaking neighbours.

So, my bottom line is that the disappearance of French to English and Spanish is inevitable . Separation will delay this loss by 50 years, and thats all.

continues to exist

[tepples]

for as long as steam continues to exist

How many online WMA DRM music stores no longer continue to exist? Even Microsoft couldn't keep running its DRM servers forever.

Re:Here's the good thing

[ceoyoyo]

In Canada a good scandal can break a political party. The Liberals haven't had a real shot at forming the government for years because someone hired an ad agency he shouldn't have. Before that, the conservative party, which had a decade long grip on power was decimated by introducing an unpopular tax and some kickbacks from Airbus. They never recovered - the present conservative party is basically the Reform Party, renamed Alliance, renamed Conservative Party of Canada.

Re:As a Canadian...

[ceoyoyo]

You should try being on the no fly list. I just got back from a flight that connected through the US and as usual got dragged down to the special room. This time they asked to see my (lack of) tattoos! The customs guy actually swore when he scanned my passport.