Slashdot Mirror
Reactions Split On What Canada's Liberal Majority Means For Tech Policy Future (freezenet.ca)
Dangerous_Minds writes: Few could have predicted the Liberal majority win in Canada's recent election. Now that the Canadian government is in a state of transition, some have speculated what the new government will bring to the table when it comes to a policy on technology. Michael Geist is speculating that the people in the new Liberal government may bring about a positive policy change, concluding "All of this points to real change and the chance for a fresh start on Canadian digital policy in the years ahead." Meanwhile, Freezenet has a very different take. Drew Wilson points out that the last time the Liberal government was in power, the party was very combative on digital rights because they were trying to bring in Lawful Access and the Canadian DMCA before Stephen Harper took power. In one very infamous exchange, Sam Bulte lashed out at people like Michael Geist by calling him and his supporters "pro-user zealots". With digital rights not even on the radar during the election outside of Bill C-51 towards the beginning and the Liberals long history on these files, Wilson paints a very bleak future given that the Liberal party now has a majority government and can push through policies unopposed whether controversial or not.
The fact that we voted the Conservatives out for a number of reasons, not the least of which was their attempt to sway the vote with a xenophobic campaign message, shows that we aren't as like the US as one might think.
Well, it can. About the only time I was proud of my country was when Schroeder said no to Iraq war. A conservative government would have followed Dubya without even thinking twice about it.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
It's dangerous to evaluate foreign countries on the American political spectrum, and especially dangerous based on their name. If you judged American politics based on the names of the parties, you would think that one party desperately wanted a direct democracy, and the other party was fighting ferociously to keep the states independent. But neither of those is why the names were chosen (in fact, the founder of the democrat party fought to strengthen the states rights).
In Canada, the Liberal Party has that name, but it is the centrist party.
"All politics is local," that is the saying. In Canada, no one is fighting over Obamacare, just like in America no one cares about Quebec independence. In fact, one of the ways the party won is by getting a lot of votes in Quebec (also, Justin Trudeau is kind of hot).
Don't try to focus on "left" or "right," it is a way to divide us. Instead focus on specific issues.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There's no link, because it isn't true. Canadian hate laws don't work like that.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Funny, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would disagree with you:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Oh they definitely thought about it. Some Steven Harper quotes:
Having this new government is like waking up from a terrible nightmare.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co...
He's being prosecuted for hate speech - he hasn't been convicted, much less sentenced - and he lives in the United Kingdom, not Quebec.
But other than those minute details, you're absolutely right!
An example of this is the Liberal party of Australia, which tends to be labeled as a "right" party
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."