PDA

View Full Version : Lame Response From Mr. Joe Clark - And My Response


To The Real King!!
December 18th, 2001, 03:53 AM
Hi Everyone,

Here is a very LAME and incorrect response from Mr. Joe Clark or the PC party and my response to it. When these people MISS the point so drastically, its no wonder to me that they haven't a hope in hell of being elected.

No need to read the DirecTV® approval which he claims never happened. Imagine how BAD his advisers are that he does NOT know this :)






Dear Mr. Scullion,

Thank you for your e-mail. We appreciate your taking the time and the effort to write to us and share your thoughts on the dispute between Canadian satellite broadcasters and the so-called "grey market" dealers of
foreign satellite equipment. Thank you also for sending me a copy of Mr.Scullion's e-mail.

As this is a matter that is before the courts, we think it best to let the Supreme Court decide the case without commenting further. The decision of the Supreme Court is expected this spring.

In dispute is Section 9 of the Radiocommunication Act, which deals with the regulation of foreign subscription programming signals into Canada.The Act reads:

9. (1) No person shall
(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;
(d) operate a radio apparatus so as to receive an encrypted subscriptionprogramming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded incontravention of paragraph (c);

The concern raised by Canadian providers is based on copyrights (which stations in Canada have paid for) being violated and the Canadian content rules of the CRTC for Canadian broadcasters. Both Star Choice and Bell ExpressVu are required to provide funding for Canadian programming, and are concerned that unless foreign-based services face similar provisions, they face a competitive disadvantage. This case will obviously have implications for the regulatory framework faced by broadcasters in this
country.

American satellite provider, Direct TV, sought a license to broadcast legally here in Canada in the mid-1990s, but their application was denied by the CRTC. The applications of ExpressVu and Star Choice, however,
were approved.

It is important to remember to separate the "grey market" customers, such as yourself, who actually pay for the signals they receive from those who pirate the signal from either Canadian or foreign based services using
illegally modified decoders. This is a separate issue entirely, and must be treated as such. This case will determine whether it is legal for the dealers to enable Canadian consumers to set up an American mailing address
so they can buy a wider variety of programming from satellite providerssouth of the border.

Once again, thank you for your e-mail.


Sincerely,


Joe Clark



To: "Clark, Joe - M.P." <Clark.J@parl.gc.ca>
From: Re Scullion <reg @vcipher.com>
Subject: FurtherReply to the reply of the Right Honourable Mr. Joe Clark
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:


Dear Mr. Clark,

I very much appreciate your taking the time to respond to my E-mail letter to you. There are however a number of errors in your response which perhaps I can assist in clearing up.

Firstly, I agree totally with you that this case is before the Supreme Court of Canada and thus any comment would be inappropriate at this time. The POINT of my E-mail was NOT to elicit comment but rather to point out the INAPPROPRIATE comment by the Liberal Minister Ms. Shiela Copps who states that she will ignore the Supreme Court. That sir, shows that she has no respect for the “rule of Law” in Canada and is an item that SHOULD interest the PC Party. That also was the entire point of my E-mail.

Additionally your statement below that DirecTV® applied to the CRTC and were refused authorization is totally incorrect and I include here the CRTC approval of their application which they themselves later abandoned. I am surprised that your aides have misinformed you on this subject. Here is the CRTC 95-902 approval sir, below.

To return to the IMPORTANT issue of Ms. Copps inappropriate statement I am also enclosing the Newspaper article where she made such comment and I believe that your Party should investigate this unfortunate matter and make a decision as to how you can best make political capital out of this.

Just in the same way as you yourself questioned if the recent seizure of a portable computer in Quebec did not indicate that the RCMP was acting at the behest of the Prime Minister, thousands of Canadians are outraged at the statement by Ms. Shiela Copps. You yourself recognize that commenting on a matter before the Supreme Court of Canada would be inappropriate so why should it be acceptable for Ms. Copps to openly state that she will ignore Canada’s highest court and what message does that send to Canadians and the company Can-Am who we (legal-rights.org) have financed at great cost through 3 levels of courts, having won two of them at great financial cost, only to be told that the $100,000.00 and more that we spent going to and believing in the Supreme Court of Canada and the “rule of Law” would be ignored by the Liberal Government. Often the court system is the ONLY method a citizen has of expecting justice when a government objective is stated to be important. Your own government passed this law in 1991 (the RC Act amendments) and while no comment is needed or appropriate, I agree, yet Ms. Copps makes this VERY wrong statement shown below near the bottom.

We look to the PC Party, Mr. Clark to look into such inappropriateness. Unless of course, the PC Party is not a party Canadians can consult with when this Liberal government makes a very drastic fluff that leads Canadians to believe that the Legislative branch has no more faith or interest in the Judicial branch, especially the Supreme Court of Canada. This sir, is a very drastic issue in a democratic country putting the entire justice system into disrepute and Opposing politicians SHOULD be very interested in this anarchist stance of the Liberals if they expect to make any political headway before the next elections. We have some 600,000 members who are outraged and are looking to both the Alliance and the PC party for a proper response and they have stated publicly on many BBS systems across the country that this issue would cause them to seriously re-evaluate their voting habits.

Yours very truly,

Reg Sculliom
http://www.legal-rights.org/newspapers/coppsfp.html



Below is the Decision APPROVING Power DirecTV in Canada.


Ottawa, 20 December 1995 Decision CRTC 95-902 Joel Bell, on behalf of a company to be incorporated (Power DirecTV) Across Canada

- 952060200

New, national, direct-to-home satellite distribution undertaking -

Approved Following a Public Hearing held in the National Capital Region commencing 30 October 1995, and in accordance with Public Notice CRTC 1995-217 which accompanies this and other related decisions published today, the Commission approves the application for a broadcasting licence to carry on a new, national direct-to-home (DTH) satellite distribution undertaking.

The proposed service, to be known as Power DirecTv, will derive its revenues entirely from subscription revenues, and will provide programming services exclusively to individual subscribers in all parts of Canada on a DTH basis. The applicant proposed to make a variety of licensed Canadian and authorized non-Canadian programming services available by satellite for direct reception by individuals. Canadian programming services would be distributed using a Canadian satellite, specifically the Anik E-2 satellite operated by Telesat.

The non-Canadian programming services to be distributed on the proposed service would be delivered using high-powered U.S. satellites owned and operated by DirecTv Inc. (DirecTv), pursuant to a service agreement between Power DirecTv and DirecTv (the agreement).

DirecTv is a non-Canadian corporation active in the delivery of programming in the U.S. market. It should be noted that Power DirecTv requires the use of the Anik E-2 Canadian satellite in order for subscribers to simultaneously receive the Canadian signals as well as the U.S. signals received from the DirecTv satellites.

The Commission will issue a licence to carry on a national DTH satellite distribution undertaking, expiring 31 August 2002. The licence will be subject to the conditions specified in the appendix to this decision and in the licence to be issued. This authority will only be effective, and the licence will only be issued, at such time as the Commission receives documentation establishing that the company has been incorporated in accordance with the application in all material respects, and that it is an eligible Canadian corporation.

Ownership and Control of the undertaking

The licensee will be effectively owned and controlled by Power Broadcasting Inc. (Power) through its ownership of 80.01% of the company's issued voting shares. The remaining shares will be owned by DirecTv. As noted earlier, the applicant proposed that authorized non-Canadian programming services to be distributed on the service be delivered using high-powered U.S. satellites owned and operated by DirecTv. At the public hearing, the Commission questioned the applicant on whether it would be in a position to exercise control over all components of its distribution undertaking.

The applicant noted that it would have complete control, under the terms of the agreement, over the packaging of programming services made available on its service, including the ability to authorize or de-authorize any programming service or part of a programming service distributed over the portion of the signal stream it makes available for reception by subscribers within Canada from the U.S. satellites. Having carefully reviewed the agreement with DirecTv, and having considered the submissions made by all parties, the Commission has determined that the applicant has demonstrated and committed to a sufficient level of control to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act.

DTH distribution regulatory framework

In Public Notice CRTC 1995-217, the Commission has provided details regarding the regulatory framework that will apply to all DTH satellite distribution undertakings. DTH satellite distribution undertakings represent a new class of undertakings for which, at present, there are no applicable regulations. As such, the licensee is required, by condition of licence, to adhere to sections 5, 6(1) and (2), 19 and Part IV of the Cable Television Regulations, 1986 respecting transfers of control and ownership, annual returns, the alteration and curtailment of programming services, and the mediation and resolution of disputes.

Authorized programming services

The licensee is authorized, by condition of licence, to distribute the signals of the programming services listed in the appendix to this decision. Carriage of TRIO and Newsworld International In its application, Power DirecTv requested authority to distribute TRIO and Newsworld International. The Commission notes that these two services, although primarily Canadian in content and Canadian-owned, are not licensed by the Commission and are produced by the CBC and Power Corporation principally for the U.S. market. Although the applicant proposed that these services be considered as having no nationality, the Commission is not prepared at this time, to consider the distribution of these services until it completes its next round of licensing action with respect to applications proposing new Canadian specialty and pay television programming services in 1996.

The originators of these two programming services could, if they so choose, apply to obtain licences or request that the services be added to the Commission's lists of authorized non-Canadian programming services, following the specialty and pay television licensing process in 1996.

Access requirements

The licensee is required to distribute, at its own cost, all licensed English- and French-language specialty and pay television programming services. In addition, the licensee is required to distribute, at its own cost, at least one English- and one French-language general interest DTH PPV television programming service. Should the licensee elect to distribute a pay audio service in which it or another distribution undertaking has an ownership interest exceeding 30%, it must also distribute at least one other pay audio service whose ownership is independent of any distribution undertaking, with the terms of the discretionary carriage to be agreed upon by the DTH operator and the originator of the programming service. In order to qualify for such access, it would be the responsibility of the pay audio service to pay the satellite uplink and transmission costs associated with the distribution of the signal.

Distribution and linkage requirements

As stated in Public Notice CRTC 1995-217, the Commission has decided to require, by condition of licence, that a preponderance of Canadian programming services be received by a subscriber.

In other licence conditions set out in the appendix to this decision, the Commission has required that the licensee adhere to specified linkage and distribution rules. The licensee is also required, by condition of licence, to adhere to the specified rules governing program substitution and deletion, and to offer a basic service that includes the CBC French- and English-language television network services, as well as a CTV television network signal.

Production fund In its application

Power DirecTv proposed different alternatives under which it might meet the requirements of paragraph 4(c) of the DTH Satellite Distribution Undertakings Order in Council (P.C. 1995-1105) respecting financial contributions to the production of Canadian programming.

One suggestion was that contributions be directed to a special fund that would be established with the primary objective of helping to finance the production of Canadian programming. The applicant indicated at the hearing that it would be open to suggestions as to how and by whom its contributions would be administered. In the interest of cost effectiveness and efficiency, the Commission considers that such contributions should be made to an existing Canadian program production fund. As stated in Public Notice CRTC 1995-217, the Commission has decided to require the licensees of all DTH distribution undertakings and all DTH pay-per-view television programming undertakings to make contributions representing no less than 5% of their gross annual revenues to fund Canadian program production. Accordingly, by condition of licence, the licensee is required to contribute a minimum of 5% of the gross annual revenues earned by its DTH distribution undertaking to an existing, independently-administered, Canadian program production fund.

As part of this condition, the licensee is required to report to the Commission, within six months of the date of this decision, identifying the name of the existing fund to which it will make its contributions. The licensee is further required to remit its contributions in the form of monthly installments, the first to be made within 45 days of the end of the month in which it commences operation and, thereafter, within 45 days of month's end, and representing a minimum of 5% of that month's gross revenues.

Employment equity

In Public Notice CRTC 1992-59 dated 1 September 1992 and entitled"Implementation of an Employment Equity Policy", the Commission announced that the employment equity practices of broadcasters would be subject to examination by the Commission. In this regard, the Commission encourages the licensee to consider employment equity issues in its hiring practices and in all other aspects of its management of human resources.

Closed captioning

The licensee should provide, as a minimum, at the output of each set-top decoder, a National Television Systems Committee (NTSC) television signal complete with its associated standard monaural audio, and any closed captioning signals that were present with the programming service when it was received by the undertaking at the input to its system. The Commission expects the licensee to acquire and publicize the availability of a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD).

Television violence

In Notice of Public Hearing CRTC 1995-5, the Commission sought comments on a number of issues relating to violence in television programming and, in particular, how to ensure that tools are available to enable individuals to make programming choices for themselves and for their families. Also of particular concern to the Commission is the fact that programs found to have breached the Canadian Association of Broadcasters'"Voluntary Code Regarding Violence in Television Programming", and thus discontinued by Canadian broadcasters, may nonetheless be available on non-Canadian services distributed by distribution undertakings. To remedy this situation, the Commission suggested that it might be appropriate to require cable and other distribution undertakings to curtail or scramble any program distributed by such undertakings if the program was determined to contravene an approved violence code.

When questioned on these issues at the hearing, Power DirecTv confirmed that it would at all times retain the technical and legal ability to curtail any signal or individual program distributed by the undertaking. With respect to the regulation currently being considered by the Commission in the context of the violence proceeding, the applicant indicated that it would comply with such a regulation if ultimately adopted by the Commission. The applicant also indicated that its affiliation and other agreements would always permit Power DirecTv to comply with Canadian laws and regulations, including any decision issued by the Commission or the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) in connection with violence issues.

Finally, Power DirecTv agreed to cooperate with other members of the industry for the purpose of developing an appropriate program classification system that could be used in conjunction with consumer-controlled blocking technology. The Commission expects the licensee to adhere to each of these commitments.

The Commission acknowledges, and has considered, the interventions and comments submitted in respect of this application.

Allan J. Darling Secretary General APPENDIX TO DECISION CRTC 95-902 / ANNEXE À LA DÉCISION CRTC 95-902 Conditions of Licence

1.The licensee shall adhere to the provisions contained in sections 5, 6(1) and (2), 19 and Part IV of the Cable Television Regulations, 1986 (the cable regulations).

2.a)Unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, the licensee is authorized to distribute the signal of any licensed television programming undertaking. The licensee is authorized to distribute such a service unless the licensee of that service objects in writing to its carriage, both to the Commission and to the distribution undertaking, within 90 days of the date of this decision. The licensee is also authorized to distribute the services of all other licensed or exempt programming undertakings (other than a pay television programming undertaking that provides a pay-per-view service). The licensee is also authorized to distribute an Electronic Program Guide, a PPV marketing channel, and a marketing channel for its service.

b)Unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, the licensee is authorized to distribute the following non-Canadian programming services: WXIA-TV Atlanta (NBC) WABC-TV New York (ABC) WRAL-TV Raleigh (CBS) KRMA-TV Denver (PBS) WFLD-TV Chicago (FOX) Cable News Network (CNN) CNN Headline News (CNN-2) The Nashville Network (TNN) The Arts and Entertainment Network (A&E) CNBC/FNN* The Weather Channel (TWC) Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-Span) The Silent Network (Kaleidoscope) The Learning Channel WTBS Atlanta WGN-TV Chicago WWOR-TV New York City WPIX New York City WSBK-TV Boston KTLA Los Angeles Black Entertainment Television (BET) Lifetime Television Comedy Central *Pursuant to CRTC Circular Letter No. 377, dated 5 June 1991, licensees are authorized to distribute only the 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. (ET) Monday to Friday programming component of CNBC/FNN.

3.The licensee shall offer a basic service that includes at least one of each of the CBC English and French-language television network affiliates and at least one affiliate of the CTV English-language television network service. Every subscriber must subscribe to the basic service to receive any discretionary services, except the DTH pay-per-view services.

4.The licensee is required to adhere to the following unless otherwise authorized by the Commission:

a)the licensee shall delete the programming of a non-Canadian television programming service distributed on the DTH undertaking, and substitute the identical programming of a Canadian television programming undertaking whose signal is also distributed on the DTH undertaking;

b)The licensee shall delete programming received by subscribers located within the grade B contour of a licensed Canadian television programming undertaking, where the programming distributed as part of the DTH undertaking is identical to the programming broadcast by the Canadian television programming undertaking;

c)the licensee shall delete programming received by subscribers located within the grade B contour of licensed Canadian television programming undertakings where the programming distributed as part of its service is identical (i.e. in relation to the above-mentioned programming, not less than 95 per cent of the video and audio components of those programming services, exclusive of commercial messages and any part of the services carried on a subsidiary signal are the same) to the programming broadcast by the Canadian television programming undertaking and is distributed on a non-simultaneous basis within the same broadcast week;

d)the licensee shall delete and/or substitute programming of television programming services in the manner contemplated under paragraphs a), b) and c) above, where the DTH operator has received, at least seven days prior to the date on which the programming is broadcast, a written request for the deletion and/or substitution of the programming of the television programming service. The licensee may discontinue the deletion and/or substitution of programming of a television programming service where the licensee verifies that the programming of the television programming service in respect of which the deletion is made, is not, or is no longer identical.

For the purposes of paragraphs a) and b) of this condition, the term"identical"shall have the same meaning as that contained in Subsection 2(1) of the cable regulations, the term"commercial message"shall have the same meaning as that contained in the cable regulations and the term"broadcast week"shall mean a period of seven consecutive days, beginning on Sunday.

5.The licensee shall ensure that no subscriber receives a total number of programming services that contains less than a preponderance of Canadian programming services. For the purpose of this condition, multiplex programming channels, repeat channels and non-programming channels will be disregarded and each licensed DTH PPV service distributed will be counted as a single channel.

6.The non-Canadian programming services listed below may only be offered in a discretionary package with Canadian pay television and/or Canadian specialty services, and are subject to the following linkage requirements:

a)each Canadian pay television service (excluding a Canadian DTH PPV television service) may be linked in a single discretionary package with no more than five channels of the following authorized non-Canadian programming services: Cable News Network (CNN) CNN Headline News (CNN-2) The Nashville Network (TNN) The Arts and Entertainment Network (A&E) CNBC/FNN The Weather Channel (TWC) Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-Span) The Silent Network (Kaleidoscope) The Learning Channel WTBS Atlanta* WGN-TV Chicago* WWOR-TV New York City* WPIX New York City* WSBK-TV Boston* KTLA Los Angeles* Black Entertainment Television (BET) Lifetime Television Comedy Central *U.S. Superstations/ *Superstations américaines but in no case can a single discretionary package, whose Canadian component includes more than one pay television service, contain more than five channels of non-Canadian programming services, linked with those Canadian pay television services included in that package;

b)each Canadian specialty service, distributed within a discretionary package that may include one or more Canadian specialty and/or pay television services, may be linked with no more than one channel of the following authorized non-Canadian programming services: Cable News Network (CNN) CNN Headline News (CNN-2) The Nashville Network (TNN) The Arts and Entertainment Network (A&E) CNBC/FNN The Weather Channel (TWC) Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network (C-Span) The Silent Network (Kaleidoscope) The Learning Channel Black Entertainment Television (BET)* Lifetime Television* Comedy Central*

c)the licensee may designate one of the U.S. superstations authorized in paragraph a) above, and distribute the signal of that superstation within discretionary packages that may include one or more Canadian specialty and/or pay television service. d)the licensee is not permitted to offer a package of services containing only non-Canadian programming services; and e)the licensee is not permitted to link authorized non-Canadian programming services with a Canadian specialty service distributed on the basic service.

7.The licensee, in each broadcast year (i.e. the period from 1 September to the following 31 August), shall contribute a minimum of 5% of the gross annual revenues, earned by its DTH satellite distribution undertaking to an existing, independently-administered, Canadian program production fund. The licensee is also required to report to the Commission, within six months of the date of this decision, identifying the name of the existing fund to which it will make its contributions. The licensee shall remit its contributions in the form of monthly installments, the first to be made within 45 days of the end of the month in which it commences operations and, therafter, within 45 days of month's end and representing a minimum of 5% of that month's gross revenues.

8.The licensee is prohibited from distributing any pay-per-view service other than that of a licensed DTH PPV television programming undertaking.

9.The licensee must distribute at least one French-language DTH PPV service where it distributes one or more English-language DTH PPV service.

10.This undertaking shall be in operation within twelve months of the date of this decision, or, where the licensee applies to the Commission within this period and satisfies the Commission that it cannot complete implementation before the expiry of this period and that an extension is in the public interest, within such further period of time as is approved in writing by the Commission. DOC. #: DEC95-902

Below is the Newspaper article showing the very ignorant stance taken by Ms. Shiela Copps, Liberal Heritage minister.

Ottawa will dog grey-market satellite firms


Ian Jack
Financial Post
8 December 2001

OTTAWA - The federal government will continue efforts to block grey-market satellite distributors from doing business in Canada regardless of a Supreme Court of Canada decision expected by next spring, sources say.

Ottawa is considering issuing a public statement before Christmas backing Bell ExpressVu and other licensed Canadian operators, and will change the legislation governing satellite distribution if the Supreme Court rules in favour of a small company that sells direct-to-home decoders that receive U.S. signals, sources said.

Sheila Copps, the Heritage Minister, told a Canadian industry group this week she will ensure the government's interpretation of the Radiocommunications Act, which is that it bans grey market satellite distribution, is upheld regardless of the court ruling.

She told the group she wants to issue a statement jointly with Brian Tobin, the Industry Minister, in the coming weeks.

Mr. Tobin would be prepared to sign off on such a statement, a source said.

The government's signalling of its intention is a blow to Can-Am Satellites of Maple Ridge, B.C., and other grey marketers. Can-Am has won two cases in provincial appeal courts, arguing the issue is freedom of expression and unfettered access to public airwaves. Both courts concluded it does not violate the Act, as written, to sell decoders in Canada.

<ijack@nationalpost.com>



Interesting is that YOUR government passed this legislation and both Ms. Flora McDonald and Mr. Marcel Masse did NOT interpret as a “total prohibition” as is claimed by todays liberal government. This can clearly be seen by their parliamenary debates shown at: http://www.legal-rights.org/scr/canamfactum.html

Regards

Reg Scullion

http://www.legal-rights.org
600,000 members and growing.

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif

It seems to me that a baboon could be put in there and do better than most of our politicians who seem to know NOTHING at all and don't even get the POINT of a clear letter. I never EVER asked for comment in any of the letters I sent him. I want ACTION on COPPS inane Statement, not f u c k i n g comment on the case. The Supreme COURT's comment is the only comment I want and look forward to on the case but COPPS should be HUNG by her BIG TOE for here stupid comments.
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkhappyday.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/bllrbanner.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/lrbanner.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

simple
December 18th, 2001, 06:36 AM
It seems to me that a baboon could be put in there and do better than most of our politicians who seem to know NOTHING at all and don't even get the POINT of a clear letter. I never EVER asked for comment in any of the letters I sent him. I want ACTION on COPPS inane Statement, not f u c k i n g comment on the case. The Supreme COURT's comment is the only comment I want and look forward to on the case but COPPS should be HUNG by her BIG TOE for here stupid comments.



Amen to that...


Simple.

icu819
December 18th, 2001, 07:52 AM
Maybe we should do what they do in the states and give them money (political contribution). Our leaders like Clark what MONEY and not talk.

seymour_teevee
December 26th, 2001, 01:53 PM
Imprudent as Ms Copps' remarks were at this time, they were probably as equally embarrasing to the liberals as they were threatening to you, TTRK. It'll be interesting to see whether she opens her yap again on this issue prior to the decision. I suspect she's been "advised" to zip it. Since no arrests or civil judgments are imminent, I'm not sure Mr. Clark can act on Ms. Copps' threats until she attempts to act on them, herself, subsequently to the Supreme Court decision. You're getting ahead of yourself, TTRK, and, Mr. Clark's response suggests he's not about to shoot himself in the foot politically, a priori, in a useless pissing match with an appointed minister. As an example, if I tell you that the end of the world is coming next spring, are you going to rush out to dig a bomb shelter? Not likely, right? But, when the south-bound bombers' contrails are actually visible overhead in May, if I say the same thing, would you at least consider taking cover?

To The Real King!!
December 27th, 2001, 01:07 PM
Hi Seymour,

The point is that Politicians in Canada can make Political capital by questioning opposition members about their comments in the House of Commons.

It simply points out to the public that opposition members ARE paying attention to what the Government is doing. He could expect that she would at least say that she did not mean that she would ignore the Supreme Court, just that the government may change the law regardless of the ruling. That would be aceptable but not what she actually said.

What is said in the House of Commons carries weight with our Parliament and it is done quite commonly (no pun intended) to question bad statements politically. Her statement was NOT a wise one and this questioning would just point it out to the Supreme Court and the public and make a few brownie points for Mr. Clark. No really BIG deal but every brownie point counts in Politics.

In fact our official opposition is the Alliance and there is a movement to have them join with the PC party to form a stronger Conservative party. This would give Mr. Clark some points but frankly I don't care if its the Alliance critic who asks her about the comment but someone will be smart enough to do it.

The reason I wanted Mr. Clark to do it, is because his party was in Power when the law was passed and so he should support that law. But he missed the point completely thinking that I wanted him to comment on the RULING which I did not.

Unfortunately its really his executive assistant who really looks at this and writes E-mail (and uses Mr. Clark's name) and executive assistants may not be as wise about political Capital as an experienced politician like Mr. Clark.

But I am not getting ahead of myself in that I realize that she has the right to change the law (but wont) and that if she did that would probably present a constitutional issue unless she lets the Americans in to sell here. Any protectionism when it comes to "expression" is a problem due to our charter. The problem is that her statement was quite inane Politically as we all live under the "rule of law" and the political branch of Government CANNOT overrule the judicial branch in what they rule. Changing the law, which requires parliamentary assent, is far less likely since most politicians are lawyers and would know that it presents an insurmountable constitutional issue.

Our constitution says:


Section 52 The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

And section 2B of the constitution says

Section 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a)Freedom of conscience and religion;

(b)Freedom of thought, belief opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication;

(c)Freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d)Freedom of association.



So you can see that the Supreme law of Canada (Canada's uppermost law) must allow for 2B and it will not unless Canadians can PURCHASE the foreign signals. Failing that, 2B will come into play and TV is certainly "other means of communications."


You see this does not concern shipbuilding, oil, Water or Clothing or other usual products but rather communications (news etc.) which has a very special place in a Democratic nation. If a Canadian Is prohibited from buying it, then he has the right to receive it any way he can since as the law above states "any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect."

Thus ANY LAW she passes that does NOT allow for the purchase of this or any communication will be of no force or effect. If we can PURCHASE the signal then we must do that and NOT receive it without paying.

This is the CRUX of this whole matter. Allow Canadians to buy it and there can be no viewing without paying but prohibit paying for it and there can be no stopping Canadians from viewing it any way we can. Unless the Constitution is changed, that CANNOT be changed. Its a pretty simple and clear SUPREME LAW so any politician is safe commenting on her inane statement.

If they STUDY the constitution in trying to change the law (which they must do) they will realize the problem cannot be overcome any way but allowing its PURCHASE. Protectionism cannot be done when it comes to "expressive content" in a democracy the way it can be done for Oil, Water, Bubble Gum, Shipbuilding, clothing or any common product. TV has been ruled by the Supreme Court (even Ads) many times now to be "expressive Content." The Canadian Government tried several years ago to PROHIBIT the advertising on cigarettes on the basis that it was unhealthy and cost our health system but in the end the Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting advertising would be prohibiting their 2B rights. You can see that this issue is MUCH more of an important public issue than what TV we can watch so there will be no way to state that it is in the public interest to prohibit it. Naturally we presented the RJR- McDonald tobacco ruling in our jurisprudence. That case can be seen at:


http://www.legal-rights.org/rulings/mcdonald_tobacco.html


This will be understood in time but ONLY if the Supreme Court were to rule against us. But that presents THEM with a major problem since all law in Canada MUST be ruled in accordance with the constitution. This makes it virtually impossible for them to rule against us on the issue before the Supreme Court.

But if they DID we will immediately WIN on the Constitutional issue of 2B. That is WHY we have won in 17 other courts including 2 Appeals courts, the second highest courts in the land. Those were not won by accident or mistake when 17 courts in a row, including apeals courts have all ruled in our favorhttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
A Happy, Healthy and Prosperous NEW YEAR to ALL![/siz
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrkhappyday.gif

Thanks & Good Luck,

To The REAL King!!

[size=4]Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/bllrbanner.gif

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/lrbanner.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!


Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

seymour_teevee
December 27th, 2001, 07:10 PM
TTRK,

Very well written reply - and much appreciation for avoiding the usual bashing. I take most of your points except one:

"But he [Joe Clark] missed the point completely thinking that I wanted him to comment on the RULING which I did not."

I believe Mr. Clark's reticence to commenting at all at this stage is to avoid even the APPEARANCE of a ruling comment or the suggestion of one. Put another way, Copps stepped into the thick brown smelly stuff, chin deep, all on her own. Let her thrash around in it without the help of any misperceived comments by the loyal opposition. I think he was trying to tell you that in every successful politco's favorite way: ambiguity.

gunsmoke2
December 28th, 2001, 03:34 PM
seymour,

It is very common in Canada for an opposition leader of another party to jump on the current party elected ( Liberals ) for unacceptable behaviour. I don't see raising this issue as a sign of commenting on the ruling but rather commenting on Sheila craps shady conduct



GS2

gator
January 21st, 2002, 09:22 PM
Great info, you guys are to be commended once again
.

Gator