Squeezed in the Middle

At least that's the way it feels over here.

Have you seen the Stop the Tax and Help us Save Local TV commercials?

Let's face it, if you live in Canada, you probably can't miss them. No matter how hard you try.

They're beginning to get on my nerves. Actually, that's not quite true. They've been getting on my nerves for quite a while now.

At first I thought both sets of commercials were for the same thing. Even though I thought I was paying attention. They both spin quite well, meaning they both sound logical, seem to make a lot of sense. You really should go sign that petition, you know. Stop those greedy bastards from ripping us off yet again.

Turns out the question is - Which petition? And which bastards?

There are two petitions, you see. One for each side.

One saying that the cable and satellite companies are being unfair, not giving any of our money to local TV stations, which they will soon die out if something is not done. We will lost our local TV channels if we don't act now to stop the greed of cable. Or something like that...

The other tells us that the Big Networks like Global, CTV, CBC, etc are being greedy. They are raking in lots of money. And now the CRTC wants us to pay another tax of $10 per month to support them? Are you nuts? Or something like that...

Wait a minute. They can't both be right. Can they?

Hell if I know. Although Andrew Coyne seems to think so.

Yes, it is unfair that cable companies should get to use the broadcasters’ signals for free. And yes, it is outrageous that the broadcasters should be foisting another tax on the long-suffering television public (to say nothing of using their news programs to promote it): because if the cable companies are forced to pay the broadcasters for their signals, you can bet the consumer will wind up paying for it in the end.

And he has offers a solution too. Apparently only one that works in a "logical universe," though. Something about everyone compromising and sharing. And consumers not being forced to pay for channels they don't want.

Hey, wait a minute, that works for me! Which is likely why it's not too likely to happen here.

I do see that the Save Local TV movement is saying that the threat of a $5 -$10 monthly tax is bogus, that all they are looking for is to have the CRTC allow them to negotiate with the cable and satellite companies "a fair value for providing access to local television programming". And they ask the question "How can Rogers and other cable companies make claims to a cost they intend to pass on to you when negotiations have not yet occurred?"

But here's what else I see.

Both sides have done a good job in their efforts to sway public opinion their way. Maybe too good of a job. Which just goes to show how you can take the same set of supposed "facts" and spin them any which way you want. In this case, I think they have been spun so hard and so far by both sides that they have only succeeded in making the viewing public dizzy.

I watched those commercials for quite a while before I realized that something didn't quite fit right. Not only was there something I couldn't make sense of but I couldn't figure out what it was that was confusing me.

Eventually, I realized that I couldn't figure out who the local TV stations were that needed saving. No doubt, because in one set of commercials they were referred to as local TV and in the other they became the Big [Bad] Networks, the greedy bastards. So yeah, when you are so polished that all you do is confuse your brand with the other, I don't think you have accomplished too much.

Meanwhile, I ain't signing neither petition. Even though I tend to lean more towards the local TV point of view. Because my sense is that neither side can be trusted.

Or perhaps I should do as Andrew Coyne suggests and support them both, but only because they’re both wrong.

Only in Canada, eh?

Voila

Ever wonder what this blog is really about?
Well, recently at least and according to Wordle ...

... it's this!

H/T to Lex

Afeard

It would appear that Prime Minister Harper and his party are afeard. Of a gurl, nonetheless.

Why else these bullying tactics to keep the leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May, from the televised election debates? I am no particular fan of the Greens ... although I have voted for them once or twice on occasion (more as a vote against the others), the chances of my voting for them in this election are slim (as in slim to none). But that is not the point.

The point is that this suppose to be a democracy. And if the leader of a separatist party for whom only those resident in Quebec can choose to vote is part of the national televised debates, then why not the leader of a national party, fielding candidates in 306 of a possible 308 ridings, whose ranking in the polls has been steadily increasing? Who now has it's first sitting member of Parliament?

Although the network consortium stated that " ... three parties opposed [the Green party's] inclusion and it became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders debates", it is only Harper who has come out clearly against May's inclusion and stated that the Conservatives would not participate if she was included; neither the Liberals nor the Bloc have threatened to pull out if the Green party is included in the debate. Which leaves the NDP ~ who apparently have been unable to decide whether or not they would boycott the event. Which, although it pains me to admit, doesn't really surprise me.

So let's field test a few propositions here.

• The fact that Stephane Dion agreed not to field a candidate against May in her riding (actually a relatively common practice) may have put Harper's nose out of joint a notch or two, but does not make the Greens the Liberals' candidates or proxies in this election.
• In fact, if anything, May and the Green party could actually hurt the Liberals, it being suggested that they might split the anti-Harper votes into even smaller fragments due to the environmental issues.
• If it's the current situation that actually presents a legitimate concern for Harper, I wonder why he (and the rest of them, including the Liberals) have consistently opposed the inclusion of the Green party in all previous debates.

The question is, should any one (or even two) political parties be able to decide who we, the Canadian people, are allowed to hear debate the issues in this election?

And, by the by, does anyone actually believe for one moment that any one of the parties would dare not participate in the debate if it were to go ahead with the others?

May has threatened to take this issue to the Federal Court. Good for her.

"Us v. Them": The Free Speech Debate In Context

Fresh from the trenches [re]debating the whole Ezra Levant/Human Rights Commissions issue at Lex's again, I came across this article, "Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech" in the New York Times.

Putting aside the whole issue of where ** such complaints should be litigated, the article focuses on the issue of whether such complaints should be actionable at all. In so doing, it offers an interesting comparison between the Canadian and American approaches to "free speech":

In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence.

. . .

“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk, and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment.”

“But in the United States,” Professor Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”

Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.

An interesting approach, no doubt about it. And it might help explain some of the hostile reactions I have come across in debating these issues with Americans. Apparently, in the United States (subject to a few limited exceptions: government may ban fighting words or threats and punishments may be enhanced for violent crimes prompted by racial hatred) the only justification for making incitement a criminal offense is the "likelihood of imminent violence", which standard sets a very high hurdle.

Mere advocacy of violence, terrorism or the overthrow of the government is not enough; the words must be meant to and be likely to produce violence or lawlessness right away. A fiery speech urging an angry mob to immediately assault a black man in its midst probably qualifies as incitement under the First Amendment. A magazine article — or any publication — intended to stir up racial hatred surely does not.

However, some now question whether speech that "urges terrorist violence to an audience, some of whose members are ready to act on the urging,” is an imminent enough threat and one that should be sanctioned.

It's a good read, one that might help promote some understanding of the differences between the two countries on the larger issues. And one in which Mark Steyn, recently taken before the B.C. Human Rights Commission in connection with an excerpt from his book republished in MacLeans magazine weighs in:

Mr. Steyn, the author of the article, said the Canadian proceedings had illustrated some important distinctions. “The problem with so-called hate speech laws is that they’re not about facts,” he said in a telephone interview. “They’re about feelings.”

“What we’re learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins,” Mr. Steyn added. “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”

** Although Canadian law currently provides for "hate propaganda", "blasphemous libel" and "defamatory libel" to be prosecuted as criminal offences (anyone interested in torturing themselves can review the relevant Criminal Code excerpts) and 'hate speech' to be adjudicated by Human Rights Commissions, I, personally, feel that HRCs are not the proper forum for the civil adjudication of such claims and that such claims, civilly should be dealt with in the courts under the common law.

Has Canadian Journalism Gone Yellow?

"Canadian Troops Kill 2 Afghan Children"

Girl, 4, and her brother, 2, hit as soldiers fire on speeding car

’My innocent children have been killed by foreigners — for no reason.’ Mother of slain children

’This is the last thing soldiers want to happen. . . . The soldiers believed they had to take action to protect their convoy because the car was coming toward them at high speed.’ Canadian army

Funny, I was actually niave enough to think that the American media were the only ones who actively tried to make their military look bad, who actively and deliberately slanted their headlines to scream something to the effect of "Our bloodthirsty soldiers must be stopped!".

Apparently, sadly, I was wrong.

I mean, I could be way off base here. But in comparision to the above headline, don't you think this just slightly changes the story?

Canadian troops killed a four-year-old girl and her two-year-old brother Sunday by opening fire on a car that they feared was about to attack their convoy in Afghanistan.

Soldiers said that as the car sped toward them in Panjwaii district outside Kandahar city, they flashed the lights on their vehicles, made hand gestures and issued audio warnings for it to pull over.

The car came within 10 metres of the convoy.

The crew in a light armoured vehicle faced a life-or-death choice and had very little time to make it — fire at the car, or risk being blown up by a suicide bomber.

Really, is there any excuse for that sort of headline?

And please don't feed me that crap about violence and gore selling or that they only write the stuff we want to read. Because these are our own Canadian soldiers, our neighbours' sons and daughters, and our very country they're selling down the river. Unjustly.

Now you might respond that those very pieces I highlighted give the lie to the sensational headline, that anyone who reads the first few paragraphs will immediately get the real story. True enough. But there's only one small problem ... how many people will read read that headline and never stop to read one further word in the article? Will never read that the soldiers had a legitimate fear for their own lives and tried to warn the vehicle away to no avail?

Think about it, how often do you walk by a newspaper on display in a store, read the headline and keep on walking? Leaving those words, "Canadian Troops Kill 2 Afghan Children" to ring in your ears. And how many people do little more than skim the headlines at any time?

So do these types of headlines really matter? Yes, yes they do. And frankly, I expect better from Canadian journalists. Because selling out our military in order to sell newspapers is quite simply not okay with me. Is it with you?

And no, I'm sorry, but you can't justify this, not for one single second, just because you report 'the rest of the story' a few paragraphs down. Because by then, the damage is already done.

And for that, we can thank "Canada's trusted news leader", The Canadian Press.

Update: Stay tuned for Part II of my thoughts on the article from hell.

If Only The Dead Could Speak ...

You know my feelings on the Tracey Latimer case. So why am I writing again?

Because in the last few days I have seen, for the first time, what is to me new information on the case. This despite having avidly followed just about every news story on Tracey and her father.

The first, which I read a few days ago, is from Michael Bach, Executive Vice-President Canadian Association for Community Living at York University.

We think the real lesson from the Tracy Latimer case is not, as many suggest, that we need to renew the debate about mercy killing. Because this was not euthanasia or mercy killing - Tracy was not dying. Her pain could have been relieved with more effective pain management medication if her parents had allowed a feeding tube to be inserted. They refused, which is why the pain management was so ineffective and the stories circulate that she could only take Tylenol...

The second is found in today's edition of the Chronicle Herald:

Tracy was scheduled for surgery which, it was hoped, would alleviate some of the pain and discomfort afflicting her, and other procedures were being considered to help with Tracy’s condition. Tracy, who had spent several months in a respite home, returned to her father’s house shortly before her death because of the imminent surgery.

No, I had never before read or heard either that Tracey's pain could have been relieved with more effective pain management medication if her parents had allowed a feeding tube to be inserted. Or that the upcoming surgery was intended to relieve some of Tracey's pain.

Rather, this was what I understood:

One of the surgeries was to remove a quarter of Tracy’s femur because one of her hips had been dislocated for more than a year.Because of the anti-seizure medication she was on, the Latimer family was told the only pain relief she could have would be regular strength Tylenol.He said he and his wife were opposed to another surgery. "We saw it as mutilating a child who was already suffering."At the time of her death, Tracy weighed less than 40 pounds.

To me, those two little points are rather important. Crucial, even, in helping me formulate my opinion on the actions of Robert Latimer. So which is it? What is the real truth? Will we ever know? And why has it taken 15 years for me to discover these two little tidbits on Tracey's condition?