The DAILY DIGEST: INFORMATION and OPINION from ST. JOHN'S to VICTORIA.
ST.JOHN'S TELEGRAM - Driving home the point
CORNER BROOK WESTERN STAR - Speech will be worth watching
CAPE BRETON POST - Cadman affair jumps boundaries
AMHERST DAILY NEWS - Throwing mud goes over the edge
MONTREAL GAZETTE - Anglos need calm defenders
OTTAWA CITIZEN - Getting the message out
BELLEVILLE INTELLIGENCER - Program gives some seniors reason to smile
TORONTO STAR - Worst time of all to insult Ontario
NATIONAL POST - Caledonia + 2
HAMILTON SPECTATOR - We can prevent these tragedies
NIAGARA FALLS REVIEW - Flaherty's comments nothing short of sabotage
LONDON FREE PRESS - Who will decide what's fit for film?
K-W RECORD - Flaherty should end his spat with McGuinty
WINDSOR STAR - Smoking ban: The sky is the limit
SUDBURY STAR - Lesson of smoke detectors needs reinforced
WINNIPEG SUN - Who will decide what's fit for film?
SASKATOON STARPHOENIX - Canada risks repercussions from meddling
CALGARY HERALD - The debate is too late
CALGARY SUN - King Ed silences the critics
EDMONTON JOURNAL - Ed Stelmach earns Albertans' trust
EDMONTON SUN - Ed-volution rocks Alberta in landslide
LETHBRIDGE HERALD - Change in wind, not in the capital
VANCOUVER SUN - Integrated approach to help chronic offenders is a positive step forward
Ottawa to amend Indian Act over property rights: Strahl
all 1,004 news articles » Harper denies meddling in US presidential primaries
Canada wins split decision in softwood ruling
Canada the easy target
Renotiate NAFTA? Sounds like a good idea
Obama and Clinton Have a Point: Let's Take a Hard Look at NAFTA
Ottawa sorry for role in Obama flap
Bad on trade = bad for Canada
It's time to rethink NAFTA
Lumber ruling seen good for Canada but bad for U.S.
Split decision in Canada-US lumber row
Bank of Canada slashes rate by half point
Census shows aging Canadian workforce
The coming financial pandemic
Can the U.S. financial crisis be contained within America's borders? Nouriel Roubini says no--and explains how the contagion will spread
HEALTH CARE RELATED
Communication woes prescription for health trouble
Thinning blue line a scary prospect
More immigrants keeping mother tongue
POLITICS IN THE PROVINCES
Stelmach's triumph buries the jibes. Now peace will reign in PC land
Polls suggests Tories and Liberals flat-lining
Canada says confident can end CWB barley monopoly
. Our date is still August 1, 2008 and we will move heaven and earth to make that happen
L'affaire Chuck Cadman
Dion ignored a formal notice of Harper (Le Devoir)
Ethics committee unlikely to probe Cadman affair
Letter demands apology for Cadman affair remarks
PM threatens to sue Dion
But Liberal leader says he won't be bullied by libel notice issued over bribery allegations
Time for an answer, Mr. Harper
PM is the one inflicting damage to his reputation
Ezra Levant: Not their style
Candidate never asked to step aside
David Matta was party's nominee in B.C. riding
House of glass
Controversy just a stone's throw away in Cadman affair
Harper says it wasn't his top aide who leaked document hurting Obama campaign
Political fires keeping Harper busy
Cadman affair, Flaherty rhetoric, other problems have PM working to maintain good-manager image
MP worries EI for fishermen faces trade threat
Layton vs. Harper - videoPROGRAMMES
The crimes of Paul Bernardo at the root of the law on censorship by State
Bill to amend the mandate of the CWB
A federal election over barley?
Ottawa Tables Bill To End Wheat Board's Monopoly On Barley Sales
West Coast sub maintenance plan hard to rationalize
Act today, plan for tomorrow
The case against man-made warming
In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases.http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=350842
OPINION AND INFORMATION
It all started with Meech Lake
A new book struggles earnestly to make sense of our love affair with the donut
Leaks may have their place, if you consider the source
Flaherty budget transforms the way Ottawa taxes
The decision to exempt savings from tax represents a sea change for Canada
Attending an English-rights meeting can require real courage
Young sovereignists were determined to disrupt weekend meeting
Western intervention just colonization
- Is abortion too hot a topic for campuses?
- Fetal rights stir debate on abortion
- How did abortion become a consumer-protection issue?
- Why I am an abortion doctor
- Why I am not an abortion doctor
Michael Fortier: l'arroseur arrosé
Le Sénat se propose de «sauver les meubles»
Harper met en demeure Dion de lui présenter des excuses
Charest s'inquiète des intentions des démocrates américains
Péage: Montréal aurait à négocier avec Ottawa
Élections en Alberta: les conservateurs l'emportent
Reconstruction: tout ne baigne pas dans l'huile en Afghanistan
L'affaire Cadman se corse
Cinéma - Les crimes de Paul Bernardo à l'origine de la loi sur la censure d'État
Karlheinz Schreiber relance les députés
Vote sur le sort de la mission afghane le 13 mars
Les libéraux ne s'excusent pas
Ottawa nie avoir fait de l'ingérence
Une autre étape de franchie
Projet de loi C-10
Les conservateurs ne bronchent pas
Guerre des mots
Feu nourri entre Ottawa et Queen's Park
Les pêcheurs se sentent menacés
Commission canadienne du blé
Projet de loi pour modifier le mandat de la CCB
La Banque du Canada abaisse son taux directeur d'un demi-point
Foire aux questions - Le conflit en Afghanistan
- Pourquoi y a-t-il un conflit en Afghanistan?
- La chronologie des premiers événements
- Quand les talibans ont-ils été délogés?
- Pourquoi l'OTAN est-elle entrée en scène?
- Combien y a-t-il de troupes étrangères?
- Pourquoi n'y a-t-il pas des Casques bleus de l'ONU?
- Quelle est la nature de la présence canadienne?
- Comment le Canada a-t-il abouti à Kandahar?
- Quel est le coût de la mission canadienne en Afghanistan?
- Les coûts humains de la guerre
- Quel est l'avenir de l'engagement canadien?
- L'Armée nationale afghane sera-t-elle bientôt autonome?
- L'opium, le nerf de la guérilla?
- Que faire pour enrayer cette source de financement?
BELOW(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)If you can't stand the filth, get out of the pigpen - or make a conscientious effort on your own part to stay above the petty and the insulting. Few politicians can honestly claim they have turned the other cheek. Most, with a careful inspection of their own records, would be forced to admit they are just about as down and dirty as any of their fellows. It's pots taking umbrage at remarks from the kettle.
Libel courts simply are not the place for political squabbles.
Libel courts simply are not the place for political squabbles.
And going to the courts over and over again is simply a trap.
It eats time and money from those who have both, and simply serves to show the difference between politicians with cash on hand and ordinary citizens, who generally put up with the slights and slurs that come with everyday life.
Calling your lawyer, Minister? Save your breath and our money.
«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»Prime Minister Stephen Harper's legal notice that he intends to sue the Liberal Party and its leading lights for libel lends an odd symmetry to the Cadman affair. Both the lawsuit and the affair pose questions about where the boundary lies between politics and law.
Cadman affair jumps boundaries print this article
The Cape Breton Post
Cadman affair jumps boundaries print this article
The Cape Breton Post
Consider a sports analogy. Any beanball thrown in a baseball game or sucker punch in a hockey game meets the definition of assault in the Criminal Code yet the consensus holds that such matters are best left to the internal codes of the sports unless an offence is so egregious that the police are compelled to get involved. Todd Bertuzzi was criminally charged after his career-ending retaliatory assault on Steve Moore in a 2004 National Hockey League game, but legal entanglements are notable for their rarity despite the violence in certain professional sports.
In politics, too, the prevailing ethos is that the wheeling and dealing, the insults and the accusations, stay in-house. Everyone knows that outright bribery for a vote or other political barter constitutes classic corruption, and for that reason is seriously illegal. But when politics by its nature is often about bargaining and trading, where exactly is the boundary?
The debate comes up whenever a politician, especially a prominent one, is persuaded or induced to switch parties and the reward for doing so is obvious to all. The surprise jump of MP David Emerson from the Liberals just two weeks after the Jan. 23, 2006, general election provided the Tories with a measure of payback for Belinda Stronach's higher profile defection the other way in May 2005, which helped save the Paul Martin Liberal government from defeat in the Parliament.
Both Emerson and Stronach landed directly in cabinet posts with their new parties. Why aren't those bribes, or criminal inducements? The distinction is not obvious, except for the consensus that this sort of dealing, while it may cut close to the edge at times, is essential to the black art of politics.
What makes the Cadman affair jump off the page is the figure attached to it the "life insurance" policy worth $1 million that two Conservative operatives are alleged to have offered Independent MP Chuck Cadman, who was known to be dying of cancer, if he would cast the deciding vote to defeat the Liberal government in May 2005. Wherever the line may lie between political dealing and a criminality, seven figures jumps it in a bound; the only question is whether that offer was ever made.
Similarly, Harper with his legal notice is saying the Liberals crossed the boundary of acceptable political debate by accusing him outside the absolute privilege of Parliament of complicity in a criminal act. The Liberal Party website, for example, published a statement under the heading: Harper Knew of Conservative Bribery.
The prime minister may well have a case because it's highly unlikely the Liberals could prove that headline as factual, based on what is publicly known at this point. But is Harper right to take the fight outside the political rink? Calling in the courts to adjudicate donnybrooks among professional politicians is not good idea. Harper should drop the gloves and go toe-to-toe with his accusers.
Subject: Re: Daily Digest March 3, 2008
From: "Rose Dyson"
Any positive coverage on the Conservative Government's excellent initiative to eliminate funding for extremely violent and pornographic film and TV production?
Rose Anne Dyson Ed.D.
Consultant in Media Education
Chair: Science for Peace (Media Working Group), University of Toronto
President: Canadians Concerned about Violence in Entertainment
All I've seen are of the following nature.
Who will decide what's fit for film?A plan by the Conservative government to withhold funds for any film or TV show it deems offensive may be well-intentioned, but is clearly ill-conceived.
Proposed changes to the Income Tax Act would allow the Heritage Ministry to refuse tax credits to any projects it doesn't like. That means in reality those projects simply won't get off the ground in the first place.
At present, film and television producers can get tax credits if they can certify Canadian content. There are already lots of exclusions, such as news, sports, reality TV, pornography and game shows, but with the definition broadened and vague, who will take a chance on financing if there's a chance somebody later can decide it doesn't suit their taste?
Somehow, what's good and what's bad will be considered by folks from Heritage and the Department of Justice, but what kind of criteria they will use, and just how they will decide, is unclear.
Anything "determined to be contrary to public policy" will be vulnerable, according to a spokesperson for the Minister of Canadian Heritage: material that denigrates an identifiable group, gratuitous violence, explicit sex . . .
Critics say that sounds like censorship and they're correct. They wonder if films such as Juno or Brokeback Mountain would pass the test. Never mind some other less known and better known films. Let's face it, there are lots of movies out there and lots of opinions -- good and bad -- about each one of them.
Besides, sometimes opinion on a particular film or television show takes time to percolate in the public consciousness.
Just who will act on behalf of the government to decide which ones contain subject matter that deserves taxpayers' help and which ones do not? And how will these people know just what is acceptable and what is not? Do they represent Canadians? Or do they just represent the government's agenda?
It sounds well and good for the government to want to be more selective about the kinds of cultural products it helps fund, but the tax credit system in place now was established to encourage a film industry in this country. This proposal can only stifle it.
Either we want to encourage an industry and hope that it pays the economy back over time or we don't.
Beyond that, this can't possibly do anything but make the film and television we produce in Canada less provocative, less interesting, less cutting-edge, less likely to generate world attention and less likely to improve upon itself.
This kind of thing is likely, instead, simply to make the stuff more dull, and the industry, as a result, less healthy.