scribblet

See previous posts on links to S.C. decision and the media (CBC) admitting they didn't have a legal case.

Well, the Tyee would see it that way... However, other lawyers have allready stated that the law is allready there and the media have admitted it.

I disagree, there's a considerable difference in meaning, especially adding the 'when I'm through with it' which makes it seem more ominous and nefarious. If it was a play on Hitler's words, then it was even more slimy.

No, it is generally attributed on line in blogs and so on, incorrectly to a 1997 speech Harper gave in the U.S., a link was given to a transcript of that speech showing there was nothing remotely related to the quote. The actual quote, as shown in the CBC link came from a speech Harper made in 2004 at a Conservative convention. The Liberals misquoted that speech in one of their 2006 attack ads. I haven't read the book, only an article quoting from the book, but it's clear that there was no speech in 2006, only the attack ad. I saw it here, so it must be in the book. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/05/noah-richler-a-nation-playing-war/ It is an excellent example of how untruthful attack ads work.

Right, written in 2011, I've seen other bloggers parrot the same thing so it does show that many attack ads work. It also shows that we can't believe everything written in a book. Actually, I had thought about writing to the author about it, but I don't have his email. I'm a 100% sure he was misquoted and I would think the interview with CBC Mansbridge confirms what he actually said. I don't know if the party ever refuted the 2006 ad but it seems to me that the CPC is not the greatest at rebutting lies and half truths.

I gave you a link, but now I see it doesn't work, Richler is lying, it was the Liberals who said that. try this one http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/01/transcript-stephen-harper-the-mansbridge-interview-part-one.html. The Power of Negative Advertising During the January 2006 election campaign Liberal Party ads grossly distorted some quotes of Conservative Stephen Harper and added the tag line “We’re not making this up.” While some of the quotes were accurate, others were not. One Liberal ad, for example, quoted Mr. Harper as saying, “You won’t recognize Canada when I get through with it.” In fact, Mr. Harper said in 2004, “We can create a country built on solid Conservative values, not on expensive Liberal promises, a country the Liberals wouldn’t even recognize, the kind of country I want to lead.” This reference the negative ads and that particular one https://suite.io/rupert-taylor/1hrx238

He did not say 'you won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it' - I've seen this repeated in numerous blogs where they attribute it to a 1997 speech Harper made in the U.S. I have the text of that somewhere if you want it. What Mr. Harper actually said In fact was in 2004 at a Conservative convention and quite different. “We can create a country built on solid Conservative values, not on expensive Liberal promises, a country the Liberals wouldn’t even recognize, the kind of country I want to lead.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/01/transcript-stephen-harper-the-mansbridge-interview-part-one.html

Just as slimy as the one supposedly quoting Harper saying 'you won't recognize Canada when I'm through with it', still repeated as fact in some circles and erroneously attributed to a 1997 speech Harper made to Americans. In fact, it's a great example of successful some ads are. The media says the parties have to ask permission to use their material, what guarantee do we have that their permissions are not biased or selective. What is to say they will only give permission for the Liberals or NDP to use their material. If this starts to happen someone is going to have to keep track of who asked permission and the answers.

Agreed and with KIS.... I still believe the larger issue is what re-ignited this, that of the media stifling legitimate free speech.

For the record, Waldo is on ignore but wasn't logged in so saw his post... The media is citing what they say is a memorandum to cabinet so are reporting that the gov’t has been working on a new “copyright exception for political advertising” to be inserted into a budget implementation bill. So why would I or anyone comment on rumours and speculation. We don’t know how if they actually will, present something for legislation. That said, I think the gov’t position is clear in that there is a public interest in ensuring that politicians are accountable for their actions including what they say in public, so major television networks and other media should not have the ability to censor what can and cannot be broadcast to Canadians. The gov’t believes as shown in links, that this has always been protected under the fair dealing provisions of the law but, if further clarification is needed, they will do that. Expert Quote: "Copyright law should not be used to stifle legitimate speech… I am not a fan of attack ads, but attempts to use copyright to claim absolute rights over the use of a portion of a video clip is surely counter to basic principles of fair dealing (in Canada) or fair use." Michael Geist, law professor at the University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, October 8, 2014.

Another one here addressing the concerns, pretty much sums it up very well. excerpted http://excesscopyright.blogspot.ca/2014/10/copyright-campaigns-and-lots-of-c-words.html I’ve been involved with copyright law for longer than I care to admit – indeed, more than three decades. But I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much confusion and just plain WRONG commentary about a copyright issue as I’ve seen in the last week of Coverage of the issue of copyright and negative political ads. The prize for the worst coverage of all goes, surprisingly, to someone who one would have thought would appreciate the importance of fair dealing and satire – but apparently does not. That would be Rick Mercer no less – and here’s his remarkably wrong Canard of a rant on the subject. CTV’s Question Period last Sunday wasn’t much better – despite the presence of several highly experienced and reputable journalists who one might have thought would understand the role and importance of fair dealing. Let us hope that this generally dreadful coverage is not related to the “consortium” agreement executed by senior executives of the main Canadian networks last spring, from which Sun News was notably and conspicuously excluded. Perhaps these otherwise usually reliable journalists have just drunk too much of their corporate employer’s Kool Aid over time. In any event, it’s time for some Clarity and hopefully a Conclusion.

It does not advantage one party, ALL parties will reap the 'benefits'... What omnibus bill is it buried in - because right now it's not legislation, it's nothing, it was a leaked memo... Again, how different is this to the Liberals S.C. appeal which they won

ditto

I don't, your analogy doesn't make any sense. It is nothing but a proposal to allow all political parties to use sound bites/clips in their ads... Fair use...

The 'consortium' is being disingenuous and definitely misleading, at the least by omission. Lib. Ralph Goodale says it's expropriation, without compensation, it degrades integrity and freedom of the press etc. I wonder if he feels the same way about the Liberal Party's S.C. appeal on the very similar issue. Which they won !!! ETA: This isn't even legislation yet, it was just a leaked memo, yet people are getting really frothy about it. -

Agreed, the media/consortium is withholding information, they are not telling us that this dates back to 1988 and the Liberal Party's appeal to the S.C. which they won. CTV and CBC refused to carry their (Liberal) attack ads because they claimed they owned the video footage. The LPC won the appeal. Which begs the question, shouldn't that ruling figure into this somehow ?

At least federally there are spending limits for third parties during the campaign, not that this will hinder the unions as they will use their fronts to shill for them. Considering the optics it might be best for PM Harper to call snap election to get ahead of the union campaign, he or the party will have to weigh which would be the least damaging... calling a snap election and going back on his legislation or allowing Big Unions to run an anti conservative campaign. ( plus the Duffy trial)

Just another steaming pile of manure. At the November 2013 CPC Convention PM Harper assured 3,000 delegates that he would fight the next (2015) election. Pundits love to speculate on Harper's (always imminent) departure, which would throw the party into chaos, requiring major expenditures on a national leadership race and leaving us going into the next election with an untested leader not well known across Canada. It would make both Trudeau and Mulcair deliriously happy but their dreams are not going to come true.

It is an unfunded liability, and also results in higher absenteeism, if they don't fill the position with a temp then I suppose it wouldn't cost them much more except on retirement - if they can cash them out. If they can't cash them out then it's not as huge a liability, does anyone know if they can? Toronto, various public utilities and teachers got similar sick day accumulation are or where paid up to 6 months on retirement. Teachers got a year. If you had more accumulated it was gone, but it's a nice chunk of non taxable change if rolled right over into an RRSP. Teachers in Ontario have fewer days to bank now and cannot accumulate, Toronto made similar changes but the garbage men won that strike I believe and get to continue accumulating and cashing out. It's an entitlement that is gradually being phased out. The one thing I don't like is the unpaid seven days before the disability kicks in, that's too long. Maybe they could get say 7 sick days a year which can be used prior to the disability if needed.