For the second time this week, someone is demanding someone else take down a clip from the Agenda.
A blog called Buckdog posted a video of Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada's Green Party (and our guest tonight), where she appears to call Canadians stupid.
For the record, here's the clip:
I hear May saying "they think Canadians are stupid". what kinda backward foolishness is this?
Somebody's really desperate. She's not insulting us she's insulting the politicians who are afraid to say anything about Green tax shifting.
posted by LIVx...(imho) on 12 September 2008 at 4:43 PM
Thanks for writing in. I understand your take on the clip. What did you think of the Green Party's response to the blogger? Was it reasonable, or did it go too far?
posted by Mike Miner
on 12 September 2008 at 4:47 PM
I'm a closer follower of new media issues, and am the host of Digital-Copyright.ca . While copyright is in the name (And we have a lot to say about Bill C-61 during the election), we also discuss other technology law issues including the impact of the reverse-onus in defamation law on citizen journalism and blogging.
I headed to the GPC office this afternoon and asked the techies there that I knew (and was being introduced to) what they thought about this. I of course had strong opinions about the threat, having discussed this in the past with lawyers and knew that there wasn't a basis for this threat. I also observed how legal threats can often backfire. I was previously the host for a site called CanadianAllianceParty.net, in that short time when a party of that name existed. Their lawyers sent us a letter demanding we take the site down, so we published the letter online. We had media all over this, and had lawyers offering to take any case probono just to prove a point.
It was interesting to see how quickly the GPC handled this issue, quickly apologizing for the 'oops'.
Thoughts from my drop-in this afternoon is at http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4900
Hope other parties are noticing, and won't make the same type of oops. It would be great to have more people thinking about this and ensuring that defamation law is modernized such that it can't be abused to stifle legitimate even if controversial political speech. We also need to fix the reverse-onus to ensure that it is the plaintiff that has to prove the information is false, not the defendant having to prove that the information is true.
posted by Russell McOrmond on 12 September 2008 at 9:09 PM
After saying that all politicians think that Canadians are stupid she added, “and I fundamentally agree with that assessment”. Her turning to look at the others there when she said that seems to indicate she was catering to the other politicians to try to convince them that she is as smart as them for knowing this. Being ignorant of information does not by itself mean someone is stupid. Although an argument for stupidity could be made for the choice to remain ignorant, it is not a wise political comment to make if you want them to vote for your party. And someone who claims that others are stupid if they disagree with her concerning her conclusion is in fact acting stupid because the other person may in fact have additional data that disproves her position and/or have a better ability than she does to comprehend the relationship of all the factors involved. And, hopefully her backpedaling on the suing idea means she will not promote that kind of activity in the future (I think even she realizes that was stupid).
As far as the current carbon taxing ideas go, I think they are foolish methods to use to promote alternative clean energy sources. The current cost of our energy is sky high, with our economy under many severe recession threats, and some people want to up our energy costs even more under the guise that this will stimulate the switch to other energy sources. Duh, you can’t act in a manner that threatens to cripple the economy and expect money will flow into the technologies you want. First you promote the growth of the new technologies and then when they come online sufficiently well enough you warn the public in advance, for example 5 years in advance, that the taxes on the old fossil fuel energy sourcing methods will jump substantially. This allows the people to choose to manufacture and purchase the newer cleaner energy products and to sign on with cleaner electrical generating companies or to continue to stay with the products and companies that abusively use fossil fuels with the full knowledge of the consequences that will result from their staying the course. That will then give an added boost to the already established newer clean energy producing product companies and an additional incentive for new companies to enter the field, both of which will reduce prices further and improve efficiencies as they gear up for an even greater production demand. This method promotes economic activity instead of threatening our economy.
posted by JosephThePoet on 13 September 2008 at 2:43 PM
[quote] LIVx Thanks for writing in. I understand your take on the clip. What did you think of the Green Party's response to the blogger? Was it reasonable, or did it go too far?
posted by Mike Miner on 12 September 2008 at 4:47 PM [/quote]
heh. is that a trick question Mike? pausing a mo' to think a Deep Thought. (tongue resting firmly in cheek)
you "understand"? ok. it's plain as May; she never called me stupid. she cleverly posited that title on people who cynically think they can play me.
i think the Greens overreacted; they should have considered and reviewed the vid and situation first.
i get that a lot of our politicians are being sand-bagged and having all sorts of disgusting, foul things being slung at them by the boys in the ol' network, their dependents in the backroom, and their leaders--the Einstein-masterminds that they are (Not).
but, the Greens and others ought to try to think first, consider the source, or the motivation behind the ploy and stick to their knitting as the saying goes.
of course this thing went viral; so maybe i can understand the panic.
posted by LIVx...(imho) on 14 September 2008 at 12:47 PM
(imho) if we judged things in a court of law in this manner, accepting without question the way Taylor tried to manipulate E.May's comments, then Steven Harper would be in jail for his taped comments about Chuck Cadman.... i warn the conservatives not to make too much of this; else we're free to take Steve's unedited taped words of knowledge of a conspiracy to bribe a dying man in the same manner. take the beam out of your own Blue eye before you try to take the speck out of the Green eye of your sister....
posted by LIVx...(imho) on 14 September 2008 at 3:13 PM
I think she is commenting on her opinion on anyone who disagrees with her. It speaks to her opinion of others. And in this case Canadian Opinion. Its dangerous when Politicians think the peoples opinion on the matter doesn't matter. Or that they don't feel that others opinions have value. ---- Mays Bull dog type conversation enforces my belief as too what kind of person she is. Not some one I want at the board table. ---- Freud, would not let her off. Regardess she didn't even stumble. She felt comfortable as if she were speaking behind closed doors. This speaks to her ability to use inside voice and outside voice. ie. that she doesn't have enough caution.
posted by Scott. on 14 September 2008 at 10:32 PM
I agree that a quick reaction is a good idea. Harper got positive press from Jeffrey Simpson for being humble and willing to apologize. (Read his column; I still think Harper took water this week, but Simpson smells a winner.) I think the Greens are going to have to learn how to turn their grassroots support, with many faces and voices, into a unified message and not have people freelancing rude demands "Get get [sic] it down now."
Thanks for writing in. Very interesting to hear your perspective on this. Please come back and do it again.
posted by Mike Miner
on 14 September 2008 at 11:42 PM
Thanks for writing in. Very clear where you stand on those issues.
(For the record, you said May turned to the other politicians - there were no politicians on that panel. Just in case that impacts your opinion.)
Have you heard anything from any of the parties on energy policy that you've particularly liked?
posted by Mike Miner
on 14 September 2008 at 11:44 PM
I promise you, my Oprah-speak ("I understand" - I may as well feel your pain) was no trick. I just wanted to acknowledge your opinions before I asked a quesiton. Came out like a hippy.
posted by Mike Miner
on 14 September 2008 at 11:46 PM
You raise an interesting point.
I wonder, how candid should a politician be? Do you think people are willing to vote for frank people who didn't mind moving off the message track?
posted by Mike Miner
on 14 September 2008 at 11:48 PM
No, that doesn’t impact my opinion. I commented on the video information and she appeared to be pandering to the other people there to convince them that she also had the same level of intelligence to understand that Canadians are stupid.
I find that attempting to communicate with politicians is mostly a waste of time if you are not presenting specific currently acceptable credentials that “prove” you may have something of interest to say as their staff just sends a general format “thank you for your comments” reply and advertising for their political party’s points of view, and that it is even more of a waste of time to try to give information to politicians to help them make more informed decisions if you are not in their riding as their staff totally ignore your e-mail without anyone even reading it. Politician’s staffs are generally not trained to properly sift through information packages and pass the right ones along to others who may be able to better grasp the value of them, and a lot of politicians don’t have a clue or particularly care anyway.
Over many years I have occasionally sent information to all our federal politicians, provincial politicians, and even some local mayors to try to encourage intelligent thinking and planning for our future. I have been trying to promote things like wind generating and the hydrogen fueled vehicle through the installation of refueling stations across Canada and by working with the auto industry since I first heard of the farcical Kyoto agreement just prior to it being signed. We are still way behind the curve in these areas. We cannot sit idly by and hope the markets will be kind to us or compete with other countries against their overwhelming strengths and we must address worldwide environmental problems brought about by how we conduct our affairs. We need to create a place that companies and people will have a strong desire to come to for wondering at and enjoying our many benefits.
posted by JosephThePoet on 15 September 2008 at 9:28 AM
(imho).... [quote] LIV I promise you, my Oprah-speak ("I understand" - I may as well feel your pain) was no trick. I just wanted to acknowledge your opinions before I asked a quesiton. Came out like a hippy.... posted by Mike Miner on 14 September 2008 at 11:46 PM [/quote]....
you should know by now, i like to play; life's more fun that way. :P
Oprah and being hippy can b cool sometimes. cheers.
posted by LIVx...(imho) on 15 September 2008 at 10:04 AM
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Don't have an account?
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
It's e-lection Time Elizabeth May
Join the discussion Join the discussion
Go to episode pageGo to episode page
Producer Mike Miner blogs about the Internet, media and culture. Follow Mike on Twitter.
The Agenda with Steve Paikin Allan Gregg in Conversation Big Ideas
Think Again
The TVO clip
I will point out that the TVO clip of the exchange involving May was created today. It was not available online at the time of the blog posts, nor was any video version being offered online by TVO.
posted by Mike Miner
on 12 September 2008 at 3:34 PM