Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Politics

The Pirate Party of Canada Is Official 430

Posted by kdawson
from the arrrr-eh dept.
wasme writes "The Pirate Party of Canada has become the first Pirate Party outside of Europe to become an official political party. Elections Canada confirmed with the party that the PPCA has gained 'eligible for registration' status, and can run in elections starting June 14. From the PPCA's official announcement: 'We are pleased to announce that as of April 12, 2010, the Pirate Party of Canada is officially eligible for Party Status. After 10 months of dedication and hard work, we have reached eligible status, which only leaves a 60-day "purgatory" period. After that, we will field candidates in subsequent federal elections, and begin the real work of a political party.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Pirate Party of Canada Is Official

Comments Filter:
  • Congratulations (Score:2, Insightful)

    by cbreak (1575875)
    May the seas be open and the winds be fortunate. Although I can't help but wonder if the name "Pirate Party" for all the pirate parties isn't a bit too ... daring. Maybe even misleading.
    • Re:Congratulations (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @04:18AM (#31842924)

      If everyone who has ever used the Internet to obtain an unrestricted digital copy of music or a movie is going to be labeled "pirate", then I don't have any reason to avoid the term. The term has already lost all meaning.

      I was born in the U.S., I purchased DVDs while living there. Now to watch what I've purchased, I'm a "pirate".

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Yeah, personally I don't consider copying data or information as serious an act as pillaging, rape and murder, and I don't see how anyone made that connection.

      No amount of specific sequences of 1s and 0s on my HDDs is going to make me think of myself as a pirate.

      • by MrNaz (730548) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @04:31AM (#31842988) Homepage

        Your rather eloquent expression of the invalid conflation between egregious breaches of social morality and insignificantly trivial breaches of consumer behavior is misplaced.I think what you mean to say is "ARRRR!"

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Vanderhoth (1582661)

          Your rather eloquent expression of the invalid conflation between egregious breaches of social morality and insignificantly trivial breaches of consumer behavior is misplaced.I think what you mean to say is "ARRRR! Eh!"

          Fixed that for you

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      You're right. Sharing a name with such a shitty baseball team could result in a lowered public perception of the party's competence.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by poetmatt (793785)

      it was the content industries of the US that deliberately and forcefully changed the meaning of pirate from "pirate of the high seas" to "software pirate" to "copyright infringement pirate". This was done via putting it in the news constantly. Pirate this, pirate that. So it's very appropriate to have a name that is a direct reminder of what they are up against.

      The smart folks understand this has nothing to do with Somalia, although if it does bring attention to that, it would be a good thing. People need t

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by I_Voter (987579)
      RE: Political Party names

      In most other nations ( other than the U.S. ) the significance of a ballot label's "imagery" can be limited by the ability of a political party to enforce party platforms.

      In the U.S.(in general) the name of a political party is just a ballot label, and any individual politician can run under it in a primary (nominating) election. In most other democratic nations, a political party is a private member based organization that "owns" a ballot label and chooses politicians to run
  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @04:02AM (#31842866) Homepage

    Pirates of the Saskatchewan, by the Arrogant Worms

    And it's a hi (hey) ho (hey) coming down the plains,
    Stealing wheat and barley, and all the other grains.
    And it's a ho (hey) hi (hey) Farmers bar your doors,
    when you see the Jolly Rodger on Regina's mighty shores.
    --------

    But seriously, great news, and best of luck to 'em. Now go get those CRIA hosers.

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @04:21AM (#31842938)

    Have there been any reactions from Big Media / Big Patents to this? Their strategy in the past has been to label these folks as common criminals when lobbying governments.

    How do they swallow the fact that the Pirate Parties are now taking a legal and official route to copyright reform?

    Have they issued any formal statements?

    Maybe with more Pirates sailing the seas of governments, we will finally get information about what this super-secretive ACTA thing is all about.

    I can't say if I am for or against the ACTA . . . because I don't know the details.

    I do have a problem with so-called democracies sealing international treaties, while keeping their citizens (subjects) in the dark.

    • Have there been any reactions from Big Media / Big Patents to this? ... How do they swallow the fact that the Pirate Parties are now taking a legal and official route to copyright reform?

      I'm thinking they'll just shrug their shoulders. They'll probably make a little money from this, by running human interest stories about the new "joke party" that started up. And they wouldn't be too far off the mark in calling it a joke party, either.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by nawitus (1621237)
      It actually seems they view pirate parties as legitimate, and do participate in debates with them.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mcgrew (92797) *

      I can't say if I am for or against the ACTA . . . because I don't know the details.

      I don't have to know ANY of the details to be against it -- why would they keep it a secret if they thought it was benign? There are media companies and governments, NO input from citizens, and "my" representatives are keeping it secret from me. What's not to hate?

  • New name... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by captainpanic (1173915) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @04:21AM (#31842940)

    Although the "Pirate Party" is a good name to get some publicity in these early hours, I believe that on the long term a new name must be found which reflects the main issues the party stands for.

    Pirate can be changed into Privacy - still a P, so not such a change.

    But I would run with this name for the next months or even years.

    • Re:New name... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @04:27AM (#31842968) Journal
      Yeah, many people amongst pirate parties feel that way too. But first, we think that the "second-degreeness" of the name is good and is a way to ridicule this "pirate" label that lobbyists are trying to give to people who just share files. There has already been some reaction (from the RIAA IIRC). They said that "pirate" was a bad term because it sounded "too cool" and that they needed to come out with a new term to qualify their enemies. We proposed "filesharers" but apparently that is not what they are looking for.
      • by IBBoard (1128019)

        We proposed "filesharers" but apparently that is not what they are looking for.

        You'd have thought that "copyright infringers" would have been short, to the point and accurate. Maybe that doesn't sound evil enough, even if it is correct.

        As for "pirate", not only does it end up sounding 'cool' but it always had the wrong definition anyway, so it isn't surprising that they need something different.

    • by dangitman (862676)

      Pirate can be changed into Privacy - still a P, so not such a change.

      How would changing the name to the "Privacy Party" be relevant? If it's not the exact opposite of what the party stands for, it's at least highly tangential. The Pirate Party stands for sharing information, not privacy.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        The Pirate Party stands for sharing information, not privacy.

        Umm, no.

        "Started in 2009, the Pirate Party of Canada strives to reform Canadian copyright laws, reform the patent system, and protect every Canadian’s right to privacy."

        http://www.piratepartyofcanada.com/ [piratepartyofcanada.com]

      • by VJ42 (860241) *

        Pirate can be changed into Privacy - still a P, so not such a change.

        How would changing the name to the "Privacy Party" be relevant? If it's not the exact opposite of what the party stands for, it's at least highly tangential. The Pirate Party stands for sharing information, not privacy.

        Have you actually looked at our policies? At least here in the UK rolling back surveillance & defending individual privacy is part of our platform. Just look at the three bullet points on our front page: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/ [pirateparty.org.uk]

        • by dangitman (862676)

          Have you actually looked at our policies?

          No, I haven't.

          At least here in the UK rolling back surveillance & defending individual privacy is part of our platform. Just look at the three bullet points on our front page: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/ [pirateparty.org.uk]

          OK, so that seems a bit schizophrenic. You want to increase privacy, but also want to "let information be free" in terms of allowing sharing of information. But increased privacy is the opposite of sharing information, it's increased control over it.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by VJ42 (860241) *

            OK, so that seems a bit schizophrenic. You want to increase privacy, but also want to "let information be free" in terms of allowing sharing of information. But increased privacy is the opposite of sharing information, it's increased control over it.

            We want openness and transparency from government and organisations but privacy protections for individuals. There's no contradiction there, just empowerment for the normal person. Copyright would still remain (at a much reduced length) for people who try and make money from others work, just sharing between individuals would be decriminalized. A full PPUK manifesto can be found from here: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/press/releases/2010/mar/22/pirate-party-uk-announces-general-election-manifes/ [pirateparty.org.uk]

  • by Max Romantschuk (132276) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @04:23AM (#31842948) Homepage

    ...not as extreme promoters of the abolition of copyright, but the catalyst that led the eventual restoration of copyright as a tool to promote cultural innovation, instead of hampering it.

    I can dream, can't I? :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Aladrin (926209)

      I don't think that dream is so far from reality.

    • Wrong right. You confuse copyright — the exclusive right of publishers to copy a work (which is never physically enforcable) — with the author’s right — the right of a creator of a work, to get something in return for it (which in the US conveniently has little or no meaning).

      Copyright was never about the ones who thought up the whole thing. But about those who wanted to be their liege lords. Something that is completely obsolete nowadays.

      If you are an author/artist/creative, then ju

      • Wrong right. You confuse copyright — the exclusive right of publishers to copy a work (which is never physically enforcable) — with the author’s right — the right of a creator of a work, to get something in return for it.

        It's the same thing. There is no author's right without copyright. Only through control of the publishing chain will the concept of an author's right make any sense.

        If there is no copyright then the only way to keep someone from publishing your works is to not publish them yourself.

        Copyright was originally intended to give an economic incentive to the creation of cultural works. By granting the author (or the party the author has transferred the copyright of the work to) a temporary monopoly on copying said

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I can dream, can't I? :)

      Yes, and you're the kind of individual we need running for office.

  • by AndGodSed (968378)

    I thought Australia had a pirate party already? OP says Canada is the first outside Europe?

  • Oh great... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @04:46AM (#31843090)

    Another Canadian political party siphoning off left-leaning voters. Already that vote is split between Liberal, NDP, Green, and (some would argue) the Bloc. This vote split is why the conservatives can continue to hold political power with 38% of the popular vote.

    In political systems with fully proportional representation (example: Israel) these sorts of political parties make sense: the hurdle to get representation in the legislature is surmountable and you may even be brought into a coalition government. However, in first-past-the-post systems (Canada, US, UK) these vanity parties are only self-defeating. Whichever side of the political spectrum is best able to AVOID this fragmentation is almost guaranteed power. To use a Canadian example, look at the solid Liberal control in the 90s, made easy by a 3-way fragmentation on the right (the old PC party, Reform, and Alliance). Once those parties re-coalesced into the current Conservative party they were able to take over from the perpetually fragmented left.

    If you have a particular issue that you want to advance in a first-past-the-post democracy, the correct move is to identify which of the major parties is most receptive to your goal, and organize within that party. Form an organization, raise money, make noise. If you're a visible constituency within a major party (and can be counted on to bring in votes, donations, and volunteers) then they will have reason to differentiate themselves by embracing your issue.

    If instead your constituency says "ha! We're going to take our votes and make our own damn party" then BOTH major parties will simply say "ok, no need to listen to care what those guys want -- they're not going to vote for us anyway". You're only making copyright reform HARDER to achieve.

    • Re:Oh great... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Zironic (1112127) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @06:20AM (#31843402)

      And that's why first-past-the-post systems are pretty stupid. I'm continually amazed by how US and UK politics can be so fucked up.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by VMaN (164134)

      ...You're only making copyright reform HARDER...

      Copyright reform isn't happening, at least in the right direction, so no loss there.

      How about only having 1 party? That'd guarantee total power. No fragmentation here, no siree...

    • Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewk.gmail@com> on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @07:17AM (#31843622)

      I can't speak for Canada, but "Voting for the lesser evil so that 'The Other Guy(tm)' doesn't get elected" is half the reason the US political system is the shithole it is right now. Nothing saddens me quite like people dredging up this tired old line to oppose the formation of new political parties, and getting modded up for their trouble.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dkleinsc (563838)

        That's why I always support Cthulhu for President: Why vote for the lesser evil?

        But more seriously, while the "lesser evil" argument isn't entirely valid, bear in mind that if 50% of Nader voters had voted for Gore in 2000, Gore would have won easily and the debacle that was the George W Bush administration would never have happened. So there is a good argument for "vote for the lesser evil" when it's a close election between completely evil and not-so-completely evil, and "vote for what you really want" wh

    • Your argument is the exact same one I hear all the time in the USA, when it comes to the Libertarians. (In fact, the man most people probably consider the quintessential Libertarian figure today -- Ron Paul? He's run on the Republican party ticket since the mid 1970's!)

      The problem with the entrenched 2-party system is, the 2 parties tend to align themselves with certain "goals" they want to achieve. Individuals signing up to run under one of their party names who have different ideas quickly get marginali

  • Yar (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by outsider007 (115534)

    There ain't no party like a pirate party because a pirate don't respect intellectual property laws.

  • Do not need (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fyoder (857358) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @05:17AM (#31843198) Homepage Journal

    What we need is a party to split the right. I would be happier to see a pro-intellectual property, family values, pry gun from cold dead hands, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights party announce, something that could siphon votes away from the Conservatives.

    Hey, Preston, how's about giving that Reform thing another whirl?

  • by psergiu (67614) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @05:25AM (#31843224)

    Arrr, eh ?

  • So I propose they change their name to "Privacy Party".

  • by aapold (753705) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @06:51AM (#31843496) Homepage Journal
    because they all pushed the "R" button.
  • Other issues? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MBGMorden (803437) on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @08:29AM (#31844092)

    I'm all for this, but based on my "admittedly limited" exposure, it seems that the only issues that the Pirate Party have ever really talked about much are copyright issues. No qualms there, I'm all for that, but do they have an official stance on anything OTHER than copyright?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Per Wigren (5315)
      Some of The Pirate Parties' main points are: Defend the right to privacy and personal correspondence, less surveillance, shorten copyright, abolish patents, remove laws against reverse engineering, promote open source software, ensure net neutrality, stronger laws against plagiarism, ensure due process in all cases, and much more. Basically, to use a cliché, The Pirate Parties exist to steer the world away from 1984, as far away as possible.
  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@ l y n x.bc.ca> on Wednesday April 14, 2010 @09:02AM (#31844420) Journal
    However ideal the agenda of the party might actually be, the term 'pirate' is very heavily associated with anarchy and activities that involve breaking the law, rather than the far more positive notion of working within the legal system to effect the potentially revolutionary changes that the Pirate Party wishes to advocate. Unfortunately, people who have never heard of them will take one look at the name and judge the party based on that, rather than investigate what their actual platforms are. Without a name change, they don't have a hope in hell of making a difference. They are likely going to be taken about as seriously as the Rhino Party.

Maybe Computer Science should be in the College of Theology. -- R. S. Barton

Working...