For the time being, we have removed the list of those who are part of the Green Shift program. We have done this, in part, to ensure that members of the press are not tempted to contact and disturb our friends during this particularly eventful time.
Just when they are trying to argue that the Liberal Party has harmed its present and future business opportunities, Green Shift is making it more difficult for reporters to access just those people who might be able to confirm/deny this claim--ie their business partners.
Even odder. The cached copy of this same page (which I first noticed a couple of weeks ago) gives a different explanation of the list's absence:
In progress
We are currently undergoing an analysis period, but we plan to be finished this section shortly. Please check back soon, as we hope to have something posted within the next few weeks.
In other words, the list hasn't been there for awhile, but they have taken to blaming its absence on the lawsuit.
13 comments:
Hey BCL, are you gonna take a "It's the Liberals so they cant possibly be wrong" approach to the Green Shift thingy?
Im looking forward to it.
Anyways, I can very well understand why the partners wouldnt want to be harassed by the press. As to the allegations in the statement of claim, they will (attempt to) prove them in court - not in the press. Besides, talking about a lawsuit in public is almost always bad form: look at how the ramblings of Garth Turner ended up in the SoC in order to buttress Green Shift Inc.'s claim to punitive damages. Priceless.
Oh well, not exactly, more like $250,000.
Anyways, Im watching this issue pretty closely, as I am a trademark/patent lawyer myself. We discussed this at our weekly meeting, and the only consensus is that it's bad for the liberals politically. Legally, I dont think there is a precedent for a trademark to be confusing with a political platform name, so it could ultimately go either way.
I think the Liberals will settle before it goes to court though.
Those wanting to see the list can find one at archive.org
Here is an archived version of their client list, they must think journalists don't know how to use the tubes either.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070504072915/www.greenshift.ca/greenshift_whos_greenshifting.html
http://tinyurl.com/6gvqkf
slightly more recent one....
http://web.archive.org/web/20070603211801/www.greenshift.ca/greenshift_whos_greenshifting.html
http://tinyurl.com/6h63b7
I have them saved regardless now.
Jermo said:
"talking about a lawsuit in public is almost always bad form... I dont think there is a precedent for a trademark to be confusing with a political platform name"
This is a free speech issue. Trademarks can not be allowed to mean that corporations can outright own words and phrases to the extent of preventing their use in any public context.
And if it's bad form to talk about lawsuits in public, then perhaps the owner of Green Shift should be a little bit less vocal in her quest for column inches.
This is a free speech issue. Trademarks can not be allowed to mean that corporations can outright own words and phrases to the extent of preventing their use in any public context.
hahahaha that's hilarious. when the state prosecutes macleans for publishing politically incorrect opinions, it's not about free speech, but when the liberals use a trademark to promote their tax grab, all of a sudden liberals remember about free speech.
btw, you're allowed to say "green shift" all you want. you're also allowed to say "coke" and "pepsi". What you're not allowed to do is associate "coke" or "pepsi" to your soft drink, and you're not allowed to associate "green shift" with your environmental products and services.
what's novel in this case is that the Liberal's "green shift" is not associated with wares or services as is traditionally the case but with a political platform. it's no slam dunk of a case.
as for your comment re Green Shift's owner, you're absolutely correct in my opinion. she's a bit high on the free publicity right now.
"that's hilarious. when there's a complaint against macleans for publishing hate propaganda, it's not about free speech."
Fixed. Much more more sensible and accurate, I'm sure everyone will agree.
I think I'll just deal with wingutia that way from now on.
Jermo, I think any outrage Ms. Wright has been subject to is the faux variety from a Tory blogger mob that wouldn't even CONSIDER buying her products in the first place.
Fixed. Much more more sensible and accurate, I'm sure everyone will agree.
whatever you need to keep that version of reality going in your head, i dont really care.
anyways, on your first point, there were complaints, one of which was actually prosecuted - in BC.
hate propaganda is what you spout on a daily basis against christians and conservatives. the mark steyn article was deemed by the CHRC to be "polemical and colourful" - and we all know the CHRC couldnt be wrong about anything right?
BCL: i have no doubt tory bloggers played up this issue, but ultimately its completely irrelevant.
I dont think the Liberals got this one right. They could have avoided this quite easily. They didnt, and you cant really blame their opponents from taking advantage of it.
hate propaganda is what you spout on a daily basis against christians and conservatives.
Heh. You're such a liar.
the mark steyn article was deemed by the CHRC to be "polemical and colourful"
Oh, so it's the CHRC now and no longer the big, bag eeeevil liberal fascist STATE! is it?
The problem with people like you is language. You're pre-verbal and post-literate.
Read more. But not Mark Steyn or anything else from Regnery. Angries up the blood and dulls the mind.
hate propaganda is what you spout on a daily basis against christians and conservatives.
Heh. You're such a liar.
convincing argument, to be sure, but lacking in substance.
the mark steyn article was deemed by the CHRC to be "polemical and colourful"
Oh, so it's the CHRC now and no longer the big, bag eeeevil liberal fascist STATE! is it?
it is, or more importantly, it has the potential to be exactly that - i just think they acted in self-preservation by not going after macleans. but let's hear what you have to say - do you think the CHRC was correct in labeling the article "polemical and colourful"?
convincing argument, to be sure, but lacking in substance.
It's not an argument. It's an assertion. And it objectively had more substance than the assertion it challenged.
do you think the CHRC was correct in labeling the article "polemical and colourful"?
I don't know. The only assessment ever made of Mark Steyn's writing that I agree with is that it's awful; poor scholarship, poor journalism and burdened by a forced erudition that is typical of the unschooled social climber.
Thank God for the wingnut welfare; otherwise that parasite would be leeching of my income far more directly.
Something fishy in the Green Shift.
Indeed.
Something more than fishy.
More like fraud.
No, the fraud's here, my friend.
Poor Connies...boned again. And Harper didn't even have the decency to give them a reach-around.
Post a Comment