Well with all of his bluster and boasting Charles McVety sunk his own ship. Let's call it the 'Puritanical' shall we?The Liberals, specifically the Senator's, will not allow the clause that was hidden in Bill C-10, to go through.
McVety, by going all over the air waves spreading his inane view on this, has guaranteed that his desire to censor will be thwarted. I love it when the loons speak up. Apparently Harper doesn't have a leash for this guy, but he might consider getting one for Senator Majory LeBreton. She too has been repeating McVety's lines.
Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate, lashed back at Liberal Senator Francis Fox, who was questioning the government's intent regarding the amendment: "If Liberal senators are offended by the fact that we should not be protecting minority groups and child pornographers - that is, if they think we should be giving them free rein - they have every right to address that in the committee and move an amendment. We will then see what happens when it goes back to the House of Commons."
Yeah, that's right Senator. The Liberals are all for tax payers contributing to films that promote child pornography. I honestly do not think this ultra- right morals brigade have any idea of just how ridiculous they sound. Obviously there are rules, not to mention laws that prohibit such nonsense. In fact, she's probably been instrumental is passing some of them but they never do let facts get in the way do they?
Anyway, from the article, what I understand is this. The clause in question was initially inserted to prevent a movie about the Bernardo story being made in Canada. I suppose you can argue the merits of that, but you must also consider the mood of the country at the time.
The bill did not pass and many different versions were written and similarly, rejected. Maril Belanger, the Liberal critic on this file says that in the 2005 version, the Bill did not contain this clause, which tells me that the Con's must have reinserted it.
It seems apparent to me that the new draft wasn't studied well enough by any of the party's, except of course the Con's and I hope this stands as a lesson to all of them.
The good news is, the Con's sleight of hand was caught. The better news is that McVety himself killed it. Next....?
9 comments:
McVety is a genuinely sanctimonious greaseball.
Perfectly put!
I've got no brief with McV, and I can't say I'm a fan of how he does (political) business.
But "hidden"? It was there, as the saying goes, in plain sight. If opposition MP's didn't bother to read what they were given, perhaps you should take that up with them.
Or perhaps the Libs let it go through since it was pretty much what the Libs wanted to introduce when they were in charge. If you don't believe me, the various wordings - with references to "source doc's", I hasten to add - can be seen here.
I don't think the "mood of the country" has changed all that much when it comes to the sorts of things that inspired Sheila Copps et al to introduce these changes back in '03.
Jason, obviously you don't read very well.
I'll repeat it in cap's, perhaps that will be easier for you.
THE CLAUSE WAS REMOVED AND DID NOT APPEAR IN THE 2005 BILL.
The, Con's put it back in.
Stephen Taylor? Ha! Yes that would be a credible reference. I didn't waste my time reading your link.
We agree on this. Greater scrutiny should of occured by all. However, seeing McVety hoisted as they say...well words can't describe my glee.
Jason, your fears are covered, both in the Department and the Criminal Code. This is nonsense. It's an attempt to censor, plain and simple and it's been caught out. McVety was pretty clear what he was after.
Oh and if it is so obvious in the Bill, would you care to point it out to me? Plain sight I think was your phrase.
I did read your post. You should read Taylor's post. Honestly, that "I couldn't be bothered to click" thing's a little juvenile, don't you think? After all, if I only read blogs from people with whom I agreed, would I be here? Anyway, he provides links to the Govt of Canada source documents (by that I mean pre- and post-'06 government...).
As for where the wording is - again, if you can handle looking at the site of someone with whom you disagree, Taylor's site has the links to the actual bill, and he highlights the section.
The debate about whether it's censorship or not is another issue entirely, and an interesting one, but that's not what I was commenting on.
Fair enough jason. I read the post. As usual, it cherry picks the clause that he thinks is in question and does not tell us if there is another clause. Typical and that is why I questioned the source. That you would read such a post and not dig deeper is all telling.
How is it that you and other Harper followers, don't think past your nose? You do no homework and eat the pap you are fed without questioning. It's quite bizarre.
Something gave McVety glee. I've tried to read the bill and admit it's pretty tough to navigate. I'm obviously not a lawyer.
If it's as innocent as Taylor claims, why then would McVety cheering? He clearly saw victory for his cause. I don't recall him regaling the Lib's for their bold moves on this issue.
Whatever the clause is, it will be shut down and so will McVety, for the moment. Hey, he wants to reintroduce the abortion conversation.
He's a nutbar and if Taylor supports him, well what can be said about that?
(I had logged off by the time you responded, so I just saw your latest now.)
Ok, couple of things:
1. You can assume that I'm marching to someone else's tune if you want to, even though it just aint true. Hey, whatever gets you through the night. I'm a partisan, of course, just as you are - should I therefore assume that you get your orders/ideas from Dion, or Jason Cherniak?
2. I read not just S. Taylor's post - as helpful as it was - but the source doc's as well. I personally could follow it, but I don't judge you harshly for not doing so - these sorts of statutes aren't exactly easy reading.
3. Some of the Liberal MPs may have been in the same boat, but that's why they have staff (both partisan and non-partisan) to assist with this sort of thing.
4. Why is McV cheering? Probably because he thinks this can & should be used to ban such films outright, or at least cut off their funding (which isn't the same thing, but that's another debate). Maybe - and *this* is pure speculation on my part - he wants to take credit for something that he had zip to do with to make himself look more impressive (nb. I have no evidence that's the case, but I suppose anything's possible).
5. As near as I can tell, neither Taylor nor I "support" McV (you'd have to ask Taylor to know for sure; my public-policy conservatism is of the traditional liberal/libertarian variety). Just b/c McV and I support the same policy doesn't mean we do so for the same reasons. By that logic, if you currently support a policy supported by, say, the BQ - does that make you a Bloquiste? Of course not.
6. I am, believe it or not, not trying to bait you here (maybe I was a bit in my first comment, but even then there was a point behind it). I find I comment more at Liberal or other non-Tory blogs b/c I like the debate. It's *boring* to only read people with whom you agree, IMO. If you'd rather have it "all Liberal, all the time" around here, hey, it's *YOUR* blog, therefore your rules.
Jason, no to be honest, I do not prefer to have it all Liberal all the time. I enjoy honest debate, but to be honest, too often it's just silly sniping.
I think perhaps I was focused on some of the comments that sometimes arrive here.
So, I take you at your word.
BTW, I remember hearing that in the Conservative motion, the funding would only be awarded after the film was made, which for all intense and purpose makes the funding useless.
I can't remember where I saw that though.
I enjoy honest debate, but to be honest, too often it's just silly sniping.
That's certainly often the case, and not just on Liberal blogs.
And look, I'm no angel, and I'm sorry if I came across as a scold - I was a little grumpy at your earlier post but the fact is I enjoy the odd snarky remark or partisan dig as much as the next person. Nothing wrong with spicing things up or having a bit of fun.
But I also enjoy seeing a back-and-forth argument/discussion that isn't all slander, all the time.
I remember hearing that in the Conservative motion, the funding would only be awarded after the film was made, which for all intense and purpose makes the funding useless.
I hadn't heard that, which doesn't necessarily mean it isn't so. But of course, I find most of that funding "useless" anyway! ;o)
Post a Comment