gunsmoke2
February 26th, 2000, 04:40 PM
Hi Everyone,
Found this letter on another site that someone wrote, thought it interesting and well written..
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> "I expressed my concerns about sat TV to the Supreme Court of Canada and received the following reply, for what it's worth:" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Reception/Réception <Reception@scc-csc.gc.ca>
> > To: 'John Wrigley' <jwrigley@sprint.ca>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 3:30 PM
> > Subject: RE: International Broadcast signals via Satellite
> > Ottawa, Ontario
> > K1A 0J1
> > Mr. John Wrigley
> > Dear Mr. Wrigley:
> > This is to assure you that the Supreme Court of Canada has received your
> > email of January 25, 2000 concerning the case involving the reception of
> > International Telecommunications.
> >
> > I regret to inform you that the Court is only permitted to consider
> > material submitted by parties to an action or by an intervener. I am
> > also sure that you will understand that it would be inappropriate for
> > the Court to comment on a case presently before it.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Anneliese Villeneuve
> >
> > Director, Corporate Services
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Wrigley [mailto:jwrigley@sprint.ca]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 4:59 PM
> > To: reception@scc-csc.gc.ca
> > Cc: davidpratt@igs.net; manleyj@parl.gc.ca; coppss@parl.gc.ca
> > Subject: International Broadcast signals via Satellite
> >
> >
> > To the Honourable Justices Members of the Supreme Court of Canada
> >
> > I wish to bring to the court's attention an issue that is soon to be on
> > your agenda.
> > I am referring to the ongoing controversy regarding the reception of
> > International Broadcast and Telecommunications signals via satellite,
> > specifically Direct to Home TV signals emanating from the United States.
> > It is not my intention to attempt to influence the court, as I realise
> > that the Justices' decisions are based on the interpretation of law as
> > opposed to personal opinions and external influences.
> > I merely wish to express my deep concern for the principles that made
> > this country great and the freedoms for which our fathers made the
> > supreme sacrifice in two world wars.
> > It has been my understanding that the Canadian Charter of Rights and
> > Freedoms forms a protection against the erosion of Freedom of
> > Information, Freedom of Communication by media, and the Free flow of
> > Ideas, among other concepts such as Freedom of Religion, Speech etc.
> > These freedoms form the very cornerstone of our western democratic
> > civilization, and I fear that they are now in jeopardy by the intrusion
> > of the Government of Canada in what they believe is their right to
> > dictate what citizens may and may not watch on television under the
> > disguise of "protecting Canadian culture and promoting Canadian
> > content".
> > It is my opinion that considerable pressure has been brought to bear by
> > certain "entertainment services" in collusion with the CRTC to attempt
> > to criminalize a citizen's right to watch foreign TV or listen to
> > foreign radio broadcasts. This issue has been clouded by their "It's
> > only TV" attitude, but the Justices have the wisdom to see through this
> > attitude and examine the real issue.
> > One must ask the question, "Are Canadians only able to receive foreign
> > information, news, and entertainment services if one of the Broadcast or
> > Telecommunications monopolies decide there is money to be made from it's
> > delivery?"
> > "Does a Canadian of British descent such as myself lose his right to see
> > British TV by paying a "foreign" programme provider because Bell
> > Expressvu, Rogers Cable, Baton or Shaw can't make a profit from its
> > delivery?"
> > Far from protecting Canadian content and culture, these businesses are
> > interested only in preserving their monopolies for commercial profit.
> > One wonders what may be next - perhaps control of the internet, or the
> > upcoming introduction of digital radio.
> > I must ask myself - "Does the right of a business interest to make a
> > profit override my personal right to receive information, entertainment
> > and ideas regardless of borders under our Charter?" I sincerely hope
> > that the Justices will rule that the latter right take precedence.
> > I thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns
> >
> > Proud Citizen of Canada
> > John G. Wrigley
Comment: Thanks to "shovelgate" it looks like we may finally get rid of the Liberals at the next election (and not a moment too soon)(Mulroney is starting to like like a pussycat compared to these pinko Liberals!!) - the Reform Party is on our side.
[This message has been edited by gunsmoke2 (edited February 26, 2000).]
Found this letter on another site that someone wrote, thought it interesting and well written..
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> "I expressed my concerns about sat TV to the Supreme Court of Canada and received the following reply, for what it's worth:" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Reception/Réception <Reception@scc-csc.gc.ca>
> > To: 'John Wrigley' <jwrigley@sprint.ca>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 3:30 PM
> > Subject: RE: International Broadcast signals via Satellite
> > Ottawa, Ontario
> > K1A 0J1
> > Mr. John Wrigley
> > Dear Mr. Wrigley:
> > This is to assure you that the Supreme Court of Canada has received your
> > email of January 25, 2000 concerning the case involving the reception of
> > International Telecommunications.
> >
> > I regret to inform you that the Court is only permitted to consider
> > material submitted by parties to an action or by an intervener. I am
> > also sure that you will understand that it would be inappropriate for
> > the Court to comment on a case presently before it.
> >
> > Yours sincerely,
> >
> > Anneliese Villeneuve
> >
> > Director, Corporate Services
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Wrigley [mailto:jwrigley@sprint.ca]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 4:59 PM
> > To: reception@scc-csc.gc.ca
> > Cc: davidpratt@igs.net; manleyj@parl.gc.ca; coppss@parl.gc.ca
> > Subject: International Broadcast signals via Satellite
> >
> >
> > To the Honourable Justices Members of the Supreme Court of Canada
> >
> > I wish to bring to the court's attention an issue that is soon to be on
> > your agenda.
> > I am referring to the ongoing controversy regarding the reception of
> > International Broadcast and Telecommunications signals via satellite,
> > specifically Direct to Home TV signals emanating from the United States.
> > It is not my intention to attempt to influence the court, as I realise
> > that the Justices' decisions are based on the interpretation of law as
> > opposed to personal opinions and external influences.
> > I merely wish to express my deep concern for the principles that made
> > this country great and the freedoms for which our fathers made the
> > supreme sacrifice in two world wars.
> > It has been my understanding that the Canadian Charter of Rights and
> > Freedoms forms a protection against the erosion of Freedom of
> > Information, Freedom of Communication by media, and the Free flow of
> > Ideas, among other concepts such as Freedom of Religion, Speech etc.
> > These freedoms form the very cornerstone of our western democratic
> > civilization, and I fear that they are now in jeopardy by the intrusion
> > of the Government of Canada in what they believe is their right to
> > dictate what citizens may and may not watch on television under the
> > disguise of "protecting Canadian culture and promoting Canadian
> > content".
> > It is my opinion that considerable pressure has been brought to bear by
> > certain "entertainment services" in collusion with the CRTC to attempt
> > to criminalize a citizen's right to watch foreign TV or listen to
> > foreign radio broadcasts. This issue has been clouded by their "It's
> > only TV" attitude, but the Justices have the wisdom to see through this
> > attitude and examine the real issue.
> > One must ask the question, "Are Canadians only able to receive foreign
> > information, news, and entertainment services if one of the Broadcast or
> > Telecommunications monopolies decide there is money to be made from it's
> > delivery?"
> > "Does a Canadian of British descent such as myself lose his right to see
> > British TV by paying a "foreign" programme provider because Bell
> > Expressvu, Rogers Cable, Baton or Shaw can't make a profit from its
> > delivery?"
> > Far from protecting Canadian content and culture, these businesses are
> > interested only in preserving their monopolies for commercial profit.
> > One wonders what may be next - perhaps control of the internet, or the
> > upcoming introduction of digital radio.
> > I must ask myself - "Does the right of a business interest to make a
> > profit override my personal right to receive information, entertainment
> > and ideas regardless of borders under our Charter?" I sincerely hope
> > that the Justices will rule that the latter right take precedence.
> > I thank you for taking the time to listen to my concerns
> >
> > Proud Citizen of Canada
> > John G. Wrigley
Comment: Thanks to "shovelgate" it looks like we may finally get rid of the Liberals at the next election (and not a moment too soon)(Mulroney is starting to like like a pussycat compared to these pinko Liberals!!) - the Reform Party is on our side.
[This message has been edited by gunsmoke2 (edited February 26, 2000).]