Conservatives Change Copyright Laws to Favour Election Chances

[scribblet]

Ok... here's a transcript of that speech:

http://sistersagesmusings.ca/2011/12/24/text-of-1997-speech-by-stephen-harper-to-us-right-wing-think-tank-2/

And the damning quote is only added as a comment at the end by the poster, but not attributed to Harper. So now have two likely sources for the quote - both transcripted in full - and neither of those have him saying it. So I'm going to amend my position to say that there is no evidence that he ever said that, and that he was likely misquoted.

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.

[waldo]

the CPC is not the greatest at rebutting lies and half truths.

are you saying they're better at perpetuating them?

the earlier link has author Richler attributing the quote to a 2006 speech Harper gave... you accused Richler of lying. Does he source it in his book? I don't know... don't really care to chase something you're so fixated on.

of course, that 1997 speech you earlier claimed some attribute the quote to... that speech is a real testament to a part of the Harper few like to acknowledge, hey!

[BubberMiley]

As I understand, the quote was attributed to a 2006 speech to a US thinktank. I'm not aware of a transcript of that particular speech existing online, but that doesn't mean it never happened. Harper never denied making the statement, so there's that.

I guess if you have a natural predisposition to feel that everybody in the media is out to get you, you will naturally believe it's fake, even if Harper doesn't deny it.

[Michael Hardner]

BM - look up in the thread. There are two possible sources - a CBC interview, and a speech to an American conservative group. Both speeches appear to be transcribed, and again the links are above in this thread.

[waldo]

BM - look up in the thread. There are two possible sources - a CBC interview, and a speech to an American conservative group. Both speeches appear to be transcribed, and again the links are above in this thread.

auhor Richler speaks to a 2006 speech by Harper... please state the year dates for the 'two possible sources' you're speaking to. Again, I don't know... a member here accused Richler of lying... I don't know; I simply asked if anyone checked if Richler provides full attribution where he makes that statement in his book???

[Michael Hardner]

Ok I missed it.

[Smallc]

So there's no proof that he actually said it then.

[eyeball]

The proof is in the pudding I'd say...and apparently he's still not through with it.

[scribblet]

As I understand, the quote was attributed to a 2006 speech to a US thinktank. I'm not aware of a transcript of that particular speech existing online, but that doesn't mean it never happened. Harper never denied making the statement, so there's that.

I guess if you have a natural predisposition to feel that everybody in the media is out to get you, you will naturally believe it's fake, even if Harper doesn't deny it.

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.

[ironstone]

Is there no ethical boundary these people won't cross?

Chairman Harper and his politburo are changing copyright laws to favour their chances of re-election. Allowing free use of media content in attack ads will clearly be of most benefit to the party that most uses attack ads. And gee, which party is that?

And of course, instead of publicly debating these changes, they're slipped into a ridiculous omnibus bill.

Democracy in this country is a travesty.

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/09/networks-shouldnt-censor-political-ads

I think your anger is misplaced.Behind closed doors the Liberals agree with the Conservatives on this issue.

[cybercoma]

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 think we're splitting hairs if you're saying he didn't say "You won't recognize Canada when we're through with it" and you recognize that in Harper's interview with Peter Mansbridge he actually said, "We can create a country built on solid Conservative values ... A country the Liberals would not even recognize."

The meaning is clear. Stephen Harper's goal was to build a conservative Canada that would be unrecognizable from what Canada has been. He clearly claimed he would fundamentally change this country, such that it would not even be recognizable to the Liberals.

You guys can bicker about whether he actually used those particular words or not, but the meaning is clear. He gave that exact message. Stephen Harper claimed he would change Canada so that it would not even be recognizable.

Interestingly, and never picked up by the media, is that this is clearly a play on Hitler's campaign where he said "Give me 10 years and you won't recognize Germany."

Edited October 19, 2014 by cybercoma

[ReeferMadness]

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/09/networks-shouldnt-censor-political-ads

I think your anger is misplaced.Behind closed doors the Liberals agree with the Conservatives on this issue.

This is not at all the same. The Liberals didn't try to try to change the rules in their favour by burying some verbiage in an omnibus bill, they went to court.

And in any case, this example is completely irrelevant. It's 25 years old. And whether the Liberals agree or not, it doesn't matter. I'm not a Liberal supporter.

[ironstone]

This is not at all the same. The Liberals didn't try to try to change the rules in their favour by burying some verbiage in an omnibus bill, they went to court.

And in any case, this example is completely irrelevant. It's 25 years old. And whether the Liberals agree or not, it doesn't matter. I'm not a Liberal supporter.

What's wrong with Canadians seeing news clips of Justin Trudeau expressing his sympathy for the Boston bombers or his admiration of China's dictatorship?It hasn't hurt in him in the polls so far.

[waldo]

What's wrong with Canadians seeing news clips of Justin Trudeau expressing his sympathy for the Boston bombers or his admiration of China's dictatorship?It hasn't hurt in him in the polls so far.

hey now! Reads like you'd be a shoo-in for crafting misleading, out-of-context, manipulated, etc., Harper Conservative attack ads.

- root causes of terrorism? What a namby-pamby comment to make, hey? Oh wait, ever hear of the $10 million Harper Conservative "Kanishka Project"... to "better understand what terrorism means in the Canadian context today"? How does a Harper Conservative supporter denigrating JT for, in part, speaking to a need to better understand the root causes of terrorism, rationalize the following formal research theme of the Harper Conservative Kanishka Project?

Ideological extremism and violence

Currently, a prominent threat facing Canada's national security (and similarly, that of many countries) is radicalization leading to violence, including homegrown violent extremism. What makes this issue particularly difficult to understand is that there is no single profile of an individual who may be vulnerable to recruitment or is likely to engage in ideological violence. Cases in Canada show that violent extremists come from a variety of racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, regional and socio-economic backgrounds, and that there can be a strong global dimension connecting to broader movements or outside organizations.

The picture is clearly complex, but patterns exist: when and how groups form, how they evolve and gain or lose support (from financial to moral), when and why individuals and groups turn violent, and so on. Much is left to do, however, to determine which patterns are relevant in a particular context. It is no easy task: the factors commonly linked with terrorism – ideological extremism, grievance and moral outrage, conflict over identity issues – do arise, but only rarely translate into violence. Some key questions include:

• What heightens the risk that violent extremism takes hold and persists in specific groups and not others?
• How do transnational factors (internet, media, markets, diaspora connections, etc.) affect terrorism? In light of global trends, how is terrorism likely to change over time (e.g. connections with other kinds of criminal activity and illicit networks)?
• How do we distinguish between those claiming to subscribe to violent ideologies from the few who will follow through?
• How do we better understand the dynamics of radicalization within the prison system and corrections realm? How do we distinguish among different motivations to join extremist groups, such as group pressure versus true conversion? What are the implications for the management of offenders and for reintegration after time served?
• What is the interplay between different extremist causes, and how should that inform efforts to counter terrorism?
• Is there anything different about violent extremist groups based in Canada versus those in other countries? Are there important contrasts in how they draw support (financial and otherwise), how they organize, and what they aim to achieve?
• Where is the threshold for when views about legitimate expressions of anger and grievance, generally held by a particular group or community, cross from opposition and protest to violence?
• What are the key similarities and differences between counter-terrorism and other law enforcement problems, and how can such lessons better inform current practice?
• How effective are programs designed to intervene with individuals, to deter and/or preempt them from turning to violent means to advance a cause?

Edited October 19, 2014 by waldo

[waldo]

I think we're splitting hairs if you're saying he didn't say "You won't recognize Canada when we're through with it" and you recognize that in Harper's interview with Peter Mansbridge he actually said, "We can create a country built on solid Conservative values ... A country the Liberals would not even recognize."

The meaning is clear. Stephen Harper's goal was to build a conservative Canada that would be unrecognizable from what Canada has been. He clearly claimed he would fundamentally change this country, such that it would not even be recognizable to the Liberals.

You guys can bicker about whether he actually used those particular words or not, but the meaning is clear. He gave that exact message. Stephen Harper claimed he would change Canada so that it would not even be recognizable.

Interestingly, and never picked up by the media, is that this is clearly a play on Hitler's campaign where he said "Give me 10 years and you won't recognize Germany."

a most excellent summation for 'hair splitters'!

[On Guard for Thee]

If I was advising JT I would suggest he keep it clean and simply point out how Harper did say he was going to make Canada unrecognizable and then enumerate the times Harper has poked his finger at the SCC trying to do waht he proposed by attempting to undermine the constitution and the charter and I would leave old Stephen swirling around in his copyright law accessed attack ad nonsense like the what happens after you flush the toilet.

[ReeferMadness]

What's wrong with Canadians seeing news clips of Justin Trudeau expressing his sympathy for the Boston bombers or his admiration of China's dictatorship?It hasn't hurt in him in the polls so far.

I think if you just re-read your own post out loud, maybe you'll see the problem.

But your post captures the essence (and the issue) with attack ads far better than I could. Thanks

[ReeferMadness]

Now Ah know that some of you folks don't unnerstan all that fancy book learnin' n stuff. An' them big words jus plain sail right over yer heads. But I just couldn't help myself when I saw this today. It seems that constitutional expert Errol Mendes is saying almost exactly what I've been saying regarding Harper changing the law to suit his own purposes:

It's one of the worst examples of abuse of democratic power that this country has seen in a long, long time

Take that.

[scribblet]

I think we're splitting hairs if you're saying he didn't say "You won't recognize Canada when we're through with it" and you recognize that in Harper's interview with Peter Mansbridge he actually said, "We can create a country built on solid Conservative values ... A country the Liberals would not even recognize."

...............

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.

[scribblet]

Now Ah know that some of you folks don't unnerstan all that fancy book learnin' n stuff. An' them big words jus plain sail right over yer heads. But I just couldn't help myself when I saw this today. It seems that constitutional expert Errol Mendes is saying almost exactly what I've been saying regarding Harper changing the law to suit his own purposes:

Take that.

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.

[BubberMiley]

The existing copyright act is only a couple of years old. If the law were already there, it wouldn't be necessary to write it again, would it?. What a weaselly way of trying to get legislation through.

In any case, it's interesting to see conservatives defend the nationalization of other people's property.

[Michael Hardner]

The meaning is clear. Stephen Harper's goal was to build a conservative Canada that would be unrecognizable from what Canada has been. He clearly claimed he would fundamentally change this country, such that it would not even be recognizable to the Liberals.

...

Interestingly, and never picked up by the media, is that this is clearly a play on Hitler's campaign where he said "Give me 10 years and you won't recognize Germany."

Sure, but since the original quote was reworded to more closely resemble the Hitler quote, whose play is it ?

I think that the meaning of the two quotes is ostensibly the same, which makes it difficult to make a legal claim, as I understand. But the tone of the adjusted quote is altogether different. It reads very much as somebody who has contempt for the country and wants to, in a way, destroy it. And to do in a way that is vengeful and egotistical, ie. "when I'm through with it". The original quote is much more positive and ties a bright future that the Liberals (not even mentioned in the reworded quote) could never achieve.

All's fair in politics, but let's agree that the quote as it's popularly known was probably never said.

More from Andrew Coyne on this, on twitter:

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/412425177189056512

Edited to add:

He clearly claimed he would fundamentally change this country, such that it would not even be recognizable to the Liberals.

Yes, but the TV ad quoted him as saying "YOU"... (which to the viewer would mean "me"/themselves/any Canadian) not a Liberal. That's essential.

[Keepitsimple]

The existing copyright act is only a couple of years old. If the law were already there, it wouldn't be necessary to write it again, would it?. What a weaselly way of trying to get legislation through.

In any case, it's interesting to see conservatives defend the nationalization of other people's property.

Clearly you haven't been following the thread. The issue was brought to a head earlier in the year when the "consortium" were secretly conspiring to try and do an end run around the Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of political parties to use these clips in advertising - and have them run by the networks. The "consortium" admitted that the law was clear in that respect. As a result of that, the Conservatives have threatened to come up with legislation to consolidate that right. They haven't done it yet of course - and perhaps making the nefarious goal of the consortium public will be enough to send them scurrying away from the light......and if they try something - like not running the ads, the Conservatives can always say "I told you so". It might just all be about posturing.

[cybercoma]

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.

Did Harper not say the Conservatives have an opportunity to make Canada unrecognizable to the Liberals?

[cybercoma]

Sure, but since the original quote was reworded to more closely resemble the Hitler quote, whose play is it ?

I think that the meaning of the two quotes is ostensibly the same, which makes it difficult to make a legal claim, as I understand. But the tone of the adjusted quote is altogether different. It reads very much as somebody who has contempt for the country and wants to, in a way, destroy it. And to do in a way that is vengeful and egotistical, ie. "when I'm through with it". The original quote is much more positive and ties a bright future that the Liberals (not even mentioned in the reworded quote) could never achieve.

All's fair in politics, but let's agree that the quote as it's popularly known was probably never said.

More from Andrew Coyne on this, on twitter:

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/412425177189056512

Edited to add:

Yes, but the TV ad quoted him as saying "YOU"... (which to the viewer would mean "me"/themselves/any Canadian) not a Liberal. That's essential.

I think it's all nitpicking. It's pretty clear he had an agenda to change the country, so much that it would be unrecognizable. That was his intent, as is the intent of the paraphrased quote. For better or for worse is a matter of perspective, as with the Hitler quote. I'm sure Hitler intended that to mean for the better. You don't get to the point where you're slaughtering millions of people by believing what you're doing is wrong.

I don't know why Conservatives don't own it. Just complain about what a mess Canada was and how the Rt. Honourable Stephen Harper came along and saved Canada from itself and Liberal ruin. Of course he was going to make it unrecognizable. The Canada the Liberals created was a disgusting mess.

I don't understand why they feel the need to run away from the quote other than the fact that Canadians obviously don't agree with them that Canada was a mess before Harper.

Edited October 19, 2014 by cybercoma