2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

A Conservative majority would be good for the economy and for Canada. I personally don't dispute that.

For me individually, a Conservative majority would be very bad, assuming they try once more to amend the Copyright act along the lines of Bill C-32. A conservative majority government that pushed through a Bill C-32 would turn me from a law-abiding Canadian into a criminal.

I cannot support any government that wants to treat me like a thief.

Did you download free music and pirate movies?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

C

Harper prorogued against the will of the elected parliament. That's where the problem lies for me.

.

Chretien had all majorities, he used prorogation to hide his parties criminal activities and was never bought up on contempt of parliment because he had a majority.

The will of the parliament when Chretien was in power was actually the will of the Liberal party.

[HeartsOfFire]

I edited my original post to explain why in better detail.

I don't pirate movies, and downloading free music is not criminal no matter how you look at it. But I DO rip my legally purchased DVDs and format shift the movie into a file type Apple devices recognize. In order to do that, I have to circumvent the built in copy-protection on the DVD's.

Under the previous two attempts by the CPC to amend Canada's current copyright laws, what I do would be considered illegal and I could be jailed.

The Conservatives would rather see you pay twice for the same movie. Once for the DVD, and once for the 'soft copy.'

Admittedly, this issue is dust in the wind compared to other major issues like the economy, but it just happens to be the one big issue I take very seriously.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

I edited my original post to explain why in better detail.

I don't pirate movies, and downloading free music is not criminal no matter how you look at it. But I DO rip my legally purchased DVDs and format shift the movie into a file type Apple devices recognize. In order to do that, I have to circumvent the built in copy-protection on the DVD's.

Under the previous two attempts by the CPC to amend Canada's current copyright laws, what I do would be considered illegal and I could be jailed.

The Conservatives would rather see you pay twice for the same movie. Once for the DVD, and once for the 'soft copy.'

I once bought a CD from Megatunes (RIP) that had a digital lock on it preventing format-shifting. In order to copy the music I had legally purchased to my iPod, I had to break the lock. If Bill C-32 was in effect at the time, I would be considered a copyright criminal.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I once bought a CD from Megatunes (RIP) that had a digital lock on it preventing format-shifting. In order to copy the music I had legally purchased to my iPod, I had to break the lock. If Bill C-32 was in effect at the time, I would be considered a copyright criminal.

Exactly.

And since the Conservatives have already tried twice to amend the Copyright act, failing horribly once and being interrupted the second time, it stands to reason that they would try a third time if they once again come to power. And a majority Conservative pgovernment would succeed, and resistance would be futile.

Thankfully, with Bill C-32, the other parties were able to reign the tories in long enough to prevent it from being signed into law.

[Cowboy89]

I can agree there that C-32 is heavy handed when it comes to format shifting. I can relate to you guys there. Although I've had arguments before from people who blatently pirate music, Movies, and TV shows that seem to think it's their right to do it.

[calgaryred]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Exactly.

And since the Conservatives have already tried twice to amend the Copyright act, failing horribly once and being interrupted the second time, it stands to reason that they would try a third time if they once again come to power. And a majority Conservative pgovernment would succeed, and resistance would be futile.

Thankfully, with Bill C-32, the other parties were able to reign the tories in long enough to prevent it from being signed into law.

I agree I hope all the polling is just that hot air, in 1988 they said before the polls it was 50% tories 50% libs and 50% NDP we all know what really happened. I just hope its a Conservative minority as well.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I can agree there that C-32 is heavy handed when it comes to format shifting. I can relate to you guys there. Although I've had arguments before from people who blatently pirate music, Movies, and TV shows that seem to think it's their right to do it.

And they would be wrong. But that fact alone is not powerful enough to stop them from doing it, hence the heavy handed provisions in the bills to amend the Copyright law to stop them. But where does that leave people like me and MarchHare?

I don't care who's minority it is, I just want it to be a minority.

[KTown]

If the NDP somehow get into power via any means including a coalition lead. I might as well shut the doors to my business and move it south. My dad lost many clients back in the day in Ontario when the NDP lead the province. Many big businesses left, and my pops was planning on closing his doors and moving his business south to regain his clients, if the NDP would had won again in 1995. Rae was a disaster there.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The young people that are voting for the NDP fail to realize that if the NDP get into power that its their generation and their kids generations that will have to pay for all of those promises.

Its the shiny apple theory of politics.

Well I haven't got time now, and I'm not going to try to defend the NDP platform...basically because I'll get destroyed and don't really support it anyway.

That being said the CPC is going to cost us a FORTUNE down the road. I'm not sold on this alleged brilliant fiscal management they've been touting. I would be most interested in seeing the costs for their promises as well. Over the longer term some of them are incredibly expensive.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by KTown

If the NDP somehow get into power via any means including a coalition lead. I might as well shut the doors to my business and move it south. My dad lost many clients back in the day in Ontario when the NDP lead the province. Many big businesses left, and my pops was planning on closing his doors and moving his business south to regain his clients, if the NDP would had won again in 1995. Rae was a disaster there.

Look at Saskatchewan. Once the Democratic Peoples Republic of Saskatchebush and HAVE NOT province dropped the NDP, finally, and went to being the #1 place to do business in North America.

Coincidence? I think not.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So only a majority would be able to prorogue in your world?

As that's waht it would take for the willof the elected parliament unless a minority also has the votes from elsewhere...and that simply wouldnt be the case in most of the instances being discussed.

Laugh.

I don't think so. Prorogation kills unpassed government legislation... you don't think opposition parties would ever support that?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Look at Saskatchewan. Once the Democratic Peoples Republic of Saskatchebush and HAVE NOT province dropped the NDP, finally, and went to being the #1 place to do business in North America.

Coincidence? I think not.

Yup, a lesson for Ontario if they go NDP this election.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

I don't think so. Prorogation kills unpassed government legislation... you don't think opposition parties would ever support that?

I guess that would depend on the legislation..I have no idea.

But to suggest that anything and everything in front of the house is strictly the minority governments issue would be false, so that would lead to...depends on the hills at hand.

I know the first prorogue by Harper was for a completely legitimate reason...the man acted on the will of Canadians in the only way he could. And again....just like when the coalition was attempting thier coup and it was repeated ad nauseum to those opposed to it.... it was perfectly legal and part of the parliamentary system.

[transplant99]

Interesting read, if not really pertinent at this point, about the Liberals sitting on two reports of their own in regards to the gun registry.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/a.../19/c5128.html

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I guess that would depend on the legislation..I have no idea.

But to suggest that anything and everything in front of the house is strictly the minority governments issue would be false, so that would lead to...depends on the hills at hand.

I know the first prorogue by Harper was for a completely legitimate reason...the man acted on the will of Canadians in the only way he could. And again....just like when the coalition was attempting thier coup and it was repeated ad nauseum to those opposed to it.... it was perfectly legal and part of the parliamentary system.

I might be wrong but, isn't it the Governor General who has the power to prorogue? The PM can request it but, it is up to her. Also, doesn't she act on what she preceives is best of Canadians?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by KTown

If the NDP somehow get into power via any means including a coalition lead. I might as well shut the doors to my business and move it south. My dad lost many clients back in the day in Ontario when the NDP lead the province. Many big businesses left, and my pops was planning on closing his doors and moving his business south to regain his clients, if the NDP would had won again in 1995. Rae was a disaster there.

Maybe you should just do all of us a favor and pack up now. It's called a pluralist society.

[CaptainCrunch]

Wait a minute, isn't the key definition of a pluralist society, a society based on its citizens being able to publicly hold different ethical beliefs? And people have the right to choose those beliefs?

So by telling him to pack up now and leave means that you don't believe that this is a pluralist society because your encouraging him to leave the society over his beliefs?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wait a minute, isn't the key definition of a pluralist society, a society based on its citizens being able to publicly hold different ethical beliefs? And people have the right to choose those beliefs?

So by telling him to pack up now and leave means that you don't believe that this is a pluralist society because your encouraging him to leave the society over his beliefs?

Part of the price in democracy is that you're not always going to have things go your way.

Seriously, it's a hollow threat. If your citizenship is contingent on which flavor a duly-elected government is, then maybe this is not the place for you.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Part of the price in democracy is that you're not always going to have things go your way.

Seriously, it's a hollow threat. If your citizenship is contingent on which flavor a duly-elected government is, then maybe this is not the place for you.

Absolutism as an argument in favour of pluralism. Cute.