'Canadian DMCA' Copyright Bill Dead Again 307
An anonymous reader writes "Like some kind of B-movie horror series, the latest attempt to revise Canada's copyright law and introduce DMCA-like provisions, Bill C-32, has again died on the order table as Canada's minority government has fallen after a non-confidence vote. This makes it the third copyright revision bill since 2005 to have died. Although this version was regarded as better than previous ones, it still contained awkward anti-circumvention provisions. We can be confident that some kind of DMCA-style copyright bill will be resurrected, but it will have to wait for the next government sequel."
Credit (Score:3)
Re:Credit (Score:5, Informative)
Any of the parties would, but there have been minority governments for the last seven years, so this bill, which perpetually gets stalled before third reading, keeps dying on the order paper. Get a majority government, regardless of which party forms it, and the legislation will pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a majority government, regardless of which party forms it, and the legislation will pass.
Not necessarily. There's no requirement for MPs to follow party lines. They could vote against it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not strictly true. If the PM decides a bill is a confidence bill, then government side will have to vote the party line, at least. Most bills are confidence bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually only money bills are confidence bills, but you're right, the PM can declare any bill a confidence bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, just about everything is a money bill. The definitions of what constitutes a money bill are loose, and the government (any government) exploits this to the fullest.
Re: (Score:3)
I think Martian is trying to say that the only thing preventing them from passing it is partisanship: right now, the "leading party" doesn't have enough votes to pass it and the other parties are voting it down out of spite. But if any of them gets an actual majority, it's going to go through faster than you can say, "wait.. what just happened?"
Re:Credit (Score:4, Insightful)
we were just discussing how the USA could benefit from some of the design of canadian law, and it was decided that canada has safeties built into the system so that in the event that the government does something "batshit insane", that it can be dissolved almost instantly. And that's what has happened in Canada. Lie to parliament and refuse to disclose information, BAM you're outa here. Their parliament is a bit like our congress, but our congress neither has the balls nor the power to pull it off.
Re:Credit (Score:4, Informative)
And that's what has happened in Canada. Lie to parliament and refuse to disclose information, BAM you're outa here.
Not really, no. The financial figures were a red herring - you don't dissolve a government over something so minor. I started receiving election fliers and phone-calls about two weeks earlier, so that tells you how big a surprise this was. All the parties wanted an election; the claims about the financial figures are a convenient excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
The conservatives have been running ads around here for months telling us about all the free money available to us. I hate to think of how much money has been wasted on the ad campaign by these assholes who claim to be financially conservative yet pissed away a surplus by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Taxes should have been slowly cut as the national debt was decreased without massive spending increases.
Re: (Score:2)
So lying to parliament to get legislation passed is minor in your opinion?
Careful now. You don't want to be making libelous claims without evidence.
I thought the previous Liberal governments were scum but Harper has taken every dirty trick they came up with and gone one step farther.
That's pretty funny :)
Re: (Score:3)
Though that only worked because of the minority status of the current "government".
Re: (Score:3)
Its a bit trickier than that. In a majority government, there is little to be gained by lying and being miscreants. Shy of a mutiny within your majority party, your legislation won't be defeated, so why risk your neck lying or abusing your privilege.
In a minority, it is really the same situation, only more-so. It is difficult to make one-sided legislation into law; so in theory your legislation should be better balanced, with more facts and figures.
That is where the last government fell down so badly.
Re:Credit (Score:5, Insightful)
The public financing laws in Canada are responsible for this, not the politicians. Any donation over $20 is a matter of public record (and can't be anonymous), politicians are not allowed to accept more than the personal contribution limit ($1184 last time I checked), and it's illegal for a corporate entity to make a campaign contribution.
The US could really benefit from rules like that.
What's with minority governments recently? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously. Canada, Australia and the UK all currently have minority governments/hung parliaments. In Australia and the UK particularly, this is a very rare occurrence (at the national/Federal level). From what I've heard, it's a bit more common in Canada though.
Anyway I totally agree with the 'all as bad as each other' sentiment. In the Federal election last year here (Australia) I honestly found myself completely disliking EVERY candidate for one reason or another ... first election I've ever felt that way
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there have been one or two more minorities in Canada than in the UK over the last hundred odd years, but in general, because both countries have FPTP electoral systems and both have similar parties covering similar areas of the party spectrum, you usually get similar results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One difference is that in a parliamentary system, if the budget (or any money bill) doesn't pass the government falls and the people usually get to vote.
Re: (Score:3)
That said, I still want to see continued minority governments, until someone demonstrates that they can co-operate with the other parties for the common good of the nation.
Perhaps a more narrow minority, though. One where any opposition party can hold the balance on any day.
Coalition isn't a dirty word, It implies being able to put aside your differences and pla
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because none of the parties seem to be able to come up with a platform, or slate of candidates that appeals to the majority of voters.
Not a problem in the UK: they've consistently had majority governments with around 20-25% of the votes for years. This time the choices were universally so bad that no party could even get that few people to vote for them.
The bad thing about bad bills (Score:5, Insightful)
They can fail a thousand times, they only need to pass once. They will probably try again in a year and keep trying till people get tired of hearing it or they are distracted by something else until it gets passed and then the government will just refuse to repeal it or drag it out till people forget about the old ways.
What they need to hurry up and pass is a bill that makes it a law that ALL bills made past that point must have an expiration date where it must come up for review at least once every 10 years and if they miss the review or deny it, it is automatically taken off the books and will put a 10 year time table for all the current laws on the books so they must review each and every law passed and renew/revoke them as needed and check them again every 10 years and make sure they votes are on public record on every issue.
It would really cut down on the bad, useless and redundant laws already there and force politicians to reevaluate their laws every 10 years under the public scrutiny and their vote will be public knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
The bill was never voted on. It was on the table, but because parliament is being dissolved this week, they need to wait until after the election before they can vote on it.
Not only that though, because it's a new session of parliament, they would need to introduce the bill again and start the whole process again.
An article was published a while ago here [nationalpost.com] about this problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But the gp's proposed solution is still a good one. Laws shouldn't stay on the books for longer than the generation that passed them without the consent the future generations constrained by them.
I'm gonna vote Pirate Party this time around. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.pirateparty.ca/ [pirateparty.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, turns out the party leader's in my riding (Edmonton Centre) and they're having some sort of everyone-welcome planning meeting this weekend. I think I'll go and see how it is.
Anyway, their candidates: https://www.pirateparty.ca/about/candidates [pirateparty.ca]
Which has a link to a handy check-what-riding-I'm-in tool: http://www.elections.ca/scripts/pss/FindED.aspx?L=e [elections.ca]
Re: (Score:3)
Hell, there quite the circumstantial case that the CRIA has been using Dan McTeague as a puppet: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5655/125/ [michaelgeist.ca] Relevant bits:
Re: (Score:2)
As a member, I wish they'd show up in my riding too, I guess at some point we'll have to do it ourself :P
Re: (Score:2)
True enough. I'm glad to have someone else in my riding to do it for me, though! I have no head for public stuff.
Superfluous (Score:2)
voting again (Score:2)
Not in Canada now, but will nevertheless be voting for Libertarians once again. If there is no Libertarian candidate in the riding, will vote Conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always the Libertarian-like Freedom Party [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Do you always vote for the most fiscally irresponsible party? Or do you just like a party that reduces individual rights and wants to enlarge the prison population because the crime rate isn't dropping fast enough?
This is what always gets me about libertarians, they preach freedom and vote the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
I won't vote for any party that promotes anti-business agenda in any way ever.
Individual rights only make sense when they include right to make your own living and when the fruits of own labor are not stolen 'for the common good'.
Common good depends on ability of people to do business freely.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who owns a small business, things have just got worse for me in the last few years. The conservatives just seem to be big business friendly and big business seems to want to take my rights away.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the sentiment.
That's why my first vote goes for libertarians.
However I will never in my life vote for anything NDP, that's impossible, absolutely unthinkable.
The Bloc is useless, they are also French, so they can go to hell, they have socialist agenda.
I cannot stand the Liberals, they are dead to me.
The only sensible choice is libertarian. In absence of that choice I would rather go with Conservatives.
Voting is a waste of effort (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm one of the very large group -- one might say the majority, by the way -- who refuses to vote. This is another great example of why that's the case.
Certainly each party promisses something different, and has differing priorities and differing desires. But in the end, the actuall end-result difference between one party and another is totally and complete insignificant. A few more dollars in this direction, a few less in that direction.
In the end, at the end of the year, my taxes sumto roughly the same amount plus or minus 5%, the roads have roughly the same number of holes, there's about the same amount of construction, public transit still begs for money that I don't think it should have, the same number of hookers are on the same corners, and the same rocket-powered homeless person manages to get from the theatre performance to the stadium faster than I can.
With no difference of any substance, I care, but don't see any value in voting.
Re: (Score:3)
Do what I usually do, vote for the Rhino's or the marijuana party or the pirate party. Just actually vote to make it clear that you don't support any of the main parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoiling my ballot is the way to do that. Not voting for one. And you're correct. We should all go and spoil our ballots.
Re: (Score:2)
Since in power, here is a small list of Harper Government actions...
Shut down parliament to stay in power (more than once)
Obscured access to information, removed media access rights to politicians
Puts out favorable press releases saying "Harper Government" instead of "Government of Canada"
Forged documents to cancel funding
Withheld information about F35 and prison program costs from parliament
Trying to copy America in ways that even Americans are learning were huge mistakes
Fired Ve
Re: (Score:2)
I was here for the G20, it went perfectly. In a city of over 7 million persons, and hundreds of cultures, nothing actually went wrong. That's awesome.
But that ultimately highlights my scenario. You can list hundreds of things that this government has done. You can't tell me how the other government would have done in the same years. More importantly, you can't tell me how your list actually affected me in the last few years or in the next few years -- before it changes again. But I can try.
Shutting do
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Voting is a waste of effort (Score:4, Insightful)
With no difference of any substance, I care, but don't see any value in voting.
That's copout to not get involved.
If Diefenbaker was never elected the Avro Arrow might never have been cancelled
If Pearson was never elected we might not have Universal Health Care
If Trudeau was never elected we might not have the Just Society and re-patriated constitution
If Mulroney was never elected we might not have Free Trade
Are you saying that these elected men had no substance? Their policies (good or bad) shaped what Canada is today and their influence on everyday life was huge.
It's easy to get cynical with today's politics but I'd rather have a say in what goes on (not matter how small) than no say at all.
Some day one of those elected leaders is going to do something that will greatly affect you, what are you going to say then?
Re: (Score:2)
And if the avro arrow never had been cancelled, we'd be the strongest military might on earth, and all would bow before us. Or, we'd be a substantial military might, and the usa wouldn't be comfortable next to us, and we wouldn't have the largest open unpatrolled free border in the world. Flip a coin.
and if we didn't have health care, we'd be like so many other countries in the world, and we'd have less tax and buy our own anyway. or we'd have 10% more health-related problems and we'd have ads for hospit
Re: (Score:3)
Some day, IF one of those elected leaders does something that greatly affects me, THEN you'll be correct. But for the last 32 years, you've been wrong.
Have I?
In the last 32 years we've seen the re-patriation of our constitution and the implementation of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's had a huge impact on Canadian law and rules that govern us. That affects you.
In 1988 an entire election was fought over the Free Trade Agreement with the USA. John Turner's Liberals opposed it. So the FTA was not a given. Our economy would be much different today if it wasn't implemented. Yes that would affect you too.
Then there's NAFTA with Chretien, Paul Martin's
Re: (Score:3)
What pisses me off about voting in "democracies" dominated by political parties is that you're not given the choice to vote on individual issues. Instead, you can only vote on groups of stances on issues in the form of political parties.
e.g. Choose One:
Party #1
Party #2
Party #3
Gee. Great options. :-\
Minority governments in Canada end
Re:Voting is a waste of effort (Score:4, Insightful)
Not when it is ineffective. In the current situation, it's my duty to express the futility of the voting process. That too is a duty to be served. How many minority governments in sequence will in take? We're going to find out.
But seriously, when I skipped a class in high school they suspended me -- telling me to skip an entire day. I spent an amazing amount of time in pool halls. When an election creates a minority government that is ineffective, calling yet another vote among the same parties doesn't make any more sense. Do it enough times and you're certain to get nothing more than a random result.
Democracy's a joke in a world of expert marketing, and a misinformed public. Why would you have an uneducated vote counted equal to an educated vote? This isn't about electing a leader of a village. The world's gotten bigger, as have the issues. "majority" is meaningless -- the majority smoked, the majority did drugs, the majority can't manage a personal budget, the majority can't use their own computers that they use every day.
The majority need to be told "slippery when wet". You name for me ten things that aren't slippery when wet, that people encounter in a year. I've even seen signs that say "may be slippery when wet". Thanks for nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
If ten years go by, and six elections go by, and voter turn-out is below 10%, you won't get what you've described. In this country, you'll get something totally different. You'll get a new form of government that isn't based on majority, seats, opposition, and ridings. There will be the understanding that the system doesn't work.
You know why? Because there's something in the current laws that say that you can't hold a seat with zero votes -- I'm guessing. If no one votes, things can't continue at all.
B
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you've misunderstood my point entirely. No matter for whom I vote, it's the same good or the same bad or the same hell.
My point is that hell will or will not come independent of my vote.
It's an advanced concept, but it's reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's take those one at a time shall we?
There are many things that I need to do in order to contribute to my community, society, and country. I can't do the others and join a party as well. So I've chose the others which I see as more important tasks today.
I don't see there being a best alternative candidate. So I've no one to vote for.
It's not cowardly when it's an active choice. I'm not shying away from responsibility, I'm taking it.
Yes a totalitarian government is one such option which can result. A
Re: (Score:2)
I care about the future of my life-time, sure. Do you think that in the 50 - 80 years that I have remaining that I can actually change the country enough to prefer it, and not have lost too much in the process? I have no significant problems with the way it is. For me to spend 20 years fighting to change it would have me too old to benefit from those changes.
People die in their own countries because they forget how to fight. They shouldn't see their country as theirs to defend. They should see the coun
Re: (Score:2)
So you've managed to convince yourself that doing nothing is actually doing something? That's an amazing world you live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Join me. See what not voting for ten years will do. We'll all do it (or not do it). See what happens.
Yes, I think things will change for the better if everyone stops voting. No I don't think it'll happen instantaneously. I figure it'll take ten years of random governments first. And that's basically what we've had for the last few elections anyway.
I mean come on. Was it ten years ago that the conservatives had 2 (TWO!) seats only?! How crazy different did things become? They were so bad that they l
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've missed the point. I'm not lazy, I'm actively not voting -- I'm voting for nothing. There's a difference.
I'm not complacent, I'm saying that you are complacent. You're following a system that isn't good. You're supporting the system is it is, and I'm saying that it doesn't work.
And I've never, not once, complained about our government -- because I don't think there've been any chances to make it better. I think it's the best that it could be, given the type of people living here. There a
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's what it shows when I don't vote. But when none of us vote -- when millions of us don't vote -- it's no longer an anomaly, it's public opinion. That's when things change.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to use that line of yours, regarding being equally responsible for the result of my support. I like that. Thank you.
Minority governments.... gotta luv 'em! (Score:4, Informative)
The upside to minority governments is that they get so busy fighting and posturing that they have little left to go about interfering with their countrymen. Anything that gets passed has to be done with some consensus from the other parties. Eh, can't get along well with others then down you come.
We get a regular chance to vote the b*stards out, which of course is the main purpose of any election: vote out the incumbent before they get too ensconced in their positions of power. Even if they get back in as a minority, they still have to mind themselves or they have to go back and roll the dice again.
The only downside is the cost of each election. That is an issue... but a lot of out of work folks make some money working temp for Elections Canada. Better than other money hand-out programs.
Canadian campaigns tend to be limited in length, from min 36 days to the record of 74 days. Usually about six or seven weeks. No year long brain damaging onslaught of political party dogma and drivel.
And we mark paper ballots with pencil. No voting machines. Close results have meaningful and accurate recounts.
Here's hoping for another minority government! Cheers!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When did choosing politicians become just about their bad qualities?
Re:Ugh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When did choosing politicians become just about their bad qualities?
When they stopped having any good qualities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ugh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ugh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I think the Bloq are probably the best of the bunch. Except for that part about wanting to tear the country apart. I live in Ontario and would vote for the Bloq if they ran a candidate in my riding.
The conservatives are nothing more than a bunch of freedom-loathing ass hats. Remember, this is NOT the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's the Reform Party, with a new name specifically designed to confuse voters.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Hitler had some great ideas on how to run a country too. Except for that whole "kill the jews" bit.
The day the Bloq forms a federal government is the day I either leave the country for good, or die trying to take parliament hill by force.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The people of Quebec can have their grievances heard, in turn, just like every other province.
Indeed - and every other province is similarly free to create their own Bloq - if they have a broad enough consensus over their grievances that enough people would vote for such a party. This is precisely how democracy works.
Oh, and what, exactly, is wrong with secession, provided that it's done right and proper (with referendum etc)? That is democracy also.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to argue with that.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the Bloq is the "best of the bunch" but it does seem like it's time to put the brakes on this conservative "resurgence" up there before you end up in the soup like the people of the US.
Re:Ugh.. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I think the Bloq are probably the best of the bunch.
I think you should be aware that the Bloc says that the "3 copyright infringement claims and you're off the internet" is too lenient, they think 2 complaints should be enough to have someone cut off. They think that schools shouldn't get a rebate when using copyrighted work for educational purposes, and they think that money should be taken from all sales of devices capable of storing music and given to the industry.
The bloc's position on copyright is: Whatever the industry want, we give.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So that would make democrats the hound holders of the KKK? Makes about as much sense, if you're a partisan hack.
Use your brain. (Score:5, Insightful)
While I think it's good the bill died.. as a canadian I'm a little pissed that we're having another expensive election.
Expensive election? Give me a break. I'm hearing numbers like 200 million dollars to run an election for the whole country.
In 2008 [elections.ca] there were 23,677,639 registered voters in Canada. If the number of registered voters remained the same (hint: it has likely increased!), that puts the cost per registered voter at about $8.50.
I don't know about you, but I would pay $8.50 to have a say in my democracy any day.
The media in Canada has gone into "nobody wants an election, waaaah waaah" mode for each of the past four elections. I'm a Canadian, and just about everyone I know wants an election. Everywhere I turn online though, someone is bitching about how nobody wants one.
I know that the media is largely run by conservative businesspeople, but this broad-based attempt at reducing the duties of citizenship to an inconvenience is sickening.
Stop complaining and vote responsibly. It's all we have. We've had lots of elections in the past 7 years, and that's because the government is weak and Canadians are divided. It's a good thing we keep getting to weigh in.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop complaining and vote
Right on, the about 55% participation rate is pathetic !
Re: (Score:2)
about the only thing that would work is
1 after you vote you get a 2 part chit with
A some sort of machine readable code block that records your vote
B a serial number (which is generated semi randomly to prevent it from being reversed to the votes)
2 you then separate the 2 parts and then dispose of the votes part
3 come tax time somewhere in the deductions section of the form you then write your serial number(s) in and you get an extra deduction for each valid serial
(a single person gets 1 serial for each elec
Re: (Score:2)
easy way to sort that one out
prior to each election everybody that is planning on voting confirms
1 their registration
2 the method of voting (early and or absentee voting for those that can't vote in person on that day)
then those folks plus 1/2 of the folks that just "showed up"
form the base of the quorum (you then require ~60% of that number as the quorum)
As I like to say (Score:2)
be a bigger, better citizen, vote more than once.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup - Given that we were willing to spend $1.3 billion on that boondoggle of a G8/G20 mess, I don't think spending 1/6th of that on an election is that much of a hardship.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know for others, but personally I loathe federal elections because I don't know who to vote for. THEY ALL SUCK.
I'd rather shoot myself in the face with a shotgun than vote Conservatives, they embody the very thing I want to run away from. Harper scares me shitless and if he goes full in this time, it's going to be the new dark age for Canada.
Liberals are weak, Ignatieff has no spine just like Dion previously. He's unlikeable, I still can't understand where the hell he wants to go and he's managing t
Re: (Score:2)
I would vote for them, but it feels like a throwaway vote.
I will vote for them because the only way to throw away my vote would be to vote for someone I don't want to win.
I want the NDP to have more seats because they seem focused on citizens, not on money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. As I said else where, the current governement can't work together. So collapsing the government and putting in a new one is entirely appropriate.
The problem is we are going to elect the same government we have now. There ought to be some laws in place that prevent the people who failed to work together from being the people who have to work together again.
Harper shouldn't be allowed to run for PM. Period. We need new blood.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always been conservative (because we don't have a libertarian party here) but this bunch of assholes has to stop trying to make us in the US image. A Canadian DMCA will never fly and the only way that would pass is if asshole Harper got his majority. Thankfully, most people in the east know what kind of megalomanic he is and are scared
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The conservative were proven to lie in Parliament and you consider them to be the best choice. WTF !!!???
You have the choice between a corrupt party lead by a failed economist and a corrupt party lead by a successful academics. As an academic (both as faculty and as student) I think that I should vote for the corrupt party lead by the academic.
Re: (Score:2)
You have the choice between a corrupt party lead by a failed economist and a corrupt party lead by a successful academics.
Wrong. This is Canada. We do not have a two party system here. We have a wide variety of corrupt party leaders to choose from.
Re: (Score:3)
I excluded the ndp since the candidate in my riding is kinda delusional. I excluded the green since they still a fringe party and I don't like their social conservativeness. The bloc want to separate from the rest of the Canada so I excluded them to. I also excluded the communist party of Canada since they are composed of lunatics that plan for a revolution. I can't vote for the pirate party since they have no candidate in my riding so to me it feels like a two party system
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For most ridings it is a 2 party system. Just the two parties varies from riding to riding.
Re: (Score:2)
What? And you'd rather have the liberals back in power? You remember how ol Jean tromped over public rights, freedoms, and how he and his party used the country for their own personal play pen, while siphoning money off? Talk about systemic corruption. Still looking for that $1-2B that they 'loaned' to businesses, while shoveling someone off into a diplomatic post so they couldn't be called to account?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean before or after they decided to riot? You mean the inability to balance a budget because you're in a minority and therefor to stop yet another election you're conceeding things for the opposition which break the budget? A few billion dollars is only a misdemeanor? Well shit. I'll remember that when I go steal a few billion myself, and use that in court. Obviously I am, because I'm not only paying for the screwups of the liberals in the 70's, and the people who voted them in. My kids, kids wil
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little pissed that we're having another expensive election.
Meh, that's Harpers fault. When you have such a precarious minority you have to work with the other parties to get things done. Harper doesn't. The other parties have no recourse but to either do what he wants, or collapse the government, and Harper keeps counting on them to do what he wants because no one wants an election. Its complete bullshit, but I don't blame the other parties for getting sick of him and calling his bluff.
Sad thing is we
Re: (Score:2)
If Harper gets another minority, I'd make the bet that the next election will have 4 new party leaders in place (maybe 3 if Duceppe decides he's up for it). Harper's had enough chances that his party is going to be looking for someone less divisive to take his place. Ignatieff is on thin ice, and if he doesn't do something amazing this election you can be the liberals will be dumping him to the curb. Layton just doesn't have the health to keep fighting losing elections.
Now if there's a Conservative major
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the last fiscal conservative we've had in Ottawa was named Paul Martin - a Liberal. The one that balanced the books, but was awful politician (the guy wanted to be too honest and people got confused!). But in the last 20 years, all the conservatives have been racking up Canada's debt at record pace and Harper beat records once more with 56 billion deficit ..... *sigh*
This is the problem. People vote conservative because they claim to be fiscally responsible whereas they have a long record of boosting
Re: (Score:2)
All I know about the Conservatives in Canada so far is:
They don't support Net Neutrality
They don't support Abortion rights. They don't want to ban it, but they want to defund it.
They oppose same-sex marriage, but not same-sex unions. Bullshit political posturing.
So I submit to you that they are not the best.
They may be second best though: although the NDP is less crazy lately, they make even the Liberals seem trustworthy.
Also, Harper
Re: (Score:2)
You're totally right that they all suck. At least the Americans get interesting, representative people.
I want someone from the West to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
No we do not. Our last election had a totalitarian grandpa and his hick dimwit female sidekick vs a corporate sellout and his dimwit male sidekick.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that... Harper needs to go. I don't care if I have to vote for Bozo The Clown and we have to fix it later.
Harper is a danger to our way of life and freedom. His answer is more unfriendly laws and more jails to put all the unhappy, destitute, disaffected people in while his corporatocracy walks all over us.
But yes, the timing is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
So... you think that the party which has a record for lying in parliament and falsifying public records is the best option?
You think that the party that's run by an autocrat with a penchant for firing anybody that speaks out against him is the best option?
You think that the party which fired a top scientist at the AECL for having the gall to say that the Chalk River plant needed to be shut down for repairs... 3 months before an emergency shutdown forced it offline for over 6 months causing a global medical
Re: (Score:2)
Also copyright law is only 50 years, so IMSLP [imslp.org] has numerous scores that are only legally download-able in Canada.
The best thing RMS ever did (IMO) was help them not get shut down by big publishers of scores - in fact, rental prices are significantly down in the past few years, and I believe mostly because of them.
Re: (Score:2)
None are illegal right now, but I'd agree for the 2nd part :-)