The Globe’s headline is misleading by praising with faint damning:
“Copyright concessions may be downside of TPP deal”.
Not ‘may’, ‘WILL’! Also, those concessions will not be the only downside, which the headline implies.
Canada will become even more so the most-sued country in the world if this anti-democratic ‘deal’ passes.
TPP’s copyright chapter would cost Canadians hundreds of millions
It’s a conditional statement, because there it depends upon whether or not such a treaty might be enacted. It might sound like semantic nitpicking, but IMO the two phrasings have very distinct connotations. Even Fight The Future does the same thing.
When even the people who most encourage criticism and opposition to a thing frame it as an inevitability, this is rather counter-productive. Why should anyone bother to prevent it, if you suggest that it is already a certainty?
ETA: See how insidious this is? I said “Fight the Future”, but the organization’s name is actually “Fight for the Future”. Big difference!
“Canada’s rock-ribbed bastion of pro-trade, pro-Tory ideology”
Good grief. Have you even read a Globe and Mail recently? Several of the regular columnists are essentially paid propagandists for the Liberals. The Globe also routinely publishes the rantings of Jim Stanford, economist of choice for the labour movement, and of various Marxist liberal arts academics, as though anything they said was actually sensible. The Globe joined in to the general media swoon last week, “Oh, Mr Justin, y’all are so strong and brave and caring… ah may faint… fetch mah faintin’ divan…”
Citation: any recent issue of the Globe and Mail.
That all doesn’t mean much. I mean The Sun has actual paid Liberals who write there, like Kinsella. Exceptions at publications often prove the rule. the G&M endorsed the CPC, again, just as they have consistently done since the paper’s beginnings with few exceptions. Those exceptions, especially as of late, reflect the LPC’s inexorable journey to the right-of-centre, where they remain today in most policy if not promises.
Just because they don’t exclusively endorse the Far Right, but instead limit themselves the the Far Right and the Right-of-centre doesn’t mean they aren’t pro-Tory, because they are certainly both of those things as established by their current and historical editorial endorsements and, more pointedly, their readership.
And they are certainly pro-trade. Everyone is pro-trade in Canada, the question is only at what cost.
Yay, lets force our bad practices on other countries because its profitable for our corporations…wha?
It was actually a reprise of an old joke: An Englishman explains politics to an American. “Here in the UK, we have three parties. We have Labour, whom you would call socialists. We have Liberal Democrats, whom you would also call socialists. Also, we have the Conservatives, whom you would call socialists.”
As to political philosophy, let’s just not bother. We’re unlikely to agree on anything. The red team won this time, go ahead and put the boots in. They will lose again one day, and will be treated the same way. This is what passes for modern political discourse.
Of course it will, and likely residents of every other signatory.
Who outside US corporations will benefit?
Or the dairy consumers
Sorry thought you were a Canadian talking Canadian politics. It’s hard not to constantly use the US as a metric, but rewarding to do so. Good luck.
edit - odd. Oh I see, if anyone is wondering what occurred, the echo chamber @chortick had found was eaten up by a dragon or something, so lots of rational rebuts got swept up too lol.
I love the editorial slant here: “TPP is a good deal for Canada. We don’t know what’s in it.”
Please, Globe and Mail. I honestly thought you were a serious paper for a while.
I have very little faith that the Liberals will make any significant improvements to the agreement. They will try, or should I say “try”, but I don’t think their heart is in it.
I couldn’t resist, sorry
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.