Copyright Watch notes the striking similarity between Industry Minister Jim Prentice's talking points and some letters to the editor from local chambers of commerce."
Copyright Watch on Prentice’s Parrots
3 Comments
Recent Posts
Shaky Ground Gets Shakier: What the U.S. Supreme Court’s Location Data Decision Means for Bill C-22 
The Two Weeks That Reshaped Canada’s Digital Policy 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 274: Mark Musselman on What Stakeholders Really Think About the Government’s Reversal of the CRTC Online Streaming Act Decision 
Improv Policy: The Government Doesn’t Know What To Do About Its Online Streaming Act Mess 
Soft Ban or Hard Verification Requirement?: Why Bill C-34’s Social Media Ban Exemption Gets the Incentives Wrong and Comes Too Late to Matter
Yeah, I noticed that in the St. Catharines Standard. I thought maybe the local Chamber of Commerce head had political aspirations, but now I don’t know. Why would this happen? Is the Ministry of Industry lobbying the Chambers of Commerce?
It prompted me to write my own letter to the editor, which appeared in today’s Standard, so it probably had the reverse of the desired effect.
Puppeteering
One would hope so for the entire country.
Policy laundering
Classic tactic for controversial legislation: a) refer to vague international obligations requiring passage of invasive law, b) diffuse meaningful public debate by introducing law during \’political downtime\’, c) quietly wait for press coverage to drift, d) use allied interests to present an appearance of consensus, e) enact law quickly by focussing on those interests during final legislative analysis.