The National "Citizens" Coalition
It's worth keeping an eye on the scribblings from this cabal of right-wingers, as they might be quietly crafting a Project for a New Canadian Century. If you have not heard of the NCC, they are busy creating all sorts of justifications for leveraging ever more power to the wealthy. In case you're wondering if they have any real influence on Conservative Party, Stephen Harper is a past president, so I'm sure the official answer is no.
I'll give Unprincipled Bastard one thing - when he said that a Conservative victory would be very good for people like him (the wealthy), he was right. And these are the people holding the new government's feet to the fire to make sure of it.
In my effort to educate myself, I will periodically focus on their various policy musings, as there are several that I'm sure will become national issues, or more worryingly won't, as time goes on.
During this past election campaign, they published this article on campaign "free speech". They refer to the legislation of 2000 that limited the influence of third party groups during election campaigns. Specifically, a third party cannot spend more than $3,000 in any given riding (see Canada Elections Act, 2000) to oppose a candidate or issue.
Naturally, the National Citizen's Coalition thinks that this is a heinous infringement on freedom of speech. They of course fail to mention that in any real sense, this mostly limits those with large disposable incomes from exerting undo influence in the media during a campaign. While it is possible for a regular-Joe citizen to gather up some people and some money to put a smokin' ad in the paper to save the whales or whatever, it is infinitely easier for a bank or corporation to toss some money at an ad company, hire some focus groups, and fucking campaign. Yeah, free speech.
I offer a simple example of how this plays out in reality.
In 2001, amid concerns that many had become addicted to gambling on video lottery machines, others bankrupted, and still others had committed suicide, the New Brunswick government held a referendum on the video lottery gaming industry. (Wanna see the question they asked - here it is.)
During the referendum, amid complaints from citizens' groups that could not afford to advertise, the government allowed "free speech", and the opponents lined up. On the side of video gambling were the bar and restaurant owners who ponied up large sums of cash to protect these cash cows. Local television networks were full of ads about "responsible gambling" and threats of what would happen to the local economy if they weren't allowed to maintain their machines. On the other side were church groups and local social workers - people that had the job of picking up the pieces after someone went off the rails at the helm of one VLT too many. Of course they could not afford very many ads on television, their budgets being much smaller.
The pro-VLT lobby won with a relativelly slim majority.
In the utopian world that modern-day right-wingers inhabit, this is a classic example of free speech at work. "Why, isn't it obvious that the pro-VLT lobby cared more about their cause and put more effort into winning the referendum?" Yes, naturally the VLT owners cared more about the issue than the local social groups who worked with the gambling-addicted. Oh yes, they cared more and they had a budget.
Do not get fooled by this talk of "free speech". When it comes to free speech, money is what really does the talking. The po' folk blog.
I'll give Unprincipled Bastard one thing - when he said that a Conservative victory would be very good for people like him (the wealthy), he was right. And these are the people holding the new government's feet to the fire to make sure of it.
In my effort to educate myself, I will periodically focus on their various policy musings, as there are several that I'm sure will become national issues, or more worryingly won't, as time goes on.
During this past election campaign, they published this article on campaign "free speech". They refer to the legislation of 2000 that limited the influence of third party groups during election campaigns. Specifically, a third party cannot spend more than $3,000 in any given riding (see Canada Elections Act, 2000) to oppose a candidate or issue.
Naturally, the National Citizen's Coalition thinks that this is a heinous infringement on freedom of speech. They of course fail to mention that in any real sense, this mostly limits those with large disposable incomes from exerting undo influence in the media during a campaign. While it is possible for a regular-Joe citizen to gather up some people and some money to put a smokin' ad in the paper to save the whales or whatever, it is infinitely easier for a bank or corporation to toss some money at an ad company, hire some focus groups, and fucking campaign. Yeah, free speech.
I offer a simple example of how this plays out in reality.
In 2001, amid concerns that many had become addicted to gambling on video lottery machines, others bankrupted, and still others had committed suicide, the New Brunswick government held a referendum on the video lottery gaming industry. (Wanna see the question they asked - here it is.)
During the referendum, amid complaints from citizens' groups that could not afford to advertise, the government allowed "free speech", and the opponents lined up. On the side of video gambling were the bar and restaurant owners who ponied up large sums of cash to protect these cash cows. Local television networks were full of ads about "responsible gambling" and threats of what would happen to the local economy if they weren't allowed to maintain their machines. On the other side were church groups and local social workers - people that had the job of picking up the pieces after someone went off the rails at the helm of one VLT too many. Of course they could not afford very many ads on television, their budgets being much smaller.
The pro-VLT lobby won with a relativelly slim majority.
In the utopian world that modern-day right-wingers inhabit, this is a classic example of free speech at work. "Why, isn't it obvious that the pro-VLT lobby cared more about their cause and put more effort into winning the referendum?" Yes, naturally the VLT owners cared more about the issue than the local social groups who worked with the gambling-addicted. Oh yes, they cared more and they had a budget.
Do not get fooled by this talk of "free speech". When it comes to free speech, money is what really does the talking. The po' folk blog.
