[discuss] MPs in ridings -- can us FLOSS folks get in touch with them?

[Russell McOrmond]

On 11-12-23 02:22 PM, Hub Figuière wrote:
> Not defeatist. Realistic. That mean a different angle needs to be found.
> The conservative caucus that hold a majority in the house of common is
> deaf to anything that does not come from the "leader's" office and
> talking points.
> So why wasting our energy on that approach?

   A few reasons.

   I don't believe that there needs to be one approach, or that this is 
wasting energy.

   Whether it will be before or after C-11 passes, changes will be 
needed.  We will need to have informed politicians that will make those 
changes, some of which may already have seats in parliament.

   Some of those who will fix these problems may be in the Senate, and 
some of them may even be provincial MPP's.  We don't know who those 
people are that will best help us, so we need to meet with as many 
people as we can.

   Who is opposition today can become government later.


   This is also not a left vs right or partisan issue.  Those who think 
this is a "Harper" thing need to remember that the policies we are 
fighting come from the Clinton/Gore government in the USA, and are 
strongly and aggressively supported by Obama.  The Liberals were largely 
able to table a better bill because the Bush administration wasn't 
breathing down their throats, and thus they stuck to WIPO language 
(limited use controls) rather than the WIPO+DMCA language (Access 
controls that have no tie to copyright, etc, etc).   While the Copyright 
part of C-60 through C-11 can be said to be "Made in Canada", the 
Paracopyright comes directly from the US presidency/administration.


   The Harper government has accepted amendments to bills, even if not 
in a rational/reasonable manner. 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/12/committeewatch-flashback-irwin-cotlers-c-10-amendments-redux.html 
   These are amendments to C-10 which the Liberals tabled but the 
Conservatives in committee rejected.  They were then tabled by the 
Conservatives at report stage, but rejected by the speaker on the 
grounds that they should have been brought forward at committee.  They 
are now likely to be tabled in the Senate, etc...  A warped way to do 
things, but possible if it becomes obvious to the Conservatives that 
they are making mistakes.



   Getting the attention of Senators is something we want to be able to 
do, but that is best done by going through our own MPs. This is where an 
opposition MP may be better, given they may be more willing to put in a 
good word and help set up meetings with Senators.



   Challenging the law after it is passed within the legal system will 
not be trivial, and will require that someone actually be sued.  I speak 
about the constitutional issues in 
http://mcormond.blogspot.com/2011/11/protecting-it-property-rights-not-short.html

   It won't be me that will be sued.  It is highly unlikely anyone would 
sue me for being very public with my ongoing circumvention of TPMs as 
they will know that I'll be willing to put my money/time/etc on the line 
to fight for what I so strongly believe in.   It will be a less 
sympathetic defendant, likely a case where neither the plaintiff or the 
defendant have any respect for the property rights of others: but where 
those representing the DRM sector will somehow look less like the 
thieves they are.



   Part of the problem with the constitutional argument is that *WE* 
haven't so far been able to engage our provincial politicians.  My MPP 
in Ottawa South is Dalton McGuinty, currently the Premier of Ontario. 
He has thus far ignored and/or punted my questions to another Minister 
who hasn't addressed any of the issues.  I've tried to use the multiple 
meeting I've had with his brother David who is the federal MP to try to 
get the provinces involved -- but that itself requires that there be 
more federal MPs aware of the issues and thus some support for his 
pursuing (And thus back to the need to meet with federal MPs alongside 
our provincial representatives).


   And so-on.  I don't see meeting MPs as the only thing we need to be 
doing, but a foot in the door to the larger conversation we need to be 
having.   I'd love to meet with more MPs myself  (I'd love to collect 
the whole set http://flora.ca/mp :-), but that won't happen without 
constituents meeting with them first to recommend they meet with me if 
they want to get into the weeds/etc.



> You have better chances convincing the Harper appointed Senate majority.
> They seem to have a more sober approach and you can actually raise the
> point that the copyright bill is actually infringing on the constitution
> by trampling on the provinces prerogatives.
>
> The other valid approach is via the Supreme Court of Canada that could
> be, once the bill received royal assent, used to challenge the
> constitutionality of the bill.
>
> BTW, IANAL.

   I also am not a lawyer, and I agree that we should *also* be doing 
the above.

   I just see this as a larger interconnected network of things we 
should be doing.   The timing right now is federal MPs in ridings.  The 
other stages of the process will happen at other times, and while we 
need to be ready for them they aren't what is happening this month and next.

   Later next year I'll be suggesting we focus on a different part of 
the challenge.

   Then again, if you happen to know an MPP or Senator, and can work on 
that stage of the process, then dive right into that right away :-)

-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
  rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
  http://l.c11.ca/ict

  "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
   manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
   portable media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own