Copyright Reform Luddite Style!

What can we the consumer’s expect from the Bill C-32 the government’s proposed copyright reform? Sadly, though the bill may be a slight improvement on Harper’s last ill-conceived attempt at a new legal frame work for the digital age, it remains hopelessly out of touch with the two stakeholders who arguably should have the most say in this process: artists and the public.

While Harper paid lip service to the importance of public consultation and transparency, primarily through town hall meetings and online debates, this appears to have been mere window dressing, in the end. Overall, C-32 seems to favour the lobbies that represent the music and entertainment interests, whereas consumers and artist’s interests are very much a secondary concern.

Case in point: many musicians favour an extension of the blank copying levy (which compensates for revenue that might be lost when consumers make private copies) a potentially valuable source of revenue that is sometimes derided as an “ipod tax” by critics.

Worse yet, the new law would make the enforcement of digital locks a priority. Annoyingly, this gives the corporations the power to sue consumers who break such “locks” even for the purposes of creating a copy of a legally purchased DVD as a back up, for up to $ 5,000 in damages! You’ve got to be fucking kidding!!!!

One would think, this kind of criminalization and penalization of regular folks, would be an affront to Harper’s supposed populist sensibilities. However, as we’ve seen before, this government’s grasp of science & technology (i.e. climate change) often borders on luddism. The digital revolution has forever changed the entertainment business, just don’t tell that to the flat earth society that controls the government!



The Future is Unwritten

Republic of Quebec? Has the ICJ given Quebec The green light to separate?

Last weeks opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case, is sure to cause a firestorm of controversy that will provoke debate in this country for as long as the question of Quebec’s place in Canada remains unresolved.

Already, much of the legal punditry is wringing it’s hands in anticipation of the inevitable crowing by the separatists over how the international community is now on their side, no matter what the feds say! However, as one who has studied this question in great detail, I must tell you we shouldn’t get too carried away.

For starters, the ICJ opinion is just that: one interpretation of the law, as opposed to a legally binding decision that would force the parties to act a certain way (i.e. requiring Serbia and others to recognize Kosovo as a state). In fact, the court was careful not to rule on the matter of whether Kosovo is now a full-fledged state, with all of the rights and responsibilities that entails. Thus, this still remains basically a political decision, to be decided on a case- by-case basis. Though, Kosovo certainly has more and more credibility, in that regard.

More importantly, the current political climate doesn’t bode well for the separatists/sovereigntist/autonomist (or whatever the hell they are calling it these days!) cause. A recent CROP poll indicates that the movement is in the doldrums at the moment with only 24% of Quebecers identifying themselves as sovereigntist, and a massive 58% agreeing that the whole business has become “outmoded”! While this does not mean the end of separatism as we know it this country, as we know how volatile an issue this can be, it does suggest, however, that we will not be hearing any harping from the BQ and PQ in this matter, anytime soon. It’s, frankly, putting the cart before the horse, to engage in a rather obscure legal debate about international law before we have resolved the political situation in Quebec.


The Future is Unwritten

Why the Leafs and Liberals Stink

With the Grits kicking off yet another cross country tour this summer (dubbed the “Liberal Express” by party flacks) the other day in Ottawa and, given that only 1 in 4 Canadians approves of Count Iggula, this move smacks absolutely of desperation and a lack of originality. Thus, It’s high time to make a long overdue but highly apt comparison between two Canadian institutions that are seemingly in terminal decline: The Liberal Party of Canada and the Toronto Maple Leafs.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit two things: A) I’m both a Dipper ( Duh!) and B) a lifelong Habs fan. I relished every second of last season’s unexpected trip to the Eastern Conference finals, aside from the drubbing we suffered at the hands of those dirty Flyers! But even if I weren’t, I would make this case, because the similarities between these two fading national brands, are striking!

On the one hand, we have the Leafs, perennial laughingstocks of the NHL. Holders of the record for the longest Stanley Cup drought in Hockey (1967), now that the Chicago Blackhawks put an end to theirs. A team that, rather like the Grits, has a reputation for poaching other team’s best players and ruining them (Owen Nolan, Phaneuf, etc.). But most galling of all, especially to the millions of hockey fans who support one of Canada’s 5 other teams, there is the absurd claim, made mostly by the Leafs marketing department, that they are “Canada’s team.” What a slap in the face to all of us poor schmucks who support Les Canadiens with their 100 year history, and their 24 Stanley Cup victories! Worse, the Leafs are conspiring against the expansion of pro hockey in this country by putting the kibosh on Jim Basillie’s attempts to bring another hockey franchise to southern Ontario!

On the other, we have the similarly pompous sounding “Natural Governing Party of Canada.” Notwithstanding the past four years, naturally. The Grits also have a knack for taking the best and brightest (using the latter a tad loosely) from other parties and killing their careers ( i.e. Belinda, Bob Rae, etc.). Much like their moronic counterparts at the Toronto Maple Leafs, Liberals don’t look kindly upon any competition on their turf and are capable of the most odious behaviour when challenged by their opponents (i.e. trying to lump Thomas Mulcair in with the Gun nuts!). Also, like the Leafs, Grits have become so complacent after years of being in power that they began to take their supporters for granted and have not regained their former glory since.

There is one major difference, however: The Leafs are, paradoxically, in spite of years of bumbling, the wealthiest franchise in Canadian sports. Whereas, the LPC are in all kinds of financial difficulty at the moment, especially when compared with the robust war chest amassed by the Tories, without any relief in sight.




The Future is Unwritten

Coalition Fever

The recent coalition formed by Britain’s Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats and the Tories under James Cameron, has led to wild speculation by the punditry in this country about the possible coalitions that could come out of the next election. Call it coalition fever!

Though, they managed to hammer out an agreement between them, in a remarkably short period of time (6 days!), the newlyweds in this marriage may discover that they have more in common than they realized when they decided to take the plunge. In the process, hopefully, giving the coalition movement in Canada, particularly between the Dippers and Grits, new impetus.

Of course, every marriage, especially one that was as hastily put together as this one, is bound to have some unforeseen troubles. In this case, how to resolve the difference of opinion on the matter of reducing Britain’s massive debt crisis? Lib Dems made it clear that they favoured raising taxes, whereas their Tory counterparts, employing typical thatcherite logic, want to cut public spending and dismantle the social safety net. The solution was an idea that Harper would doubtless need to look up in his dictionary: compromise! As the official document states “the main burden of deficit reduction (will) be borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes.”

Perhaps most interesting, is the compromise worked out on the issue of electoral reform. The Lib Dems (like the NDP) want to introduce some form of proportional representation in the UK. Whereas, the Tories think every thing is right as rain with the current system. In the end, they both decided that they would hold a referendum on the question, giving the people a chance to decide if they like it and both parties a chance to make their case.

Given that Harper’s Tories are nowhere near majority levels in the polls and haven’t been since the last prorogation in December, I suppose we won’t hear the chattering classes shutting up about this issue anytime soon! Perhaps, we should all be giving the British example some serious thought in Canada.

The Future is Unwritten

To merge or not to merge? That is not the question!

There’s been much speculation of late about the prospects of a unite the left movement in Canada which would result in some sort of merger of the “left wing” parties, in much the same way the Conservative Alliance (formerly Reform Party) and the Progressive Conservatives did back in 2003. Legendary Liberal bag man Warren Kinsella and former PM Chretien, seem to be behind this mischief and have publicly supported it. Although, so far, the Dipper named in most of the rumours as the NDP’s representative, “Honest Ed” Broadbent, is keeping stum regarding the controversy.

Whereas, that marriage seems to have worked out well, at least for the Reformers in the sense that they managed to come to power in 2006, largely because they finally had the numbers to defeat the Big Red Machine (a.k.a the Grits), albeit, just by the skin of their teeth. This would probably be a disaster for the Greens, Grits and Dippers (I exclude the Bloc, as their participation would make things nigh impossible!) in more ways than one.

We may have considered a getting into bed with the Grits after the ’08 elections as a desperate measure in order to give Harper’s government the boot, but that was a very different Grit party we were dealing with. The principled but politically naïve Stéphane Dion would have been a suitable coalition partner because he was progressive enough on most issues (i.e. Green Shift) and weak enough that he would have depended on Jack’s strong communication skills to sell his government’s policies. Not so with Ignatieff! The man has demonstrated that he’s rather to the right of the political spectrum. Further, his massive ego would never allow the NDP to play a prominent role in any new party or coalition government, so long as he was in charge.

Not to mention, a merger/coalition at this point would be extremely premature, to say the least. Surely the constitution of the NDP would require the Party’s membership to be consulted (perhaps by referendum) before a major decision like this could be implemented. And, to put not to fine a point on it, this scheme hasn’t a snowballs chance in hell of being approved! The Liberal party may be a top-down organization, as evidenced by the undemocratic way in which Iggy became leader, but the NDP’s a very different animal.

Moreover, we would not have nearly enough seats between us at the moment, to bring down the government and cause an election or form our own (hence the ill-fated wooing of the separatist BQ, last time around).

But perhaps the best argument against some sort of coalition at this stage or, worse still, a merger of the parties, is the moral one ( I can just imagine Grit spin doctors laughing at such a quaint notion, as I write this). We run the risk of losing our moral compass by making a Faustian bargain with the Grits in some vain attempt to gain power. The Grits simply are no longer the party of social democracy and, apart from a few exceptions, have essentially abandoned Trudeau’s admirable notion of making Canada a “Just Society.” An idea that, former Dipper leaders (including Broadbent), were able to support morally and politically.

The Future is Unwritten

The Politics of the World Cup

I know that, with the World Cup 2010 South Africa, just around the corner, soccer (or football, as it known pretty much every where else) fans the world over are rejoicing. It’s the beautiful game, right? What could possibly go wrong?

Yet, international soccer has been the cause of tremendous frictions between countries in the past and has even led to a bona-fide war, in at least once case ( El Salvador vs. Honduras-1969). So you can forget all that crap about the power of sport to bring different peoples together and elevating humanity, because the World Cup definitely has political implications for the countries that participate, and not all of them are good.

First, there’s the host nation. The “Rainbow nation” hasn’t exactly found the pot of gold yet, if you get my meaning. In fact the country is currently experiencing a fair amount of turmoil due to political events that have nothing to do with the World Cup. 2 in particular seem not to bode well for the chances of smooth sailing at this international sporting event: The death of white supremacist Eugene Terre’blanche, under mysterious circumstances, which reminded everyone of the monsters of the past that still lurk under the bed in that country. More recently, the leader of the ANC( South Africa’s ruling party) youth wing shocking his country and the world with declarations of support for Robert Mugabe and the singing of the racist song “kill the Boer”, which is, apparently, a party standard.

More problematic, is the prospect of the two Koreas meeting at some stage of the tournament. Given the escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula over the sinking of a South Korean warship by a North Korean submarine( how this backward country, can figure out how to operate such sophisticated technology, is beyond me). These two countries are currently on the brink of war and it wouldn’t take much to push them over it. If the Dear Leader’s( Kim Jung il’s official title) beloved Choilima ( the team’s nickname) lose badly to the other side expect one of two outcomes: A) a patriotic war declared against the south to create a rally-around-the-flag effect or, B) massive unrest in the DPRK possibly leading to the toppling of the tyrannical dynasty that’s has ruled that country with an iron fist for too long. Either way, enjoy the game!

The Future is Unwritten

What's it all about Michael?

Why do I love Michael Caine? It’s not strictly about the acting talent. Though that’s a huge part of it. Let’s be honest, the man has dropped more than his fair share of bombs, so to speak, over the years. To hear the critics tell it, his latest movie Harry Brown, which one critic recently called “neo-fascist” in its politics, is one of these.

On the other hand, when has Alfie (the name of one of Cain’s most memorable characters) given monkeys what the chattering classes of the film industry had to say about him or his roles. After all this is a man who famously said, when asked why he did so many bad movies, that “ They pay the same as good movies.” With that kind of cockney guttersnipe humour, frankly, it’s hard to hold any of his cinematic mistakes against the man. It also demonstrates as key point about Caine’s success, that the man has had such a long and storied career, that at this point no single film role will ever be able to define it. The fact is, like all legends, the man has transcended his medium and become a cultural and national treasure.

Caine resume includes roles that have not only ensured his own legacy, but also represent a kind of guide to post-war Britain’s social, cultural and political evolution. Zulu, one of his most beloved films, an action, adventure historical epic with a slightly racists depiction of the natives and a slightly colonial portrayal of the heroic British regiment. In Alfie (please don’t mention the re-make), Caine plays a lovable cockney cad whose womanizing eventually causes his undoing (admittedly, not much of a stretch for Caine!). Get Carter, a brilliant gangster film that is set in the decaying former industrial hub of Newcastle. All these films deal with themes that reflect the zeitgeist and problems that afflicted British society at the time they were made.

For my money, nothing epitomizes the cool Britannia slogan better than Cain. He has been adopted by every generation as symbol of both suave sexuality and iconoclasm (particularly when it comes to challenging the class system in his films), and has been name checked in countless pop songs (e.g. Michael Cain by Madness). Caine’s new movie may be pants but, ultimately, whose going begrudge and old geezer his fun.


The Future is Unwritten