6 Opinion January 18, 2006 + Over the Edge On the Digital Front Liberal’s Policy Peddle to Copy JEREMY JOHNSON STAFF WRITER When thinking about election on a technological perspective, I origin- ally aimed to take up neutrality. Un- fortunately, with what the Liberals have demonstrated over the past two months, it has become clear what they stand on - and I fail to see any possible good way of looking at it and Canad- ians should be outraged. Sarmite (Sam) Bulte of Parkdale — High ‘Park back might possibly be the next Canadian Minister of Heritage ‘should the Liberals win. In December, she plans for a 250$ per person fund- raiser sponsored by every Canadian copyright stakeholder ~ you name it, they sponsored it, It will be hosted by ~ Graham Henderson, president of the Canadian Recording Industry Associa- tion. Already, it’s been found out that Sam has received thousands of dollars from them in campaign contributions. Michael Geists blog had a good point: if CEO's of Banks sponsored a fund- raiser for Ralph Goodale, or if oil com- panies made a fundraiser for Stephane Dion (Environmental Minister) there would be a national outcry over such a scandal, and I think that Bulte should not be exempt from this. Of course, the reality is that it's perfectly legal as well. -Many bloggers have already accused her of ‘influence peddling’ In fact, it was the Liberals who have tabled Bill C-60 - a one sided bill to introduce draconian copyright laws that would devastate schools, consum- ers, and much more. The Liberals also tabled Bill C-74 - a surveillance bill that would make criminals of average Canadians by spying on them via the internet. Worse yet was their complete dis- regard to public safety and privacy when answering questions put forth by CIPPIC. Question: “Do you agree that we need legislation to protect Canadian firms from harmful technologies like the Sony-BMG rootkit DRM?” Answer: “The Liberal Party of Can- ada supports technology that protects digital artistic content and we will con- tinue to work hard to facilitate consen- sus amongst stakeholders in copyright matters, We introduced a wide ranging piece of copyright legislation in the last Parliamentary session that encourages creativity and protects the rights of cteators, while ensuring diffusion of knowledge and access to.cultural prod- ” “Is the Liberal Party even aware of the three Canadian _ lawsuits over the very danger- ous technology they are endorsing... ?” right Stakeholders Is the Liberal party even aware of the three Canadian lawsuits over the very dangerous technology they are endors- ing in their answer? * Perhapse Rusell McOrmond’s blog featured an interesting response to that from a Canadian: “As a Canadian creator who recognizes that excessive control from incumbent intermediaries is a far greater threat to Canadian crea- tivity than any amount of copyright in- ‘fringement, I am very frustrated by her false claims to be trying to support the cultural community. The reality is that [Sarmite Bulte] is our greatest threat.’ So who is supporting this? Not con- tent creators. Not consumer advocates. Certainly not the technology commun- ity. Who does? Record labels, publish- ers, and many other people seeking to gain profits off of the backs of Canad- ians whether or not they work for them. The Liberal party lacks the respect to Canadians to govern. I, for one, am not voting for this garbage. It ends on my vote. Trailhead Deep Ecology and You ANNA GRADOWSKA /TARAN RALLINGS STAFF WRITER / CONTRIBUTOR Our column has set out to explore issues and ideologies around the en- vironment and stimulate debate, but every column has its bias. In order to understand the direction of this col- umn, it's important to explore our ideological background. Deep ecol- ogy has stood as a cornerstone of our worldview, and will colour our words throughout the span our writing. Deep ecology is a philosophy that moves away from anthropocentric, or human oriented, perspectives on the world towards a view that sees the intrinsic value in all life. Not just spe- cies, but also ecological systems and processes. The term was first coined by Arne Ness in 1972 to-reflect a more complex and “deep” view of the rela- tionship between self and the natural world. Though he created the term, this worldview has been around for a majority of human existence. The most important principle of this ideology is the emphasis on the inherent value of ecological well-being and diversity of human and nonhuman life. That is, the ~environment is not just a cache of fu- ture timber, or minerals; or water, but that the existence and health of every- thing around us should be valued for the fact that it is, We share our existence with a multi- tude of life, and the systems they play a role in, and we have no authority to dic- tate what is and is not allowed to exist. We try and control the ecology around us; morphing landscapes to our will and taking from our surroundings what- ever we desire, much to the detriment of the life we share those surrounding with. Deep ecology recognizes the ex- cessive and destructive interference of humans in nonhuman life, and that without drastic policy and perspective change, things will not improve, leading to the unnecessary degradation or even destruction of life on this planet. This change in ideology cant be as simple as a few new conservation policies; the change must be deeply different from the current state. “The is still wood planks waiting to be harvested, the lake is still tap water waiting to be drained, and animals are still food and sport wait- ing to be enjoyed.“ forest Deep ecology advocates a new more integrated relationship with the en- vironment; an appreciation for the in- trinsic value of life; an ecocentric, or en- vironmentally oriented worldview. This petspective rejects our increasing, and quite unsustainable, high standard of living we carve for ourselves out of the flesh of the rest of world. Deep ecology promotes decentralization of govern- ment, changing the yery nature of in- dustrialism, and ending authoritarian- ism, including the end to the idea of humans as authoritarian guardians of the environment, Other ideas, such as “enlightened” anthropocentrism (which ' promotes environmental protection to ensure the survival of humans), may seem like a pleasant compromise, but the human-oriented value system still paves the way for the exploitation of the environment because it does not funda- mentally change how we interact with our natural surroundings. The forest is still wood planks waiting to be har- vested, the lake is still tap water waiting to be drained, and animals are still food and sport waiting to be enjoyed. Deep ecology creates the necessary emotional change in order to transform the most basic way we perceive resour- ces, standard of living, and the human place-in the ecology of the planet. It is difficult to specifically say how human- ity will change if deep ecology is adopt- ed on a larger scale, but it will bring us ptagmatically closer to a sustainable relationship with the environment and emotionally closer to all life on the plan- et. This column does have a bias, and it will be seen in our exploration of issues and ideas, but we see deep ecology as a practical and emotional remedy for the illness humanity has become. The opinions expressed in editorials or letters to the editor that are submitted to Over the Edge are not the opinions of Over the Edge or UNBC. The views expressed in a letter submitted to Over the Edge are the views of the original authors, and therefore, do not reflect the views of Over the Edge, or its staff. Over the Edge welcomes your submissions to our opinion section. Due to the high vol- ume of letters we receive, we would appreciate it if letters were kept at 500 words or less. To submit a letter to the editor e-mail over-the-edge@unbc.ca. - ¥ = 7: SEAN RENNEBOHM / DAVE VOGT CONTRIBUTORS If you're tired of watching graft -and corruption in Ottawa on the nightly news, you can now experience it firsthand, thanks to the NUGSS Board of Directors, If you can sum- mon the patience to wade through our Student Society's somewhat tedious collection of bylaws and poli- -cies, you'll discover that, according to NUGSS bylaw, elections for the Board of Directors MUST be held in January. The Board of Directors, however, will not be holding an election in January. Instead, they've announced that elections are being postponed until the end of February. Presum- ably this is because the Board hopes that by that time they'll have con- cluded the secret negotiations over the NUSC Student Centre and will have some good news to bribe people ‘into voting for them again. That's too bad, since there's been plenty of achievements from this board already, like the push for Sunday bus service. This new move is clearly illegal, and been announced suggests that the or- ganization cares no more for uphold- the fact that the dates have already” ing its own rules than for maintaining - -NUGSS Violates Bylaws. BELINDA LI transparency over other important issues, like what's going. to happen with the $1 million or so we students have paid thus far for this mysterious building project. Te gets better. In order to cover up _their blatant violations of the by- laws, the Board of Directors will be attempting to rush through a legal amendment at the upcoming Annual General Meeting, on January 19 (or January 26, if quorum isn’t met the first time around), retroactively jus- tifying their illegal actions. They'll also be serving us by stripping away associate director positions in order to further centralize power in the Executive. Finally, since breaking the NUGSS bylaws wasn't enough, they appear to have decided to finger the BC Society Act as well by posting the proposed amendments less than two weeks prior to the AGM at which they'll be voted on. Complain to NUGSS about this flagrant violation of law. Come out to the AGM on January 19 at 12:30 in the Wintergardcn in order to hold them accountable for these actions, and prevent them from justifying their illegal behaviour by under- handedly pushing through these new bylaws.