Michael Moore's Words

It's a dumb law anyway. But blaming him for the CPC losing the election is a 'dog ate my homework' excuse.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

It's only a dumb law when it is being misused like this person is doing. Clearly, the law is intended as a means of keeping foreign powers from interfering in election campaigns. As far as I am aware, Michael Moore is not a foreign power.

The thing about Michael is that he is upfront about who he is and what he is doing, can't help but wonder about the behind the scenes influence of the real foreign powers?

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

You mean things like the National Endowment for Democracy? If this law impedes them at all, I think it's a good thing. But a $2000 fine won't stop them and no US admin/regime would extradite, so the jail term is a bluff... (They'd bo only too happy to extradite Moore of course, but we're talking about the real foreign-power organs.) <p>I have to say I don't follow the stuff about conflicts with the Charter. Surely as a non-Canadian Moore gets no more cover from the Charter than I would get from the First Amendment if I went to Boston and campaigned for Kerry? Even standing in designated free-speech zone...

Foghorn leghorn, i mean, Michael Moore is a loud mouth schnook!

The National Endowment for Democracy is a good thing?! That's literally a front for the CIA, and was created after all the evil stuff that the CIA had done had come out. The US/CIA didn't want to stop doing what they were doing, so they created another agency and gave it the most saracastic name imagineable. Check this out:<BR> <a href="http://members.aol.com/superogue/ned.htm">http://members.aol.com/superogue/ned.htm</a><p>---<br>"These Yankee politicians are the lowest race of thieves in existence." - Sir John Sparrow Thompson

I find your comment very interesting Dr Caleb if only in reference to your thoughts about the CRTC ruling on Al-Jazeera and Québec radio channels.

I will admit I do agree with Michael Moore's statement. But during an election period should foreigners who have media attention refrain from such comments ? Difficult to answer.

What if Michael Moore had made similar comments during a referendum for Québec independance and had strongly suggested to Québecers to vote yes ? Would that comment been tolerated by all Canadians ?

So the question is not about content but interference.

How is this different? The law is the law. What comments on Al Jazeera?<p> I'm old and forgetful . . <p> And to further your analogy, if the federalists were to win that referendum, should the seperatists blame him for those comments? Is it wrong for someone to have an opinion on an issue, and to have reporters nearby when you express those opinions? (it depends on what 'yes' means you are agreeing to in a referendum now doesn't it <p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

I doubt anything that Micheal Moore said had any influence on the way people voted. Those of us who didn't vote for the alliance party (sorry conservative) did so for a reason. If anything there should be a ban on what the media can report and what it can't during an election (poll results)

The CRTC cancelled Québec radio licences because it judged some of their content libelous.
Most who posted on that thread and who agreed with the censure, now claim that censuring Michael Moore's comments during an electoral campaign as unacceptable and claim 'free speech'
Is free speech being used only when it pleases us ? If so, it is not free speech anymore, just censure in accordance to individual beliefs.
Maybe I am wrong but it does look like a double standard to me.

Wow. I think Nejatian is the real jackass. The world isn't black and white and some laws are wrong. Where was the harm in Moore's comments? I doubt undecided voters got pushed over the fence by his comments. Nejatian is probably just a sore loser who doesn't like Moore's politics in the first place.

Then find out the difference between 'free speech' and 'censorship'. They are not the same thing.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

I thought Ralph Nader made a similar comment, so why isn't this young Cons going after him ??

Could this possibly be political ?


---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

I doubt Michael Moore's comments influenced the election. If anyone influenced me and people people I know to not not vote Conservative it would be Stephen Harper and his extreme ideas for Canada I totally disagreed with. Stephen Harper's ideas for Canada and the fact that he had Mulroney backing him up is all most of us needed to know to decide to not vote New Conservative. The New Conservative party lost the election , Michael Moore didn't do that for them. But hey if it makes them feel better about their election loss to fine Michael for 2000$ pocket change then so be it.

If this was a different scenario and the remarks were directed towards the Liberal's or NDP the Conservative party would accept the remarks with open arms, and I highly doubt Kasra Nejatian would sue out of the goodness of his heart. This lawsuit is nothing more then poor looser tactics.

The NEW Conservatives will never win until they show themselves to be about a independent Canada and not a U.S colony.

Kevin

---
"Love actually, is all around us" --From the movie Love Actually.