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
The Exemption Illusion: Why the Government’s Plan to Fast Track Bill C-34’s Kids’ Social Media Ban Means No Standards, No Privacy Review, and No Enforcement 
Unpacking Bill C-34: My Appearance on the Globe and Mail’s The Decibel Podcast 
Liberal MP: Lawful Access “Has Nothing to Do With the Privacy of People and Their Information” 
The Law to Be Named Later: Bill C-34 Punts 50 Key Decisions to Cabinet and a Digital Safety Commission That Does Not Yet Exist 
Everything All At Once: Bill C-34 Combines Platform Duties, a Kids’ Social Media Ban, AI Chatbot Regulation, and a Powerful Digital Safety Commission Into a Risky “Trust Us” Bet
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.