A Bit of My Life » Canada Copyright Reform

My Local MP David Sweet is a Promise Keeper. OMFG.

When I had heard that my local MP was a Christian, I automatically assumed that he was of the Dutch Reform variety that populates my riding of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale. After reading this archived discussion, I discovered that he is a Promise Keeper.

And he’s a Member of Parliament.

That we voted in.

While the Promise Keepers may appear to have good principles on the surface, let’s look at their treatment of women. While they may vow to never beat their wives, that’s about where it ends. Their women can’t work, and they must “submit” to their husbands. See this NOW page for more.

I don’t know about the rest of you ladies in this riding, but for me, the drive to elect the NDP in this riding just got very, very personal.

It is also the case that one of the driving mantras behind the Promise Keepers is that they want to transplant their evangelical beliefs into the public sphere of government, which David Sweet has succeeded in doing.

Let’s also not forget that evangelical Christians tend to disrespect all other religions, including most other Christian sects. If you were voting in David Sweet because you think he’s a Christian, I’d certainly rethink that. David Sweet is as much a Christian as a Moonie is a Buddhist. His movement is a cult, and cult members do not belong in our government.

Turn out on October 14 and vote ABC - I’d prefer that you voted NDP but those are my beliefs and my beliefs only. Gordon Guyatt is a solid candidate with 25 years as a doctor at McMaster and as head of an advocacy group which has been fighting to keep health care public for those same 25 years. I think he’s got a few more qualifications than a Bible-thumping cultie.

Update:

Not only is David Sweet a Bible-thumping cultie; apparently he tried to hide it in the last election. Let’s add “shifty” to that description. Wait a minute - aren’t Promise Keepers supposed to pledge to tell the truth? How does this mesh with politics?

Yeah… electing this guy for a second term is just not a good idea.

Update 2: But Wait, There’s More…

http://davidsweetwatch.blogspot.com/2007/02/in-his-own-words-part-1.html

David Sweet said, in this article, that “(M)en are natural influencers, whether we like it or not. There’s a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It’s not that women aren’t co-participators. It’s because Jesus knew women would naturally follow.”

O Really. How about following my hand and the hands of thousands of other women - and men - who will vote you the hell out of our riding, you misogynist goon.

More »

Posted: September 24th, 2008 under Canada Copyright Reform, State of Women.
Comments: none

Jack Layton Responds on Copyright Reform - with some actual commitment!

I am very pleased to report that my party (yes, I am biased) leader responded to my letter on copyright reform today. Here is the text:

Thank you for writing me with your concerns over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Recent reports confirming that the government is in secret meetings to negotiate the terms of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is yet another example of the way this government is allowing U.S. corporate interests to lead Canada around by the nose. These secret ACTA talks in Geneva are likely to result in treating children who trade songs for their iPods like members of international counterfeiting rings; institutionalize the mandatory snooping of personal Internet use; legislate the seizure of personal computers at the border to search for copyrighted materials; and make it easier to use heavy-handed lawsuits against individuals as a tool to prevent file-sharing.

The following link is video from my NDP colleague Charlie Angus raising this issue during Question Period in the House of Commons: http://www.charlieangus.net/houseitem.php?id=97.

You may also be interested to know that we have called on Bell Mobility and TELUS Mobility to put an end to their 15 cent charge for all incoming text messages. If you are against this text-message cash-grab, I encourage you to sign our petition at: http://www.ndp.ca/page/6577, join the Facebook group at: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=42606695760, and tell your friends!

Again, I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue. All the best.

Sincerely,
Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats

Even if this is a form letter, it is unlike the non-commited response I got from the liberals, or the form letter response I got from Jim Prentice. This e-mail shows the knock-down action that occurred in the house with Charlie Angus, and I would think promises further action on the issue. Go NDP - make us proud!

For all of you wondering what to do about copyright reform over the summer, I suggest signing up for a free account at Blogger or any other blogsite and start blogging on the issue. Write to your MP and all of the political parties, although I think we have to accept at this point that the Conservatives aren’t going to change the law much and will just send form letters back to you as per the Harper politbureau. Post their responses, and let’s keep Canada the land of the free.

More »

Posted: July 10th, 2008 under Canada Copyright Reform.
Comments: none

Answers from Jim Prentice and Josee Verner on Copyright Reform

**Update** - I expressed disdain in this post that the other parties had not yet responded to my queries. The NDP did, albeit much later. At least they didn’t send a vague form letter that they just sent to everyone with an inquiry, like the Conservatives did. This is proof that they don’t care what the public has to say and are just going to try to push through with the bill anyway.

In a previous post, I posted the answers from my own MP, David Sweet, and a clerk at the Liberal party to my inquiries to their parties about the Copyright Act.

I asked for further clarification on some points from Msr. Sweet and received an answer from the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Josée Verner and the Minister of Industry, Jim Prentice.

Here was my original e-mail:

Dear Mr. Sweet:

Thank you for your response. The bill does say that it will limit the damages per infraction. However, isn’t each song an infraction? If one is sharing 1000 songs, doesn’t that add up to $500,000 dollars? You don’t have to respond to this if you don’t have time, but you should pass on to your party that the one point is very unclear to the public; I and I suspect many others have been looking for clarification on this point. $500.00 per infraction is still a lot of money when you take into account that most people who download music or rip it to their computer from CD have 200-1000 songs on their computer, and I think that is what most Canadians are up in arms about.

Thank you once again for your timely response.

Sincere Regards,

Angela West

Here is their answer:

Ms. West,

The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61 (An Act to Amend the Copyright Act). The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.

What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?
Specifically, it includes measures that would:

* expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the “statutory damages” a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;

* implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy

* clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities

* provide photographers with the same rights as other creators

What Bill C-61 does not do:

* it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation

What this Bill is not:

* it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia

Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner.

For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home

Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter.

The Honourable Josée Verner
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages and Minister for La Francophonie

The Honourable Jim Prentice
Minister of Industry

While it doesn’t immediately answer my question, I did follow the link given and found this page, which effectively does answer my question:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01162e.html

Basically I read this as saying that one lawsuit may only have 500.00 worth of damages for copying, 20 000 for DRM cracking. It could be argued that the tenuous recording indust

Main menu:

Categories

Canada Copyright Reform

My Local MP David Sweet is a Promise Keeper. OMFG.

Jack Layton Responds on Copyright Reform - with some actual commitment!

Answers from Jim Prentice and Josee Verner on Copyright Reform