Category: Politics

As a follow-up and update to my previous post, the CRTC (or whomever) has decided not to go ahead with the proposal to ease restrictions on broadcasting “false” news.

I can’t express how much of a relief this is.  The proposed loosening of the rules, which would have enabled broadcasters to air “false” news in cases where it did not cause direct harm, was a bad idea.

I came across this post earlier today and it scares me.  The CRTC is proposing changing the rules and regulation regarding the broadcasting of false or misleading news and information.  In a nutshell, they want to relax the standards that are in place.  They wish to go from the current “shall not broadcast any false or misleading news” to a much more liberal “any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public“.

That is one heck of a leap and certainly something I don’t see as benefiting Canadian citizens in the long run.  I like to know that what I see and read in news broadcasts and in print is not purely infotainment, but is instead at least based on true facts and hopefully has been produced by some sort of journalistic standards.  It is far too easy to concoct falsehoods for which “harm” exists but is too difficult to actually measure.  I don’t know what could have possessed the government to think that this was a good idea, but they should seriously reconsider their position.

If you want to comment on the proposed change, please click here and click “submit” for item 2011-14.

Here is my submission:

To whom it may concern,

I strenuously object to the proposal to restrict the controls over the dissemination of false news stories. The ability to hold broadcasters accountable for the material they provide is essential for the public good. Content portrayed as being based on facts must be able to be held at face value in order to have an informed population capable of making decisions for themselves without undue influence of those with a greater position of power than themselves. This is especially critical in the area of political discourse, which I fear would be the primary source of potential abuse of these changes.

While it would be naive to assume that is possible to totally eliminate such imbalances of power, it must be the duty of the government to strive to minimize the impact of such situations. By lessening the standard to only prohibit that which could could cause “harm”, the CRTC is creating the potential for litigation nightmare. The definition(s) of harm are in some cases very ephemeral and while people could agree that harm was done, it would be virtually impossible to determine the level of harm done. This kind of situation would create an unacceptable grey area in Canadian Law.

Finally, I am very comforted by the fact that I can trust “news” is based on solid verifiable facts. I would very much like to continue enjoying the confidence of knowing that my news is believable.

I am unsure as to the origin of, and impetus for, the proposed changes, but if they have come from the current sitting government, I would like to respectfully remind the CRTC that the current ruling party is a minority government, and by very definition, does not represent the views of a large swath of Canadians. I would certainly hope that the appropriate members of the the parties of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition have been consulted prior to bringing forth changes that could have a significant impact on Canada’s media landscape.

Respectfully,

So, Telus is finally offering the Apple iPhone in Canada.  Too bad they are pricing it exactly the same as Rogers does.

When I heard that Telus was going to be offering the iPhone, I was curious to see how they would try to draw people away from Rogers.  Finally, I though, and apples-for-apples level of competition.  Alas, I was obviously quite naive.

The requirement for a mandatory 3-year contract is the same as Rogers and is the biggest disappointment to me.  With Canada already having the lowest quality/highest priced cellular service in the developed world, we can’t be surprised that the telecommunications cartel in this country are so blatantly thumbing their nose at the consumers in this fashion.

With the wireless spectrum auction last year, I was eager to see 4 or 5 new entrants to the market, but as time goes on, that potential number is dropping to 1 or 2 and their entrance is seemingly delayed every time I check for news.

All in all, more depressing news for Canadian consumers.

I think the iPhone is a nice little toy and I certainly wouldn’t turn one down if it was offered to me, but I don’t plan on lining up to get one from Telus (or Rogers) anytime soon.

It’s not too often I compliment the government, much less the Federal Conservatives, but I’ve got to give them some credit here.  The government passed a bill eliminating the practice of giving convicted criminals 2-for-1 credit for time spent in detention before and during their trial.

I was always confused with this practice.  I mean, I have no problem with giving 1-for-1 credit when a person has been convicted.  I just think it’s fair.  They’ve been incarcerated so that should count toward their final sentence.

Judges still have the ability to award 1.5-to-1 time, but it will only be under certain circumstances and the judge will have to justify their actions when they choose to go that way.

There shouldn’t be loopholes or shortcuts in the justice system.  If a crime has a certain penalty, everyone should have to serve the proscribed penalty if they commit that particular crime.  Part of the point of the system is to create a deterrent and shortcuts and loopholes undermine the effectiveness of the deterrent.