The “Controlversial, rammed through, majority (40%) of expensive copyrighted Challenger flights” Post
I never heard so much negativity regarding the Federal Government as this session, both from Global TV and CTV. I do not watch the CBC (even though I AM paying for it!).
Every evening it’s “Flexing their majority muscle”, “ramming through Parliament”, “push through with their new found majority”, “Now they have a majority, Harper can basically do what he wants”, and so on..
The “controversial” Omnibus Crime Bill is being “pushed through parliament” this week. The “cracking down on ordinary Canadians” Copyright Bill is being “steamrolled through Parliament”. The “nothing more than a media-op” Flag Bill is going through Parliament, “ensuring its passing with Harper’s new found majority”.
1) Why is the Omnibus Crime Bill dubbed “controversial”? Harper clearly said he would reintroduce it in parliament within the first 100 days of this session in the campaign. The people of Canada gave him a majority. Now he is doing what he was promising in the campaign. I fail to see how this bill is, in any way, “controversial”. I guess it is “controversial” because last week I heard John McCallum say on the radio that “60% of Canadians did not vote for Harper, so a majority of Canadians is against this bill”. *sigh* Are they ever going to stop saying this? I mean, it’s just so stupid. I cannot imagine that they are too stupid to see that it is so stupid. I think I threw in too many “stupids” in there, but I mean, that is just so stupid!
2) Why is the “controversial” Crime Bill not hailed as a first in Canadian Politics, where a governing party promises to do something in the campaign, and then ACTUALLY DOES IT while in power?
3) The Copyright Bill. Nothing on the news about the fact that they are taking OUT the fact that one cannot, legally, tape a show from TV and watch it later. That it was illegal to tape an old record (the vinyl ones) and put it on your iPod. Nothing about the fact that it is ILLEGAL to download movies form the Internet and then watch it at home and give it to friends. No, the new Copyright Bill was introduced on the news, with making it harder for “poor students” to find “lesson material” (I am NOT kidding!), and that ordinary Canadians can no longer crack the lock off a DVD and copy it to your computer (um, that’s illegal -> it’s the same as smashing a window at a Vancouver Riot and walking off with a big screen TV, but I guess that was OK, too). The bill is all for “Big Corporations”. Right.
4) The Challenger Jet stupidity. Tell me, Glovel & CTV, WHY do we have Challenger Jets, if the government is not allowed to use them? Chretien got the damn things, you were complaining about that, and now we’re using them, and you’re complaining about that. Would you rather have them sitting on the tarmac rusting away? Would that make it any better for you? I guess we should stick Harper and McKay on the VIA rail, economy class. And if they get an emergency call, they’d have to get off at the next station, which could be Sturgeon Falls (no offence, I’ve been there, it’s not really that bad), and then, what, grab the next Greyhound back to Ottawa? I mean, the whole thing is just so ridiculous!
Funny I never heard Chretien “flex his majority muscle” or “ram through” any bills. And he had more than 60% of Canadians who voted against him. never brought that up, though.
Why, it almost sounds as if Global and CTV have some sort of bone to pick with the Conservatives? Could that be?
UPDATE:
Oh My God, John Baird ordered business cards! The world is coming to an end!!
Reading the article, I found my points above are proven again:
“Baird demands gold”
“Mr. Baird then ordered…”
“He insisted”
“…got his way”
“…muscled aside”
My, my. Doesn’t he sound like Atilla the Hunn?
Any more proof?
Copyright 2010 ERWIN GERRITS. All Rights Reserved.
10 COMMENTS
1 Bubba Brown
First of all I would like to thank you for watching the Main Stream media circle-jerk.
I stopped watching about 5 years ago. I get my news on the net and my blood pressure is way down.
The MSM are still in shock over our hard won Conservative majority.
Wetting their pants is really all they have left (pun intended)
McCallum does not know the name of the horse he rode in on.
Of all people to yap about flying, he has shown up too drunk to fly.
As for the 60% blather math is hard for Liberals/NDPQ’ers but here it goes.
CPC got 39,62 % of actual votes cact by actual voters.
On polling day.
In Canada.
That translates into 66% of actual votes actually cast.
If you got lost on the way to the polling station, decided to watch Oprah, you don’t count because you can’t be counted.
Always amazes me these people can’t accept reality, but then they believe in Global Warming, carbon taxes and genuflect before pictures of David Suzuki aka buggsy.
Their whining is oddly comforting.
It will be a long time before they get back in power.
Cheers Bubba
2 MJ
I agree that media coverage typically tries to create controversy where little exists (how else do you drum up ratings?) but there are good reasons that the the crime and copyright bills are controversial.
The main controversy with the crime bill is the marijuana related sentences. Growing your own plants at home in fact takes money out of the hands of gangsters, and the 6 plant cutoff for a mandatory sentence is low enough to target people doing just that. The rest of the bill is pretty good IMHO.
The copyright bills explicitly states that you can make backup copies of your media e.g., DVDs (which you somehow equate to stealing a TV; I guess creating fake controversy works for blog ratings too) but the digital lock provision negates that and every other right afforded to consumers under the new bill since DVDs are protected by CSS encryption. The rest of this bill is pretty good too, IMHO.
3 dmorris
“Are they ever going to stop saying this? I mean, it’s just so stupid.”
No,it isn’t stupid,it’s very clever politics. Joseph Goebbels has been credited with the saying,”a lie,repeated often enough becomes the truth”,and, sorry to say, truer words were never spoken.
I don’t know who originated the phrase,but it was observational wisdom at it’s finest. McCallum and all the rest know that if they repeat their phrases often enough,at least THEIR followers will come to accept it as the truth.
It’s dirty,but smart,politics.
4 Pickering Tory
@Bubba
CPC got 39,62 % of actual votes cact by actual voters.
On polling day.In Canada. That translates into 66% of actual votes actually cast.
Exactly…that is exactly what I’ve been saying also.
The vote happened, you guys (the left) forced and you got taken to the wood shed
Now lets do the same in Ontario and send Dalton and company away
5 E Mac
Promise given – promise kept.
Fife, Taber, Oliver and all the left-wing media crying about the use of Challenger jets.
Is that the best you got?
Shameful!
6 Gabby in QC
MJ said: “The main controversy with the crime bill is the marijuana related sentences.”
True, but that’s because opponents of the bill have misled the public. The mandatory minimum sentences apply to people who possess 6 plants or more for the purpose of trafficking; the sentence does not apply to someone growing those 6 plants for personal use.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?Language=E&ls=s10&Parl=40&Ses=3&source=library_prb
“Clause 2 of Bill S-10 amends section 5(3)(a) of the CDSA to provide in certain circumstances for mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for the offence of trafficking … There will be a minimum punishment of imprisonment for one year if certain aggravating factors apply: the offence was committed for a criminal organization … there was the use or threat of the use of violence in the commission of the offence; a weapon was carried, used or threatened to be used in the commission of the offence; or the offender had been convicted of a designated substance offence, or had served a term of imprisonment for such an offence, within the previous 10 years. …”
My pointing this out, though, is not intended to condone pot use, but IMO if an issue is to be discussed/debated, then all the facts should be available.
7 MJ
@Gabby
You are correct, and I didn’t mean to mislead. I think the pro bill side is misleading people too, whether intentionally or not.
The word “trafficking” brings up images of a shady drug dealer, but the legal definition of the word includes any transfer of the drug, regardless of quantity or profit involved. Passing a joint to a friend is technically trafficking.
For that reason, I am skeptical that the “for the purpose of trafficking” condition will be much help to people who charged under this law. I am not a lawyer, but 2 friends in their last year of law school have the same opinion, for what it’s worth.
8 Gabby in QC
MJ @ 12:27:55, 03/10/11, sorry for the delay in replying.
I’m not a lawyer either, but having read the part of the bill that applies, I notice it states “There will be a minimum punishment of imprisonment for one year if certain aggravating factors apply” and those “aggravating factors” are involvement in a criminal organization or gang, the use of violence, the use of a weapon, etc. I doubt passing a joint to a friend would fall under that description.
9 MJ
@Gabby No worries. It’s nice to have a civil discussion on the internet
The definition of “trafficking” has nothing to do with the aggravating factors you mentioned. There is a 6 month minimum sentence when none of those aggravating factors are present. I guess time will tell what the legal precedent for trafficking becomes since the bill is likely to pass without much change.
10 Gabby in QC
MJ @ 13:44:45, 06/10/11:
“It’s nice to have a civil discussion …”
I agree. I hope we’ve planted a seed — but not necessarily a cannabis one!
Leave a Reply